Dawkins Wants to Arrest the Pope… Do You?
If you found out that your local Pastor was guilty for knowingly shielding pedophile’s, would you have a problem with this reality, and a legal problem at that?
Well, it just so happens that Richard Dawkins, with his Hitchens side-kick, the Christopher version, seem to be pretty intent on making this a reality, as the following affirms…
Professor Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist who wrote The God Delusion, has assembled lawyers in an attempt to have Pope Benedict XVI charged with crimes against humanity, the Times Online reports.
Dawkins and fellow anti-religion campaigner Christopher Hitchens are believed to be exploring the option of having the Pope arrested under the same legal principal that saw Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet arrested during a British visit in 1998.
“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,” the report quoted Professor Dawkins as saying.
You can read the rest of the article where this quotation is sourced from… HERE… or you can take a look at the following article in The Times… HERE!
Do you agree with Dawkins and Co.?
Assuming their contention is correct, of course!
As I reflect on this reality, the question can not be answered in the context of the individual’s in question, as many in the Catholic faith will have an a priori against any such Papal possibility and against any such reality, and from their authority belief structure, I can understand their frame of reference.
However, once again, the question for me is very simple, is it both morally and legally wrong to knowingly shield pedophile’s? If someone has this knowledge, and if this can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, then no matter who the individual is in question, they should and must be dealt with through the appropriate legal channels!
The only other possibility is that there are certain individuals who are above the law!
What say you?
Always Informing, For the Always Reforming, From the Land of the Long White Cloud
Man of Spin
Postscript: Here is the article in the The Times where Dawkins unloads his thoughts!
[...] Visit link: Dawkins Wants to Arrest the Pope… Do You? | Christian News New Zealand [...]
This article betrays an underlying anti-Catholic bias which leads to a support for Dawkins that is a little bit misguided.
Firstly, as the evidence clearly shows, Pope Benedict is NOT guilty of the knowingly shielding pedophile’s, so the charge is baseless.
This isn’t Catholic propaganda – a simple check of the official paperwork records from the cases being leveled against the Pope shows that the secular media have not got their facts straight at all.
Secondly, arresting a head of state, who isn’t one of your fellow citizens (i.e they come from another country) is a political act so extreme that, in secular countries (unlike the Vatican, which is a religious state), it would be considered as being akin to a declaration of war against that country.
If the person was a fellow citizen, and they were guilty of some crime, the matter is far different, but a group of anti-Christians who want to enact a citizens arrest against a visiting head of stateTh are not actually doing something particularly legal at all.
In fact, it’s doubtful that they have any legal authority to try such a stunt anyway.
Thirdly, it isn’t just enough to show that a person’s actions (in this case, the Pope) may have allowed a pedophile to continue offending, you would also have to show that the pope did this in order to either:
a) knowingly thwart the arrest of the pedophile
AND/OR:
b) Knowingly assist the criminal offending of the pedophile
(thus becoming an accomplice or accessory to the offending)
Even if the Pope was guilty of these alleged charges of not sacking a pedophile priest, or not involving the police (which he isn’t, as the evidence clearly shows), you would still ALSO have to show that he did this with some sort of malice or criminal intent, and not because of some sort of naivety or ignorance.
This is precisely why we have due process, so that the law doesn’t start overreaching and imposing itself without just cause on innocent people.
Thomas, Thomas, O Doubting One of this Post,
My presuppositions in this piece rest on the nature of the details involved and not on the context of who the individual may be, in fact, even as a Protestant, I am much more predisposed toward the Pope than the poop-ing One!
Here is what I said…
“However, once again, the question for me is very simple, is it both morally and LEGALLY wrong to knowingly SHIELD pedophile’s? If someone has this knowledge, and IF this can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, then no matter who the individual is in question, they should and must be dealt with through the appropriate legal channels!” [emphasis mine]
Firstly, I believe I made it clear that the question relates to “IF” the charges can be proved. I am not sure how this shows “Bias.” You have affirmed this context as much, as you have tried to “prove” that the Pope “did not” have this information, which means, from my argument in the post, he would NOT have a legal problem.
Secondly, I asked the “question” whether it was LEGALLY wrong to “Knowingly” SHIELD paedophile’s. I am not sure how this shows bias, as I am not claiming at this point that it is, and on your part, you affirm and argue in your answer, that it is not illegal in point #3.
Thirdly, as for point # 2, and the Pope being the Head of a State and therefore, could not be arrested. While such may and would likely to indeed be true, this would not be the basis from which I would want to either think through or defend these charges, and while you could justify this reality as it answers the “legal” portion of what I was asking, I think it misses the point!
PRESUPPOSITIONS, Yes, yours have been revealed. You accuse me of “an underlying anti-Catholic bias,” and yet, what follows by way of argumentation has been contextualised in my post. Once again, “miguided support for Dawkins” also misses the point, and encourages this to be a debate about personalities, instead of details!
The reason I framed this post the way I did was that I wanted to think about this as it relates to the details and not the individuals in the details, and I believe this helps in thinking not only about the legal issues, but even more so as one thinks about it from a biblical standpoint, and the moral issues that this context asks!
Morally, there is a significant problem with pedophilia, and that is without question, no matter what the Dawkins may be obfuscating in the details!
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT