12 Apr 10
Originally posted by Starrmanoh this thing made me giggle my ass off. i now have newfound respect for dawkins.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece
I simply cannot think of a more awesome thing to do, even if just for the lulz.
not for hitchens though, i still believe he is a moron.
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyif the pope wouldn't be a symbol of christianity would you defend him so? dawkins is not trying to have him tortured and killed. simply arrested for a crime and he is gathering proof that would justify said arrest. then, if the pope is innocent he will be acquited at the trial.
The bottom line is that if the Pope were not a symbol of Christiandom he would not be a target by Dawkins. Its a sad state of affairs really. Dawkins is nothing more than an anti-Christian shill. In fact, it is not really about religion, its about Christianity. He is Christian hater much like TOO.
I don't argue that the Catholic church has had an issu ...[text shortened]... than causes to attack those within Christiandom? In short, the man is on an atheistic jihad.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziSure, I would be happy to have this whole issue sorted out publicly. But you cannot deny that Dawkins is ideologically motivated. He has very public stated his antipathy towards Christianity and this latest attack against the Pope must be read in that context. There is certainly no evidence that the Pope has committed crimes against humanity; try as hard as it did, the New York Times failed to produce any such evidence over the past month.
if the pope wouldn't be a symbol of christianity would you defend him so? dawkins is not trying to have him tortured and killed. simply arrested for a crime and he is gathering proof that would justify said arrest. then, if the pope is innocent he will be acquited at the trial.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot quite true. Absolute secrecy applies to the priest but this is very different to concealment. If the penitent has committed a serious crime, the priest may ask him to reveal his crime to authorities, even withholding absolution if the penitent refuses.
Systematically hiding, e.g. there is institutionalized concealment of all that is said in the confessional.
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau Ki consider covering up for pedophiles a crime against humanity.
Sure, I would be happy to have this whole issue sorted out publicly. But you cannot deny that Dawkins is ideologically motivated. He has very public stated his antipathy towards Christianity and this latest attack against the Pope must be read in that context. There is certainly no evidence that the Pope has committed crimes against humanity; try as hard as it did, the New York Times failed to produce any such evidence over the past month.
i don't deny dawkins is a fervent anti-christian and anti-anyreligion for that matter. fervent to the point of sounding just as fundamentalist as a muslim jihad yeller or a televanghelist young earth christian.
what i give him credit for is finding loopholes in the brittish system that would enable him to bring this to court. in theory at least. my respect dawkins.
and he has proof. didn't he say he has a letter the benedict signed? isn't that proof? now if benedict can produce evidence saying that letter is forged, or taken out of context, the benedict should be allowed to do that. but at a trial. he shouldn't be given a pass just because he allegedly is the direct representative of christ on earth. (i think jesus is still facepalming himself in heaven for having a role in creating the papacy)
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziSystematic covering-up of abuse may count as a crime against humanity (I am not a lawyer so I do not know.) Again, though, there is no evidence to support this accusation against the Pope.
i consider covering up for pedophiles a crime against humanity.
i don't deny dawkins is a fervent anti-christian and anti-anyreligion for that matter. fervent to the point of sounding just as fundamentalist as a muslim jihad yeller or a televanghelist young earth christian.
what i give him credit for is finding loopholes in the brittish system that wou think jesus is still facepalming himself in heaven for having a role in creating the papacy)
and he has proof. didn't he say he has a letter the benedict signed? isn't that proof?
The article that Starrman cites refers to a letter in 1985 in which Cardinal Ratzinger said he would delay defrocking a priest. This is not, however, evidence of a cover-up. The priest had already been convicted by a court and his bishop had suspended him from ministry. So there could not be any 'cover-up'; everything had been revealed. The article is wrong to suggest that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was responsible for sex abuse allegations (it did not take on this responsibility until 2001) and the priest would be defrocked in 1987 anyway. The issue is a massive beat-up.
e shouldn't be given a pass just because he allegedly is the direct representative of christ on earth.
Hey, I am not saying that the Pope should be given a pass. What I am saying is that Dawkins really has no evidence and calls to arrest the Pope only undermine his credibility. It strikes me as incredibly nasty.
12 Apr 10
The Pope, the President of the U.S. , newspaper editors around the world and a host of other "leaders" of the world are guilty directly or indireclty of covering up a great many crimes.
To think otherwise is extremely naive.
These guys,(like the C.I.A. for example), are just a bunch of murderers,psycopaths and generally corrupt people who are the instruments on the Illuminati.
