Richard Dawkins has really flipped this time
- Thread starter Lonemagpie
- Start date
Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with arresting someone or pressing charges, or even ordering a further investigation.Yes, because obviously the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't go for Catholics.
It's absurd to suggest that someone must be proven guilty before being arrested. But of course, we are talking about Catholics here, I guess that doesn't apply to them?
As I understand it, at the time the letter was written. the priest in question had not been charged. The Church, including Ratzinger, had enough evidence to consider defrocking the priest, but did not present this knowledge to the police.
This goes to the core of the complaints against the Church, the idea of an organized coverup. At first it was commonly thought that only a local biship may have known about a local priest, but as more and more incidents come to light, it appears that knowledge of child abuse was widespread throughout the Church, and that there was a system in place, organized by high officials, that all incidents would be covered up and the priests in question moved around to other locations.
Google will present you with thousands of hits for priests of various Protestant faiths who have sexually assaulted children or faced other sexual charges. What is missing in those cases is any evidence that their organizations knew about their actions and protected them from the police. This is what is different about the Catholic Church.
The situation is no different than a community of corrupt police officers that go out of their way to cover up unethical or immoral behaviour by members of the force. It's a tight-knit society and protecting their own is considered more important than serving justice or the truth.
If the Pope had good reason to suspect people were committing illegal acts and he then acted to cover them up he deserves to be punished. It will never happen though, any more than Bush getting arrested for war crimes or some such thing. Even if he's guilty, good luck coming up with the hard prosecutorial evidence.
If the Pope had good reason to suspect people were committing illegal acts and he then acted to cover them up he deserves to be punished. It will never happen though, any more than Bush getting arrested for war crimes or some such thing. Even if he's guilty, good luck coming up with the hard prosecutorial evidence.
I don't think cops anywhere would protect a bunch of habitual child rapists wearing uniform though.
Probably not, but murder? Extortion? Theft? Maybe just one "plain old" sexual assault against some prostitute? You betcha, not that I'm arguing it's common.
Child rapists are typically the one area where the cops and the criminals agree: it's a particular kind of villainy. A few people in a close circle keeping a secret might be no big surprise in any organization, public or private, but widespread and systematic cover ups require a different mode of thinking altogether. It suggests an inherent flaw in the culture of the organization itself, not just the more common flaw of "bad apples in every bunch".
Child rapists are typically the one area where the cops and the criminals agree: it's a particular kind of villainy. A few people in a close circle keeping a secret might be no big surprise in any organization, public or private, but widespread and systematic cover ups require a different mode of thinking altogether. It suggests an inherent flaw in the culture of the organization itself, not just the more common flaw of "bad apples in every bunch".
Would you like to have a go at enumerating his "suspected crimes" and identifying what the charges would be?
And still, not one actual charge or offence under British law for which he could be arrested is mentioned.
Dawkins mentioned 'crimes against humanity'. Given that I hope we all agree that Crime Against Humanity for writing a letter is ridiculous, I'd love to know what offence or offences Dawkins is intending to arrest him for.
Dawkins mentioned 'crimes against humanity'. Given that I hope we all agree that Crime Against Humanity for writing a letter is ridiculous, I'd love to know what offence or offences Dawkins is intending to arrest him for.
A
Amaris
Guest
If as a Bishop he knew what was going on and chose to do nothing about it, and then once he became the Pope chose to continue doing nothing about it, even knowing these Priests were committing child rape, then he should be charged for it. Personally, I consider him morally bankrupt, but that's just my informed opinion.
I don't get how the whole thing works to be honest. Presumably not reporting a sexual assault that you are aware of is a crime?
But this popey chap would not have been answerable to the British police since the crimes were not committed here. So presumably he would need to have a warrant issued in a different country, and be arrested here via some sort of extradition treaty for this to happen?
But this popey chap would not have been answerable to the British police since the crimes were not committed here. So presumably he would need to have a warrant issued in a different country, and be arrested here via some sort of extradition treaty for this to happen?
A
Amaris
Guest
I see it more as aiding and abetting a criminal, if he was aware of it and was part of hiding that criminal from the police. I mean, how moral and ethical can you be if you're willing to protect a child rapist from the authorities?
^ I agree that if he was aware and did not do everything in his power to make sure the man faced criminal justice, then he was doing just that, from a moral perspective.
But my point is that whatever crimes he was allegedly aiding and abetting were not under the jurisdiction of the British justice system. I'm no expert to be sure, but I don't think the UK police could arrest someone for say, committing a robbery abroad, unless the country the crime had been committed in had issued a warrant and had an extradition treaty with us.
But my point is that whatever crimes he was allegedly aiding and abetting were not under the jurisdiction of the British justice system. I'm no expert to be sure, but I don't think the UK police could arrest someone for say, committing a robbery abroad, unless the country the crime had been committed in had issued a warrant and had an extradition treaty with us.
Based on what he said in that letter, he wasn't just aware of the crimes but was an active participant in covering them up.
A
Amaris
Guest
That may be the hardest part about it all. I wish Dawkins and Hitchens the best of luck on their endeavor, because if the Pope knew and helped hide them, he needs to face justice for his crime.
Exactly. If this is found to be accurate (since I'm giving him a slight sliver of benefit of the doubt), then he needs to be arrested, questioned, and if found guilty, needs to be sentenced and serve his time/fine.
I don't care if someone's Jesus. If you cover up a crime like child rape and molestation and try to hide the evidence, you are unethical, immoral and a criminal who needs to face prosecution.
Maybe you should ask Mr. Dawkins? It's his idea, after all.
The OP's objection seems to be "but it's the pope!" So that's the objection I addressed.
Pity that the thread title says DawKINS and not DawSON.
I mean, wouldn't it be a cool episode of Family Feud if Richard Dawson flipped?
I mean, wouldn't it be a cool episode of Family Feud if Richard Dawson flipped?
Survey says: "Yes!"
Then you don't know the OP very well. The OP finds both sides equally ludicrously obsessed with pushing their worldview to detriment of individual reason, and, like so many people in the thread, can't see any way that an offence under British law and/or jurisdiction is in the mix.
If you really wanted to do the current Pope for something, I bet there's something more practical to get him on from when he was a Hitlerjugend...
Ratzinger didn't do *anything* when he was in that group. He joined because it was required by law. He even got an exemption so he didn't actually have to attend meetings. And he deserted the German army at the earliest opportunity.
Last edited: