Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

I don't really think the Pope should be immune from justice if he did indeed do something that violates the law he should be tried. However, Dawkins doing this in the name of atheism does nothing to help anyone. Not the victims

You sure?

If he did something like's alleged, I think it would help the victims to have him prosecuted rather than for it to slip into obscurity because of his position or the religious context.

Much of Dawkin's stance on religion is borne out of the free passes that are given to religions in society. If there's something prosecutable here then I'd support him in having it forced to be prosecuted than having it, like I said, be swept under the carpet because no one wants to prod at a religion too much.

I'd be amazed, though, if a case were brought against the Pope before some of the other local bishops. The police here are supposedly investigating the case for prosecuting certain people in the local Church hierarchy in their role in covering up cases or silencing victims. There's a number of bishops far more implicated than the Pope is, to date anyway, so maybe we shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

okay lets all pull out strawman arguments. the pope approves of paedophilia thats why he did nothing to stop it.

in fact he probably partook in it himself while he was a Nazi Youth, killing jews and pedobearing it up, that's the Pope's way

 

[Drek]

I grant that it does not necessarily prevent or inhibit scientific progress. That's why I have, I think, identified only a tendency. The span of history and the magnitude of the church's influence are sufficient to make that tendency a genuinely big deal, and to give it the appearance of a concrete rule, but I've not said and do not think so.

The current theory of plate tectonics was met with a great deal of resistance within the geological community, so if there is any tendency to resist change I'd be more likely to ascribe it to human nature than religion. People fear change and things they can't understand. Fear leads to hostility and resistance.

 

[Scipius]

Regardless of the religious aspects, I think the most significant impact a possible indictment could have is establishing that the Vatican is not in fact a sovereign state (and the Pope does not have diplomatic immunity). The sovereignty of the Holy See is an absurdity that is nonetheless supported by most nation states; I would very much welcome the Holy See being reduced to status of the Italian corporation it really is.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

If I'm molested by a man at 17 and I enter law enforcement can I not go after that person because my motivations are impure? You tell some Medal of Honor winner that he doesn't deserve it because he did what he did because he wanted to go home and not because he thought the war was some noble endeavor? Who gives a shit about his motive?

catholics, atheists, the media, the guy who wrote the story in the OP, everybody
and I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is Yes

 

[Smiles and Cries]

this is a stupid move. If you really understand religious people

this will play out very well for the Pope, this will be called a new age of religious persecution
the guy will even turn himself in if he has to, to boost his Christ-like street cred

 

[CabbageRed]

It's amazing to see the embarrassing lengths that posters will go to to act like slow-witted children on a sugar rush when the name 'Dawkins' pops up. Had this been about a nameless activist who had spent part of their careerer railing against legal double standards used to protect potentially criminal members of religious institutions, this thread might have been readable.

 

[mAcOdIn]

catholics, atheists, the media, the guy who wrote the story in the OP, everybody
and I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is Yes

So, what motive would make prosecuting criminals ok?

 

[Salazar]

The current theory of plate tectonics was met with a great deal of resistance within the geological community, so if there is any tendency to resist change I'd be more likely to ascribe it to human nature than religion. People fear change and things they can't understand. Fear leads to hostility and resistance.

I will grant you the fractious nature of geologists. They can barely even agree to call them 'plates'. However, the tendency of religion to resist change is in its essence, in its structure; you could argue, more convincingly, that religion merely amplifies dogmatic aspects of human nature, but you'd just be edging closer to agreeing with me. (Catholic) religion, for its authority, centrally controls and authorises the rituals and faith-commitments of a great number of people. It has to be supremely inflexible to perform that role. Science is different. You can take or leave science. Dawkins is just saying you're a git not to take it.

 

[muntersaur]

The pope committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The debate over Dawkin's motives is completely irrelevant.

 

[Mr Cola]

It would be interesting to read this thread if it were not brought by Dawkins and Hitchens but by Human rights lawyers themselves. It seems the thread has become bogged down in "omg its a publicity stunt they just hate the church" rather than the more important issue....that the Pope is guilty of a crime and the Pope is not above international law, which, given the evidence, no-one can argue soundly against.

