Happy Atheist Forum

Hey folks! It's been awhile and I come back with good news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html)

WOOT WOOT! Richard put on his cape and became rational man!

Dearly me. I am unsure how this could turn out.

A part of me is approving, while another part is slightly sceptical!

It seems like a good idea...but on the other hand I can only see this being spun into proof that atheists are evil.

Quote from: "Whitney"It seems like a good idea...but on the other hand I can only see this being spun into proof that atheists are evil.

And not the paedophile protector?

Quote from: "url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/you_cant_trust_a_murdoch_paper.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29&utm_content=Twitter]PZ Meyers[/url]"]I was a bit suspicious of this story that Dawkins and Hitchens were going to "ambush" and "arrest" the Pope when he showed up in England. It was just a little too sensationalistic, too out of character. I was right....

"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 (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 (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."

Thanks for pointing out the truth here, Sophus.  It would be best if Dr. Dawkins lets the lawyers handle it.

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Whitney"It seems like a good idea...but on the other hand I can only see this being spun into proof that atheists are evil.

And not the paedophile protector?

If we could trust the catholics to be rational about this then people protecting pedophiles in the catholic church would have been kicked out long ago.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Whitney"It seems like a good idea...but on the other hand I can only see this being spun into proof that atheists are evil.

And not the paedophile protector?

If we could trust the catholics to be rational about this then people protecting pedophiles in the catholic church would have been kicked out long ago.

I was hoping you would say that.  

I'm not entirely sure of the in's and out's of this situation so was hoping if someone could answer me this?

Is it completely clear the pope hid details of abuses from the authorities in order to protect the church? If so, is there concrete evidence to prove this? I'd have thought trying the pope in a court of law would be a very difficult thing due to his status and billions of sychophantic followers.

Prominent atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have hired solicitors to see if they can get the Pope arrested for crimes against humanity.


They want Pope Benedict XVI to be arrested when he visits Britain in September and put on trial for allegedly covering up sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

http://betting.gamingsupermarket.com/ne ... e-arrested (http://betting.gamingsupermarket.com/news/3172/will-the-pope-be-arrested)

Dawkins wants Pope arrested.

Prominent atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have hired solicitors to see if they can get the Pope arrested for crimes against humanity.


They want Pope Benedict XVI to be arrested when he visits Britain in September and put on trial for allegedly covering up sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

http://betting.gamingsupermarket.com...pe-be-arrested (//http://)

Hi Jobee. Sorry but there's already a topic started about this.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4782 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4782)

Also, the story is apparently not true.
http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#478580 (http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page2#478580)

jobee, quit starting topics that already exist, I already moved your post once....do it again and you get another strike and you are already on strike 2.

With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html)

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

Quote from: "skwurll"I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

That is true if both were witnesses to the crime. However as far as the CEO is concerned he is not a witness to the Crime. The person X reporting it to the CEO is the one with the evidence.

Quote from: "fdesilva"With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html)

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I think so. Why not? Why wouldn't the CEO report it to the police? Unless the CEO knew about it all along and wanted to cover it up for some reason.  

And of course the pope isn't a CEO and the raping of children is not the same as stealing $1000.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "fdesilva"With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html)

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I think so. Why not? Why wouldn't the CEO report it to the police? Unless the CEO knew about it all along and wanted to cover it up for some reason.  

And of course the pope isn't a CEO and the raping of children is not the same as stealing $1000.

Have a read of

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8579276.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8579276.stm)

So now I guess Richard Dawkins is going to want that the Chinese government arrest the CEO of Rio Tinto

I want to see the Pope get arrested SO BAD!

I would even settle for just a public announcement that Britain will arrest the Pope the first chance they get.

Not an expert but I think this is how it works...

I think (legally) the CEO is responsible to the company's shareholders. So it would be the CEO's responsibility to protect the shareholder's interests and attempt to recover the loss of shareholder equity (the $1000). I assume "him" means "the company", otherwise the role of CEO is irrelevant.

