Richard Dawkins: "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI"

**Mizango** · 2010-04-12 10:21

Milton pretty much jumped the gun and made himself look like a dumb fuck. 2 of the 5 people you quoted have no affiliation with atheism or agnosticism.

Blinded by rage?

**Kaelan?** · 2010-04-12 11:32

What I find telling about this whole thread is what people focus on when they hear about this, as Max pointed out.
Anyway, more information:

The same story, reported in a slightly less sensionalistic way:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9027087

Spoiler: show

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7094757.ece

Spoiler: show

Arrest the Pope? I rather think we should.
The sin of making victims and the community complicit in the abuse cover-up is still not acknowledged
Libby Purves

A pair of voluble atheists — the usual suspects, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens — plan a legal ambush to arrest Pope Benedict XVI during his state visit to Britain. They want him arraigned, Pinochet-style, before he can so much as kiss the airport tarmac.

Well, we shall see. They come from a particular angle — that of determined unbelief — which dilutes their impact. We know that even if the Vatican had never done anything legally dubious or morally wrong, Hitch and Dawk would still hate it. So let me speak as a Deist and cradle Catholic — albeit long alienated — and say that I rather welcome their campaign. This thing needs airing properly, if the good bits of world Catholicism are to survive. Sometimes, with real sorrow, I fear that they won’t. It is not just because of what bad priests did and bad bishops hid: it is also what they made others do.

It is now beyond reasonable doubt that for many years — some of them horribly recent — in cases involving the abuse and rape of children the institution valued its own reputation above justice and kindness. Pope Benedict’s concern for “the good of the universal Church” strikes a dreadful chill when we hear how dangerous priests were left in charge of children or moved away to oppress some new, unwary community. We now learn that it carried on in Britain even after we were smugly told that systems were reformed. Only four years ago, although a High Court had awarded one boy damages for admitted sexual abuse, the perpetrator, Father Pearce of Ealing Abbey, was kept on as a priest within a school — albeit not as a teacher. He was sufficiently unsupervised to groom another boy for sex, take him to a West End show and dinner and follow him abroad. As the police remarked: “You’d have thought they’d watch him like a hawk”: but there is a point where smug corporate loyalty and naivety tip over into wickedness.

From Ireland, America, Australia, Austria, the story is always the same: a brave complaint, an admission of guilt including other crimes, followed only by weak supervision and an exaggerated concern for the perpetrator. The wolf retains his clerical dress and status, making other children and their parents feel safe when they are not. Higher authority deplores the sin, takes the confession but won’t risk corporate reputation by handling it properly. As the Murphy Commission scathingly put it, the priority was always “the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the Church and the preservation of its assets”.

What troubles me even more is that in doing this, church authorities repeatedly dragged other people into collusion and thus into what — in more convenient circumstances — they themselves would call sin. Young victims, particularly of sexual crimes, badly need to know that they are absolutely accepted as innocents betrayed: the crime is not their burden and does not define them. One of the ways in which societies achieve this is by openly punishing the perpetrator. Too often, that didn’t happen. In some of the most infamous Irish cases the children who suffered were sworn to secrecy, with all the dusty, incense-smelling, habit-rustling impressiveness of canonical process. They were made to collaborate in the shame, by men round whose necks hung the cross they had been taught to revere.

Even when there was no such formality, testimonies of the young victims tell us again and again how they would be ordered not to speak of it, often by shocked Catholic parents, and that keeping the invasive memory locked in their breasts bred guilt and shame that festered for a lifetime. Some killed themselves. Many speak of the particular misery of knowing that their silence — their collusion with the lie that all was well — condemned other younger children to the same ordeal.

Nor is it only children who were stained by secrecy. The respect for church authority and wisdom in homogenous Catholic communities — schools, slums, villages — bred another horror. Not only did it make parents unwittingly betray their raped children by disbelieving them, but if you read memoirs of victims, such as Colm O’Gorman, you hear how in later years they would find that many of the adults around them always “sort of knew” — that there were jokes about the priest’s little ways, that you’d do well not to get too close. From Ealing Abbey now we learn that the criminal Father Pearce was widely giggled about as “gay Dave” by the boys. People knew, but knew they mustn’t speak.

It is this particular aspect that troubles me ever more, as new cases unfold and the trail goes higher and higher up the hierarchy. To cover up a crime is wrong, especially when there is a clear risk the perpetrator will do it again. Don’t take my word for it: turn to The Penny Catechism, which long ago I had to learn by heart. Numbers 328 and 329 refer, making it clear that we are “answerable for the sins of others” when we share the guilt “by counsel, command, consent, provocation, by concealment, by silence . . .”.

Forget the lordly authoritarianism which speaks of the “good of the Universal Church”: that Church itself plainly states that concealing crime by silence is wrong, and that it is worse still to counsel and command others to commit the same sin of silence and concealment. Yet this crime, this sin, was being regularly urged on children, parents and parishioners by men in authority: the solemn clerical authority which purports to draw its privilege direct from the eternal Truth and to see into the depths of the heart. It is an all-male authority, too, in which the greenest young priest outranks an experienced nun or devout mother. It has been the perfect screen for wickedness.

Most priests are not wicked. Catholics, in my experience, whether lay or clerical tend to be rather good people: gentle, spiritually aware, concerned for others, kept decently humble by the explicitness of Confession. But their Church has betrayed them, because it fossilised into a culture of hierarchy and unquestioning obedience, at the expense of individual conscience and intelligence. This is the fault line that may bring it down.

I don’t want that, even if Hitchens and Dawkins do. But in making those who trusted it complicit in concealment, the Catholic Church has done a great and terrible wrong to its faithful. And I fear the Vatican still hasn’t grasped the full corruption of that.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/03/...tican-official

Spoiler: show

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7094857.ece

Spoiler: show

From The Times April 12, 2010
Pope faces growing hostility on visit to Malta
Josephine McKenna, Rome

Pope Benedict XVI’s planned two-day trip to Malta this week is set to be overshadowed by the paedophile scandal enveloping the Catholic Church, with victims of abuse on the island demanding that he meet them and apologise.

A papal visit to the staunchly Catholic nation would normally be one of the easier official journeys for a pontiff, but revelations surrounding the scale of the abuse committed by the clergy have stunned and angered the nation. According to the diocesan authorities in Malta, 45 of its 850 priests have been accused of abuse and the Maltese Catholic Church is conducting investigations into several sex abuse claims.

Demands for a public apology by the Pope are being led by Lawrence Grech, who said that he was regularly abused by priests and who is holding a media conference today with nine other alleged victims. “He should recognise that these things happened in Malta, reflect about the victims’ suffering and issue a formal apology,” he said.

