Atheist Campaigner Plans UK Arrest of Pope

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

So, how can the head of a global organisation be held responsible, when the local checks aren't working?

I've never argued that he should.

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

quite agree ,using the celibacy argument you would have just as many rapist priests(of woman) or random attacks on young girls not just alter boys

Except the desire to rape has nothing to do with Sex. It's more about achieving power over the victim.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I've never argued that he should.

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------



Except the desire to rape has nothing to do with Sex. It's more about achieving power over the victim.

accepted ,you are correct ,

Originally Posted by Matt D

Posted earlier by downquark1:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCom...e,page2#478580

Matt I'm a born cynic..and I'll take all that with a very large ladle of salt before I'm going to believe him.

[Ed2020]

Originally Posted by martyh

but he wasn't pope at the time of a lot of the offences

No, he was head of the Vatican office responsible for investigating claims of child abuse. I'm not suggesting he should be prosecuted because he's the pope now; it's what he was (and did or did not do) then that's important.

Originally Posted by martyh

and what evidence is there that he covered anything up like i said in an earlier post theres a lot more people to be prosecuted before him

If it was anyone else then there would be sufficient evidence for the police to initiate an investigation. The letters referred to may well still exist on file somewhere, the archbishop who objected to the "disciplinary hearing" being stopped may be able to provide valuable evidence, the testimonies of the victims may count for something as well.

And I'm certainly not arguing that he should be the only one to be prosecuted. Far from it. But if the claims are correct, and he deliberately covered it up, then he should be answering to the same authorities that you or I would if we had done the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ed2020

No, he was head of the Vatican office responsible for investigating claims of child abuse. I'm not suggesting he should be prosecuted because he's the pope now; it's what he was (and did or did not do) then that's important.



If it was anyone else then there would be sufficient evidence for the police to initiate an investigation. The letters referred to may well still exist on file somewhere, the archbishop who objected to the "disciplinary hearing" being stopped may be able to provide valuable evidence, the testimonies of the victims may count for something as well.

And I'm certainly not arguing that he should be the only one to be prosecuted. Far from it. But if the claims are correct, and he deliberately covered it up, then he should be answering to the same authorities that you or I would if we had done the same thing.

can't argue with that

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ed2020

And I'm certainly not arguing that he should be the only one to be prosecuted. Far from it. But if the claims are correct, and he deliberately covered it up, then he should be answering to the same authorities that you or I would if we had done the same thing.

I suspect the Catholic Church will do all they can to prevent that. It implies that the pope may not be perfect.

[Ed2020]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Matt I'm a born cynic..and I'll take all that with a very large ladle of salt before I'm going to believe him.

I consider myself a cynic as well, and as such I have no difficulty in believing a newspaper has misquoted him to make a better headline. Especially a newspaper owned by Murdoch.

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I suspect the Catholic Church will do all they can to prevent that. It implies that the pope may not be perfect.

I'd put money on it!

Although, does the Catholic church claim that the pope was perfect before he became the pope....? And if so why does it take them so long to choose one? Or are all of those cardinals perfect...?

Originally Posted by Ed2020

I consider myself a cynic as well, and as such I have no difficulty in believing a newspaper has misquoted him to make a better headline. Especially a newspaper owned by Murdoch.

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------



I'd put money on it!

Although, does the Catholic church claim that the pope was perfect before he became the pope....? And if so why does it take them so long to choose one? Or are all of those cardinals perfect...?

isn't it a sin to claim perfection ,after all only god can be perfect

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Matt I'm a born cynic..and I'll take all that with a very large ladle of salt before I'm going to believe him.

Well he has already written some very provocative articles on this matter. No doubt that is to either sell books or further his cause. This particular instance is probably a journalists exaggeration I think.

Hmm the pope one man in the world who will never be arrested no matter what he does and a misquote from a murdoch newspaper sounds like a perfect recipe for a bit of exaggeration and trouble making on the part of old rupert. On the issue of the abuse i think there needs to be a full independent investigation into it and to who was responsible for the covering up and if it turns out the pope did cover anything up then he must step down and face justice. Right now i rather get the feeling he is happy to hide behind being the pope and knowing damn well as long as he can hold that title nothing legal will happen to him.

What this all says about the upper echelons of the catholic church is for each and every person to decide for themselves i know what i think but as a declared atheist it isn't fair to air it.

[Tezcatlipoca]

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCom...e,page5#478823

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

It is now more than five hours since I submitted my Comment to the Sunday Times website, stating that their headline is a damaging lie.

Alas, they seem to be living up to the stereotype of a Murdoch paper. So far, they have not published it. Several colleagues have been trying to post similar comments, pointing out the error. With the same result. As far as I can see, in all of the 623 Comments on the Sunday Times website, not a single one alludes to the fact that the Headline is false, while a huge number are abusive precisely because they do not realise that the headline is false.

Richard

___________________

[UPDATE 4/12]
At long last, and only by dint of phoning Marc Horne, the reporter himself, I finally managed to get the Sunday Times to notice their libellous headline and so something about it. Implying, as it did, that I was personally planning to ambush the Pope with a pair of handcuffs in my pocket, one might have thought it too absurd to be taken seriously. Nevertheless it was taken seriously and spawned a great deal of vitriolic abuse on the Sunday Times website, which would not have been provoked by Marc Horne's article itself. The new headline is at least an improvement.

Richard

Wow, Dawkins doesn't like being wilfully misquoted and taken out of context.

[Russ]

Some people just can't stand having it up 'em

[Gary L]

This is like watching 2 christians pick on atheist for fun

Originally Posted by Gary L

This is like watching 2 christians pick on atheist for fun

Well make that two Christians and an atheist.