Richard Dawkins, the atheist campaigner and evolutionist, is planning to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he comes to Britain later this year for “crimes against humanity”.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, are seeking advice from human rights lawyers as to what legal action can be taken against the pope over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
It emerged this weekend that in 1985 when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases, the pope signed a letter arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys.
I am too angry to right a civil comment. Let’s just say that should they try that here, I would exercise my second amendment rights.
Better to arrest Dawkins for impersonating a human being.
Look, even though this link didn’t bring up an article (oddly enough that article does come up at the link from Anglican Mainstream) – it is a familiar and inaccurate statement that the CDF was in charge of sex abuse cases in 1985. That was not until 2001. That inaccuracy has been refuted in other articles over the past weekend, for example by Damian Thompson. Ratzinger was head of the CDF at the time a request to laicize this offending priest in Oakland was received, and the request was eventually approved. This is pathetic journalism, and maybe also pathetic legal practise by G. Robertson and his cronies, though it isn’t clear if the lawyers involved are actually making the same erroneous claims about the CDF in 1985 (or just believing the distorted journalism).
Why is it that the “New Atheism” is seeming more and more like a series of media stunts?
These are just a couple of dimwits looking for more press for their views. Ignore them.
It just was accidentally doubled in the browser window — try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html
Another enemy of Christianity, and probably Judiasm, gaining notoriety in the press.
Its odd that you don’t see the Western press providing an ‘up front platform’ for persons attacking Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or atheist leaders.
I wonder why?
This is actually a common tactic being used by progressive activists now for all sorts of people. One writer has called it “lawfare.”
Apologies for posting this link back to SF. The reason why I’m having to post back to SF is because the link to The National Law Journal article about this repellent practice requires registration, and I posted a good chunk of the article at SF:
http://standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25793
Again — The National Law Journal article puts this nasty little tactic into a larger context of a grander strategery by progressive activists. And it is that strategery that Dawkins is using.
If I were an atheist I really would cringe at the stupidity of my “leaders”
I don’t know about Dawkins, but that doesn’t sound like the work of Hitchens.
There is a witch hunt on and the liberal press are screaming for blood. Ruth Gledhill at the Times whould hang her head in shame with daily stories that are half baked and unreliable.
I see poor Pope Benedict standing like Christ before Pilate. He is silent whilst the crowd scream for his head and false charges are laid at his feet. He is suffering and the abusers are ignored…how does that work? Satan is on the rampage here
Come on, ladies an gentlemen, this should be a cause for LOL squared.
How can you be serious about this? Larry
Larry, was GB still a sane part of the world I would LOL. I fear though that the growing hatred of all things and persons Christian is becoming such a intrical part of the State mindset that these loonyburgers will have no problem finding official sanction for their proposal. It disgusts me that so far I have not seen any rebuttals by any official for this scheme.
Hey Larry Morse, as the National Law Journal piece points out, progressive activists have been having Israeli dignitaries arrested when they visit the UK too. It’s a larger strategy than simply wanting to have a Pope that they hate arrested.
For the sake of accuracy, this from Richard Dawkins, [url=http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,Marc-Horne—-TimesOnline,page4#478714]via his website[/url]:
[blockquote]I have just submitted the following comment to the Sunday Times page where the article is published. It will be interesting to see whether the moderators allow it.
Needless to say, I did NOT say “I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” or anything so personally grandiloquent. So all the vicious attacks on me for seeking publicity etc are misplaced. The headline is, in fact, a barefaced lie.
Marc Horne, the Sunday Times reporter, telephoned me out of the blue and asked whether I was aware of the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope’s visit. Yes, I said. He asked me if I was in favour of their initiative. Yes, I said, I am strongly in favour of it. 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
How the headline writer could go from there to “Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” is obscure to me.
The history is as follows. Christopher Hitchens first proposed to me the idea of a legal challenge to the Pope’s visit 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.
But the Sunday Times headline is a straight lie, and the paper should apologise, both to me and to Marc Horne, the author.
Richard Dawkins[/blockquote]
Dawkins’ light may be on, but no one’s home.
Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but since Benedict is technically a Head-of-State (Vatican City) isn’t he offered diplomatic immunity on some level (like, absolute level…)? I know the “crimes against humanity” charge may trump such a thing in some legal argument, but does Dawkins et al really want to relate His Holiness to Melosevic and the like?
Also, (as if this were serious) how would/could the PM (much less the Queen!) permit such a thing? We’d have Reformation-era nightmare on our hands if the Pope were in handcuffs on UK soil.
I may be wrong about this but I think that the Pope is also a head of state (Vatican City is a “country”) and as such has diplomatic immunity. Without going through more than the local magistrate, they can’t do anything. I think it will take a lot more than those two can come up with.
Is Dawkins usually as drunk as Hitchens?
These fellas have way too much time on their hands.
Evil, evil, evil. God bless and protect Pope Benedict, the best thing to happen to the RCC in my lifetime.
Well, if Michael Savage can’t go to the UK, it seems only fair.
Thanks for that link, Sarah, to a very interesting article.
And now, for goodness’ sake – someone has done his homework and put this on his blog:
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/dawkins-u-turns-clerical-abuse
(found on Anglican Mainstream)
In another article I read earlier today there was this, on the matter of distorted journalism:
“Take the way that The Times — which in the UK has led the way in promoting hysteria and distortion in this issue — reports that the taliban atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are planning to “arrest” Pope Benedict when he comes to the UK. In fact, as Dawkins spells out on his website, they are mounting a legal challenge aimed at whipping up public opinion against the papal visit. Rather than report this as a publicity gimmick, or at least point out how dubious are the legal arguments, The Times reports this as if it is a perfectly sensible response to established facts, and even enlists a semi-Catholic columnist to agree with the idea.
The mechanism of scandal exerts a fascination which increases in line with the tension.”
– which seemed to me to support Sarah’s point about the article she linked to.