Noted Atheist Richard Dawkins Plans to Ambush & Arrest Pope Benedict During State Visit to Britain
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, April 10, 2010, 10:23 PM
Noted atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are planning to ambush and arrest Pope Benedict XVI during his state visit to Britain in September.
The Times Online reported:
Richard Dawkins, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
…Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.
Dawkins sent this special Easter greeting to Catholics last week– “Your Church is Rotten Edifice.”
Christopher Hitchens would be wise to stay away from Dawkins. There’s nothing pleasant about that man at all.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 84 Comments
kay commented:
I dare them to do this. A sleeping giant will awaken.
Opus #6 commented:
Doesn’t the pope have excellent security? This sounds dangerous.
Norman commented:
I’m not sure about Dawkins but I’m positive the Holy Father could take Hitchens in a bare knuckles fight.
Dipso Facto commented:
Richard Dawkins, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Here’s the problem with all of this: Leftists always use the “giant, sweeping crimes” thing against those who have different political philosophies. There’s no doubt in my mind that Dawkins and Hitchens care more about the social conservatism of the Catholic Church than anything else.
Look at this:
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court, is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
http://tinyurl.com/yaz2yz5
Leftists don’t actually care about the climate or molested children. They care about legislating political dissent out of existence.
Opaobie commented:
Is the truth a defense at these “trials”? Given the “Climategate” scandal and all of the discredit it has brought to the “Global Warming” argument, the trial might backfire on them once “discovery” is initiated…but then, that assumes an unbiased “court”, and we all know that won’t be the case.
Attempting to arrest an individual with “Head of State” status might be considered an act of war, or as they now say in “Londonistan”, JIHAD!!
ExcuseMe? commented:
Dipso, leftists always generalize?
Opaobie commented:
ExcuseMe? #6, could you be a little more specific?
misanthropope commented:
dipso, you are unfamiliar with the concept of “rule of law”. although you are patently ignorant of the motives you arrogantly claim to know, those motives are irrelevant anyhow.
what IS relevant is whether the ex-nazi and current world champion snake-oil salesmen is guilty of systematically covering up evidence of an enormous number of abhorrent crimes
Dipso Facto commented:
Dipso, leftists always generalize?
Never. Except when they do.
Dipso Facto commented:
although you are patently ignorant of the motives you arrogantly claim to know, those motives are irrelevant anyhow.
How arrogant of you to determine that those motives are irrelevant.
wanumba commented:
misanthropope
April 10th, 2010 | 11:20 pm | #9
dipso, you are unfamiliar with the concept of “rule of law”. although you are patently ignorant of the motives you arrogantly claim to know, those motives are irrelevant anyhow.
what IS relevant is whether the ex-nazi and current world champion snake-oil salesmen is guilty of systematically covering up evidence of an enormous number of abhorrent crimes
…….
Yeah. No “innocent until proven guilty” no due process, no nuthin’ except hysterical claims from people who openly despise the man, and his church and God.
It’s called “lynching.” Rule of Law was established precisely to stop that kind of mob abuse of people.
Opaobie commented:
misanthropope #9, if I had your intelligence and your knack for writing, I would say,”Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa……”
Opaobie commented:
Rats, I dropped a stitch. So what motives are irrelevant? While we’re at it, what motives are relevant?
Dipso Facto commented:
Bill Donahue of the Catholic League makes an interesting point:
Leftists generally say that a perpetrator ought to be offered counseling and the opportunity to be rehabilitated.
So, why are they criticizing the Catholic Church for offering their abusive priests counseling and the opportunity to be rehabilitated?
Could it be because the Catholic Church represents a social conservatism that leftists find much more abhorrent than the actual abuse in question?
How about a little consistency, leftists? Is that too much to ask?
Dipso Facto commented:
So what motives are irrelevant? While we’re at it, what motives are relevant?
Since every single high-profile advocate of anthropogenic global warming lives a life of utter profligacy and carbon bigfooting, we can only assume that their motive in pushing legislation to rein in the rest of us is motivated by the urge to impose their will on us. That’s a way to stamp out dissent.
As for the motives behind going after the Catholic Church for the abuse scandal, I always found avowed, militant atheists to be silly, since atheism is as much a matter of faith as religiosity. I ascribe unsavory motivations to Dawkins and Hitchens because I find all militant atheists to be unsavory. I can’t perceive militant, aggressive, belligerent atheists having unselfish motives, since their entire philosophy is self-centered to the point of near craziness.
