Dawkins to arrest the Pope

[Winner]

I don't care, really. It just strikes me as funny/sad that Christians who, if they focused solely on the teaching of the 2nd reincarnation of their God, should be filled with love and understanding are often so vicious and spiteful.

"I hope you burn in Hell. Not because you did something bad to me, not because you committed any crime, but simply because you don't share my beliefs. I wish to see you being tortured forever."

Seriously, is there anyone who still doubts that religious faith is evil?

 

[Bill3000]

Well sure, that's not quite a christian response (could be prayer for the soul of the damned Dawkins etc) but as I said, the person at hand is a gnostic heretic who is destined for the hellfires as well, so there's no need to mock him when he'll get his just deserts as well.

 

[Richard Cribb]

He is condescending and arrogant because his work regarding religion mainly consists of an incredibly intelligent man trying to reason with people who believe in fairy tales. I fail to see how one cannot condescend to people who are so obviously below one on this topic.

I can only assume then that you and this "incredibly intelligent" man and you for instance misrepresent Thomas Aquinas because you are reasoning with the hoi polloi who so obviously are so far below you. Or the theists for that matter. But where is your trust in people? Shouldn't you rather lecture good philosophy?

Interesting, please go on.

Religion is part of the superstructure.
Also, see below.

That's completely irrelevant. Yes, Cheezy is religious, and he's completely and utterly wrong on that. He's a Marxist, and he's completely and utterly right on that. Who does or doesn't believe in religion on this forum is irrelevant. It's still rubbish.

Actually it is completely relevant.
First of all I used this forum as an example, since that is were we are having this debate. It applies everywhere.
Secondly, the point is that your relation to religion is to a large degree irrelevant concerning your relation to politics. But you got to decide what is most important. For me, politics have always been paramount. I don't care a fig if people worship any deity as long as this is accompanied by a devotion to socialist core values. And this is something I for one find just as much in religious people as atheists. Especially among those who we are supposed to liberate, the working class.
Your attitude is more that of a liberal, either you like it or not.

Marx was wrong on some things. We don't treat him an an infallible prophet, as religious people do with whatever figure they decide is a God, we accept that he lived in a different era and we have the benefit of some information he didn't have. If Marx had been the most religious person in history it wouldn't change a thing regarding religion. He would just have been glaringly wrong on that topic.

It is a bit unclear who you are weeing with here.
Of course Marx was wrong in certain things. But unlike Dawkins he was a real philosopher and a socialist. My point is that I think he got his priorities right. I also think that he wouldn't have changed his mind even if he had llived in our brave new world. There were plenty of little dawkinses around when Marx lived, and he knew them too well.
PS: To make one thing clear. I consider myself an atheist. It just haven't gone to my head.

 

[MobBoss]

So you actually do believe that baldness is a hair colour?

I am saying baldness can be a choice just like hair color can. And with the invention of such things as Rogaine, it even makes that more of a choice than ever.

Not to mention the fact that bald guys still have hair color - 100% baldness is fairly rare, and still does not consider the rest of the hair upon their body when indeed has some type of color.

 

[Esckey]

I hope he tries to arrest him

Then the Pope's bodyguards can shoot him

 

[ParkCungHee]

I find myself dismayed that the only person on CFC who really sees religion for what it is is a fascist. Conversely, I bet you think the same but replace 'fascist' with 'communist'.

Actually I think Winner is a communist. He doesn't seem to have anything major he disagrees with the Russians on, except them being Russians, who he knows are his eternal enemy, because he's not a nationalist.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You know discussing like the actual political arguments for this is probably far more productive than the boring old "religion is evil waaah / Dawkins is a douche waah" arguments these threads seem to turn into...

Well theres not much to discuss. Everyone knows its absurd. Simply based on the fact that he's planning to arrest him, and announced as such, before he could even figure out what to arrest him for.

 

[MobBoss]

Seriously, is there anyone who still doubts that religious faith is evil?

Uhm. Yes...like the vast majority of the planet doubts that.

 

[holy king]

why the hell do you team up with the pope anyway mobby?

that guy thinks you're going to hell for being a heretic.

 

[LightFang]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. (emphasis is mine.) 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/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.

 

[Snorrius]

I agree that religion is not the only belief system which causes short-circuits the brain - nationalism and some of the totalitarian ideologies based on leadership figure cult actually come very close to being "religion-like".

Personally I would not compare religions (especially major ones) with totalitarian ideologies based on lidership (sects would be better alternative). Religions were and are used as a system for social control of big number of people. In Western countries this role mainly transferred to more secular ideologies which have to united people. For example, in Europe the idea of "liberal democracy" plays this role. In Soviet Union it was belief in communism (in economic sense). Americans also have a set of beliefs which helps to unite and control a large population consisted from different races and mentality.

And I have to metion that while I marked religions and certain ideologies as tools for social control, I do not mean it is bad or some other personal relation. Social control is necessary as soon as number of people in group exceeds certain number.

And I will agree that religions are losing gradually this role (they still have some other though). At the other side, West (and Russia) have yet to come with decent alternative ideologies with nice Higher Goal. Both communism or liberal democracy or US-blend of it do not seems like being able to fulfil these role as they are prone to economic collapses and fails.

I meant mental child abuse - the disgusting tendency of religions (and other pseudo-religious belief systems) to indoctrinate children.

Aah. I see.

 

[MobBoss]

why the hell do you team up with the pope anyway mobby?

that guy thinks you're going to hell for being a heretic.

Rofl. If I had a choice to team up with either the Pope or Dawkins, well.....are seriously wondering why I would pick the Pope?