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kif he really has no proof then he will be turned down by a court. so what is the problem?
Systematic covering-up of abuse may count as a crime against humanity (I am not a lawyer so I do not know.) Again, though, there is no evidence to support this accusation against the Pope.
[b]and he has proof. didn't he say he has a letter the benedict signed? isn't that proof?
The article that Starrman cites refers to a letter in 1985 in which ...[text shortened]... calls to arrest the Pope only undermine his credibility. It strikes me as incredibly nasty.[/b]
if that letter exists the benedict will be allowed to defend himself against it. let me put it this way: if someone had proof you, joe ordinary, ordered someone assasinated, should you or shouldn't you brought to court to answer this accusation?
Dawkins really has no evidence
isn't that up to a judge to decide? are we passing guilty or not guilty verdicts on conversation alone now? what use is a tribunal anyway then?
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by karoly aczellet's not exaggerate now.
The Pope, the President of the U.S. , newspaper editors around the world and a host of other "leaders" of the world are guilty directly or indireclty of covering up a great many crimes.
To think otherwise is extremely naive.
These guys,(like the C.I.A. for example), are just a bunch of murderers,psycopaths and generally corrupt people who are the instruments on the Illuminati.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziif he really has no proof then he will be turned down by a court. so what is the problem?
if he really has no proof then he will be turned down by a court. so what is the problem?
if that letter exists the benedict will be allowed to defend himself against it. let me put it this way: if someone had proof you, joe ordinary, ordered someone assasinated, should you or shouldn't you brought to court to answer this accusation?
[b]Dawkins reall ...[text shortened]... uilty or not guilty verdicts on conversation alone now? what use is a tribunal anyway then?[/b]
Because courts, generally, do not hear criminal hearings unless a preliminary hearing indicates that there is sufficient evidence for the prosecution to proceed. There are very good reasons for this: court cases can result in severe negative perception; they are costly; they can be traumatic and exhausting; and finally, there may be an ulterior motive for unnecessary litigation (such as, I suspect in this case, trying to humiliate the Pope.) If Dawkins has evidence, then perhaps he has a case against the Pope. The article cited in the OP does not indicate any evidence and certainly the current media campaign has found nothing.
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau KBringing the leader of an organisation that has been found to have been covering up child abuse for the last 50yrs to face some police questions is 'incredibly nasty'? I know you like to defend the Catholic Church to the hilt, but even by your standards that is a rather absurd comment to make.
Systematic covering-up of abuse may count as a crime against humanity (I am not a lawyer so I do not know.) Again, though, there is no evidence to support this accusation against the Pope.
[b]and he has proof. didn't he say he has a letter the benedict signed? isn't that proof?
The article that Starrman cites refers to a letter in 1985 in which ...[text shortened]... calls to arrest the Pope only undermine his credibility. It strikes me as incredibly nasty.[/b]
What is 'incredibly nasty', is the four month wait for an apology form the CC with regard to the Murphy Report, and the even more amazing fact that as of yet no one has been interviewed under police caution about these revelations.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobBringing the leader of an organisation that has been found to have been covering up child abuse for the last 50yrs to face some police questions is 'incredibly nasty'?
Bringing the leader of an organisation that has been found to have been covering up child abuse for the last 50yrs to face some police questions is 'incredibly nasty'? I know you like to defend the Catholic Church to the hilt, but even by your standards that is a rather absurd comment to make.
What is 'incredibly nasty', is the four month wait for an ...[text shortened]... act that as of yet no one has been interviewed under police caution about these revelations.
Yes. It is nasty given that the Pope did not take responsibility of sex abuse allegations until 2001 and has achieved significant reforms to help victims.
What is 'incredibly nasty', is the four month wait for an apology form the CC with regard to the Murphy Report, and the even more amazing fact that as of yet no one has been interviewed under police caution about these revelations.
Firstly, the Church did apologise, before and after the publication of the Murphy Report. The Pope personally apologised to victims when he visited America and again when in Australia. Archbishop Martin apologised on behalf of the Church when the Murphy Report was released. The Pope expressed his own sorrow and outrage only a few days later and a month afterward when the Irish bishops met with him.
Secondly, the failure of the police to interview, and prosecute, bishops responsible for cover-ups is indeed appalling. Perhaps your criticism is better directed at Irish authorities rather than the Pope.
12 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyMoral authority doesn't come from any religion or Jesus for that matter. You're right- people should get a clue about that 😉
People should get a clue and read who Jesus attacked. It was the religious leaders of his day. The moral authority does not come from the Pope.