I’ve never met an atheist I really liked, but I’ve liked plenty of religious people. Atheists inevitably start talking about how stupid everyone else is, and that’s something I’m sick to death of hearing.
ExcuseMe? commented:
“Since every single high-profile advocate of anthropogenic global warming lives a life of utter profligacy and carbon bigfooting…” Do THEY also generalize? How about all those unsavory militant atheists? Big generalizers, I bet, along with those leftists who want counseling, not incarceration, for people who sexually abuse children.
It must be nice knowing that not one single person who’s concerned about child abuse is actually concerned about child abuse. I wish I had your confidence.
Opaobie commented:
If you want to watch some excellent debates between Hitchens and the brilliant Christian apologist and scholar Frank Turek, visit CrossExamined.org. Find out if you have enough faith to be an Atheist.
Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities. Nobody can be an intellectually honest Atheist because in order to be an Atheist, one would have to have proof beyond all doubt that there are absolutely NO deities. That would require knowledge beyond the Atheist’s capacity. Draw a large circle and let it represent ALL of the knowledge in the entire universe. Draw a smaller circle inside the large circle. That represents YOUR knowledge. Unless you are GOD, that circle must be contained INSIDE the larger circle. Since there is knowledge outside YOUR circle, there is the possibility that within that larger knowledge is knowledge of the existence of at least one deity, so the Atheist cannot say with absolute certainty there is NO deity. Therefore; the best an intellectually honest person can say is, “I don’t know whether there is any deity”. That makes the person an Agnostic. (credit to June Hunt for that analogy.)
Bottom line: Dawkins and Hitchens are both intellectual frauds.
Solaratov commented:
Wanumba~~
It’s called “lynching.” Rule of Law was established precisely to stop that kind of mob abuse of people.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But it only applies to civilized people — not to leftists.
(They have “higher” motives, dontcha know?)
Solaratov commented:
How about a little consistency, leftists? Is that too much to ask?
Why…..yes.
Dipso Facto commented:
Do THEY also generalize? How about all those unsavory militant atheists? Big generalizers, I bet, along with those leftists who want counseling, not incarceration, for people who sexually abuse children.
I lied. Leftists are huge promoters of the incarceration of criminals. Every sane person knows that. You caught me!
It must be nice knowing that not one single person who’s concerned about child abuse is actually concerned about child abuse. I wish I had your confidence.
The reality, of course, is that I never said that. When you lie incessantly about others’ positions, it gets confusing, doesn’t it? You end up taking issue with something nobody said, and then you just look like a silly clown.
Opaobie commented:
ExcuseMe?, look up “strawman argument”. Your posts should be listed as examples.
Robb76 commented:
Opaobie,
Your comments at #13 were kind of morbid. But you did lighten up towards the end.
FishFearMe commented:
Let’s just suppose that Hitchens & Dawkins do try to arrest The Holy Father. God then sends down a lightning bolt and zaps the frijoles off of the two of them. God then says, “Can you hear me now?”.
Andreas K. commented:
Richard Dawkins is only strong when he can bash Christians. He’s usually silent when it comes to the UK being turned into Britannistan by the islamo-fascists. Where is his outcry over the thousands of little girls who married off to old geezers in the mohammedan world? Where is his outcry over the death of that 13 year old girl in Jemen, who died due to massive bleeding from vaginal injuries caused by her 30 year old “husband” (who, this is the latest development, also tied her up and used viagra to rape her)? Where is his “courage” there?
He’s a coward and a fool.
And I just bashed an Atheist and defended the Christians… which seems to happen more often these days. Jeez, thanks folks
Na, just kidding.
zmdavid commented:
Hitchens and Dawkins – the Code Pink of atheists.
Carbon Monoxide commented:
Bring it on.
newton commented:
OK, I’ll bite.
Dawkins, do me a favor.
Why don’t you ask for a systematic round-up of Islamofascists in Britain, for crimes of terrorism, honor killings, abuse of women, and the like, capped with a massive deportation of those who are, ON THE RECORD, THREATENING the British people?
That’s right. You would not. Because YOU, sir, are a coward.
Again, Dawkins. When you and your pals have the guts to condemn the actions of those who act in such a murderous way in the name of Islam – then, and ONLY THEN, can you start talking about the Catholic Church.
Coward. Again: COWARD.
boagie commented:
I thought he should be charged with crimes against humanity for the lies he told about condoms making the aids epidemic worse, what a blatant disregard for human life. Go for it Britain, let everyone know this king has no clothes. Infallible what a walking joke.
wanumba commented:
Solaratov
April 11th, 2010 | 12:42 am | #19
Wanumba~~
It’s called “lynching.” Rule of Law was established precisely to stop that kind of mob abuse of people.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But it only applies to civilized people — not to leftists.