“We want to meet the Pope and we want an apology,” added Mr Grech, now 37 and a father of two. He said that he was abused by two priests and a lay Christian Brother at St Joseph’s, a Catholic orphanage in Santa Venera, between 1984 and 1987. He has begun legal action against the clergymen involved. He also claimed that a fourth man has since transferred to Rome without penalty.

“The priest used to come to my room at 6.30am and go to preach at the church at 7am,” Mr Grech said. He wrote to the Vatican a month ago demanding an apology, but has so far has received no response.

Another man Joseph Magro, 38, claimed yesterday that he too had been abused by a priest at the same home when he was between 16 and 18. “I can never forget,” he said. “I want justice.”

No one was available to comment from the Maltese Catholic Church on the claims on Sunday.

At the weekend large billboards promoting the papal visit to Malta on April 17-18 were defaced by vandals who added a Hitler moustache to the Pope’s photograph and scrawled the word paedophile next to his image.

The papal visit is the first foreign trip that the Pope has made since fresh sex allegations in the Catholic Church emerged across Europe and the US, raising questions about his personal response to abusers both as Archbishop of Munich, and later as the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Pope, who will have been pontiff for five years next Monday, is due to visit Britain in September. Leading atheists are considering taking legal action against him when he arrives, alleging that he conspired to cover-up paedophilia committed by some priets to protect the reputation of the church.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_532987.html

Spoiler: show

Posted: April 10, 2010 05:35
The Catholic Church: Why Richard Dawkins Was Right and I Was Wrong
Michael Ruse

I was born in 1940 in England. There is, therefore, not much surprise that I grew up with a prejudice against Roman Catholicism. It was not just the bells and smells and all of that stuff about the Virgin Mary -- although that was bad enough -- but that the Church was run by foreigners. The Archbishop of Canterbury may not have been that impressive, but at least he was one of ours. He was British.

As it happens, I moved to Canada in 1962 and then on to the States in 2000. So I have spent most of my life as a foreigner. I feel quite alien now when I go back to England and don't much care for the beer. I'd like to think that I have grown up in many ways since those early days and that one way I have matured is with respect to institutions that seem to me strange because they are outside my immediate cultural ken. I confess that I still have trouble with the Mormons, but with respect to Catholicism, I have come a long way.

In part, this is because I am a professional philosopher. You cannot do my job without coming to respect the work of the great Catholic theologians-philosophers. I read something in Saint Augustine and think, "No you're wrong. You missed this point." Then I turn the page and he says, "Oh, by the way, you may think I've missed this point. Here's how I explain it." He is simply a superior mind and makes me proud to be a philosopher and humble about what I can do. I feel the same way about others, including Aquinas, even though there is much with which I disagree.

I work a lot on nineteenth-century thought, and a particular favorite of mine is John Henry Newman, the great theologian who began life as an Evangelical, moved on to lead the Anglican High Church movement, and then crossed over to Rome, ending his life as a cardinal. I'm drawn to him in part because I taught for over thirty years in Canada in a society that was in respects as much Catholic as Protestant. My university was in a small town in Southern Ontario, with a population that was about one third Italian -- most of them post-war immigrants, or their children and grandchildren -- and that is before you start to count the Dutch and the Poles and the Ukrainians and so many others. My classes were filled with kids whose last names contained more cees and vees and zees than seemed possible. And I loved them. Bringing together so many people of such diverse backgrounds, including religions, made my classes so vital and worthwhile. The thought of teaching in a monoculture of Presbyterianism -- the predominant Protestant religion in that part of the world -- made me shudder.

I say all of this as a prolegomenon to the sex scandal that engulfs the Church and that seems to get worse daily. One saw from the beginning that it was truly dreadful, but at the same time one wanted -- I very much wanted -- to keep it in perspective and not to let it negate the very great accomplishments, both intellectual and social, of the Catholic Church. Now that I live in America, I think of the very great worth of Catholic institutions of higher education. One of my outstanding grad students at the moment was an undergrad at a small Jesuit school in Connecticut -- and he is not alone. Also, I am sure that because I had been prejudiced, I wanted to cut the Church some slack. Let others with cleaner hands than I do the judging.

But not anymore. In Canada at the moment there is a huge scandal over the way in which a prominent priest, a good friend of John Paul the Second, no less, and a known sexual predator from way back when, was protected and shielded by the hierarchy. Do not take my word for it: a letter about this man -- written in 1993 by a bishop in the Pope's envoy to Canada -- has just emerged. A letter of greater moral depravity would be hard to imagine. Read it yourself.

Go over the contents. It is admitted that this man, a priest, had molested at least four or five boys: "Recently it has been brought to our attention that there was not one but four or five victims in all." No one was disputing this. He was therefore not merely immoral; he was, in the eyes of the law, a criminal. (He is now actually serving a prison sentence in Canada.) He had to be got rid of. Ship him off to Rome! The letter continues: "I would not object to his being given another chance since it would remove him from the Canadian scene." Why was he not simply going to be moved around Canada? Because all of the other bishops knew about him, too, and didn't want him on their patch. But they didn't mind Rome taking him on.

However, here is the catch: as a chum of the Pope, he was likely to get some kind of promotion. This would upset the victims. But they are dumb Pollacks and not about to kick up, thank goodness, even though their councilors are urging that they do just this: "One redeeming [redeeming!] factor is that it would appear that the victims involved are of Polish descent and their respect for the priesthood and the Church has made them refrain from making these allegations public or laying a criminal charge against a priest." However, the victims are already tense because they hear that the man is traveling freely around the world without supervision -- to Thailand, no less -- and if he gets a promotion, especially if he gets made a bishop, then they are going to go ballistic. More worrying, they are going to go public, and that will be awful for the diocese and the Church generally. We've already had to stamp on another priest who found out about everything and talked to one of the victim's mothers. He expressed his concerns to the Vicar General and for his pains had to be "cautioned."

There is no concern whatsoever for the victims, simply fear of the story getting out and advice for how to prevent it happening. And that is it. The letter ends: "With respectful and prayerful good wishes, I remain, Your Excellency, Faithfully yours in Christ, J. R. Windle, Bishop of Pembroke."

I have long been involved in the fight against creationism and its successor, intelligent design theory. To this end, I have embraced strongly the philosophy that science and religion speak of different things -- a philosophy sometimes known as neo-orthodoxy or the independence position. This means that although I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, it does not follow that I cannot respect those who do. Together, believers and non-believers can join in fighting what we both see as travesties of science properly understood and religion properly understood. For this reason I have opposed the so-called New Atheists in their scorn for all and any religious beliefs. And I might add, somewhat proudly, that I, too, had their scorn poured down on my head.