 

[Trajan12]

Reading this thread it's no wonder that the Pope and his underlings figured they could get away with concealing child abuse. Plenty of people seem perfectly content to let them do just that.

If it is indeed a crime in the UK for the head of an organization to conceal cases of child abuse by his subordinates, and if there is reason enough to believe that the Pope did just that(and a letter stating that the church's reputation must be considered above bringing child molesters to justice is pretty damning, no pun intended) then only in a world where some are above the law by virtue of their importance can it be considered "militant" to ask that action be brought against them.

I myself don't know conclusively what the Pope did or didn't know about what did or didn't happen(that's why we have...you know...investigations!) but the objection here seems to be not that there is not enough evidence to make a case for simply bringing judicial action against him but that since the initiators of this action are prominent atheists and the recipient of the action is a prominent theologian this should simply be dismissed.

 

[civ_king]

I really hope they arrest the Pope, nothing like Martyrdom to stir an inferno against atheists

 

[Snorrius]

Actually I think Winner is a communist. He doesn't seem to have anything major he disagrees with the Russians on, except them being Russians, who he knows are his eternal enemy, because he's not a nationalist.

The reason is that Winner do not like Russia is that he was indoctrinated by his mother on this particular account, thats why he is becoming fanatic-like when discussion is about Russia. On other topics his views are mostly his own and as he is quite cynical just as me, so he often do not conform to what we usual expect from liberal democrat whom he proclamed himself but who are usually delusional elves living in pinky fantasy bubbles which they consider as reality. Winner is younger than me so he still have some beliefs into the sucess of democracy and EU as viable entity.

 

[Snorrius]

If it is indeed a crime in the UK for the head of an organization to conceal cases of child abuse by his subordinates, and if there is reason enough to believe that the Pope did just that(and a letter stating that the church's reputation must be considered above bringing child molesters to justice is pretty damning, no pun intended) then only in a world where some are above the law by virtue of their importance can it be considered "militant" to ask that action be brought against them.

But is the Pope is subject to UK law? UK is not an empire now but just a medium-sized island. It cannot just apply its laws to half of the world as in imperial times.

 

[Trajan12]

But is the Pope is subject to UK law? UK is not an empire now but just a medium-sized island. It cannot just apply its laws to half of the world as in imperial times.

Then this is a debate about the reaches of Universal Jurisdiction.

 

[Earthling]

Rofl. If I had a choice to team up with either the Pope or Dawkins, well.....are seriously wondering why I would pick the Pope?

No, because I know you've stated a preference for condoning child rape in the past and in previous threads, so yes that is your recognized opinion.

Edit: apparently the thread involving prisons has been erased from the public database/made inaccessible but if anyone does find it post it if you want.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[RedRalph]

I can only assume then that you and this "incredibly intelligent" man and you for instance misrepresent Thomas Aquinas because you are reasoning with the hoi polloi who so obviously are so far below you. Or the theists for that matter. But where is your trust in people? Shouldn't you rather lecture good philosophy?

I would rather people see the truth: religion is rubbish. If that has to be ridiculed away, then so be it. Ideally there would be an easier way, but life isn't always ideal.

Religion is part of the superstructure. Also, see below.

It is indeed, and the fact that I am discussing it in a thread baout religion says nothing about how highly I prioritise it.

Actually it is completely relevant.
First of all I used this forum as an example, since that is were we are having this debate. It applies everywhere.
Secondly, the point is that your relation to religion is to a large degree irrelevant concerning your relation to politics. But you got to decide what is most important. For me, politics have always been paramount. I don't care a fig if people worship any deity as long as this is accompanied by a devotion to socialist core values. And this is something I for one find just as much in religious people as atheists. Especially among those who we are supposed to liberate, the working class.
Your attitude is more that of a liberal, either you like it or not.

Politics is more important than religion. I'm married to a Catholic, you better believe I wouldn't marry a fascist. None of this has any bearing on whether any religion is true or not. And it isn't. People may find comfort in it, but that is unfortunate, not something in its favour. If we are supposed to liberate the working class, undoubtedly one of the things we are to liberate them from is a slavish devotion to misinterpreted folk tales and a fansasy bonus round they will get to after they die if they are good and know their place here.

Very few liberals would be in favour of the disbanding of the church, the seizure of its properties and the life-imprisonment or execution of many of its senior officals, brother Cribb.

It is a bit unclear who you are weeing with here.
Of course Marx was wrong in certain things. But unlike Dawkins he was a real philosopher and a socialist. My point is that I think he got his priorities right. I also think that he wouldn't have changed his mind even if he had llived in our brave new world. There were plenty of little dawkinses around when Marx lived, and he knew them too well.

Why do you believe that disliking religion means I prioritise it over all other matters? We both know I'm no economist. That doesn't preclude me from being a communist. I'm not more concerned with the superstructure, I'm just more familiar with it.

PS: To make one thing clear. I consider myself an atheist. It just haven't gone to my head.

Mmm hmm. It seems to be very much a trivial issue to you. Maybe our differing outlooks come from the fact that you grew up in one of the most de facto secular states on Earth and likely never experienced the really nasty side of religion, and I grew up in a country where the theocracy used to go door-to-door telling people it was a sin to vote for Labour or the socialists, and used to veto legislation which it imagined to be communist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

 

[ParkCungHee]

Then this is a debate about the reaches of Universal Jurisdiction.

Oh that that's simple. No, it doesn't apply to heads of state. The same reason we can't arrest Hu Jinato if he visits the U.S., and they can't arrest Obama when he visits the Middle East.