Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

[Tink]

Of course he has, to eradicate fairy tales and tell the provable truth about nature and life.

As I have said before, explod has hit the nail on the head

Dawkins is trying to eradicate the Catholic Church from Britain. Ban him coming there.

If he was really concerned about the children, he would be cleaning up his own backyard

 

[Fishbulb]

Yes, I have reread your posts. The only thing consistent about you, is your crude language and your sneering attitude to any attempt to find out what you are on about. What you stand for is still a mystery.

Heh heh....crude language.

I guess you'll try anything huh?

Anyway, I'm done with you

 

[wayneL]

I might have misunderstood your point Wayne, but I thought the main point was holding to account the senior executives of an organisation that sheltered child rapists and allowed the rapists continued access to children within the organisation? The fact that Dawkins has an agenda is of only minor consequence compared to addressing the suffering of the raped children.

For example:
Lets say I was walking down Campbell Parade on Bondi Beach, on St. Patricks Day and saw a drunk Irishman being thrown out of a pub by a bouncer. The Irishman picks himself up, pulls a gun, and shoots dead the bouncer. A bystander says, just loud enough for me to hear, “I hate Irishmen”, and then proceeds to confiscate the gun and hold the shooter until the proper authorities arrive.

Does the bystander have an agenda? Yes, certainly sounds like it. Has the bystander, nevertheless, done the right thing? I think so; a murderer (alleged, LOL) has been apprehended and will go to trial.

Same with Dawkins – maybe he does have an agenda, but his plans to hold the CEO of the organization responsible for the sheltering of criminals (and also thereby allowing the criminals to re-offend) and bring him to trial, is to be commended.



I am not sure of Blair’s offences (and don’t want to take this thread further down the path off topic), but surely anyone is free to arrest him if he thinks Blair has committed a crime?

As I stated early in the thread, those in the Catholic Church (or any other organisation) responsible for perpetrating, aiding or abetting crimes should be called to account. No question about that.

The point is that Ratsarseinger is not the only alleged criminal to appear in the the UK.

If Squawkins is truly concerned about these things, he would be extremely active in trying to arrest a number of "leaders". But he has a bee in his bonnet about religion, clearly.

Fine, but up til now he addressed this on an intellectual level. His foray into political activism is not based in concern for humanity (as evidenced by inaction elsewhere), but by pushing his ideological barrow, perhaps even publicity wh oring.

Blair was complicit in the slaughter of Iraqi children in the prosecution of an illegal and unjustifiable invasion and occupation... amongst several other things, yet not a peep from Dawkins about that.

 

[wayneL]

I have no idea of your motives. But to get back to Dawkins, perhaps it is, as Tink suggested, he has an agenda and arresting Blair is not on it.

Thanks.

I believe that was substantively my point.

 

[Ruby]

.

The point is that Ratsarseinger is not the only alleged criminal to appear in the the UK.

If Squawkins is truly concerned about these things, he would be extremely active in trying to arrest a number of "leaders". But he has a bee in his bonnet about religion, clearly.

Fine, but up til now he addressed this on an intellectual level. His foray into political activism is not based in concern for humanity (as evidenced by inaction elsewhere), but by pushing his ideological barrow, perhaps even publicity wh oring.

Blair was complicit in the slaughter of Iraqi children in the prosecution of an illegal and unjustifiable invasion and occupation... amongst several other things, yet not a peep from Dawkins about that.

Firstly, as I have said in a previous post, one person cannot fight all fights.

The British Government has already held an enquiry into the issue of Tony Blair and the Iraq invasion (and please let us not go down that avenue unless it is on a different thread!)

Richard Dawkins makes no secret of the fact that he has a "bee in his bonnet" about religion. Of course he has! This is exactly why he is involved in this particular issue. He wants to highlight the hypocrasy of the roman catholic church in protecting perpetrators of child abuse. What he may or may not think about Tony Blair is a different issue. Why even introduce the subject?? It has no relevance to this particular debate.

Incidentally, my understanding is that it was Geoffrey Robertson QC who decided to mount this legal action and asked Richard Dawkins if he wished to participate.

 

[Ruby]

Dawkins is trying to eradicate the Catholic Church from Britain. Ban him coming there.

Well, Tink, I think that is rather silly statement!! - "trying to eradicate the catholic church from Britain" I think it is far too well entrenched for anyone to aim so high!

But yes....... ban the pope! If I could ban the pope from coming to Australia I would, especially if my taxes were funding it.

 

[Tink]

But yes....... ban the pope! If I could ban the pope from coming to Australia I would, especially if my taxes were funding it.

well well well, now you're showing your true colours Ruby

Because you dont want something it should be banned?

 

[Ruby]

well well well, now you're showing your true colours Ruby

Because you dont want something it should be banned?

