Thought this might be of interest to the forum:

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

Excellent idea but they don't stand a chance.

Unlike Pinochet or Tzipi Livni who have a limited base of support, the repercussions for the state arresting the Pope are huge; predominantly Catholic countries will pressure their governments into cutting trade relations etc. not to mention the Catholics in Britain who would be furious and the possibility of it reawakening support for the IRA.

Not going to happen.

I'd guess Dawkins and Hitchens understands as much, and are doing it primarily for the significant egg on the Pope's face if he has to cancel the trip for this reason.

I believe Hitchens has previously been moderately successful in a similar stunt targeting Henry Kissinger. If I remember correctly, it is supposedly
still dangerous for Kissinger to travel abroad to a number of countries in Europe, due to warrants out for his arrest and questioning as an instigator and accomplice in war crimes in South America.

UPDATE, googled around a bit:

(From counterpunch.org, take it FWIW.)

I seem to remember from the BBC documentary 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger' (based on Hitchens' book) that there have been similar occurrences in Spain and the UK.

Wait, I thought Richard Dawkins was a biologist?

He's doing all sorts of funky stuff these days for publicity.

IIRC the UK is paying the Vatican something like 15 million pounds for this visit. I think that's reason enough to try to stop the trip.

I don't understand. The pope is just a product of Dawkins' beloved evolution. Why does he have so much irrational anger?

get him!

Are you not able to differentiate between something being descriptive vs normative?

It certainly looks from your comment as if you believe biologists thinks "is equals ought", which should be a huge embarrassment for you.

From Richard Dawkins - Evolution: What is "Natural"?:

You may find anger against child rape (and cover-up of such) "irrational". I'm however happy that you're unlikely to find many supporters for that stance -- outside of the Catholic church, at least.

Is it really irrational to be angry that a person who concealed child rape is held above the law?

I admit that I don't understand the sudden fuss everyone is making over this pope now. Didn't this happen like 15 years ago? We've known about sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic church for years. Why is it just coming to a head now?

But I guess NR, this just shows that god must have given atheists at least enough morality to know that covering up child abuse is wrong, huh?

That it's irrational is proven by the Dawkins quote.

Yes, He did. They just irrationally deny it.

Haha...Did Dawkins sleep during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

I say just two words...Northern Ireland. No high-ranking UK official is even going to look at the pope crossly.

So, they do have rationality and they just deny it's source?
Or did god make them totally irrational so they can't be rational about anything?

Yeah, how irrational of him to be outraged by the child rape enabling head of an evil death cult.

lol

this is your brain on religion

Your brain on religion means you will follow a group that has a person leading who covered up for child molestation. And then you rationalize it to yourself by believing in forgiveness of sins. Also, how many people bow down or kiss this mother ****ers ass?

You cannot twist reality. Send pope to prison where Bubba can **** him in the ass.

Sry for the language but there is no excuse for this. Child molestation is the worst crime done by the absolute worst people.

Who is this person supposed to be?

Evidence?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...hhUrwD9EVNR300

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/86...terstitialskip

Edit: Please mark your edit or at least make clear you hadn't read this letter before you made the accusation.

Ok. Now explain to me why this is evidence of what you think it is evidence of.

It's not.

ok trying to convert this into plain easy to understand english: He is arguing at the least that they reconsider rushing a removal of the priest as this will have bad consequences for the church on account of the age of the boy that has been molested. The last line suggests the good of the church always carries some weight in a decision and he is of the opinion the church will be damaged by the removal. In other words he is giving weight to NOT removing the priest. He also mentions they should explain to the boy the detrimental effect a removal of the priest would have on the church. i.e. put the weight of the church on his young shoulders so he keeps silent.

Dawkins never said "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI"

OMG I get that theists v. atheists are just blanket stances, but for ****'s sake this guy is instrumental in cover ups of child rape. How can anyone possibly defend that? If it was an atheist all theists would scream bloody murder.

No offense, but you obviously have no idea what you are reading.

Not what the age comment is about. He's referencing the age of the priest, who was 37 at the time; and he's referencing the concern for scandal with regard to dispensing such a young priest from his canonical obligations to celibacy and obedience.

Again wrong. The "petitioner" is not the boy who was abused or even the bishop of the priest's diocese. The petition sent to Cardinal Ratzinger's office was a request by the abusive priest to be dispensed from his priestly obligations.

I can get into the context and details of why, in the 1980's, the Church was hesitant to quickly grant dispensations from priestly obligations for young priests, if you want to hear the background.

In any event, the important points are these:

1) The dispensation was ultimately granted two years later. For a dispensation from priestly obligations, this was actually a rather fast turnaround for the time. Again, I can explain why policies were what they were at the time, if you are interested.

2) The decision not to immediately dispense his petition had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the local bishop took sufficient steps to keep the priest out of active ministry and contact with young people. In this case, the bishop did remove him from ministry, but the priest managed to volunteer at a diocesan position that put him in contact with young people. Someone complained to the bishop, and he was removed from that position. All of that was entirely in the hands of the local bishop, not Cardinal Ratzinger.

3) This decision also has nothing to do with the secular criminal process. The man had already been convicted and sentenced to probation by the state of California in 1978. There is no evidence of any cover-up in this case; and certainly Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't covering anything up. The accusation that you were trying to support was that the Pope had "covered up" molestation. This letter shows nothing of the sort.

4) The bit about "paternal care" involves a mistranslation of the Latin text. "In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible..." The Latin indicates that the bishop should follow the priest with paternal care: that is, keep a close watch on him.