During the last scrumdown about Ratzinger in these hallowed threads, I suggested that the best thing that could happen is that, as soon as his feet hit the ground at Heathrow in September, Ratzinger is arrested for his crimes of protecting known paedophiles. *Drum roll*

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

Should be great "News Theatre" at least… 😈

At least it should save the taxpayer a few quid if his trip is cut short.

Nice one RD. Gawd bless 'im

Probably the least popular nazi pope…

Glad people like RD are pointing these things out while others bury their heads in the sand.

That Richard Dawkins should get right down off his cross if you ask me

Dawkins is simply jumping on the Let's bash the Pope (!)' bandwagon, and trying to get free publicity.

Oh look, it's worked… 🙄

Like this will ever happen. Dawkins knows this. Can't hurt his next book sales though…

Let's bash the Pope (!)' bandwagon

Yes. How dare people bash the infallible one for inaction over child abuse.

Talkemada – Member
Dawkins is simply jumping on the Let's bash the Pope (!)' bandwagon

Well Squawkins always has been a bit of a bishop basher, so I guess the obvious progression is Papal Pummeling

It's not the criticism of the Pope for his mishandling of this whole sordid affair, it's Dawkins' blatant attention-seeking. He's not doing this because he really gives a toss about the abuse scandal; he just wants publicity.

To me, Dawkins is just another zealot. One thats getting rich on his zealotry. And his acolytes are no different from the 'believers in fairy stories' that they are quick to pour scorn on. Just maybe not as happy… 😀

I'm not a Dawkins fan, but fair play to him for trying something. Doubt he'll get far though.

Need some pics:

Pretty much in the same category as the "let's arrest Tony Blair for war crimes" publicity whoring that went on a few years back.

That said, anything that makes the Catholic church hierarchy squirm a bit more over this whole scandalous state of affairs can only be a good thing.

<pedant> According to the Great Infallible Wikipedia, "The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai … means one who is zealous on behalf of God". So technically RD isn't a zealot 😉 </pedant>

But seriously, I don't agree with Talkemada's point. I'm not sure how you can equate Dawkins' followers with 'believers in fairy stories'; those of us who agree with RD do so on the basis of his reasoned arguments, not some blind faith.

Also, I'd like to see some evidence that religious people are happier than atheists, as you imply. I'm happy. I don't feel I need to do good or end up burning in hell. I do good because I want to – somewhat more altruistic than a fear of the nasty things that will happen to me if I don't.

I can see how RD does annoy people – his militant atheism doesn't naturally sit well with me – but how many of his critics have actually read his books? The God Delusion is a masterclass in logic and reason and he explains his position well. I suggest you read it, after which we can have a rather better informed debate.

I do good because I want to – somewhat more altruistic than a fear of the nasty things that will happen to me if I don't.

Me too -I'm not an atheist.

God Delusion – read it, can't critique the science, but he doesn't really understand the subtleties of Christian theology, so while his philosophical arguments have an internal logic to them, they do leave a 'so what' hanging in the air at the end. Nothing new in that comment mind, people like Alastair McGrath, amongst others, have made that point repeatedly.

Hi ditch_jockey. Thanks for the considered response. I'll be honest, I do hold my breath a bit whenever I air my atheist views 🙂 Lets see how long we can keep the debate reasonable… if we discount the nazi-pope images anyway (like I say, I'm not a militant atheist).

I'm sure you do also have altruistic tendencies. I hope that we all do. This strengthens the argument, though, that one does not need religion to be a good person. I am wandering from my point though that one does not need religion to be happy, so I'll stop there.

Can you expand on the 'subtleties of Christian theology'? I have not read anything by Alistair McGrath, but trusty Wikipedia has given me an outline of his arguments, and I'm far from convinced. I shall read on, though.

RD's point is that there is no need for a 'so what?' question. Just because life exists does not mean there is a 'purpose' for it.