Recently, the New Atheists' most prominent representative, Richard Dawkins, wrote a highly emotive piece for the Washington Post, in which he derided the present pope and expressed glee and satisfaction that such a person was now leading the Catholic Church. In Dawkins's judgment, not only was this no less than the Church deserved, but such leadership could only hasten the Church's demise. I thought at the time that Dawkins was over the top and wrong. I now think that he was right and that it was I who was wrong. Let me say at once that, unlike Dawkins, I don't necessarily want to see this as the end of religion or even of the Catholic Church in some form. I stress that although I cannot share the beliefs of Christians, I respect them and applaud the good that is done in the name of their founder. But I do now think that as presently constituted, the Catholic Church is corrupt and should be eradicated.

You might argue that this is to go too far. But what is the alternative? Vatican Three, perhaps? The Church could open its doors to married priests, give women a proper role (if we can appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, why cannot a woman become a member of the College of Cardinals?), make a place within for gays and other minorities. It could recognize birth control for the blessing that it is and stop insisting that the moment the sperm gets to the ovum, nothing else matters but to preserve this entity, even though such a stand causes unnumbered cases of pain and sadness (and certainly does little to reduce the abortion rate) and leads the Catholic bishops to oppose universal health care, quite apart from the fact that it all flies in the face of the official philosophy of the Church, Thomism. And I could continue.

This will not happen. This last week, the Pope appointed an archbishop for Los Angeles. The appointee is a member of Opus Dei, for goodness's sake. You don't have to subscribe to the nuttiness of The Da Vinci Code to know what this means: he belongs to an organization that throve under Generalissimo Franco, about as right-wing as it is possible to get. Far from trying to reform, the Church is digging in and digging in.

Dawkins is right. The moral mess gets worse and worse. Hope of change is illusory. Götterdämmerung beckons. Although we have different motives and undoubtedly hope for different outcomes, I join Dawkins in welcoming the prospect.

http://tv.gawker.com/5512126/jon-ste...hurch-rolls-on

Spoiler: show

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5344

Spoiler: show

**Sylvrdragon** · 2010-04-12 11:45

Milton, you seem to think that I'm an atheist as part of some sort of trend or that I'm trying to look cool or something. I've been an atheist since I was around 14, and honesty, my faith before that wasn't in god, but rather in my mother who told me to believe in god. Eventually, I realized that people don't walk on water, they don't come back from the dead, prayers don't increase my chances to get things or get out of things, and that the universe already had a system in place to dictate why and how things happen, and it doesn't need a god to work.

You seem to be saying that atheism goes the same distance as religion, but in the opposite direction. I disagree with that view. If the number 1 is pro-religion, and the opposite of that is -1, atheism is 0. I don't want to see a world with atheism propaganda, I want to see a world with NO propaganda.

The reason atheists so adamantly take up arms against religion is that they (religion) take liberties in society that they are not entitled to. Laws, public policy, and what we teach in schools have nothing to do with religious belief, and therefore should be not be dictated by such. These things should set forth by logical process based on real world observations and experiences.

Furthermore, religious believers seem to think that their religion should be awarded special privileges out of nowhere. Tax breaks are one example, but the one that gets my attention the most is that they (believers) think that religion and religious leaders should be above scrutiny. They believe that we should take on a different tone when discussing religion aside from, say, discussing our favorite bands or TV shows. They demand a special show of respect when we discuss religion at the threat of social (and religious) damnation.

Take away these special privileges, power, and indignant attitude, and I honestly would not give a damn about religion any more than I do about someone's favorite band or TV show or brand of pizza.

**Beckwin** · 2010-04-12 14:03

Milton, what the fuck are you even trying to say? Dawkins and Hitchens are pursuing some legal avenue, and many people all over the world are tired of the injustices of the Catholic church, believing that there's no reason for the pope and other high-ups to be immune from facing the consequences of aiding child molesters. The only reason Catholic officials have escaped responsibility so far is because of their religious affiliation/status. It's bullshit, which is why we have these authentic news articles detailing the developments.

**Pirian** · 2010-04-12 14:04

Hey man, catholic priests need love too

**Yugl** · 2010-04-12 15:21

Originally Posted by Sylvrdragon

You seem to be saying that atheism goes the same distance as religion, but in the opposite direction. I disagree with that view. If the number 1 is pro-religion, and the opposite of that is -1, atheism is 0. I don't want to see a world with atheism propaganda, I want to see a world with NO propaganda.

The reason atheists so adamantly take up arms against religion is that they (religion) take liberties in society that they are not entitled to. Laws, public policy, and what we teach in schools have nothing to do with religious belief, and therefore should be not be dictated by such. These things should set forth by logical process based on real world observations and experiences.

Furthermore, religious believers seem to think that their religion should be awarded special privileges out of nowhere. Tax breaks are one example, but the one that gets my attention the most is that they (believers) think that religion and religious leaders should be above scrutiny. They believe that we should take on a different tone when discussing religion aside from, say, discussing our favorite bands or TV shows. They demand a special show of respect when we discuss religion at the threat of social (and religious) damnation.

Take away these special privileges, power, and indignant attitude, and I honestly would not give a damn about religion any more than I do about someone's favorite band or TV show or brand of pizza.

So what you're trying to say is that atheism is the same as wanting equality? I hope you go after elites while you're at it, so we can see real progress when it comes to special benefits and such. They and most of the industrialized nations are the real ones that tip the scale when it comes to inequality.

**Sylvrdragon** · 2010-04-12 15:36

Originally Posted by Yugl

So what you're trying to say is that atheism is the same as wanting equality? I hope you go after elites while you're at it, so we can see real progress when it comes to special benefits and such. They and most of the industrialized nations are the real ones that tip the scale when it comes to inequality.

Works for me. I'm not particularly fond of any form of baseless entitlement. As I said above, I believe things should be decided logically and with as little bias as possible.

**Therin** · 2010-04-12 15:39

Publicity stunt, Dawkins surely isn't stupid enough to think this would work.

**Beckwin** · 2010-04-12 15:39

Originally Posted by Yugl

So what you're trying to say is that atheism is the same as wanting equality? I hope you go after elites while you're at it, so we can see real progress when it comes to special benefits and such. They and most of the industrialized nations are the real ones that tip the scale when it comes to inequality.

many atheists are socialists, so yeah, generally the crown in favor of tight regulation and not expanding corporate/elite power. other atheists are libertarians, who generally oppose corporations as well, even if their overall approach to equality and power relationships in society is a bit warped, imo.

what's your next red herring for me to destroy?

**Khajit** · 2010-04-12 15:53

socialism is like communism. So therefore all atheists are communist whores!
Save us oh great McCarthy! May your wisdom guide us.
I dont think most Catholics(other than the priests) would care much if a high ranking church official was jailed for child molestation other than the fact that it means there were child molesters about .