Such an inane comment is not worth a response

 

[Timmy]

Are the ad hominum attacks on Dawkins a distraction from the issues of holding the senior executives of organisations that shelter child-rapists (and thereby allow continuation of child-rape) accountable?

 

[Tink]

Such an inane comment is not worth a response

Calling me brainwashed, you got a response

Sorry if I upset you.

 

[Calliope]

Are the ad hominum attacks on Dawkins a distraction from the issues of holding the senior executives of organisations that shelter child-rapists (and thereby allow continuation of child-rape) accountable?

Exactly. As I said, red herrings. In this case it is trying to paint Dawkins as the villain and the Pope as the victim.

 

[Calliope]

Calling me brainwashed, you got a response

Although you add nothing to the debate except snide remarks, you are the only Dawkins hater here who makes no secret of being driven by religious dogma.

 

[Tink]

Although you add nothing to the debate except snide remarks, you are the only Dawkins hater here who makes no secret of being driven by religious dogma.

Calliope, I think I have added my fair share.

As I said, if you are happy having something banned because one group doesnt want it, then its a start to more than just one thing.

 

[bunyip]

Tink

I have a couple of questions that I hope you have time to answer. They're not loaded questions that are designed to trap you - I'm genuinely interested in hearing your views on this, seeing as you're a practising Catholic.

My view is that popes, this one and all those before him, are nothing special as people, and for the life of me I've never been able to understand why they get such adulation and hero worship among Catholics.

My questions to you are....

* Do you, as a practising Catholic, go along with all the adulation and hero worship that millions of Catholics shower on the pope?

* Do you absolutely revere him like so many or your fellow Catholics do?

* Do you understand what they see in him?

* Or do you, in all honesty, wonder what all the fuss is about when it comes to Catholics' attitudes towards the pope?

 

[nunthewiser]

Thankyou.

This thread has finally given me hope that maybe oneday i can arrest the Queen.

 

[Boggo]

All the news you may ever need relating to the world's largest pedophile ring...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/maintopics/clerical-abuse-scandals/gbsnql/

 

[Timmy]

The ad hominum attacks on Dawkins, dismissing him and Geoffrey Robertson because they have an agenda need to be seen in the context of the crime.

No matter how you look at this tragic, never ending affair, there is unarguable evidence that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – as the Pope was known then – was directly informed of the rape of scores of German children, by one priest, Peter Hullerman, who worked in a parish under his direct control.

Not only that, but it was the very same Cardinal Ratzinger who chose not to report or defrock the priest, allowing him to undergo therapy – and go on to rape again and again.

My bolding ... a score is 20, so 'scores' is least 40 ...

As for the apologists:

Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and his steely Jesuit Press Secretary, Federico Lombardi - have spent the past week avoiding, covering up and pointing the finger at anyone and everyone in a desperate attempt to deflect accusations that in the end, the buck stops with the boss.

Again, my bolding. Too many of these apologists around.

For me, the enormity of the crime far outbalances any agenda Dawkins and Robertson have.

Source of quotes: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...orcer-with-a-gentle-manner-20100414-scxh.html

 

[Frank D]

My view is that popes, this one and all those before him, are nothing special as people, and for the life of me I've never been able to understand why they get such adulation and hero worship among Catholics

Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being
the only formal religion they have. Hence, why Krudd and other leaders
like Obama are worshipped, even though it makes no sense at all.

Sport is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the
only formal religion they have. Hence why Sports people are
worshipped.

The same can be said of the Pope.

Faith is a powerful thing and it's the foundation of humanity, whether
it's religious or not.

 

[SmellyTerror]

Atlas:

Mate, "tragi-comic" is the kind of word someone uses when they're straining to sound intellectual. Give that a rest.

Ma, der usin' dem big werds. GET PAW'S SHOTGUN! Dey’ll be usin’ LOGIC next!!!

Criticising the word use and/or punctuation of the other party is an admission of defeat, isn't it? : Tragicomic was my attempt to use a word that wasn’t directly insulting, or contrary to the board’s rules. Would “retarded” have made you happier?

Ok, we’ll go with that. Your arguments were retarded. Laughable. Pathetic. So mind bogglingly stupid that I couldn’t help pointing and laughing. So far from reality, if I set fire to reality you couldn’t even see the smoke plume from where you are. So nonsensical you could mash your face into the keyboard 20 times, run it through a spell checker, then an auto-translator from English to Japanese to Finnish and back to English, and it’d still make more sense than the festering assault on the human senses you came up with. Your argument is to rational debate what an obstructed bowel is to the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

Is that better? We cool now?

As for Hitler:

National Socialist Workers Party.

He was a socialist. Socialists are leftists. Hitler's policies were often identical to Stalin.