'Not understanding the subtleties of Christian theology' isn't really a fair counter-argument.
Most Christians dont (nor would they try to) understand the subtleties of say, Yanomami indian theology, yet I'm confident all but the most open minded would rubbish the belief of these native Americans. The christian would to all intents be an 'atheist' to all religions except their own.
As Dawkins says though "some of us just go one god further"
On altruism; Vampire bats (among many social animals, for that matter) have been shown to be highly altruistic to non related group members.
Does that mean Vampire bats 'must' have religion?
Anyway I'll let you get back to knockin' the Pope…

Dawkins is simply jumping on the Let's bash the Pope (!)' bandwagon

Agreed. I'm going to carry on bashing the bishop instead.

From the Times article:

"The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed 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. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases."

This sort of decision is disgusting, but not surprising. These people are seriously **** up. If there is a God and he's the sort of God the Christians claim him to be – then I seriously don't believe he'll be welcoming these disgusting, perverted control freaks into his kingdom. They are not above the law and sexually abusing children is a horrible, vicious cowardly crime.

Ah yes, "theology". Unicornology, leprechaunology and fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-gardenology, eh?

And in the red corner…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5np9g1ggc

The religion part is largely irrelevant in this issue though.

Basically you have a "CEO and public spokesperson" of an enormous multinational organisation that apparently decided during his time as a "Senior Manager" to cover up two child rape cases as he thought they would be bad for PR.

Nicely summed up, GrahamS.

Indeed. +1.

but he doesn't really understand the subtleties of Christian theology

He does not need to, the main thrust, of his argument, is that there is no god , no evidence of your god and nothing objective to support your claim. Whatever your subtleties [ and like your faith they exist only in your head and not the objective world we all experience] they are meaningless if there is no god…perhaps you failed to understand Dawkins point?

As other said nicely put GrahamS – it is hard to defend his position of putting the reputation of his
Organisation above the rights of the victims of abuse and the rights of society to be protected from these abusers. Shameful, shameful behaviour … the religious aspect is unimportant we would be as outraged if it was the Boys scout movement …. but give the Church role as a moral authority and leader of the world it is far worse and they really have been hoisted up by their own petard

On altruism; Vampire bats (among many social animals, for that matter) have been shown to be highly altruistic to non related group members.

If it has no evolutionary utility then how could such behaviour evolve or survive? If it has utility then it's not altruism.

On a more serious note, GrahamS has made the point better than most on the many threads touching on this topic.

What GrahamS said.

It's all about protecting the "organisation" by covering up crimes. Very personal inexcusable crimes. Nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with protecting the Church.

It's not the criticism of the Pope for his mishandling of this whole sordid affair, it's Dawkins' blatant attention-seeking. He's not doing this because he really gives a toss about the abuse scandal; he just wants publicity.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Is it entirely unreasonable to think that someone who has long campaigned against the church/faith etc might be angry at someone using their religion/position to cover up their crimes? If it were anyone else, would you be thinking differently? What if it were a parent of a molested child? How do you know he hasn't been abused and is taking it as a personal insult?

Too many conclusions jumped to.

Maybe he just watches BBC news – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uEUtc2scy0

The reality of this is, that Dawkins won't ever get anywhere near the Pope. He knows this, the Pope knows this, and if the Pope were to make any trip to these shores, the authorities would ensure that security would prevent such a thing from taking place. If Dawkins had any real intention to carry out his threat, then he would have been better to keep quiet. As it is, he's blown his cover, so will never get the opportunity.

Regardless of your own beliefs, you cannot discount the power and influence the Catholic Church has, globally. Do you seriously think the Vatican would let a jumped up self-publicist get anywhere near their leader? Really? Not to mention the international outrage that would ensue following such an event. If such a thing were to take place on these shores, Britain would immediately become a target for Catholic Fundamentalists. Over a billion people on Earth are Catholic. I'd wager there's at least a few nutters in amongst them. Do you think the British authorities would allow this? No way. Not to mention the difficulty this would prove, economically. Most of Europe has powerful Catholic lobbies, as does South America, the USA, large parts of Africa, etc.