**Yugl** · 2010-04-12 18:02

Originally Posted by Beckwin

many atheists are socialists, so yeah, generally the crown in favor of tight regulation and not expanding corporate/elite power. other atheists are libertarians, who generally oppose corporations as well, even if their overall approach to equality and power relationships in society is a bit warped, imo.

what's your next red herring for me to destroy?

Oh but look at the pretense under which he's convicting him; it's because he broke the law. Who makes the law? The state, which has a monopoly over power and is inherently not equal. The state, which is run by elites creating rules, are the basis of his conviction. You're saying it's wrong for this man to be above the law when the elites that run the country are above the law which they create.

Don't get me wrong, I think rape and sexual abuse are worse than murder (OPINION), but I think that when people blindly say the law should be omnipotent and dominating are ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when they look to the law as something rational. We can do better than that in convictions. There should be more to it than "Well that's the law" because lets face it, I can imagine a trashy state in which such actions are not condemned.

***Blarg*** · 2010-04-12 18:22

ya guys, just what is the law really?

ok child rapers, carry on

**Beckwin** · 2010-04-12 20:45

gosh darn elitist state making laws against child molestation. that's the real enemy, not, you know, heads of religion (which likes to think it has a monopoly on morality and coincidentally wields disproportionate power in society) who think they can get away with covering up child molestation in other countries.

next fallacious argument?

**Yugl** · 2010-04-12 20:51

Originally Posted by Beckwin

gosh darn elitist state making laws against child molestation. that's the real enemy, not, you know, heads of religion (which likes to think it has a monopoly on morality and coincidentally wields disproportionate power in society) who think they can get away with covering up child molestation in other countries.

next fallacious argument?

It's like you respond without reading. Or is it that you can't read?

**#686578** · 2010-04-12 21:50

Originally Posted by Yugl

It's like you respond without reading. Or is it that you can't read?

He clearly read your post enough to respond to it competently enough to be facetious about it.

What you missed is how he didnt bother to respond properly to you because you never really gave anything to him to respond appropriately to. I'm sure if you had made a well thought out statement he would've taken the time to break it down for you point by point, and probably without insulting you directly.

Oh but look at the pretense under which he's convicting him; it's because he broke the law.

That's not really a pretense, he did actually break the law by attempting to cover up child molestation

Who makes the law? The state, which has a monopoly over power and is inherently not equal.

I'm sorry, did the British people suddenly lose their Parliamentary Democracy? This being the system by which the people are represented by ambassadors of their geographic locations in a congregation that convenes in order to decide the mutual good of the people?

The state, which is run by elites creating rules, are the basis of his conviction.

Oh, I see, you're an American. Well I don't know about you, but I would hope to be represented by the Elite, that is to say the "the best or most skilled members of a group." I certainly wouldnt trust the people to represent me and my decisions to anyone but the absolutely best and most qualified people.

You're saying it's wrong for this man to be above the law when the elites that run the country are above the law which they create.

Apparently you've never heard of The Magna Carta, a very important document in politics for the entire world. In essence, this document declares that no one is above the law, not even the king. A direct quote from wikipedia: "[The Magna Carta is] an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law." The elites that run the country are not above the law that they create. The elites very clearly represent their own people in their best attempt to create laws that fairly and judiciously can serve the nation for the best. No citizen is exempt from the laws of their land, not even those who write the laws. Apparently you're bad at politics, semantics, and history or else you'd know that the Magna Carta came about as a result of Royalty abusing their "divine right."

Don't get me wrong,

I think you got yourself to the point of being wrong all on your own without anyone else helping you

I think rape and sexual abuse are worse than murder (OPINION)

Okay, you said opinion, I cant really argue with you there. You're entitled to your own opinions and I can respect that.

but I think that when people blindly say the law should be omnipotent and dominating are ridiculous.

No one is saying that. Infact, I think people are saying the opposite of that considering our largely democratic societies otherwise we would end up with totalitarian states.

It's even more ridiculous when they look to the law as something rational.

What.

We can do better than that in convictions.

So we're supposed to try someone for something that isn't against the law? Well if you say so, I guess I'll just march into your house and arrest you for not singing God Save the Queen at 2AM every Sunday.

There should be more to it than "Well that's the law"

There is more to it than "Well that's the law", that's why we in America have more than 1 branch of the government. You know that pesky Judicial Branch? The one that decides whether laws are fair or unconstitutional (I'm sorry for going back and forth between American and British political systems, but honestly I'm not as familiar with the British as I would like to be)? Yeah, that's right, our courts. Whenever you're arrested you're actually tried in a court of law not only to decide if what action you took was against the law, but if the law is fair, and if due process was respected.

because lets face it, I can imagine

It's clear you can imagine a lot of fallacies, but you've yet to actually imagine up something that could be construed as a worthwhile thought.

a trashy state in which such actions are not condemned.

Well, you see, that doesnt take much imagination at all. If by "such actions" you're referring to the over arching issue of the thread and mean child molestation, a "trashy state in which such actions are not condemned" would be the Vatican State (not technically a state or nation, but is effectively their own state).

**Plow** · 2010-04-12 22:20

Originally Posted by #686578

I'm sorry, did the British people suddenly lose their Parliamentary Democracy? This being the system by which the people are represented by ambassadors of their geographic locations in a congregation that convenes in order to decide the mutual good of the people?

So, you are trolling, right?

Apparently you've never heard of The Magna Carta, a very important document in politics for the entire world. In essence, this document declares that no one is above the law, not even the king. A direct quote from wikipedia: "[The Magna Carta is] an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law." The elites that run the country are not above the law that they create. The elites very clearly represent their own people in their best attempt to create laws that fairly and judiciously can serve the nation for the best. No citizen is exempt from the laws of their land, not even those who write the laws. Apparently you're bad at politics, semantics, and history or else you'd know that the Magna Carta came about as a result of Royalty abusing their "divine right."

ok, whew

**Sylvrdragon** · 2010-04-12 22:24

I do believe that Yugl is using a different definition of Elite.

From wiki:

Elite (occasionally spelled élite) is taken originally from the Latin, eligere, "to elect". In sociology as in general usage, the elite is a hypothetical group of relatively small size, that is dominant within a large society, having a privileged status perceived as being envied by others of a lower line of order.

The elite at the top of the social strata almost invariably puts it in a position of leadership, whether it be expected or volunteered, and often subjects the holders of elite status to pressure to maintain that leadership position as part of status.

The definition of elite that most of us are used to assumes that the elite status was earned through skill. It's understandable how it came to that, as online, you don't have armies or voters or co-conspirators to help rise you to power, but rather you are dependent upon your own merits.

**Beckwin** · 2010-04-12 23:35

now of course the funny thing, yugl, is that elites do actually face consequences when they break laws regarding sex crimes.

**Yugl** · 2010-04-12 23:40

Originally Posted by #686578

He clearly read your post enough to respond to it competently enough to be facetious about it.

