http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290388 Interesting in a lot of ways. Excessive or not (I personally think it's a bit overboard), it'll be something to see if this ever gains steam.
He had better have documentary evidence of specific acts of knowledge and a specific law that that he can prove that the Pope violated. Without such evidence, he could be facing a civil lawsuit of his own.
I see something like this strengthening the Catholic Church's stance. It will make them circle the wagons and take the position of victim. "Everyone is against us! Just because we're Catholic!"
from Dawkins' website: [rquoter] 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 Horme, 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 [/rquoter]
Even spearhead is a strong word. Someone else is spearheading the movement and has looked to utilize Dawkins resources. The distortion of the whole situation is the most disturbing thing here. Is there any news out there that isn't completely distorted?
Don't really care what level wizard you claim to be or how funny the hat you wear is, you break the law, you go to jail.
Sigh, I'll just repost from earlier threads found here http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=184982&page=3: Once again, celibacy or the church's teachings on sex are not the reason for the pedophilia scandals You can run down the numerous and ample data I provided in the previous argument with glynch found here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthrea...t=184309&page=4 I will quote again from Weigel: "Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members)." And from Raymond Arroyo: http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?b...D=942&blog_ID=2 "On Tuesday, the American bishops released their annual national audit of all charges in the last year. It reports that there were 398 new allegations in the entire United States last year. Six of them were from current minors; the rest were older incidents only now being reported. Over 70% of alleged offenders are already deceased, suspended from ministry, or dismissed from the priesthood. In a Church of some 60 million Catholics, aggressive action has seen the problem reduced to six cases of alleged current abuse. That did not make the news." That right there shows that the numerous changes Benedict has imposed are starting to work, to drive out this element that weaved it's way into the church and priesthood. Will it ever fully go away? As Catholics we believe man will never be free from sin save in Jesus Christ. That said we can do things to get the instances down to a minimum, and I'd say 6 cases in 2009 isn't perfect, but it's pretty good in relation to the rest of society. To the cover up or purported cover up. With the WI Fr. Murphy case, it seems as if the Times story is completely lack in the truth. Sources here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...2UyOWIzNDVkNDM= Includes a detailed timeline of how the Times article was incorrect in it's allegations with all of the relevant facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html This is from a liberal reporter for the National Catholic Reporter: For details on the German case, including 80 cites showing how the Times and Christopher Hitchens are just wrong on their claims that Benedict was covering anything up, go here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/ar...tics/ap0329.htm For a look at the current Oakland case that came up: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/200...frocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html Look at all the evidence before you believe the Times' story and treat Catholics unfairly.
That's nice, but that's not really the point of the thread, nor has anyone tried to make it that. I know you're a Golden Domer and all, so carrying the flag for the Catholic church isn't out of the ordinary, but your sources appear to be... about as biased as humanly possible.
This. It's an idiotic idea, and given Dawkins' past agenda, this is clearly not an interest motivated by the well being of children or a sense of justice.
Then you haven't read many of them, they are addressing the actual documents in question and laying out a timeline for how the Times story is simply incorrect.
First of all, most of the links you posted are busted. And second of all, almost all of them come from faith based websites that have a direct interest in protecting the Pope and the Catholic Church. There's just an inherent bias. I can't speak to their factual correctness or incorrectness, that will be for whatever court to decide, but it would be nice to see somebody impartial weigh in on it.
At least he has a reason to be pompous, he has actually contributed to both science and the public understanding of science. The one person who I find the most insufferable is Bill Maher. Has any man ever been more smug for less reason?
I watched Maher's Religulous on TV yesterday. I'm not a religious guy, but it was pretty bad. And if Geoffrey Robertson is behind this initiative, I think there probably is some legitimacy to it. He's an authority on international law and crimes against humanity (e.g. his book).
maher is a polarizing personality. i personally find him hilarious as a comedian/satirist/social critic and i love "real time" and "religulous." i like dawkins too, but i'm not a very big fan of hitchens.
