Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:
Mongo

Take Mikes advice. Stop jumping to conclusions.


In the Telegraph article Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' Apart from the headline, there is nothing to indicate this is the case.

It’s sad that people can’t see beyond the headline.

Clearly you didn't as a little further the article specifies.

It doesn't.

Thats my point, you think it does, but it doesn't. Read it again

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:
Mongo

Take Mikes advice. Stop jumping to conclusions.


In the Telegraph article Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' Apart from the headline, there is nothing to indicate this is the case.

It’s sad that people can’t see beyond the headline.

Clearly you didn't as a little further the article specifies.

It doesn't.

Thats my point, you think it does, but it doesn't. Read it again

''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.''

Then;

''Dawkin and Hitchens believe he should face criminal proceedings because his "first instinct" was to protect the church rather than the children in its care.''

quote:

Originally posted by 151:
this is becoming a save the holy bum boys thread.

Got to agree. It is terrifying that there are so many of them even in so small a space as a hifi forum spin off.

quote:

''The charges arise out of the Pope's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church while still a Cardinal and even as Pope. This weekend a new furor arose regarding a letter he signed in 1985 - while in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealing with sex abuse cases - which submitted that the “good of the universal church” should be considered before defrocking an American priest who had committed sex offences against two boys''

Thank you.

So he has been accused, not (yet) found guilty?. Under the jurisdiction of ?????

By whom is he accused? is it Dawkins or somebody else?

Many thanks in advance for clear, concise answers - Mongo?, anybody?

Quite separately, I presume that most of us on this forum would be opposed to being part of a society that promoted non-consenting sodomy (or even sexual abuse) amongst people and possibly even consenting sodomy between children (lets say under the age of 16) and older people?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by 151:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Totally - I'm simply saying I've not heard about any Sodomy.

This is not the same as denying it happened, is it? I'd rather remain calm and rational and not leap to any conclusions if thats OK with you.

your just playing with words talking shit.

Nope, you are totally wrong.

An apology from you is in order.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by 151:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Totally - I'm simply saying I've not heard about any Sodomy.

This is not the same as denying it happened, is it? I'd rather remain calm and rational and not leap to any conclusions if thats OK with you.

your just playing with words talking shit.

Nope, you are totally wrong.

An apology from you is in order.

Bollocks.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by 151:
this is becoming a save the holy bum boys thread.

Not really.

More about people leaping to conclusions and getting in a hissy fit if anyone refrains from jumping on the outrage bus.

Your faux abuse is doing you and your "arguments" no favours, 151. Nobody is actually defending abuse, no matter how many times you say they are.

Deal with it.

quote:

this is becoming a save the holy bum boys thread.

About time too. Been a while since the last one.

quote:

It is terrifying that there are so many of them even in so small a space as a hifi forum spin off.

So many of whom exactly?
You do realise you're making the very very fundamental mistake of confusing scepticism about an accused person's guilt with sympathy for - or even complicity in - their alleged crimes?
Personally I find it quite believable that the Pope did cover these things up and if he did I'd be more than happy for him to be arrested (which he never will be of course), but your attitude is the attitude of a lynch mob. It's one step away from smashing the windows of the paediatrician's house.

Well done Sniper

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:
Mongo

Take Mikes advice. Stop jumping to conclusions.


In the Telegraph article Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' Apart from the headline, there is nothing to indicate this is the case.

It’s sad that people can’t see beyond the headline.

Clearly you didn't as a little further the article specifies.

It doesn't.

Thats my point, you think it does, but it doesn't. Read it again

''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.''

Then;

''Dawkin and Hitchens believe he should face criminal proceedings because his "first instinct" was to protect the church rather than the children in its care.''

This is simply the opinion/conclusion of the person who wrote the article. Without this conclusion there is no point to the article.

However if you analyse the quotations from the Dawkins this is not the case.

The quotation from Dawkins reads

“This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence," Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, said.


Hitchens mentions he should face punishment.


Stephens states
“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens.

This is a general statement. It doesn’t state he, Dawkins or Hitchens will be taking legal action.

YOU HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:

You do realise you're making the very very fundamental mistake of confusing scepticism about an accused person's guilt with sympathy for - or even complicity in - their alleged crimes?
Personally I find it quite believable that the Pope did cover these things up and if he did I'd be more than happy for him to be arrested (which he never will be of course), but your attitude is the attitude of a lynch mob. It's one step away from smashing the windows of the paediatrician's house.

