ilovefuzz.com

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece
What are your opinions on Richard Dawkins attempting to arrest The Pope?

Putting my religious views aside (I am agnostic/atheist), I still believe The Pope should be arrested....somewhat. Only problem is the uproar that can/will/may be caused by it. Sadly though, if no action is taken it appears that The Church still trumps over the law.

As some one from a catholic family [mind you I am not a one] I agree.

Yes, please.

I'm just worried all hell will break loose if it happens.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvaSSLQpPxA[/youtube]

as a protestant christian, i think they should go for it. when you're placed in a powerful position, you should be held accountable for that much more.


at the same time, bad things are almost guaranteed to happen when you wage war with the catholic church.

the pope aint afraid of jail...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIWWjLYfm5o[/youtube]

i say lock him up...

throw away the key...

Here is something at always kind'a bugged me...
I know it's been said before but...

I highly doubt he'll be arrested. The Catholic Church has long been outside the law (and sometimes inside the law, controlling it). I realize no organization's perfect, each with its own sordid history, but few are quite as impressive/horrifying as theirs. Anyway, it's almost comical to think that after all this time (and with all their wealth and power), that anyone would try to arrest or stop them.

Sorry if that's offensive (I do hope this thread stays civil and relatively appropriate), but I think I stayed on the side of the facts.

mutmoo wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece
What are your opinions on Richard Dawkins attempting to arrest The Pope?

Although I'm all for it -- and am baffled that there's any question that anyone is above the law -- that article is standard incendiary News Corp bullshit.

Richard Dawkins wrote: 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/5366The 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.

I know arresting the Pope sounds fun n' shit,but what good will it do exactly?

Pirate wrote:I know arresting the Pope sounds fun n' shit,but what good will it do exactly?

Read the above. It's mostly to get publicity to stop the British taxpayer footing the bill, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
But on a bigger note, if this guy wasn't the pope, would there be any question that he should be arrested?
Say he was the head of the Moose lodge or something, and it came to light that he knew that Moose lodge grand poohbahs were molesting kids, but that protecting the moose lodge was the top priority, so he laid out instructions on how to deal with the situation that involved extracting oaths of secrecy form the molested kids, hushing up the whole thing, and moving the offending poohbah off to somewhere else where he did it again. Would you still say what good will it do exactly to arrest this guy?

Just because the catholic chirch is bigger than the moose lodge and that makes it politically inexpedient to arrest the guy in charge doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea.

I think it sucks that the law doesn't apply evenly to all people, but it selective depending on how important you are.

Take the case of Moose Lodge Grand Pooh Bah Stephen Kiesle, who tied up and sexually tormented two boys aged 11 and 13 on Moose Lodge property in California. Kiesle's superiors had written to the Moose Lodge head office in Wisconsin, beseeching him to remove the criminal from the Lodge. The man who is now the Big Kahuna Big Cheese High Pooh Bah was full of urgent moral advice in response. "The good of the Moose Lodge should be uppermost in the mind”. It should be understood that "particularly regarding the young age" of Mr. Kiesle, there might be great "detriment" caused "within the Moose Lodge community" if he were to be removed. In the ensuing decades, Kiesle went on to ruin the lives of several more children and was finally jailed by the secular authorities on a felony molestation charge in 2004. All this might have been avoided if he had been handed over to justice right away and if the Oakland Lodge had called the police rather than written to the office in Wisconsin where such distressing questions were muffled and suppressed.

Isn't it obvious?

Christopher Hitchens is more eloquent than I am:

Where is it written that the Roman Catholic Church is the judge in its own case? Above or beyond the law? Able to use private courts? Allowed to use funds donated by the faithful to pay hush money to the victims or their families?

The fact that this hasn't already been done baffles me

But whatever. I keep to myself and make sure I do the right thing and keep my integrity in tact.

Disclaimer: I don't believe in religion, the monetary system or any elected personnel. I don't believe in giving parents all the responsibility, the way people are sentenced and judged and also a figurative God.

Christianity is based on fear
Christianity preys on the innocent
Christianity is based on dishonesty
Christianity is extremely egocentric
Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
Christianity breeds authoritarianism
Christianity is cruel
Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
Christianity produces sexual misery
Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
Christianity depreciates the natural world
Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
Christianity sanctions slavery
Christianity is misogynistic
Christianity is homophobic
The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings
The Bible is riddled with contradictions
Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions

if I had it my way I'd wipe the memory of christ and his sheeple from existence...sorry i'm not trying to piss anyone off but this is one subject that makes my blood boil ...BUT i'm not just pointing the finger at Christanity... all religions are a way to shackle man down and blunt the soul's senses...if we want true peace in the world we must eradicate ALL religions on the face of the earth...there is no other way...just take a look at history...

Gonna go ahead and say that all of my Christian friends use Christianity as nothing more than a reason to be a generally good person. Most of them travel with groups to help rebuild places after disasters, like Mississippi after Katrina, and now they're working to go to Haiti to build houses there. No bullshit Bible-pimping involved. They've centered their lives on love.

Plus, they keep me, an openly gay agnostic close and never try to preach to me. They're actually wonderful people, and great friends.

Christianity, historically, has been used for vile, horrible acts. But so has the very idea of land ownership-- and let's not forget money. It's not the religion itself, it's the people using it. If religion didn't exist, people would still be evil. It's an easy scapegoat and nothing more.

That said, I don't get how people, including my friends, actually believe that stuff.