(They have “higher” motives, dontcha know?)
…………
And most people would consider being an “ex-nazi” a positive transformative moral and personal improvement over a “current nazi,” but that’s the thuggery of the Left : if you aren’t “with” them, you are never forgiven for ANYTHING, EVER. They will pound you for your sins, any misstep, any stumble every moment of your life, and publically wish you an early death if they haven’t found a legalistic cover means to condemn you to it already. Since EVERYONE is a sinner, it’s a sure thing – everyone is a potential a “target-rich environment” in anyone the Progressive Left decides to attack. So, there’s absolutely no hope of escaping Progressive condemnation.
The human is just destroyed.
I’ll take Jesus over THAT any day. He PAID his blood for our sins, so we can be forgiven and gives us a new chance at LIFE.
Keith R. Wood commented:
I hope they try it.
The Swiss Guard can probably use some practice with those pikes they carry.
Aussie commented:
Hitchens and Dawkins make up false charges. They claim that Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict was responsible for “genocide” in Africa because these non-Christian Africans failed to use condoms.
Their reasoning has nothing to do with decades old accusations of abuse by priests. They used the same old tired arguments against John Paul II and probably would have done the same to Pope Paul VI.. Pope John Paul I would get a pass because he died shortly after he was appointed to the role. (and then there are the idiots who try to link JPII to the death of JPI as some kind of conspiracy… in their dreams!!)
Not one of these idiots care one little bit about those who were truly molested (I still think that at least some making accusations are victims of recovered memory syndrome). They care only about their own anti-Christian agenda.
The Catholic Church has no influence over the African nations because most of those nations are Muslim. Also, these are nations where the people live in tribes and yes they really do have some very bad sexual practices, including group sex… which translates into the sharing of their wives with each other, rather than group sex in the other meaning. I am also not sure about what happens with animals. HIV is also prevalent amongst monkeys. Is there a human-animal link for the disease?
Why is it that so many African women have HIV? It all gets back to the sexual practices of these tribes.
In the Christian parts of Africa it was found that HIV was less prevalent because the people were practising celibacy or responsible behaviour. As soon as they fell back into more irresponsible practices then the HIV rate began to rise again.
It is not hard to see that the real problem in Africa is not any ban on condoms (and it might be worth considering that these leftist atheists want Africans to use condoms so that they will not have children!! which means that they want to commit genocide by promoting birth control and condoms – but hey who will think about that angle and motivation?) but the real problem is that Africans have some rather deviant sexual practices including the fact that the whole tribe will share in the women of the tribe.
wanumba commented:
boagie
April 11th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #29
I thought he should be charged with crimes against humanity for the lies he told about condoms making the aids epidemic worse
…..
Are you prepared to charge every single infected man with crimes against humanity who transmitted HIV/AIDS knowingly – for ACTUALLY infecting others with a deadly disease? They lied, didn’t they? Lied bad, lied nasty and other people died because of what they gave them, and kept lying so MORE people were infected who then spread the infection to MORE people.
I respect those who became infected and as soon as they knew, then became abstinent so as not to infect any more people. They actually had a heart and concern. The ones who lied and infected them and continued on without a care for the health and well-being of other people are worse than rank bums, they are murderers.
What kind of twisted justice is that to let the actual perpetrators go, and condemn someone who correctly warned that condoms weren’t the iron-clad insurance policy they were being DISHONESTLY peddled as?
WHO TRULY cares about the well-being of his fellow man more, the one who self-servingly lies and infects him with a deadly disease or the other who says, “Don’t do this” ?
Warren Bonesteel commented:
Heh. These days, there’s nothing pleasant about the church, either.
From sexual misconduct to embezzlement to political corruption, to mansions and private jets built on the backs of it’s followers, and much, much more. The church cannot be rationally or reasonably defended. Not by an ethical or honest man, anyway.
Quite honestly, you’ve got to admit that Dawkins does not enjoy the same tarnished and begrimed reputation as the fallen church.
wanumba commented:
Quite honestly, you’ve got to admit that Dawkins does not enjoy the same tarnished and begrimed reputation as the fallen church.
…..
He’s a pompously self-appointed law unto himself. Who’s never built a medical clinic or a school in his life.
Rob commented:
Just a thought, isn’t the pope considered a head of state and a diplomat? I would assume that he has certain immunities. Does anyone know?