Your point will be beyond 151 and your humour will escape him.

M

YOU HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED[/QUOTE]

No need to shout chap.

And we'll see.

In any event even if they are planning to prosecute (or anyone else is for that) I very much doubt they are naive enough to believe it possible. Not in a world full of god botherers and moral cowards.

What they are doing is bringing attention and noise to bear on the humongous and sickening hypocracy that is the Catholic church.

May there vioces be loud and piercing.

God bless

All the best, Paul.

mick are you real?

quote:

Originally posted by 151:
MICK ARE YOU REAL?

He's a real pompous windbag.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:

quote:

this is becoming a save the holy bum boys thread.

About time too. Been a while since the last one.

quote:

It is terrifying that there are so many of them even in so small a space as a hifi forum spin off.

So many of whom exactly?
You do realise you're making the very very fundamental mistake of confusing scepticism about an accused person's guilt with sympathy for - or even complicity in - their alleged crimes?
Personally I find it quite believable that the Pope did cover these things up and if he did I'd be more than happy for him to be arrested (which he never will be of course), but your attitude is the attitude of a lynch mob. It's one step away from smashing the windows of the paediatrician's house.

Those who's first thought is how to sound clever and savvy by pronouncing how unbiased they are as if they themselves should be considered holy.

I am of the opinion that it is not scepticism, but in fact lazyminded pedantry and thus aquiescence by default.

A lynch mob metaphor is innapropriate as I wish anyone accused of the alleged crimes to be publicly prosecuted.

And as for the paediatrician gag? Just cheap. So I can see how the Lacey chap was amused.

quote:

Originally posted by 151:
mick are you real?

Mick?

Assuming you mean me - not only am I real, but I'm considerably more even-minded than you.

I also have a greater vocabulary.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by 151:
mick are you real?

Mick?

Assuming you mean me - not only am I real, but I'm considerably more even-minded than you.

I also have a greater vocabulary.

Oh Mike!

Cheap, tacky and egotistical to a fault.

Good to see you're unlikely to change; without the laugh-out-loud flabby pomposity you provide these interesting posts might well become tedious.

Mong O

I note that you are frequently posting immediately following posts from me.

If you are actually asking me anything, I cannot see your question; as you know, you are on my "ignore" list.

If ( as I expect ) you are having a dig, your efforts are wasted.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Mong O

I note that you are frequently posting immediately following posts from me.

If you are actually asking me anything, I cannot see your question; as you know, you are on my "ignore" list.

If ( as I expect ) you are having a dig, your efforts are wasted.

Of course they're not Mike.

Unless you've upped the dosage?

Mongo,

I'm not sure if I'm unbiased, but I wanted to be clear I wasn't defending the pope, as you and 151 seem very ready to make that assumption. Even now I wonder if you don't still think that's what I'm doing.

The paediatrician thing wasn't a gag. Do you not remember it actually happened?

The thing I think you have in common with a lynch mob is

quote:

confusing scepticism about an accused person's guilt with sympathy for - or even complicity in - their alleged crimes

I don't know how to take the bit about sounding clever. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Your suggestion that I see myself, or want others to see me, as "holy" seems a bit eccentric on the face of it, but I'll give it some thought. It never does any harm to examine one's motivation.

You still sound a bit worked up though.

Did he have a little, "clever" dig, David?

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
Mongo,

I'm not sure if I'm unbiased, but I wanted to be clear I wasn't defending the pope, as you and 151 seem very ready to make that assumption. Even now I wonder if you don't still think that's what I'm doing.

The paediatrician thing wasn't a gag. Do you not remember it actually happened?

The thing I think you have in common with a lynch mob is

quote:

confusing scepticism about an accused person's guilt with sympathy for - or even complicity in - their alleged crimes

I don't know how to take the bit about sounding clever. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Your suggestion that I see myself, or want others to see me, as "holy" seems a bit eccentric on the face of it, but I'll give it some thought. It never does any harm to examine one's motivation.

You still sound a bit worked up though.

The points were refering to other posts David, specifically Mike Lacey's and JWM's.

The lynch mob bit would be appropriate except that I don't accept thier postings as anything other than of the self serving 'look at my aloofness' kind and not of real scepticism at all.

We appear to have our wires crossed.

And I assure you you are mistaken about the anger bit. I am however forthright by nature. That may be it?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Did he have a little, "clever" dig, David?

Mike are you 7?

..another two?

Must be a lonely existance if so.

Nite y'all.