Page 1 of 2
Richard Dawkins calls for Pope to be put on trial
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 15:14
by Maisey
Read all about it
This guy is great. I don't buy all this rubbish people spout about him being as bad as the people he's fighting. He just says what needs saying in a way that leaves no ambiguity. Most people won't go out on a limb to shout at the top of their voice that which
they know to be true because it often isn't a great bid for popularity.
Thank goodness that there are still some people that do.
Re: Richard Dawkins calls for Pope to be put on trial
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 15:21
by markfiend
Maisey wrote:I don't buy all this rubbish people spout about him being as bad as the people he's fighting.
Indeed. To be called a fundamentalist extremist while religious, you tend to have to either blow something up or pronounce a death sentence on someone.
To be called a fundamentalist extremist atheist, you have to write a book.
The Pope is the head of a worldwide organisation which has protected child molesters and the organisation's own reputation in a way that has enabled the abusers and further victimised the abused. He is directly complicit in the conspiracy. If it were any organisation other than the RCC which had done these things, people would be screaming for his head.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 15:23
by EvilBastard
But but but but but...
it's well-established that the criticism of the pope
all comes from the Jews
Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto wrote:They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers.
And it comes from a Bishop, so you know it
must be true...
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 15:27
by christophe
I only have a feeling that everyone except most members of this site (and a few others) agree with the pope
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 15:30
by markfiend
Well, while I won't go over the old ground of Darth Benedict having been in the Hitler-Jugend again (he probably had little choice) he doesn't exactly seem to have gone out of his way to repudiate charges linking him to anti-Semitism. Like lifting the excommunication from a
Holocaust-denialist Bishop. Or comparing the current mess the church has got itself into to
the Holocaust.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 15:38
by markfiend
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 16:30
by moses
markfiend wrote:Well, while I won't go over the old ground of Darth Benedict having been in the Hitler-Jugend again (he probably had little choice) he doesn't exactly seem to have gone out of his way to repudiate charges linking him to anti-Semitism. Like lifting the excommunication from a
Holocaust-denialist Bishop. Or comparing the current mess the church has got itself into to
the Holocaust.
The Vatican has a history of anti-semitism going back centuries, it seems logical that eventually a connection with Hitler and all thing perverse and evil would become obvious to the masses. Satan is alive and well within the Vatican walls.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 16:38
by Being645
moses wrote:Satan is alive and well within the Vatican walls.
... if you want to put this way ...
...
But of course, all in all, I agree. Johannes Paul II. was a much better pope than this self-made "puppet" ...
...
... apart from or in addition to these arguments, however ...
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 17:04
by markfiend
Don't forget that a large part of Benedict XVI / Ratzinger's rise took place under the pontificate of JP II.
And JP II was as staunchly anti-condom (if not more so) than Benedict, and bears at least some responsibility for the attendant millions of deaths from HIV/AIDS that entails.
Re: Richard Dawkins calls for Pope to be put on trial
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 17:34
by Sita
Richard Dawkins is my hero!
I was worried what his position would be in this, because there is a chapter in The God Delusion where he suspects the child abuse case might be exaggerated.
I have been living in Munich for 10 years now, and words fail me for how much Ratzinger annoyed me since - he and all the people who are too keen to kiss his a$s... oops sorry I mean his ring . Before he wandered off to his new job, he's been quite a prominent figure in culture politics here.
Being a nice girl, I always assumed that it was just a prejudice about catholicism being especially hypocrite. But after 10 years of local research I can confirm it's all true
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:00
by lazarus corporation
Richard Dawkins actually wrote:Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.
What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341
Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366 The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.
Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.
source:
the horse's mouth
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:27
by Elystan
Dawkins sucks
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:29
by Maisey
Elystan wrote:Dawkins sucks
You suck.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:39
by EvilBastard
Elystan wrote:Dawkins sucks
It's definitely a well-argued and carefully-reasoned analysis of the man. Tell me truthfully - did your parents ever have any kids who lived? Were you conceived with a weak sperm? I mean, was your dad having a wank and your mum sat on him at the last moment?
We tend to be open to all flavours of opinion over here, but there is a requirement that you support your analysis.
Tw@.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:48
by GC
EvilBastard wrote:Elystan wrote:Dawkins sucks
It's definitely a well-argued and carefully-reasoned analysis of the man. Tell me truthfully - did your parents ever have any kids who lived? Were you conceived with a weak sperm? I mean, was your dad having a wank and your mum sat on him at the last moment?
We tend to be open to all flavours of opinion over here, but there is a requirement that you support your analysis.
Tw@.
That's quite harsh, not backing up an argument does n't warrant insulting parents.
If I knew that "dissin mums" was acceptable I'd have done that years ago.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:52
by boudicca
Now now.
I'm sitting within a few feet of a copy of The God Delusion (bought on my way to see the Sisters in Tienen, fact fans!)... I have a lot of sympathies with his ideas and obviously I think the covering up of abuse within the Church is terrible... but the way the media seems to pounce on this stuff just smacks of sensationalism to me. They know stories of paedophile priests will sell papers, but I can't help but feel sorry for the much larger number of perfectly decent (if, in my opinion, spiritually misguided) men who have dedicated their lives to the priesthood. They are now the subject of cheap jokes and suspicion, and I find that rather depressing.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 18:59
by weebleswobble
I know nothing, had an image of some f*cker in a wheelchair disproving religion via physics (or something)
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 19:01
by christophe
I think it is not wise to attack 'the pope', because he is in fact the face of christianity.
it will strike in the heart of christens everywhere. whether he is responcible for any of this or not wil not be important anymore for most.
though I think it is about time we have some people from our goverments to start asking questions to the Vatican.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 19:03
by Erudite
The phrase "Kill 'em all and let God sort it out" comes to mind.
I'm not much of a people person...
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 19:24
by Maisey
christophe wrote:I think it is not wise to attack 'the pope', because he is in fact the face of christianity.
Dawkins
is attacking the whole of Christianity (Catholicism in particular). That's the point.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 19:50
by Erudite
Maisey wrote:christophe wrote:I think it is not wise to attack 'the pope', because he is in fact the face of christianity.
Dawkins
is attacking the whole of Christianity (Catholicism in particular). That's the point.
Fortunately, in the UK at least, burning people at the stake (or stoning them to death for that matter) has now passed out of fashion where blasphemy/heresy is concerned.
Ultimately it is the organisation of the church, and in particular its use as a means of social control that is to blame for centuries of bigotry and abuse.
I don't have a problem with God - I just happen to believe that the individual should be free to worship (or not) He/She/It in the manner of his or her choosing, free from people in cassocks/robes telling them that they're going about it in the wrong manner, but not as wrong as their next door neighbour, on the grounds of which they should put the all the men to the sword, rape the livestock and burn the women.
I have met many individuals for whom faith is a positive force in their lives, one that helps them act as a positive force in society.
As long as they don't seek to "convert" or otherwise judge me, I'm happy to let them be.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 20:08
by christophe
Erudite wrote:Maisey wrote:christophe wrote:I think it is not wise to attack 'the pope', because he is in fact the face of christianity.
Dawkins
is attacking the whole of Christianity (Catholicism in particular). That's the point.
Fortunately, in the UK at least, burning people at the stake (or stoning them to death for that matter) has now passed out of fashion where blasphemy/heresy is concerned.
Ultimately it is the organisation of the church, and in particular its use as a means of social control that is to blame for centuries of bigotry and abuse.
I don't have a problem with God - I just happen to believe that the individual should be free to worship (or not) He/She/It in the manner of his or her choosing, free from people in cassocks/robes telling them that they're going about it in the wrong manner, but not as wrong as their next door neighbour, on the grounds of which they should put the all the men to the sword, rape the livestock and burn the women.
I have met many individuals for whom faith is a positive force in their lives, one that helps them act as a positive force in society.
As long as they don't seek to "convert" or otherwise judge me, I'm happy to let them be.
exactly.
@ Maisey: my remark was just how I see it, I was not refering to mr. Dawkins point of view.
there are a whole lot of people who are not religious but who are brought up with those traditions and ideals, people who see this just as clear as you and I, but if someone starts to attack some iconic figure as the pope will be offended and therefor become more and more fundamentalistic.
remember those Mohamed Cartoons, I garantee most of those protesters would make mohamed jokes in there normal life, but when someone who does not share their believes starts to make fun of it it will become a problem.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 20:10
by Being645
markfiend wrote:Don't forget that a large part of Benedict XVI / Ratzinger's rise took place under the pontificate of JP II.
And JP II was as staunchly anti-condom (if not more so) than Benedict, and bears at least some responsibility for the attendant millions of deaths from HIV/AIDS that entails.
That is true, and he also denied women full rights within the Catholic church and kept to cilibacy as well,
but he did a few positive things that dear Benedict slipped into just like that ... and without keeping the original say, tendency ...
... might be a very negligible example, but that current "pope" had never ever been able to invent a thing like the
Popemobile ...
...
Anyway, I'm not a member of that church (or any other) ... insofar I fully support taking those in charge to court ... high time, anyway.
Boudicca wrote:...
... but the way the media seems to pounce on this stuff just smacks of sensationalism to me. They know stories of paedophile priests will sell papers, but I can't help but feel sorry for the much larger number of perfectly decent (if, in my opinion, spiritually misguided) men who have dedicated their lives to the priesthood. They are now the subject of cheap jokes and suspicion, and I find that rather depressing.
That is surely so and it is a saddening side-effect ...
@ Erudite - completely seconded.
Some people do have a real faith in their believe, and on this basis they engage in a lot of postive work and
advocacy for peace, justice, health and so on - worldwide ... And of course I do have a respect for these people.
And yes, between whatever God (He/She/It or none) and the individual, there is not the place for any other individual
or institution to step in and claim a privilege of opinion, interpretation or even representation.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 20:21
by Sita
Maisey wrote:
Dawkins is attacking the whole of Christianity (Catholicism in particular). That's the point.
It shouldn't be such a big deal in the first place.
Posted: 12 Apr 2010, 20:27
by Erudite
Sita wrote:Maisey wrote:
Dawkins is attacking the whole of Christianity (Catholicism in particular). That's the point.
It shouldn't be such a big deal in the first place.
Neither should a large percentage of the world's population be living in poverty or quietly starving to death.
But I, for one, am a product of the world as it is, not how I would like it to be.
Accordingly, I debate it on those grounds.