So why the attempt to justify the title "paedo pope" ?
Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi
- Thread starter keyser87
- Start date
So why the attempt to justify the title "paedo pope" ?
I didn't attempt to justify an accusation that the Pope is a paedophile, I was trying to point out that:
1) That's not the argument we're having
2) It was such a sarcastic, throw away statement that I doubt that it was intended in it's literal meaning
Dawkins will need a bit more manpower to pull this one off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpDffQJjm9c
anyway, there is a severe lack of justice, IMO (and this not happen) the vatican should lose its sovereignty because why should a piece of land 0.17sq miles have so much autonomy, this is undemocratic. Leaks reveal scandals, we nor any other state have any authority because the vatican state has its own sovereignty, this is wrong IMO.
The EU requires member states to have a proven democratic system for membership. As the vatican's parent state, Italy should've tried to negotiate with the vatican for a more accountable vatican state.
</uninformed rant>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpDffQJjm9c
anyway, there is a severe lack of justice, IMO (and this not happen) the vatican should lose its sovereignty because why should a piece of land 0.17sq miles have so much autonomy, this is undemocratic. Leaks reveal scandals, we nor any other state have any authority because the vatican state has its own sovereignty, this is wrong IMO.
The EU requires member states to have a proven democratic system for membership. As the vatican's parent state, Italy should've tried to negotiate with the vatican for a more accountable vatican state.
</uninformed rant>
Tefal no one here is trying to accuse the pope of being a paedophile. If it was said then I am sure it was said as a joke.
What is painfully obvious though is that the entire vatican hierarchy including the pope is involved in a blatant coverup of this scandal in an attempt to ensure the priests involved don't face the justice they deserve.
In doing so they have broken many laws throughout the world and need to be held accountable.
I ask again, if this were a multinational corporation would the CEO be held accountable if it was proven that he helped hide the crimes or would he be let walk free without even an investigation or trial?
What is painfully obvious though is that the entire vatican hierarchy including the pope is involved in a blatant coverup of this scandal in an attempt to ensure the priests involved don't face the justice they deserve.
In doing so they have broken many laws throughout the world and need to be held accountable.
I ask again, if this were a multinational corporation would the CEO be held accountable if it was proven that he helped hide the crimes or would he be let walk free without even an investigation or trial?
If he did that then sure but I don't think he has
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
I fail to see why a CoE nation is inviting and accepting a sworn enemy here anyway
I know why the pope wants to come to Britain, its about the only place his priests have not come.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
The authority is not Dawkins, its the court/justice system - did you miss that part?
What court and justice system?
The UK justice system do you mean?
Why would you try him in the UK?
An analogy...
Richard Branson doesn't tell anyone a Virgin employee is raping young boys at one of his offices and the employee had sent him a letter saying so. He'd be jailed for life.
Pope does the same thing and everyone is fine about it.
Double standards.
Personally I'm happy that this stuff goes on, it'll make more people wake up and realise how daft religion is.
Richard Branson doesn't tell anyone a Virgin employee is raping young boys at one of his offices and the employee had sent him a letter saying so. He'd be jailed for life.
Pope does the same thing and everyone is fine about it.
Double standards.
Personally I'm happy that this stuff goes on, it'll make more people wake up and realise how daft religion is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
hey dude. Do you mind if I e-mailz you via trust I have some questions about your emmigration! lolz
OT: publicity stunt.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
No he wouldn't. He would have a PR disaster but I doubt he would be facing jail time at all. As far as I am aware there is no requirement to report a crime in UK law. Now, if he deliberately tried to hide it from the law that would be a different matter. However, he still wouldn't have been jailed for life. Why are internet analogies always so rubbish?
I am struggling to see any one that is "fine about it." However it does seem that those most morally outraged also seem to be those with an axe to grind against either the catholic church specifically or religion in general. However most people do feel the Catholic church has acted in an absolutely appalling way in this whole matter and continues to do so.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Yes, that was the point of my post
well thats how it reads.
Indeed, he seems to be pretty reasonable in that.
Isn't that what senior members of the catholic church done - hidden these incidents from the law and instead moved any problem priests to different parishes. Tis pretty sick that known pedophiles who were regularly offending were simply moved on when complaints were made. Imagine it was say a local education authority and some paedo teachers got moved from school to school whenever accusations built up about them.
I know, absolutely shocking and the way they have dealt with it is pretty much the same. I was however commenting on the rather rubbish analogy and the possible lifetime jail sentence.
These are not mutually exclusive.
And neither are these.
Actually, I had a lot of time for Dawkins, but clearly I inadvertently drank some Kool-Aid somewhere, as this stunt has revealed. How about they're both arrested, and both locked up together. Even better, add some Big Brother style action. Better?
Seriously, most (if not all) religions have skeletons in their closets, and to claim otherwise is being in denial. I'd not be surprised if a fair few atheists had skeletons in their closets too, however.
If the Pope has personally assisted those involved with the shameful acts against children then he should be considered accessory to such acts and treated accordingly in law. This does not justify publicity stunts of this ilk which in my book are feeding from the wrongdoings they purport to wish to prosecute.
I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, and I've posted to that effect in the thread, already. However, I do believe that the two are mutually exclusive when you're deciding what the root cause for their decision to begin the case was. It was actually Christopher that contacted Richard regarding the idea of charging the Pope, and I know how passionate he is about such matters. I would be absolutely flabbergasted, given how much I've read and how much I know about these two men, if their motivation for taking this action was rooted in a desire for publicity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
You can't just chock child rape off as 'a skeleton in the closet'. It happened recently and we have irrefutable evidence that it took place. Why the hell isn't anybody being punished?
Richard may be a bit hard to deal with at times but he is, when it comes down to it, right. He hasn't broken any laws in so far as i'm aware of. The Pope has.