What you missed is how he didnt bother to respond properly to you because you never really gave anything to him to respond appropriately to. I'm sure if you had made a well thought out statement he would've taken the time to break it down for you point by point, and probably without insulting you directly.

If he had read it, he would have noticed that I never permit the actions of the Pope.

That's not really a pretense, he did actually break the law by attempting to cover up child molestation

Pretense was used in haste; perhaps justification is better.

I'm sorry, did the British people suddenly lose their Parliamentary Democracy? This being the system by which the people are represented by ambassadors of their geographic locations in a congregation that convenes in order to decide the mutual good of the people?

This is a closed minded perspective. I'm not talking specifically about Britain, I'm talking about laws in general. Moreover, you assume that democracies produce a representation of the people's will. Anyone with knowledge in political studies will know that's absolute garbage. Democracies don't necessarily reflect the will of the people. The mutual good of the people? Government doesn't work for the mutual good of the people in many instances; it's a domain led by those with power players. Again, something a person with knowledge of politics will know.

Just to supplement that, the district magnitude and plurality voting system of Britain leads to misrepresentation on two levels. First, it leaves votes : seats at a great disproportion. Second, it creates wasted votes. This demonstrates two problems with your argument and I haven't even started with the mechanics of Britain parliamentary system which imbues its power to the majority party (i.e. vote of confidence, though potent, is not as effective as a semi-presidential system).

Oh, I see, you're an American. Well I don't know about you, but I would hope to be represented by the Elite, that is to say the "the best or most skilled members of a group." I certainly wouldnt trust the people to represent me and my decisions to anyone but the absolutely best and most qualified people.

Sylvr is indeed correct when he says we speak of different elites. America or not, it works similarly in most countries. I'm not saying we should have idiots work taking control of government, but I am mentioning a fairly simple concept, which is that if elites control politics and government, then they can manipulate it for their personal benefit. They are not obliged to work for the mutual good of the people as you were hinting at earlier, and to suggest that they do would be pure ignorance.

Moreover, even if we use your definition of elites, individuals who work their way through the party, that does not guarantee that you have the best qualified individuals. Do you know what happens within a Party/Cabinet in Britain? Backbenchers shut up and do what they're told. Everyone else in the majority party runs the show. It's through the party that their career improves. People come to power through parties. The underlying point behind all of this is that politicians, not necessarily technocrats, come to power.

Apparently you've never heard of The Magna Carta, a very important document in politics for the entire world. In essence, this document declares that no one is above the law, not even the king. A direct quote from wikipedia: "[The Magna Carta is] an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law." The elites that run the country are not above the law that they create. The elites very clearly represent their own people in their best attempt to create laws that fairly and judiciously can serve the nation for the best. No citizen is exempt from the laws of their land, not even those who write the laws. Apparently you're bad at politics, semantics, and history or else you'd know that the Magna Carta came about as a result of Royalty abusing their "divine right."

You act as if simply having a doctrine suddenly fixes all the problems. A monopoly over the right to detain people. A monopoly over the right to distribute public goods. These are things that government does and it indeed does put people above the law. If I didn't know any better, I would guess that you treat government like religion. Toss a passage here and there then conclude "Oh it must be true because the Magna Carta says so!". Again, someone with domestic and foreign politics experience (Or simply someone who studies the matter carefully) will understand why I am baffled by your response.

No one is saying that. Infact, I think people are saying the opposite of that considering our largely democratic societies otherwise we would end up with totalitarian states.

Way to contradict yourself. A law can be omnipotent and dominating without society falling into totalitarianism. In fact, if the law demanded that all people be equal in every aspect, totalitarianism would not exist (If the law were demanding and omnipotent).

If you looked at the recent posts, you would see that you are incorrect. Posters were saying they sided with the atheists not because they hate religion, but rather the ability to circumvent law because of religion. That was then supplemented by a statement of wanting equality under the law. In response to that, questioned the legitimacy of laws in general. My point, which you and several others clearly missed, is that these laws are dominated by elites. For this reason, laws may be biased against segments of society. This will prove important as you read further.

What.

What do you mean what? Laws are not rational. Why do laws exist? It's because people with a monopoly over violence (The state) did not like certain actions and attempted to stop such action through laws. Is there rationale behind individual laws such as Anti-Abortion laws? Yes, the rationale is that people will stop having abortions if it's illegal (A flawed rationale as history has shown us). However, you can then question why ban abortions? Then you can take the answers you derive from that and ask why? Keep up with the "why" game and you'll eventually arrive at "Well, I just don't like that".

So we're supposed to try someone for something that isn't against the law? Well if you say so, I guess I'll just march into your house and arrest you for not singing God Save the Queen at 2AM every Sunday.

No. Common sense says that I'm arguing against "Because it's the law" as a means of justifying everything and anything. For instance, if there were no law against the Pope's actions, should we stand idly by and let such a problem continue?

The underlying problem is that we tend to justify everything using laws that are arbitrarily made by those with power. Politicians do not necessarily represent the mutual good of the people. Laws are not without irrational thought -- otherwise, we would not need to create them. They would simply exist like gravity or temperature. That is why I am being cynical and saying "We should convict him because the will of the elite whom exercise a monopoly over violence said so".

There is more to it than "Well that's the law", that's why we in America have more than 1 branch of the government. You know that pesky Judicial Branch? The one that decides whether laws are fair or unconstitutional (I'm sorry for going back and forth between American and British political systems, but honestly I'm not as familiar with the British as I would like to be)? Yeah, that's right, our courts. Whenever you're arrested you're actually tried in a court of law not only to decide if what action you took was against the law, but if the law is fair, and if due process was respected.

Pile of ignorance. You do realize that the basis of the common law system is neither to find the truth nor to care about it right? It was founded on the concept of zealous advocacy, which simply demands two parties come forth with everything they can and clash. The victor is what is proclaimed the "truth". Anything with knowledge about the foundations of this system will quickly point out that those with money and prestige thrive in such an environment. Someone hasn't looked at the recent news on Guantanamo Bay. That right there should demonstrate the degree to which politicians are above the law.

As for the three branches, simply adding more doesn't make it any better. It has more checks, but the laws are still arbitrary. It's a fairly simple concept for anyone who studies these subjects rigorously.

It's clear you can imagine a lot of fallacies, but you've yet to actually imagine up something that could be construed as a worthwhile thought.

It's clear you like to respond to the most asinine points. Have you ever heard of a lead in?

Well, you see, that doesnt take much imagination at all. If by "such actions" you're referring to the over arching issue of the thread and mean child molestation, a "trashy state in which such actions are not condemned" would be the Vatican State (not technically a state or nation, but is effectively their own state).

