View Full Version : Dawkins trying to arrest the Pope

April 10th, 2010, 8:34 PM
Oh wow. I think the Catholic church has some issues to sort out right now, but I hardly see how arresting in the UK a figurehead from the Vatican for voicing their opinion on an issue that happened in America makes any sort of sense. I'm guessing he's doing it to get attention. I already wasn't a Dawkins fan, but I think he's sinking to a new low here (this coming from an atheist).

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the situation (in fact, I rather hope I am).

April 10th, 2010, 10:31 PM
I have seen some dedicated trolls in my lifetime, but this chump takes the cake.

April 11th, 2010, 12:13 PM
It will never happen, of course, even if it were legally possible. I think that's the point Dawkins is trying to make, that the church gets away with a lot of things it should be held responsible for. Sadly, on issues like this people are very polarized and he's only 'preaching to the choir.'

April 11th, 2010, 1:07 PM
As an atheist myself, I am not a huge supporter of Dawkins either, since sometimes what he says is unfairly insulting to religious people. That said, I don't think Richard Dawkins is a stupid man (definitely not a troll), and I think he is mostly just trying to be symbolic. The Catholic church certainly has done some bad things, most recently in relation to pedophile priests, and I think they should be held accountable for that, even if it has to be in court. But crimes against humanity? Maybe not, but I could see them being responsible for concealing evidence or obstruction of justice or whatever the legal term is for allowing these criminals to continue without consequence.

April 12th, 2010, 2:46 AM
Weither you all like Dawkins or not, who can deny he is right?

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
April 12th, 2010, 3:13 AM
^ this man speaks the truth.

As a person, I really don't like Richard Dawkins. He's smug and arrogant. But let's face it, he is a very intelligent man and he raises a very valid point here. The Pope and the sex offender priests have broken the law. Why shouldn't they be arrested?

April 12th, 2010, 5:44 AM
Ever since South Park poked fun at him, I've never taken Richard Dawkins seriously. To be quite frank, he and other outspoken atheists are probably one of the reasons that atheists are the least-trusted minority demographic in the United States. >_>

That doesn't mean that he's wrong though...

Speaking as a Catholic, I do believe that the sex offenders in the priesthood should be just as liable for their acts as a layman. Unfortunately, the Vatican has some pretty deep pockets that serve just keep their members out of trouble. >_<

April 12th, 2010, 5:50 AM
One man against the Church = EPIC FAIL. It's all over your History Books, kids.

As a Catholic, I don't believe in the Vatican anymore, it's going against everything Jesus and the first (notice "first") Christians even stood for.
Here's a hint: Why is the Vatican so rich even up to now?

Ninja Caterpie
April 12th, 2010, 6:02 AM
Wait, let me get this straight. Dawkins is trying to arrest the Pope for crimes against humanity (ie. the child abuse) when the Pope himself hasn't done anything? I mean, obstruction of justice for trying to protect the priests is legitimate but crimes against humanity for something he didn't do? Seriously?

Covering up child abuse =/= crimes against humanity.

On the other hand, yes the priests should be punished for their crimes but I don't see how this is going to help.

April 12th, 2010, 7:11 AM
As much as I hate Dawkins (arrogant little... man), he is raising a good point. While the whole church is hardly responsible, and the Pope has done nothing illegal, any man found doing crimes, priest or not, should be punished with the full severity of the law. If any of my religious leaders were criminals, I wouldn't be loyal to them (although, my church has a tendency to remove leaders that are suspect under the law from leadership positions, so this isn't really a problem anyways).

I hope I don't sound anti-Catholic here; I love you guys :)

April 12th, 2010, 8:02 AM
The Pope is a diplomat so he has diplomatic immunity.If anyone should be arrested it's the priests who there is probable cause commited some lewd act, not the Pope.

April 13th, 2010, 4:44 AM
Dawkins raises a good point, but it doesn't matter how good or perfect the point is, against the man that represents the entire Church, it means about as much as a fly does to an Australian. The Pope is going to die soon anyway, and besides, if you tried to take on the Church then you'd have to take on a firestorm of Religous criers screaming to let him go. The Government isn't going to want that, clearly.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
April 13th, 2010, 7:27 AM
The Pope is a diplomat so he has diplomatic immunity.If anyone should be arrested it's the priests who there is probable cause commited some lewd act, not the Pope.

They actually mentioned this in the article itself:

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

April 13th, 2010, 7:48 AM
Wow, this is really stupid. But, if one woman could sue the tax company, why not him? Oh wait, this is religion....

Well, he does raise a good point. But, the pope shall die soon, and another one shall replace him.

Oh well, at least this guy actually tried.

April 13th, 2010, 7:58 AM
Dawkins only backed claims to arrest the Pope, he didn't say he would do it himself...http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page2#478580

Anyway, this will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Professor Doakes
April 13th, 2010, 8:11 AM
I love Dawkins and all the hate he gets for being that atheist guy that's missing the point. Unfortunately nobody'll ever be able to really take the church to task for anything they do, but at least the man is helping with publicity. I would like to see him attempt a citizen's arrest on the Pope.

April 13th, 2010, 10:27 AM
<p>They actually mentioned this in the article itself:</p>

Um the Pope is the head of state of the Vatican.

Ezio Auditore da Firenze
April 13th, 2010, 11:19 AM
But his point is that the Vatican isn't recognised as a country by the United Nations, and he's not recognised as a head of state.

Personally, I think they should all be told to give their money to poverty-stricken areas, as they're so rich they could probably fix it all.

I'm Christian, and I don't think that lot should be classed as Christians in any form, as while normal Catholics are probably nice (I've never met one, to be honest), they are, as somebody said earlier, doing the opposite to what Jesus and God told us.