Richard Dawkins wants to arrest the Pope…
Richard Dawkins wants to arrest the Pope for ‘crimes against humanity’.
(By the way, this proves Dawkins is not an Islamophobe. He just hates all ‘religion’.)
Richard Dawkins wants to arrest the Pope for ‘crimes against humanity’.
(By the way, this proves Dawkins is not an Islamophobe. He just hates all ‘religion’.)
thabet, 
shams, 
mirelle 8:29 am on April 11, 2010 Permalink
I’m reminded that while the British government arrested Pinochet (the example used by Dawkins) at the behest of Spain, Pinochet was eventually allowed to leave for Chile. And all the time Pinochet was “under arrest” in the UK, he was in a hospital.
I’m thinking that if you’re going to arrest a head of state, you need to have the charges very well-defined (and, in defence of Spain, the charges were very well-defined). Just tossing off a “crimes against humanity” charge isn’t going to cut it.
plimfix 8:35 am on April 11, 2010 Permalink
Didn’t Pinochet suddenly develop Alzheimer’s, and then – safely back in Chile – he was suddenly found to be compus mentis? It’s not the kind of stunt the Pope could pull, though, really.
mirelle 8:41 am on April 11, 2010 Permalink
Yeah, pretty much. The labyrinthine details can be found here.
And, you’re right, the Pope couldn’t pull that trick. One of my longtime online buddies had worked on a previous (and unsuccessful case) to make the Vatican responsible for the child abuse committed by priests. I should ask him what he thinks of this.
Muffy 11:26 am on April 11, 2010 Permalink
I always knew the term “crime against humanity” was a bit vague and problematic, but Dawkins is essentially rendering the term meaningless. It’s questionable if the Pope even did anything illegal, let a alone a “crime against humanity.” In any case, he’s a head of state — Vatican City.There have been heads of state that have done vastly worse things than the Pope, including the Catholic Robert Mugabe. If he wants to pick on Catholics, target Mugabe. Dawkins is making a fool of himself and should be ashamed.
In the case of Pinochet in Chile, the terms actually weren’t that well defined, either. He was accused of “genocide,” but the Spanish wanted the term “genocide” to include extermination of people based on an ideology (as opposed to a race or ethnicity). Of course, this is just silly and renders the term “genocide” meaningless as well. It was a political decision by Spanish Socialists who wanted to punish Pinochet while ignoring the crimes of Castro.
Dan 12:53 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
I was about to mention the infamous Ngo Dinh Diem but of course he is dead so the point is moot.
razib, murtad fitri 6:05 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
By the way, this proves Dawkins is not an Islamophobe. He just hates all ‘religion’
from my minimal face-to-face interaction with him i got a sense he has a special animus toward catholicism. i chalk it up to his family’s low church anglican background.
as for dawkins the islamophobe, i used to think muslims were being plain dishonest when they accused him of this. but recently i realized since the majority of muslims are creationists or anti-evolutionists they might be totally ignorant of his long history of anti-religious assertions and rants, and only paid attention when he turned his attention to their faith.
another reason to be suspicious of organized islamery. hostility toward religion = bigotry.
aziz 6:06 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
wouldnt hostility towards religion be a genuine form of bogotry? “you are religious, therefore you are stupid” is pretty much within the operational definition of bigotry, it seems.
razib, murtad fitri 6:09 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
wouldnt hostility towards religion be a genuine form of bogotry? “you are religious, therefore you are stupid” is pretty much within the operational definition of bigotry, it seems.
where does the second necessarily follow from the former?
razib, murtad fitri 6:11 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
and i’ve seen plenty of hostility toward various ideologies here. is that bigotry toward anyone who has a notional attachment toward that ideology? or is it beyond comprehension that people can believe that ideologies can be background/primitive/wrongheaded without impugning the character or nature of people who you think are misguided?
razib, murtad fitri 6:24 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
also, from what i’ve read about dawkins, i believe has a special animus toward catholicism because he believes that the church is an organized lobby against progress and human happiness. as well as concerns like overpopulation and such. i don’t know how far back it goes, but it was evident in some of his writings as far back as the early 90s that i can tell. though this sort of thing is making him look like a total fool, it might be OK within his social circles.
razib, murtad fitri 6:25 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
i really wish dawkins would leave being chris hitchens to chris hitchens. dawkins produces divine scientific prose, even if you disagree with his conclusions. other stuff, he’s a total bore.
thabet 8:31 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
Heh.
I agree entirely.
thabet 9:53 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
Geoffrey Robertson has a better argument than Dawkins.
thabet 9:56 pm on April 11, 2010 Permalink
Meanwhile Damien Thompson is seeing an anti-Catholic conspiracy everywhere.
shams 8:10 am on April 12, 2010 Permalink
Thabet, I’m sorry to belabor the point, but Dawkins is wrong about religion being evil.
It is evangelism and proselytizing that are the great evils visited on humanity.
Religion is good for homo sapiens sapiens, it evolved as a fitness advantage.
Evangelism is what makes wars and missionaries….the idea that ones own religion (or government or culture) is superior, and there is some sort of right or obligation to impose their world view on others in the interest of “their own good”.
Evangelizing is a fitness advantage however for the invading culture/religion/military force……it allows moral certitude on the part of the evangelists seeking to impose their mutant strategy on the local evolved CSS.
thabet 11:09 pm on April 12, 2010 Permalink
I don’t see why you need to be sorry. I am not defending Dawkins.