But, haters gonna hate i suppose

 

[gofreak]

the guy will even turn himself in if he has to, to boost his Christ-like street cred

Hahaha. You've clearly not been paying attention to the Church's behaviour when it comes to these scandals. There's nothing 'turn-the-other-cheek' about it.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

So, what motive would make prosecuting criminals ok?

justice is

Spoiler

supposed to be

blind

 

[Beer Monkey]

The pope committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The debate over Dawkin's motives is completely irrelevant.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

It's amazing to see the embarrassing lengths that posters will go to to act like slow-witted children on a sugar rush when the name 'Dawkins' pops up. Had this been about a nameless activist who had spent part of their careerer railing against legal double standards used to protect potentially criminal members of religious institutions, this thread might have been readable.

well said.

 

[Mad Max]

Who's equating the two?

Some argued that atheism was a superior belief to any religion because religion prevented scientific advancement, which isn't particularly true or relevant.

I can't really be bothered to read the whole thread again to point these people out, but there are always (mostly religious) posters saying that athiest believe in science and therefore are no better then the religions which they criticise. Which is kind of mixing things up.

As for the Pope, if he committed a crime I'd love to see the smoking gun. Was he slow in his action? Of course, but you need to consider the belief system. A defrocked priest is barred from celebrating multiple sacraments, in addition to the one he gave up becoming a priest (marriage).

The best corollary within the U.S. legal system to that would be like us taking away the large portions of the bill of rights to one of our citizens for committing a crime for the entirety of their life. It can even go far further than that because being denied select sacraments can all but damn you to hell, which obviously priests would see as something far worse than the death penalty. It isn't a decision someone would make in haste.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Pope. I'm neither a practicing catholic or particularly fond of Pope Benedict. I was a big fan of John Paul II because he was gifted with a very inquisitive mind. His writings stand shoulder to shoulder with those of the Dali Lama as the best ethical discourses we've seen in the last half century.

I just think we should maintain a consistent standard, not go overboard with hyperbole just because someone has a high ranking, controversial position.

Celibacy is pretty fucked up, but I don't really see that as an excuse for this. People become priests out of free will and they have the right to leave the church if they want to. Also raping children is an even faster ticket to hell then not folowing the sacrements. (mosty of which are basicly made up by the catholic church) If these people really wanted to have sex so badly there are plenty of women around who could consent.

 

[Drek]

Regardless of the religious aspects, I think the most significant impact a possible indictment could have is establishing that the Vatican is not in fact a sovereign state (and the Pope does not have diplomatic immunity). The sovereignty of the Holy See is an absurdity that is nonetheless supported by most nation states; I would very much welcome the Holy See being reduced to status of the Italian corporation it really is.

Not going to happen.

Like someone previously said in this thread, the entire premise of the Vatican not being a sovereign state was based on a fallacy.

The Holy See is recognized by the United Nations which also recognizes the Papacy as a seperate individual entity that just happens to be the official representative of the Holy See. Even if the Pope was found guilty of an international crime it would still have no impact on the Holy See, as they are two distinct and separate entities.

 

[mAcOdIn]

justice is

Spoiler

supposed to be

blind

Right, fair enough but a dodge.

Dawkins himself has no power, he is asking others who have the power if there's a legal way to do what he wants to be done, it's no different than Greenpeace trying to get legal action started against a company they believe is doing something illegal, or some "get out the vote" organization asking for charges against people they believe are guilty of voter intimidation or whatnot. You're essentially saying that anyone connected by a thread to someone else can not seek legal action against them using the normal means of law because their motivations are clouded, you're essentially destroying every political organization on the planet. So now Greenpeace should be the one to go after religious child molesters while Dawkins goes after polluting multinational corporations? It's fucking silly.

No matter Dawkins motivation, if the supposedly "blind" justice system agrees with his assertions then those wishes should be acted upon.

 

[Pumpkins]

The pope committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The debate over Dawkin's motives is completely irrelevant.

Your avatar visually demonstrates how you managed to sift through the mud and grime to reach the surface.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Hahaha. You've clearly not been paying attention to the Church's behaviour when it comes to these scandals. There's nothing 'turn-the-other-cheek' about it.

they don't really follow what they preach then, hmmm :|

 

[Drek]

I can't really be bothered to read the whole thread again to point these people out, but there are always (mostly religious) posters saying that athiest believe in science and therefore are no better then the religions which they criticise. Which is kind of mixing things up.

Well in this one we had some people (to whom I will not ascribe a specific theological viewpoint) arguing that the world would be better off without any form of religion or belief in a supreme being.

