Dawkins and Hitchens want to arrest the Pope for "crimes against humanity". For people that argue they are rational and "evidence based", they certainly seem not to let facts get in the way of their biases. Here's the story that they are using to argue the Pope was engaged in a cover-up: Latest Media Beat up. Please educate yourselves to the facts.
Briefly: Dawkins will arrest Pope and a little more: The Dawkins Delusion
Briefly: Dawkins will arrest Pope and a little more: The Dawkins Delusion
I educated myself to the facts
ReplyDeletefrom your links
Dawkins says
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 Horne, 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.
Richard
Meanwhile in Malta
ReplyDeleteChild abuse allegations made against 45 Maltese priests in 11 years
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100331/local/child-abuse-allegations-made-against-45-maltese-priests-in-11-years
Yep Tom, that's why I put in links. Of course Dawkins is not going to personally arrest the Pope, he's just going to support a lawyer doing the work for him. Not sure what your point is there.
ReplyDeleteAs for Malta, reading the links you provide, it looks like the new processes set up in 1999 (thus "11 years" which relates to historical cases that may have occurred many years earlier but under investigation since the 1999 response team was set up) are working.
The response team was set up in 1999 and receives reports from both the Maltese and Gozitan dioceses, a spokesman for the Curia said.
The spokesman said disciplinary actions are always taken by the bishops or major superiors of religious orders when allegations are proven.
..he said the judge presiding over the response team in such cases informs the alleged victims of their right to follow their case civilly.
Asked whether the Maltese dioceses could say with certainty that they did not know of any priest accused of any form of child abuse who was currently working with children, the spokesman said: "The dioceses can ensure every alleged case that is brought forward to the response team is investigated to ensure any case of abuse is stopped by removing the perpetrator from pastoral ministry related to the nature of the abuse".
The spokesman said the local Church's policy document, published in 1999, clearly stated that it was mandatory for all institutions to report all cases of child sexual abuse to the team's judge.
Last year Archbishop Paul Cremona set up a second response team so that one would focus on adult cases while the other on cases of minors. This was also meant to send the message that the Church was taking allegations of child abuse seriously.
So, no cover up, open process, mandatory reporting and clear statements that the victims can go to the secular authorities for a civil trial.
Will the Church ever be rid of sex abuse? Probably not in the same way that neither will schools, a percentage of families (relatives perpetuate the vast majority of sexual abuse) and other organisations will never quite be rid of it.
However, the culture of hiding from the problem is being reversed, and the various policies put in place to try to prevent situations of future abuse have been praised by independent bodies as a model other organisations might wish to consider.
So again I ask, what is your point?
All Catholics who believe he is innocent, should look-forward to his arrest and questioning by British Police - so all those baseless allegations and false rumours made against him can be put to rest.
ReplyDeleteI mean what does an innocent man like him have to fear?
Even should British Police prosecutors feel there is a case to answer, apologists who believe Ratzinger is innocent of covering-up sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, should welcome the chance for him to prove his innocence in an open court of law.
After-all he would have the best team of defence-lawyers money could buy.
Anyone who is trying to rally-against his questioning by British Police clearly thinks he has something to hide.
My pick is he'll now call the trip off, using some other excuse, rather than risking being arrested.
See ya.
Paul.
Unfortunately Paul, the time between arrest and trial can be years.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the current bigoted anti-Catholic climate with irrational atheists baying for blood, the trial would hardly be fair.
It would be as warped and one sided as the media coverage.
There appears to be little difference between the mob that condemned Jesus to death and the Dawkins/Hitchens mobs.
Paul, even you can prove that these allegations are baseless, by simply utilising your keyboard. The problem with atheists is that they never seek the Truth. No surprise that "Delusion" springs to mind.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Holy Father not going to the UK, you and like-minded have really got to be kidding.Ever heard of Thomas More who was martyred because he refused to simply agree to a 'non-issue today' such as divorce.Do you really think that Pope Benedict would be afraid to confront Satan and his cohorts. Of course, Satan does not exist today because we are adults. I wonder if science has disproved the existence of Satan?
MZALA haa haa haaa imagine seeking a scientific research grant to investigate the existence of Satan! Perhaps we should take money away from medical research whilst we are at it - just to prove the non-existence of fairies or Father Christmas as well. The Bible also talks of Unicorns, Lion headed angels and a species of Giant Men. Using your mind-think it’s up to archeologists ,biologists and the science community to prove they didn’t exist!
ReplyDeleteZen you are using the same persecution-mode exhibited by The Vatican with its ill-conceived and outlandish claims that compared media reports on Ratzingers role in cover-ups, reports on child-abuse etc with a kind of anti-Semitism. No one, and that includes the leaders of churches, should be exempt the law of the land. There are now three well-published cases where Ratzinger in his former role has been found complicit in the cover-ups that occurred. This is no media-beat-up, nor is there any evil-atheist underworld orchestrating these reports. These are the lawyers/family and the victims themselves giving us the grizzly facts. I am willing to bet you $100 there will be more incriminating reports on Ratzinger to follow. So put your money where your mouth is and take my $100 and donate it with glee to say ‘Regnum Christi’ to assist them propagating the ‘good’ work/word carried-on by its moral-reprobate founder.
Busy, gotta shoot.
Nice chatting.
Paul.
If you read the links, you will find the cases are groundless.
ReplyDeleteThere are now three well publicised media beat ups people like yourself are all too willing to believe.
I agree there will be more media beat ups coming out, and they will prove to be groundless, so I wont take your bet because you don't actually care about the evidence, just the fact that some-one publishes something negative is good enough for you.
"These are the lawyers/family and the victims themselves giving us the grizzly facts"
ReplyDeleteRight. And we all know that they have nothing whatsoever to gain from this.
(and there are no bears involved, Paul)