Person X (legally) has no responsibility unless he or she has in some way agreed to a role that gives them that responsibility, such as being an insider.

Quote from: "Ellainix"I want to see the Pope get arrested SO BAD!

I would even settle for just a public announcement that Britain will arrest the Pope the first chance they get.

I would be blown away equally by either of those.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "skwurll"I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

That is true if both were witnesses to the crime. However as far as the CEO is concerned he is not a witness to the Crime. The person X reporting it to the CEO is the one with the evidence.

Regardless of the legal concerns, it is highly unethical to be informed of a child abuse case then do nothing to report it or stop it from happening.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "skwurll"I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

That is true if both were witnesses to the crime. However as far as the CEO is concerned he is not a witness to the Crime. The person X reporting it to the CEO is the one with the evidence.

Regardless of the legal concerns, it is highly unethical to be informed of a child abuse case then do nothing to report it or stop it from happening.

I hope that is the primary concern of anyone, regardless of the persons position in whatever organization they happen to belong to.

oh and, legally, if you are informed of a crime yet fail to report to the authorities you are acting illegally under most modern law systems.  Not to mention that a crimes against humanity charge is not an everyday legal case and applies to someone who has caused mass harm to humanity due to criminal neglect or purposeful intent.  The problem with that sort of charge is that I could just as easily argue that George HW Bush should be arrested the next time he visits the UK for crimes against humanity since it can be argued that he launched a religious crusade on the middle east because god told him to (yes i know it is more complicated than that, just making a point at how broad the charge can be).

Quote from: "Whitney"The problem with that sort of charge is that I could just as easily argue that George HW Bush should be arrested the next time he visits the UK for crimes against humanity since it can be argued that he launched a religious crusade on the middle east because god told him to (yes i know it is more complicated than that, just making a point at how broad the charge can be).

Hell yeah!  Throw that bastard in there, too!

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "fdesilva"With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html)

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I think so. Why not? Why wouldn't the CEO report it to the police? Unless the CEO knew about it all along and wanted to cover it up for some reason.  

And of course the pope isn't a CEO and the raping of children is not the same as stealing $1000.

Have a read of

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8579276.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8579276.stm)

So now I guess Richard Dawkins is going to want that the Chinese government arrest the CEO of Rio Tinto

So fdesilva, you're comparing child rape to financial crimes?

Richard Dawkins considers atheists to be better moral people than believers since they need neither a god nor a higher law to behave themselves.  I think you may have supported his argument.  

Quote from: "Whitney"oh and, legally, if you are informed of a crime yet fail to report to the authorities you are acting illegally under most modern law systems.  Not to mention that a crimes against humanity charge is not an everyday legal case and applies to someone who has caused mass harm to humanity due to criminal neglect or purposeful intent.  The problem with that sort of charge is that I could just as easily argue that George HW Bush should be arrested the next time he visits the UK for crimes against humanity since it can be argued that he launched a religious crusade on the middle east because god told him to (yes i know it is more complicated than that, just making a point at how broad the charge can be).

Unlike George Bush (who is guilty of catastrophically poor word choice), the Pope has evidence implicating him in a specific crime. I view the popes status of head of a religion as irrelevant, it does not lessen the crime.

(And yes I am aware we could debate, and probably should, the horrible failure that is George Bush)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588294.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588294.stm)

"The papal spokesman also noted that police at the time investigated the allegations, but did not bring charges. "

Quote from: "fdesilva"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588294.stm

"The papal spokesman also noted that police at the time investigated the allegations, but did not bring charges. "

You didn't answer the question posed to you by Evolved.

Can you answer that question please?

Here's a nutbar's rant about how Richard Dawkins should be arrested for "covering up atheist crimes": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html

And here's PZ Meyer's splendid response: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/huffpo_cements_its_reputation.php

aaaaannd this one: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/

Thanks for the laugh, Sophus.

Thanks for the links Sophus. Updated every electronic status I could find with them. Great fun.