Celibacy is pretty fucked up, but I don't really see that as an excuse for this. People become priests out of free will and they have the right to leave the church if they want to. Also raping children is an even faster ticket to hell then not folowing the sacrements. (mosty of which are basicly made up by the catholic church) If these people really wanted to have sex so badly there are plenty of women around who could consent.

I bolded your problem here. I'm guessing you see it as a largely irrelevant point since you put it in parenthesis, but the entire matter hinges on the fact that they don't see it as something they just made up. To catholics the holy sacraments are the road you travel on your way to heaven.

Priests take a vow of celibacy only because they are required to sacrifice the sacrament of marriage in exchange for ordination, and the church believes premarital sex is a sin. So if you can't marry and having sex outside of marriage is a sin then you're dedicating your life to celibacy.

The current catholic church is very much reformed into the soft viewpoint of "if you confess and are truly repentant then you will eventually make it to heaven. It might require a prolonged stay in purgatory, but you'll eventually get there". It still believes that intentionally not receiving sacraments though is a straight path to hell. So if someone has repented they aren't going to send someone to what they believe is eternal damnation out of spite.

This is whey they just let the child toucher up in Wisconsin die instead of defrock him when he was deathly ill. At that point they view it as putting it in the hands of god. This is after all a religion who's foremost figure is famous for saying "judge not lest ye be judged".

 

[sneakypete]

I love all of the people saying this is a pointless attack to garner points for atheism, as if it were an organisation that actively recruits members to fill its coffers. Dawkins' questioning of the Pope's infallibility seems more of a reality check for his Holiness and the Church rather than an attempt at selling his books. Even if this is some sleezy ulterior motive of Dawkins', at least he's bringing light to the atrocities being condoned by the Church. I hope that this is a wake up call to all of the priests/cardinals/etc who have done or even thought about doing something to a child - that they are not protected anymore. As the Aussies say, good on ya Richard.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Celibacy is pretty fucked up, but I don't really see that as an excuse for this. People become priests out of free will and they have the right to leave the church if they want to. Also raping children is an even faster ticket to hell then not folowing the sacrements. (mosty of which are basicly made up by the catholic church) If these people really wanted to have sex so badly there are plenty of women around who could consent.

Celibacy is not an excuse for molestation, but it is unnatural to deny your sexual nature. People who want to 'have sex so badly' but are terrified for their careers are less likely to turn to adult women who might speak out or blackmail than to turn to children that are more easily intimidated and controlled.

So why did priests tend to turn to young boys instead of young girls? Easier access, for many decades.

 

[Dabookerman]

It's nice that someone like Dawkins and Hitchens (who is a lot more "militant" than Dawkins may I add) has the balls to try to do something like this.

Britain pussy foots around religion.

I also like people defending Evil Religious Kiddy Fiddlers.
When will we have a Hitler Defence Force?

 

[hxa155]

I think there are other people that should be arrested for their war crimes and the death of thousands of people. But who cares about that, let's attack religion.

 

[phisheep]

The pope committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The debate over Dawkin's motives is completely irrelevant.

It would be interesting to read this thread if it were not brought by Dawkins and Hitchens but by Human rights lawyers themselves. It seems the thread has become bogged down in "omg its a publicity stunt they just hate the church" rather than the more important issue....that the Pope is guilty of a crime and the Pope is not above international law, which, given the evidence, no-one can argue soundly against.

Sounds like a few people are jumping the gun here. What crime, huh?

 

[Beer Monkey]

I think there are other people that should be arrested for their war crimes and the death of thousands of people. But who cares about that, let's attack religion.

Multiple wrongs always make a right.

Right?

And nobody is saying religous figureheads that DON'T PROTECT CHILD RAPISTS should be arrested.

I guess you think religious child rapists are special.

Sounds like a few people are jumping the gun here. What crime, huh?

Racketeering, a criminal conspiracy to ensure that people in their organization can keep raping kids by keeping the public unaware.

 

[sneakypete]

I think there are other people that should be arrested for their war crimes and the death of thousands of people. But who cares about that, let's attack religion.

He's not attacking religion, just dissolving the curtain of bullshit they hide behind to avoid prosecution.

 

[BowieZ]

I think there are other people that should be arrested for their war crimes and the death of thousands of people. But who cares about that, let's attack religion.