I am in no way defending the Pope over this matter, and I've said this before. It's a disgusting shameful mess, and people are rightfully angry.

So, when's Dawkins' next book out? 🙄

German soldier chasing a Pole through the Ghetto. Pole arrives at a brick wall and soldier raises his rifle to shoot. Suddenly God's Voice is heard.
"Don't shoot. This man is destined to be Pope"
German soldier – "What about me?"
God – "Oh, OK, you can be the one after".

Exit joke-teller, plus coat.

jumped up self-publicist

Gosh!

"Ooooh god, you are so big and just so, well, really huge.
I can tell you we're all really impressed down here…"

The reality of this is, that Dawkins won't ever get anywhere near the Pope.

No, it's a symbolic gesture to highlight the travesty of giving a state visit (at considerable expense) to someone who covered up child rape on a large scale.

It seems to me the most interesting part of the child abuse issue(in relation to the religious aspect), is that the abusing priests cannot believe in God at all despite being deeply involved in a religious structure. If they had any actual faith in God, judgement and afterlife surely they would be too afraid to abuse children because they would fear later consequences in Hell?

The pope is seeking some kind of automatic respect for the Catholic Church and yet he 'employs' people who by their own acts cannot believe in God and are being seen not to have belief – or alternatively they think they are so significant as individuals, God will not be able to punish them in any way.

If clutching at straws of justification I suppose they may be able to claim they 'repent', but that's not convincing as they are repeat offenders so any remorse cannot be sincere. If they are 'swayed by the devil' so very easily, I would think it their place to follow as parishioners rather than lead the church as they could be leading everyone to evil if so easily influenced.

I find religion bizarre.

No, it's a symbolic gesture

Exactly. One designed to gain loads of publicity. For himself.

'Look at me I'm Richard Dawkins Leader of the Atheists and I'm going to arrest the Pope my new book is out on Monday at all good bookshops'.

Sad that Dawkins is using the terrible abuse of children to gain publicity like this.

The reality of this is, that Dawkins won't ever get anywhere near the Pope. He knows this, the Pope knows this, and if the Pope were to make any trip to these shores, the authorities would ensure that security would prevent such a thing from taking place

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gAGu6Bt6Aw

If they had any actual faith in God, judgement and afterlife surely they would be too afraid to abuse children because they would fear later consequences in Hell?

Not really, I'm fairly sure that all the faiths effectively say providing you repent on your deathbed you'll be allowed into the nice area, regardless of your mistakes.

'Look at me I'm Richard Dawkins Leader of the Atheists and I'm going to arrest the Pope

Who better to raise a case against the pope than someone who can publicise it well and afford to go through the process?

Coffeeking; if Dawkins is so concerned about Human Rights abuses, why isn't he out trying to arrest half the World's leaders then?

The fact that he, and everyone else, knows it's not going to happen, proves this is just a publicity stunt. As for the actual reasons; how is this supposed to help the victims of abuse?

Lifer; 'nutters' are unpredictable, but believe me, security will be tighter than tight. Dawkins wouldn't be going for the snatch, he's not stupid. So, he simply would not be in a position to carry out his threats.

"Look at me, I'm (insert stage name here) Pope Benedict leader of the catholics and I'm going to protect the paedophiles my new tour is coming up in September, invoiced to all good UK taxpayers everywhere."

Sad that this ratfink scumbag and his fellow criminals haven't been arrested yet and it takes the actions of a private citizen or two (let's not forget the great Chris Hitchens is also on board) to even attempt it.

Talkemada – it doesn't matter anyway, Dawkins wouldn't need to be anywhere near the Pope.

It's always handy to have your own state to hide behind if you're going to cover up massive crimes against children.

let's not forget the great Chris Hitchens is also on board

You really are quite the atheist fanboy, aren't you?