This gets to the heart of the problem I have with the "It's the law" defense. It's an arbitrary entity determined by various actors. Why should arguments be limited to "It's the law". Why not put this in a more realistic notion and simply say "Because I disagree with it and apparently, as a collective whole, so do the political elites of X country". That's all it is!

Originally Posted by Beckwin

now of course the funny thing, yugl, is that elites do actually face consequences when they break laws regarding sex crimes.

You never really know to what extent that they are. We know about Clinton (Though that is a counterexample), but most information from the White House or within parties can be withheld if necessary. You don't know when information is withheld, so the extent to which this statement is correct is only known by those actors involved. However, I won't argue with the statement itself.

Edit: I am not supportive of the Pope's actions in any way. I simply find it ironic how two arbitrary entities (Law and Religious doctrine) are perceived differently. I think #6wtfitis illustrates this quite nicely as he places adamant faith in the law as some people place adamant faith in religion.

**#686578** · 2010-04-13 02:21

Originally Posted by Yugl

If he had read it, he would have noticed that I never permit the actions of the Pope.

I'm not quite sure you ever had the ability to stop the Pope to begin with.

Pretense was used in haste; perhaps justification is better.

Okay so, let's look at the justification for trying to arrest the Pope, it's because he broke a law.

Should we not be persecuting people for breaking the law? If the Pope shot a bishop in the name of protecting the Catholic church should we not be trying him for murder? The point is that the lawyer wants to arrest the Pope for conspiracy to cover up child molestation.

I'm going to ask you point blank: You say that you're against child molestation, should the Pope be held accountable for trying to protect those who molest children?

This is a closed minded perspective. I'm not talking specifically about Britain, I'm talking about laws in general. Moreover, you assume that democracies produce a representation of the people's will. Anyone with knowledge in political studies will know that's absolute garbage. Democracies don't necessarily reflect the will of the people. The mutual good of the people? Government doesn't work for the mutual good of the people in many instances; it's a domain led by those with power players. Again, something a person with knowledge of politics will know.

All you're saying here is that you distrust government, all government, no matter what the government is. Because there are some governments out there that are not perfect, every government is awful, and we should do away with every government. The entire reason there ARE governments (that aren't being over thrown, that's important) is because they are there to PROTECT and SERVE the PEOPLE, that's the entire reason for governments to exist. A bodily of chosen representatives to enact on your behalf and to represent your best interests. The ideal of every modern day government is to protect its people and serve their interests. By DEFINITION democracies reflect the will of the people, if it didnt, it wouldnt be a democracy.

Just to supplement that, the district magnitude and plurality voting system of Britain leads to misrepresentation on two levels. First, it leaves votes : seats at a great disproportion. Second, it creates wasted votes. This demonstrates two problems with your argument and I haven't even started with the mechanics of Britain parliamentary system which imbues its power to the majority party (i.e. vote of confidence, though potent, is not as effective as a semi-presidential system).

This is highly subjective and opinionated. You're entitled to your opinion and there's no reason to discuss this.

Sylvr is indeed correct when he says we speak of different elites. America or not, it works similarly in most countries. I'm not saying we should have idiots work taking control of government, but I am mentioning a fairly simple concept, which is that if elites control politics and government, then they can manipulate it for their personal benefit. They are not obliged to work for the mutual good of the people as you were hinting at earlier, and to suggest that they do would be pure ignorance.

Are you trying to imply that you cannot run for government unless you have a lot of money? I'm fairly confident there is no statute of limitation on the Presidency "You must be of age 32 years or older, native born to America and with at least 30 million dollars"

Moreover, even if we use your definition of elites, individuals who work their way through the party, that does not guarantee that you have the best qualified individuals. Do you know what happens within a Party/Cabinet in Britain? Backbenchers shut up and do what they're told. Everyone else in the majority party runs the show. It's through the party that their career improves. People come to power through parties. The underlying point behind all of this is that politicians, not necessarily technocrats, come to power.

So you're saying that if I have a choice between two representatives to vote for to represent me, and there's the one who shuts up and listens to the majority party and ignores my needs, wants, and interests... but there is also one that DOESNT shut up, DOES listen to my needs... that I wouldnt vote for the one that represents my interests? How do you continue a career in democratic politics if people do not vote for you?

You act as if simply having a doctrine suddenly fixes all the problems. A monopoly over the right to detain people. A monopoly over the right to distribute public goods. These are things that government does and it indeed does put people above the law.

Yes. Yes it does fix all of those problems. It's called a social contract, you might've heard about it. A government only lasts as long as they uphold their end of the social contract or else the people will overturn them.

Maybe we should just talk about specific governments, like real nations so we're not bogged down by ambiguity and half implications. I've drawn the United States' and the United Kingdom's governments into questions. These were the only two that I was talking about, so if you're mean a different one, please mention which one. But out of these two governments which one has a monopoly over the right to detain people... or the the right to distribute public goods (what is a public good? A utility?)... and if they DO have the monopoly over these rights how does that put them above the law?

Remember your history, when Kings think they're above the law, the people revolt, and the King will die and be replaced by someone the people have confidence and trust in. (This is assuming non-Militaristic Governments in which case the government is FOUNDED upon being above the law, but that's not really pertinent to the discussion, I just wanted to make the difference clear).

If I didn't know any better, I would guess that you treat government like religion. Toss a passage here and there then conclude "Oh it must be true because the Magna Carta says so!". Again, someone with domestic and foreign politics experience (Or simply someone who studies the matter carefully) will understand why I am baffled by your response.

No, not quite. I treat the government as a tool of the people, not as if they were some monolithic giant that hovers above us all like you do. I'm sorry, but all you're doing in all of your statements is expressing your distrust in the government. Which government? Any government. All governments. It doesnt matter which government. At one time, somewhere, one government did not represent the will of its people EXACTLY perfectly, which of course means ALL governments everywhere are corrupt and taking advantage of their people. We need to rise up and overthrow our governments, but let's not reinstitute a government of our own to replace them as our forefathers did. Let us not create a government that WE think is fair, and that WE believe to be serving of our own interests--Because the moment you start governing you're automatically evil.

Way to contradict yourself. A law can be omnipotent and dominating without society falling into totalitarianism. In fact, if the law demanded that all people be equal in every aspect, totalitarianism would not exist (If the law were demanding and omnipotent).

I'm not exactly sure you understand... well.. anything. See, the thing is, if the law were universally powerful, with no checks or balances, then you're in a totalitarian state. For example, in our country of America, if the Executive Branch does NOT hold all of the power, they are NOT universally accepted as the end all be all you have to listen to us. If the Executive Branch DID have omnipotent control over the law then it would be totalitarian. If the law demanded that all people be equal in every aspect, totalitarianism would not exist? Totalitarianism exists when one person believes he is above the law, why would he rule that all people are equal?