Straw man! You're more than welcome to pick your own fights for justice. Dawkins has picked his.

 

[Gattsu25]

God bless him.

.

 

[teruterubozu]

Ugh, 4 religion threads at the top of the cue on a Sunday morning.
GAF is deteriorating....

 

[hxa155]

Multiple wrongs always make a right.

Right?

And nobody is saying religous figureheads that DON'T PROTECT CHILD RAPISTS should be arrested.

I guess you think religious child rapists are special.

You got it all wrong. He doesn't want to arrest the Pope just because he cares for the children, he just wants to hurt the catholic church's reputation. In other words, he's just a troll.

 

[hxa155]

Straw man! You're more than welcome to pick your own fights for justice. Dawkins has picked his.

Nah, I'm too busy with college right now.

 

[Scipius]

Not going to happen.

Like someone previously said in this thread, the entire premise of the Vatican not being a sovereign state was based on a fallacy.

The Holy See is recognized by the United Nations which also recognizes the Papacy as a seperate individual entity that just happens to be the official representative of the Holy See. Even if the Pope was found guilty of an international crime it would still have no impact on the Holy See, as they are two distinct and separate entities.

I must have missed that, but the OP clearly states that Stephens and Robertson think it can be challenged. I know they are separate entities, but both are equally absurd. The only legitimacy they have is derived from the fact that they are recognised as sovereign by other genuine states; i.e. as long as the fantasy is maintained, they are sovereign. It is high time this fantasy is challenged (as well as that of others like the Military Orders) and I welcome any attempts to do so.

 

[gerg]

He's accustomed (his education, his teaching, conferences, papers) to conversing with his intellectual equals. When he's in public, it's a rare occasion when he's doing that. However adept a populariser he is—and he's a fine one—and however well he can tune his explanations and metaphors to the level of his audience, he's always having to work at it. That is, work against habit. That effort is perhaps what shows.

Or it could be smugness. God damn, if I were one-tenth as clever as he is, I'd shine like a lighthouse with smugness.

Whatever it is, I don't think he takes the right attitude to religious belief and those who hold it.

In any case, I am the first to admit ignorance of a lot of what Dawkins himself has said. The reason I have called him arrogant (or smug) is because I don't think his views are as reconciliatory as they should be - the belief that religious belief isn't inherently bad is, imo, more humble than the belief that it is.

random question: Are you non-British?

My theory is that the only reason this ever comes up is because I have a feeling that there are a lot of folks who subconsciously associate "confident people with British accents" with "smug" :lol

I am a proud North Londoner.

...

What's wrong with it having to do with the Church? It does real harm to society (passes the corruption test) so it certainly within reason to target it specifically.

I just think that the emphasis should be placed away from the fact that the crimes took place in the Church and more on the crimes themselves.

And, of course, I agree that this is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the Church and the Pope should be prosecuted. On the other hand, it may be relevant when discussing Dawkins' character, which was what my original post was about.

 

[Beer Monkey]

You got it all wrong. He doesn't want to arrest the Pope just because he cares for the children, he just wants to hurt the catholic church's reputation. In other words, he's just a troll.

Who cares what the motive is. Any objective person knows the Pope and the Church should be prosecuted, given the evidence, and what is right is right.

Yes, let's protect child rapists because Dawkins is a dick. That makes a LOT of sense.

 

[phisheep]

I must have missed that, but the OP clearly states that Stephens and Robertson think it can be challenged. I know they are separate entities, but both are equally absurd. The only legitimacy they have is derived from the fact that they are recognised as sovereign by other genuine states; i.e. as long as the fantasy is maintained, they are sovereign. It is high time this fantasy is challenged (as well as that of others like the Military Orders) and I welcome any attempts to do so.

Not quite. There's the little matter of the Lateran Treaties as well, which is far from trivial.

 

[The Ward]

Sounds like a few people are jumping the gun here. What crime, huh?

Ever heard of obstruction of justice? You know, preventing a crime from being brought to justice? The pope has reapeatedly protected these "criminals" from justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Right, but the Pope and the Catholic Church have already been getting horrible PR. They are getting reamed from every corner, and the Pope is essentially burying himself the more he talks.

Not really sure what Hitchens and Dawkins hope to accomplish here. He certainly isn't being arrested in any realistic sense. If they are going for a moral victory, that's fine, but I don't think it's going to be very significant.

