Richard Dawkins: I will arrest the Pope

[sgreger1]

I say jail the pope and burn the whole thing down (figuratively). The church (as an institution) has gotten away with much in the past because it was in control and people were not educated. For them to be mass raping young boys in this day and age and trying to play it off as "too bad, I’m the pope/priest/cardinal, sent here by God" is just the last straw. I agree with you DEF, I went to mainly Christian schools as a kid and many of them, so I saw just about every kind of Christianity and have heard the bible explained 10 different ways by 10 different denominations, and by far the Catholics are the furthest removed from the reality of what the bible teaches.


If you read the bible, Jesus refers to all of us as sons of God, and he was (according to the bible) just a gentle hippy type that preached getting along and doing the right thing. I don’t have a problem with religion because for the most part I think it helps people become inclined to do the right thing and follow the basic rules we all should have, but all this dogma and ritual the Catholics have somehow attached to Jesus and Mary and whoever else are just way too out there.
Jesus would not have endorsed the crusades or burning scientists for observing what was obviously happening around them (like the earth not being flat) and if Jesus were the son of God he would surely have a special place in hell reserved for old men who abuse young children. On top of that the bible seems to be pretty anti-homosexuality in some ways so once again these priests are just making up the rules as they go.

Burn it down and go back to real Christianity where people believe what they believe and try to be good people and find hope in a god. Religion isn't what cases wars etc, it's the perversion of the basic message that all religions have (be good, don't kill/steal etc) that causes extremism. Look at the Muslims, same thing, most people read the Koran and become moderates, but there’s always that 10% that take the message all wrong and somehow turns it into a "must kill the other side" edict from God.

[texasmade]

The church (as an institution) has gotten away with much in the past because it was in control and people were not educated.

not much has changed.

[tom502]

Christianity today, is the cult of Paul, and not the teachings of Jesus.

[bakerbarber]

I heard, read somewhere, or was told that in the middle ages priests were permitted to have wives. the problem became that women generally living longer than men became a burden to the church. They had all these widows that needed taken care of after their husbands died.

So some time around this period the rule came down that priests were to be unwed and serve god and their parishioners.

At this point it takes a person of strong faith with a will, a calling, and a purpose to become a priest. Or some goofy weirdo who may have urges and cravings that result in the worst kind of assault and abuse of trust and power.

If you let priests get married and take care of their own families you get genuine individuals who are capable of providing support and guidance.

My wife's catholic and I sat through classes listening to a guy who probably never enjoyed the embrace of a woman explain to me the inner workings of a monogamous relationship in the house of the lord. Some guy showing off his scotch collection and being coddled by a bunch of old nuns is giving ME advice on how best to be a married man?!?

Never made sense to me. Then he handed me a laminated card with income amounts across the top and number of children down the axis. You were supposed to follow the chart to the amount to tithe (before taxes) every Sunday. I flipped out. I threw the thing at him. He said if we did not swear to be active members of his church and raise our children in their religion he wouldn't marry us.

needless to say the wife won. She did toss in the trash the first stack of tithing envelopes that showed up in the mail.

I believe in a higher being and that life's complexities are not random or that our existence is by chance. I don't believe that to hold these beliefs I need to cough up 10% of my gross earnings and do the sit kneel stand shuffle. I can get into heaven and believe in god without laying kickbacks into the stream to buy badass pope hats.

Am I agnostic?

[texasmade]

baker read that link i posted above

[spirit72]

Re: Richard Dawkins: I will arrest the Pope

This is starting to get epic, now Richard Dawkins is planning to nail the pope (no pun intended) on his trip to Britain and detain him for "crimes against humanity" as well as argue that he does not have diplomatic immunity. They plan to exploit the legal principle used to nick late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. He was seized on a medical visit there in 1998.

Is Dawkins sober enough to read the Pope his rights?


Or is it Hitchens that's the lush? I can't remember.

[lobstershack]

That is all.


Edit: Sorry, that isn't. My view on this is that the Catholic Church has conspired to hide the abuse of children, endorses the AIDs Pandemic by prohibiting the use of condoms as doctrine, and fleeces millions every day out of their hard earned cash to prop up the lifestyles of men who dress like 16th century pimps who have taken a "vow of poverty", though Ratzinger's Prada shoes alone cost more than my monthly income. Also Crimen Solicitacionis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis

And another thing: give me diplomatic immunity and I'd go Lethal Weapon 3 (or 2?) on Ratzingers rat piss ass.

[justintempler]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fDp7pkEcJVQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed>

[Paul]

I do believe that the guilty persons should get convicted, btw the Pope it's the Vatican (a principate like luxembourg or Monaco) Chief pf State, therefore he has diplomatic immunity, so he could only be arrested if there was an international court that decided that way...do you see any state (beside the muslims) daring to "cross" the Church?....

[tom502]

When I was a Hare Krishna, once could be a monk, but it was not required, and people could get married as well. There have been some abuse cases. But the option to be married was there. Of course if you were gay you could not marry your same sex, as the objective of marriage was procreation.

[truthwolf1]

I think the problem is way worse then you could even imagine. They know that once a number of these priests go down that the entire house is going to collapse.

The more I hear about this stuff the more I get alienated from the small Lutheran social network church we go to.

[LHB]

I presume you "rule of law" fanatics agree also with international consensus regarding trying high level Bush Administration officials, including Bush and Cheney themselves, for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Just because they were heads of state doesn't mean they should be above the law, does it?


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12387
http://91.192.36.61/news/1/11309-pro...re-crimes.html

[sgreger1]

I presume you "rule of law" fanatics agree also with international consensus regarding trying high level Bush Administration officials, including Bush and Cheney themselves, for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Just because they were heads of state doesn't mean they should be above the law, does it?


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12387
http://91.192.36.61/news/1/11309-pro...re-crimes.html

Of course! Anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. I don't see any reason why ANY person should be above the law, especially in a democracy. But just out of curiousity, and this is a genuine question because I never understood it, exactly what crimes against humanity has Bush broken? I mean yes he started a war but all the allies agreed with the itnel at the time and even provided their own intel that Iraq had WMD's, and the geneva conventions only covers two armies at war, not a group of renegades that wear no uniform and have no allegiance to a specific country, so they don't get the same protections.


Just curiouse what crimes against humanity you would prosecute Bush for if you got a chance. I'd rather do it old school and tar and feather his ass in the town square for this patriot act nonesense. And techinically, if the wars are somehow criminal, than wouldn't it also be criminal for Obama to be continuuing them and doubling them in size? I mean if someone was robbing a bank and then I came in and took over the robbery, am I not equally at fault? Do I not get in trouble because "he started it!!"?


EDIT: And what constitutes a "rule of law fanatic" as you put it, someone who wants serial gay child rapists to answer for their crimes? Is this what we call fanatics now? People who don't want their children getting raped?

[justintempler]

The reason for the exclusion for heads of state is that not all governments agree on what constitutes a crime. We would be happy to prosecute leaders from other countries but what happens when Hugo Chavez decides he wants to prosecute one of our heads of state?

There may be a way to get at the Vatican without crossing that line. The Vatican doesn't have "nation status" at the UN only "obeserver status". So the legal question: Is the pope really a head of state that is protected or isn't he? (That's why lawyers are looking at it.)

[sgreger1]

With observer status only they could argue he is not head of state, but it's really about what country has the balls to do it. No one wants to piss off the church (for some reason), but child rape is something all countries (developed ones anyways) should agree constitutes a crime.