For your convenience a quick definition of totalitarianism: "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

See, by very definition of totalitarianism if you cannot oppose your state, it is more than likely totalitarianism. Let's juxtapose this with democracy directly...
Totalitarianism - Government controls the people
Democracy - People control the government

We (Americans), CHOOSE our representatives, we have power over our elected officials, in turn giving us power over our government. If elected officials do not do as we want them to, we either dont elect them again, or we impeach them. If the government is NOT acting according to our will, they wont be our government for long, and they will be replaced by someone who is willing to represent those people.[/quote]

If you looked at the recent posts, you would see that you are incorrect. Posters were saying they sided with the atheists not because they hate religion, but rather the ability to circumvent law because of religion.

What That was then supplemented by a statement of wanting equality under the law. In response to that, questioned the legitimacy of laws in general. My point, which you and several others clearly missed, is that these laws are dominated by elites. For this reason, laws may be biased against segments of society. This will prove important as you read further. [/quote]
What? I never said anything even remotely resembling to that effect. I never once... okay let's go over this again

Originally Posted by You

Originally Posted by Me

Originally Posted by You

but I think that when people blindly say the law should be omnipotent and dominating are ridiculous.

No one is saying that. Infact, I think people are saying the opposite of that considering our largely democratic societies otherwise we would end up with totalitarian states.

If you looked at the recent posts, you would see that you are incorrect. Posters were saying they sided with the atheists not because they hate religion, but rather the ability to circumvent law because of religion.

No where in there do I even remotely begin to imply anything to counter this.

1) You're wrong, no one's siding with the Atheists, Atheists don't have a part in this. No where anywhere is this about Atheism, somehow we finally got back to the original point of the thread, and this is about A MAN who is conspiring as the head of a large organization to make sure that people in his organization wont be held accountable for molesting children. Just this right here, this one section, "Posters were saying... circumvent law because of religion" is inherently WRONG. The issue has nothing to do with religion, let's make that very clear.

2) I'm know what the posters have been saying, because I've read their posts, and I have the capability to interpret them and decipher what their words mean. No one in this thread has said "LOL FINALLY SOMEONE TAKING ON RELIGION"

What do you mean what? Laws are not rational.

...How are laws not rational? Here's an example of a Florida state law against muder:

"782.04 Murder.-- (1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;"

Well, I dont know about you, but that seems pretty rational to me. We dont want people just going around killing people. Sounds good right? Hmm... well I dont know, murder? That's a pretty out of the park example, let's use something more relevant to the thread.

"827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.--

(1) "Child abuse" means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Well this is clearly irrational. There is absolutely no possible reason why this should be a law. The government is NOT enacting in its peoples interest, I know it's clear as day that the residents of Florida dont want it to be against the law that you can't touch a child inappropriately. The government is NOT acting in the common good of the people.

...or wait.

Why do laws exist?

A VERY good question. Why do laws exist. I'm going to attempt to not use any sarcasm here.

Well okay laws must exist because WE the people WANT laws... why would we WANT laws. This is tough maybe we should start from the other direction...

Okay someone has committed a crime, let's say, for example, they molested a child.
Well, so what? We cant do anything about it, we dont have any laws against that, no one said he couldnt, technically he's full within his right to do so.
Well... we dont like that (we being the majority of the people, let's say in this instance it's a BIG majority, like 99.9% of people dont want to allow children to be molested against their will).
Okay we dont want that, so what? Well we could do something about it anyway. We can punish him! Let's just kill him.
Well okay, we've decided so far that, 1) We dont like child molestation and 2) We dont like it enough to prosecute him over it, what's next? Well how would we KNOW he actually did it? Well, we dont really care if finding out if he's guilty or not, let's just kill him anyway
So now we've decided that 1) Something is a crime 2) That the crime is worth punishing someone over and 3) That we can just arbitrarily decide whether people have actually committed the crime or not

I'm going to stop there.
The MOST BASIC reason we have laws is because, we, as a people, generally through our social norms, decided upon what are and are not acceptable behaviors and practices. You, as a citizen of our social group inherently accept the rules of our group, otherwise you're free to just leave, but if you stay, you're going to have to pay the consequences. More than that we've also created laws dictating not just what you can and cant do as an individual, but what WE the PEOPLE as a COLLECTIVE (I.e. the government) can do. In my example the people just killed him without due process (something against the U.S. law). Not only that, they decided what his punishment was arbitrarily. In America we have laws that say what you can and cannot do, how we should go about proving that you've actually done something, and what the consequences of your actions will be. (This is a very simplistic example)

So, let me ask you again. What?

It's because people with a monopoly over violence (The state)

The government does not have a monopoly over violence. Flat out, they dont. It's kind of the SECOND amendment that guarantees American's the right to bear arms. We've done that because we looked at history (something you're not doing) and determined that this needed to be an unalienable right for our people. Our government (and what many modern governments are modeled after) was founded upon is the right of the people to dictate what the government does, and we secured that right through securing our violence. Not every nation has done this of course, but time and time again we've seen governments overthrown, the people revolt, despite their lack of arms.

did not like certain actions and attempted to stop such action through laws.

What. The Government did not like certain actions and attempted to stop them through making laws to outlaw those actions? Remember that part I said about the government only creating laws to serve the interests of the people? Let's go back to that again. The government. Creates laws. To serve. Their people. If the government creates laws to stop certain actions, it is because the people willed it.[/quote]

Is there rationale behind individual laws such as Anti-Abortion laws?

Yes, the rationale is that many people believe it is similar or equal to murder, murder is something we find objectionable (and also illegal) so those people who believed that moved to explicitly outlaw that action.

Yes, the rationale is that people will stop having abortions if it's illegal (A flawed rationale as history has shown us).

What. No... that's... that's not what the rationale is at all. I mean, yes that's the intended effect, but that's not the reasoning behind it. You're missing the point of WHY they want abortions to be outlawed, not just what happens when you outlaw them. It's like someone gave you a childrens coloring book and you found the page to connect the dots. Somehow the picture was intended to connect into a star, but you somehow missed dots 7-12, 14, 56, and 82... and ended up with a weird triangle. You sort of get some of the detail but you really missed a huge part there.

However, you can then question why ban abortions?

Yes, you can. We do it all the time in America. Practically every day we discuss not only the legality of abortions but the social and moral implications as well. And the great part? No one stops us. 1) Abortions are not illegal, and 2) If they were, we're free to change our mind as a collective and say "Hey, we dont want this to be illegal anymore" and the law would be repealed. 'Sup prohibition.

Then you can take the answers you derive from that and ask why? Keep up with the "why" game and you'll eventually arrive at "Well, I just don't like that".