Says you.

Not turning up for a planned visit would be regarded as an admission of guilt throughout the world (apart from those who actually think the pope has a channel to God and thus are irrevocably stupid). This would cause massive ruptures in that pseudo-corporate institution known as the Roman Catholic Church. Something I would love to see.

 

[gerg]

Just saw this:

I grant that it does not necessarily prevent or inhibit scientific progress. That's why I have, I think, identified only a tendency. The span of history and the magnitude of the church's influence are sufficient to make that tendency a genuinely big deal, and to give it the appearance of a concrete rule, but I've not said and do not think so.

I think it's at this point that the argument that religious belief has a "tendency" to inhibit scientific progress should identify its real target, namely the laziness in thinking that so often, but not necessarily, accompanies religious belief. I don't think that "Well, it often happens this way." is much of a basis for an argument.

 

[phisheep]

Ever heard of obstruction of justice? You know, preventing a crime from being brought to justice? The pope has reapeatedly protected these "criminals" from justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

I'm not too sure there is evidence for that. Not against the Pope personally. The letter that all the fuss is about seems to be a simple matter of not sacking someone, not about protecting a criminal from justice (the guy had already been convicted hadn't he?).

There are plenty of others that there is evidence against, and many of them are within the UK jurisdiction already. So why not proceed against them?

 

[Brannon]

Hate the man all you want. Despise him, if you wish, but...

When we look at this Pope we see a man who knew that one of the priests he had authority to fire had restrained and raped children. Yet he did nothing for years, and finally sided with the priest. He had more sympathy for the relatively young age of the rapist, rather than the innocence and trauma of the raped children.

at least acknowledge that he's doing the right thing, for whatever reason that may be.

 

[Baki]

I think a lot of people here don't know the recent facts so I will present a post of mine from another thread:

That's it. If the pope leaves the Vatican he should be arrested by the country he goes to. I'm dead serious.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pope_church_abuse

C'mon. What would we do if some CEO of a corporation running childcare centers wrote a memo saying that a particular employee with a record of sexually molesting children should not be fired, citing concerns including "the good of the corporation".


The other thread:
http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=390018&page=4

What he did was "criminal". He and all the other priests who were involved need to face legal action!

 

[Scipius]

Not quite. There's the little matter of the Lateran Treaties as well, which is far from trivial.

The Lateran Treaties were only between Italy and the Holy See. Other countries are under no direct obligation to follow its provisions. The reason they do acknowledge the Vatican State established by the treaties is by virtue of the existing status of the Holy See. If the sovereignty of the Holy See ceases, the Vatican will likely disappear as well.

 

[karasu]

He deserves it for condemning birth control and saying that abstinence is the ultimate method to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

(Do correct me if I'm wrong regarding this)

he deserves to be arrested that? Are you serious? People should be arrested for their point of view?

 

[Walshicus]

Good. Lock up the fucker.

 

[Dabookerman]

"In this Picture, Pope Ratzinger waves at his next victim"

 

[Cartman86]

he deserves to be arrested that? Are you serious? People should be arrested for their point of view?

Hmm if the point of view is used to push that agenda in places like Africa I say it is important. Important enough to be arrested? Hmmm what he is doing is legal. It's extremely stupid but technically I guess its legal. The pedophilia thing is another issue though. Arrest him.

 

[astroturfing]

there's no fucking way the pope will ever be held responsible for anything.. im afraid. he and his minions can cover up and downplay some of the most horrid crimes imaginable for as long as they want. the religion in question is just far too strong, the leaders cannot be brought down. maybe im just cynical but this is how i see it..

 

[Binabik15]

"In this Picture, Pope Ratzinger waves at his next victim"

There´s a little boy jerking it on his hat, lovely.

We had our fair share of sexual abuse by priests unearthed during the last few weeks, feels like everyone finally wants to come clean and talk about their suffering. Maybe they think that people will finally believe them instead of calling them liars as it happened to quite a few kids in church run children´s home when they tried to get help. The church even opened a hotline were abuse victims can call in and talk. Hopefully this isn´t just a ploy to get people´s adresses and send Inquisition death squads...

I support the attempt of holding church officials accountable in front of legal courts 100% even if the only outcome is that past/current/future victims will be more likely to press charges, because they know society will be listening this time around.