So, as I said, by your rationale North Korea is democratic? Calling themselves socialists don't necessarily make it so. Weren't you the one going on and on about not taking Hitler’s word for it? What happened to your selective cynicism? Wait! I've got a relevant quote for ya:

Hillarious - so you will take the word of a genocidal dictator at face value?

You don't suppose he was, oh, maybe trying to fool people? Get legitimacy, get trust...?

You're talking about a man who marched millions of people to death in gas chambers. He told lots of those they were going to get hot showers. For, um, trust & legitmacy.

He wouldn't have the audacity to LIE, would he?

Sorry mate but if you want to throw stones at someone who has at least a rudimentary knowledge of a subject, when you don't, you're going to look silly.

"Socialism" wasn't a dirty word back then. To a lot of people it simply meant "provide a basic level of workers' rights". Tacking "socialist" to your party's name was a good way to indicate you were willing to consider unemployment benefits. since we're using Wikipedia today:

Despite many working-class supporters and members, the appeal of the Nazi Party to the working class was neither true nor effective, because its politics mostly appealed to the middle-class, as a stabilizing, pro-business political party, not a revolutionary workers’ party.

See also Hitler's repeated attempts to blame "socialists" among others for the loss of WWI.

It doesn't matter how insulting you try to be to argue that up is down. Yeah, there are good arguments to suggest fascism is a "third way" beyond the left-right spectrum (that’s what the Nazis said, too). There are interesting parallels how, at the extreme of left and right, the results can be quite similar. But there is no-one on this earth that I am aware of - apart from yourself - who has ever maintained that fascism was left wing.

Here's the standard interpretation, as displayed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum and pretty much any Introduction To Politics textbook you can find:

...you're going to need to start promoting your novel theory, though, because there's definitely a dissertation in there.

Sorry, big word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissertation

Atheism is a "thing" Get that? Or perhaps you're a little too dim. But keep trying anyway.

It... it's a thing? What? Are you using english here?

So... so let's just back up here. Imagine I was inventing a word that meant "not faith". It's the opposite to faith, and designates a lack of faith. With me so far? For ease of use, I'm actually going to call it notfaith.

Right. So someone has faith in the universal goodness of human nature. I have notfaith in this. This person says - sure, I have faith in the goodness of human nature, but your notfaith is faith too! Your faith is in the notfaith of the universal nature of human goodness. See? Notfaith is actually faith!

NOT X IS X.

FAIL.

Do you see why that's dopey? To have a notfish, you must have a fish. To have a notferrari you must have a ferarri.

Atheism is a lack. It is an absence. The lack of a hat is not a kind of hat. The lack of a kidney is not a kind of kidney. The lack of an 10th finger is not a kind of finger. YES, you still have 9 OTHER fingers. But the lack of an 10th finger is not, in itself, a kind of finger.

We'll say that people with a missing their 10th finger (we'll assume that's a thumb) are a-thumbists.

You're saying that their a-thumbism is, in fact, a kind of finger, on the grounds that they have other fingers. That their lack of a thumb is, in fact, a thumb. If you can’t see how this is idiotic, I’m not sure there’s any arguing with you.

An atheist must have a lack of faith in god. That's what an atheist is. An atheist may well have lots of other faiths in lots of other things, but atheism denotes a lack of a faith in a very particular thing. The lack of a faith in a thing is not itself a faith. Arguing that it is, is just flat out ignorant.

You've consistently ignored my question: do you think babies are born with a faith? Because they are atheists. (One of the links YOU POSTED explains that, if you won't take my word for it). Suggesting that babies (or anything incapable of understanding the concept of god, including dogs, beluga whales and inanimate objects) subscribe to a faith is pure, gold plated crazy. But you must necessarily be proposing just that to insist that atheism is a faith.

You think you know what this word means. You are wrong. Your posting links that directly contradict what you think you know IN THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY’LL PROVE YOU RIGHT just shows how completely divorced from reality your belief in this matter is.

Step back. Forget what you think you know. Relearn, because it’s not possible to be more wrong than you are now.

This thread has devolved into timewasting. Tink and Fishbulb are clearly just baiting with their meaningless one or two liners, they probably don't even believe their side of the argument, and just enjoy winding people up. As for Atlas - it's clear he isn't going change his views no matter how much logic or evidence is piled up against them.

Yeah, with you there...

 

[wayneL]

For me, the enormity of the crime far outbalances any agenda Dawkins and Robertson have.

Yep it's a despicable crime alright (spit on ground in disgust. ), but as far as enormity, I would have thought killing and maiming children would be right up there too.

But if Dawkins (and his supporters) admits to an agenda, then fair enough, he has an agenda.

Just so long as the debate is framed around that fact.