I dont see what this has to do with anything. So now you're going to contemplate the moral and ethical implications of every law and choice and say that because you cant come up with a moral definable absolute of what is and is not wrong regardless of race, culture, or creed that no law is valid? Go back to where I mentioned how laws are essentially the agreed upon rules of a society, otherwise you're going to end up saying "Why is Hell evil and Heaven good? The pain thing? Why is pain bad? 'I just dont like it?' that's not really a good enough reason to not like pain to me, so your entire reasoning as to why Hell is bad is invalid."

No. Common sense says that I'm arguing against "Because it's the law" as a means of justifying everything and anything. For instance, if there were no law against the Pope's actions, should we stand idly by and let such a problem continue?

Yes! If there were NO LAW against child abuse then NO ONE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, we wouldnt be having a discussion on a forum about the pope and his cover ups because the pope wouldnt have even bothered to cover it up in the first place. But let's say there weren't a law against child molestation, and that we (as a majority of the people) had a problem with it, you know what we would do? We would pass a law outlawing child molestation! It probably wouldn't be retroactive using the United States as my continuing example because of our OTHER LAWS against retroactive laws.[/quote]

The underlying problem is that we tend to justify everything using laws that are arbitrarily made by those with power.

No, the underlying problem is that you tend to justify everything through distrust of anyone with any means of power. You're an anarchist masquerading as a devils advocate.

Point blank: Do you think our government works? Do you think any government works? Do you think any government had worked in the past? Do you think that there is any possible government that can work to your exact specifications?

Politicians do not necessarily represent the mutual good of the people.

Yes, they do. By definition. In practice? Maybe not always, but by the large majority they must or else we would find a new system of government to remove those impeding the common good of the people.

Laws are not without irrational thought -- otherwise, we would not need to create them.

What. Are you saying the thought put into the law or human thought in general? Are you saying the reasoning behind the laws is illogical or that humans are illogical so we must make laws.

They would simply exist like gravity or temperature.

So it's the latter of the two, you're not saying that the reasoning behind the laws is irrational, i.e. "Why would anyone bother to outlaw murder? There's no reason for that" you are saying that laws only exist because humans are irrational, i.e. "Why would he murder someone, we must outlaw that to ensure that more people do not do the same?"

If that is the case, and I'm not just putting words in your mouth, then I agree. Humans are entirely illogical. Why would a human kill another human, there's no point to that (other than for food, territory, or other resources)! Why should we have to outlaw unfair business practices and enact services to protect the people and enforce businesses to provide what they advertise, that makes no sense! Why WOULDN'T the business owner provide the best quality service to his customers, afterall, money isnt important and no one would place being truthful over gaining more money.

I started out serious in that last statement and ended up sarcastic, I'm not sure how that happened.

That is why I am being cynical and saying "We should convict him because the will of the elite whom exercise a monopoly over violence said so".

...No... it's more like "We should convict him because we as a people determined that this course of action is wrong. We even went so far as to create a law that specifically states what is and is not wrong so that we can fairly and justly state 'Here, we told you this wasnt allowed, now you'll have to pay the price' yet you did it anyway. Now, we will arrest you, collect evidence, try you, and if you are found guilty we will have the punishment inflicted upon you as you agreed upon by accepting our social contract."

Pile of ignorance. You do realize that the basis of the common law system is neither to find the truth nor to care about it right?

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It was founded on the concept of zealous advocacy, which simply demands two parties come forth with everything they can and clash. The victor is what is proclaimed the "truth". Anything with knowledge about the foundations of this system will quickly point out that those with money and prestige thrive in such an environment. Someone hasn't looked at the recent news on Guantanamo Bay. That right there should demonstrate the degree to which politicians are above the law.

It's not perfect, but that's not to say that it was inherently founded with those unfair ideals in mind. The ideal is to root out truth, he with the most logical evidence is found in favor of. It's not perfect, it's not always accurate, but it's an attempt to allow both sides to offer their own evidence without a Judge arbitrarily deciding a sentence before hearing testimony. Politicians are not above the law. If you know of a politician that's responsible for Guantanamo Bay, have evidence, and want to bring them to light and have charges pressed, you will be listened to.

As for the three branches, simply adding more doesn't make it any better. It has more checks, but the laws are still arbitrary. It's a fairly simple concept for anyone who studies these subjects rigorously.

Do we have the same standards for rigorous? Which laws are arbitrary? Every law that you see has a reason behind it in our democratic society. The law was put into place by those who reasoned that the people wanted the law. If the people oppose the law, or oppose the law at a later date, it either would not have been enacted, or would have been repealed. If the law was not repealed, the people would rise against their representatives, and find a new leader that best represents their interests.

It's clear you like to respond to the most asinine points. Have you ever heard of a lead in?

Dont act as if you didnt comprehend that I was insulting you, it only makes you look foolish.

This gets to the heart of the problem I have with the "It's the law" defense. It's an arbitrary entity determined by various actors. Why should arguments be limited to "It's the law".

It's not "It's the law" it's "It's the will of the people"
It is not an arbitrary entity, it is an entity consisting of representatives chosen by its peoples

Why not put this in a more realistic notion and simply say "Because I disagree with it and apparently, as a collective whole, so do the political elites of X country". That's all it is!

Interesting... a large portion of what I've been saying is that the collective whole of a society determines the law... It seems like the root of the issue is you dont understand what a law is, who passes them, who they pass them for, and why.

You never really know to what extent that they are. We know about Clinton (Though that is a counterexample), but most information from the White House or within parties can be withheld if necessary. You don't know when information is withheld, so the extent to which this statement is correct is only known by those actors involved. However, I won't argue with the statement itself.

I know this wasnt addressed to me, but I'm going to go ahead and step in here anyway.

So your argument is:
"You want to arrest the Pope, not because the Pope is defending child molesters but because it's against the law" (Which is wrong)
"Because you're only trying to prosecute the Pope because it's against the law you're assuming the law is just" (Yes, it is assumed just or it would not be a law for very long if at all)
"You cant assume any law is just because you dont make the laws, the government does" (Which is wrong, we make the laws by proxy through representatives in the government)
"More than you cant assume the law is just, EVERY law is NOT just because the government only passes laws in the governments own interest, and the government is always against the law" (The government passes laws in the interest of the people, otherwise the people would overthrow the government)
"I KNOW this is true because I DONT know everything that the government officials are doing, which clearly means that they ARE abusing their position, in every case" (Really, you're just paranoid)

Thread: Richard Dawkins: "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI"

Thread Tools

Similar Threads

Pope's Advisor On Fighting Pedophilia Arrested On Pedophilia Charges

Richard Dawkins Says Harry Potter is Evil

Yummy . You will be missed

Pope John II - News & afew words.

This is Bowin sayin... "See ya all the F**k around"

how low will Scorpion Harness go?

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads