no its ok

the next time george bush travels to nigeria ill file an arrest warrant for him too!

jokes

ayettymama:

no its ok

the next time george bush travels to nigeria ill file an arrest warrant for him too!

Well . . . if you have evidence that he violated international laws on say war crimes, then you're free.

omo~fat:

Sadly the reality on ground is that nothing will happen to the pope. Legally it is a minefield to arrest and try him anywhere. He can't be tried while he is a pope and since pope's don't (usually) resign, he will probably avoid the humiliation of an arrest/trial. However, make no mistake of the damage this incident has done to the catholic church's reputation.

You know what the funniest thing is . . . this Dawkins thing will shake a lot of things.

1. It's going to question the western world's myth of equality of every man before the law.

2. Are Christians really as morally superior as they claim?? (Remember the black figures are the Arab terrorists.)

2. Are Christians really as morally superior as they claim?? (Remember the black figures are the Arab terrorists.)

No one claimed that Christians are morally superior , that is your personal stereotyped presumption.

In the West Paedophiles are locked up.

In certain cultures they roam around backed by state law.

^^^ Lets not do culture wars on this thread bruv.

^^

lol.

Just stating facts, there are some people itching to attack christendom even though we all condemn these despicable acts.

So I just want to put things into perpective. !

frosbel:


No one claimed that Christians are morally superior , that is your personal stereotyped presumption.

In the West Paedophiles are locked up.

In certain cultures they roam around backed by state law.

Hehehe . . . we all know Christians think they're morally superior.

I'm not the one that goes to places of worship of traditional religions to burn them.
I'm not the one that went on an 'expedition' to spread Christianity in Africa only to come back with century old artwork.
I'm not the one that comes out to openly criticise homosexuality while telling in-house paedophiles to 'put the integrity of the church' first.

I see Christianity as a personal relationship with God, organised religion could easily be abused as we saw with the Catholic church killing people for translating the Bible into English.

hehehe . . . we all know Christians think they're morally superior.
I'm not the one that goes to places of worship of traditional religions to burn them.
I'm not the one that went on an 'expedition' to spread Christianity in Africa only to come back with century old artwork.
I'm not the one that comes out to openly criticise homosexuality while telling in-house paedophiles to 'put the integrity of the church' first.

Not sure what you mean here, you sound slightly confused !

I see Christianity as a personal relationship with God

Correct. Absolutely.

I am not a catholic by the way .

frosbel:

Not sure what you mean here, you sound slightly confused !

Those are cases where Christians have implied that they are morally superior only to commit worse atrocities in the end.

eldee:

Hehehe . . . we all know Christians think they're morally superior.
I'm not the one that goes to places of worship of traditional religions to burn them.
I'm not the one that went on an 'expedition' to spread Christianity in Africa only to come back with century old artwork.
I'm not the one that comes out to openly criticise homosexuality while telling in-house paedophiles to 'put the integrity of the church' first.

I see Christianity as a personal relationship with God, organised religion could easily be abused as we saw with the Catholic church killing people for translating the Bible into English.

Easy, easy now
This is not a forum to take out your cheap propaganda against christianity or any other religion for that matter. This is about the Pope, his innocence, or guilt.
This discussion taking place in an atmosphere devoid of violence, riots, lootings, and killings is a testament that christians and especially catholics are very open to criticsizm. Developments and improvement do come about when people listen to and tolerate meaningful criticsm.
By nature, all religious practices are dogmatic, and like all things in life only those capable of changing and keeping pace with new developments would survive and prosper.
I think the church will emerge from this incident stronger.

Flexshop said:

@Mzdarkskin, nothing is new under the sun. We have seen rapists,serial killers, mass murderers etc and so cult leaders aint knew,  All u nid is a mental retard wit a poor parental care to produce one.
Like some earlier posters said, just because their is a judas among the 12 does that make them all bad huh?
I aint tryna defend no religion here.lets just be rational.
And about the colonialism black freedom and all dat, that is in the past now.all men are born free.
The making of a pope is not political or based on sentiments.its Gods work you know.

Ok this is getting REAL. first of all had this thread been about Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism; etc no doubt being a fair person as I am I would call them out as well. I am not a saint but unlike some I do not pretend to be, I just happen to seek, observe, and question which as a result I have earned support but more enemies. People tend to dislike the truth. Anything especially regarding facts that will change their lifestyles or perceptions is considered a threat. Some people are zombies! I NEVER said that cults are new did I?

furthermore I did mention the cults because Christians/ Catholics (and I will ALWAYS say) are hypocritical from the foundation of this socalled religion to the present. Catholics fail to realise that many of the world's autrocities are at the hands of the vatican and those who are educated and do use extreme measures to cover up.

Be rational? I realise you are African (either born on the continent or have parentage there) therefore you are not as sympathetic/ empathetic to slavery as someone whose ancestors were shackled as myself (on both my Jamaican and African American sides ) HOWEVER have you or any other Vatican supporter sat back and asked yourself, how is it that MY people became Christians/ Catholics? Why is the South East Asian, African and South American continents in so much turmoil? Do the research. I challenge you to. IF THE POPE isnt involved I will pay you $5.00 U.S. (lol) only because of the effort because in reality the Vatican is what we know as the present day "Babylonian Empire" in Jamaica for good reasons too.

People like you say "it's all in the past, It's not relevant", but as a self proclaimed and part time "historian" (lol), I can tell you that FACT: history ALWAYS repeats itself, it's the ones who acknowledge that fact who in the end are not surprised when it happens but the ones who turned a blinds eye who feels it the most. Edi Amin and Hitler? George Bush and Napoleon? The transatlantic Slave Trade and The Holocaust? Bombs of Hiroshima and the incident of 9/11 World Trade Center collapse? Different places, different times SAME agendas and out of MANY!  The Pope represents imperialism at its finest, trust.

Wish I had my chance to make an input before the moralists and catholic-bashers derailed the thread.

That said, the salient issue is that those who wish to argue from a moral pedestal would fail, since the only court of morality I know is my conscience. As wrong as I percieve a certain practice to be, till the law declares it so, it remains right. Can the Pope be arrested in the instance is not a moral question. It is a legal question. Is Paedophilia a crime? Yes! Is it a crime against humanity? According to the UN  charter on Human Rights, No! It is a sexual crime- a crime against an individual. So Dawkins and his ilk calling for the Pope to be tried for crimes against humanity have lost round one moreso where charges that the Pope supressed reports or protected alleged paedos are yet to be proven. Can the Pope be arrested while on a state visit? No! As a visiting head of state he has diplomatic immunity. Dawkins and his ilk has lost round two. 2nd round TKO if you will. End of story!

^^LOOK AT THE WORDS YOU CHOSE: "moralists & catholic-bashers". I'm sorry is someone getting offended about facts? Moralists? wtf is wrong with standing up for what is right and fighting against hypocrisy? do you see either of us claiming to be perfect? I dare you to quote such a line. Catholic bashers? aside from the fact that Catholicism was founded by a man who not only aided the anti-Jesus camp and celebrated his death before being "cured of blindness" but also a religion that has gallons of blood on its hand! Are you calling shots? Are you part of the Vatican "headquarters" in Rome? Then the beef is not with you.


THE MAN LIED. . .let's face facts before we get angry and all "Super Negroid-Romanish". They nearly crucified President Clinton for doing the grown man but because this man wears a robe he's exempt? MIERDA!

^^^^Hey! Do I sound angry? Well that's strange cos I'm not. Why all the railing about my words "moralists and catholic bashers" ? If you are not one, then you should not be offended. Let's talk about the facts you are trumpeting here: What facts? 'The Man Lied' Got any proof? let me have them then.

naijaking1:

Easy, easy now
This is not a forum to take out your cheap propaganda against christianity or any other religion for that matter. This is about the Pope, his innocence, or guilt.
This discussion taking place in an atmosphere devoid of violence, riots, lootings, and killings is a testament that christians and especially catholics are very open to criticsizm. Developments and improvement do come about when people listen to and tolerate meaningful criticsm.
By nature, all religious practices are dogmatic, and like all things in life only those capable of changing and keeping pace with new developments would survive and prosper.
I think the church will emerge from this incident stronger.

It's not a 'cheap propaganda' or anything.
I made mention of the fact that the Vatican and christians in general see themselves as morally superior to the secular world.
And I just pointed out things anyone can prove and a few I've witnessed myself. . .  

Forgive me for basing my arguments on fact.

well said Eldee.

the FACTS:

[Excerpt from devapriyaji.: On Wednesday, St Patrick’s Day, Cardinal Sean Brady, Primate of All Ireland, apologised for helping to persuade two boys – aged 10 and 14 – to sign letters agreeing not to tell the police that a priest, Brendan Smyth, had abused them.
This was 35 years ago: Brady was just one priest involved in the internal church process, and the story has been in the public domain for years. But what difference does that make? Smyth, now dead, went on to be exposed as a notorious sexual predator. Cardinal Brady said last December that he would resign if he was implicated in decisions that led children to be abused. Now he says he’ll go only if the Holy Father orders him to.
Pope Benedict XVI will have to make up his mind what to do about Cardinal Brady. But it won’t be easy to find the time, because clerical child-abuse scandals – previously mainly confined to the English-speaking world – are bursting out all over Europe. And sections of the media are doing their best to implicate the Pope in one of them.
Did Joseph Ratzinger, when he was Archbishop of Munich in 1980, enable a priest already facing allegations to work in a parish and subsequently abuse boys? A headline in The Times on Saturday left readers in no doubt: “Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry.”
The story was explosive, and not just because it directly implicated the spiritual leader of a billion Catholics. The Pope is visiting England and Scotland in September. He will meet the Queen at Holyrood House, Edinburgh, and beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the great English theologian, at a public Mass in Coventry. And he will offer “guidance on the great moral issues of our day”, according to Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Church in Scotland.
Moral guidance? From a man who (according to The Times) knew a priest was a paedophile but allowed him to continue in ministry? If that were true, no wonder 28,000 people have signed a petition to the Prime Minister objecting to state funding of Benedict’s visit.]

I OWNED! ofcourse that site is Pro-Catholic and tried to "justify" the Pope's actions but the fact is a child molester still remained as a priest after being exposed. That is not debatable.  Mainly confined to the English speaking world? OUCH! I wonder why that is? This explains why each year the Atheism POPULATION GROWS. Religion and honesty is an oxymoron I'M SORRY TO SAY. All i know is God is real and hes only the Creator I pray to or being that I trust.

Rheinmetal:

Wish I had my chance to make an input before the moralists and catholic-bashers derailed the thread.

That said, the salient issue is that those who wish to argue from a moral pedestal would fail, since the only court of morality I know is my conscience. As wrong as I percieve a certain practice to be, till the law declares it so, it remains right. Can the Pope be arrested in the instance is not a moral question. It is a legal question. Is Paedophilia a crime? Yes! Is it a crime against humanity? According to the UN  charter on Human Rights, No! It is a sexual crime- a crime against an individual. So Dawkins and his ilk calling for the Pope to be tried for crimes against humanity have lost round one moreso where charges that the Pope supressed reports or protected alleged paedos are yet to be proven. Can the Pope be arrested while on a state visit? No! As a visiting head of state he has diplomatic immunity. Dawkins and his ilk has lost round two. 2nd round TKO if you will. End of story!

1. Moral Court?? Let's be reasonable supporting paedophilia is worse than murder in any reasonable man's conscience.
The Pope already lost the moral battle no doubt about that.

2. Now you missed the second point, paedophilia is a crime against the person . . .  concealment of a serious crime is a crime against the State.

3. The charges are yet to be proven, hence the need for a trial.

4. The Vatican is not recognised as a State according to the United Nations.

The topic: Critics call for the pope to be arrested.

My reply: Let them keep calling, cos that's all they're going to be doing. He can not be arrested!

@ Carlo of course he wont be arrested. Thats just the bottom line. Arrest a faux God? no way,

Carlosein:

The topic: Critics call for the pope to be arrested.

My reply: Let them keep calling, cos that's all they're going to be doing. He can not be arrested!

So you're proud to admit that 'Saint Peter's successor' committed a crime against humanity and is only escaping from flaws in the law??
Wow!!! I'm apalled . . . WWJD??

lmfao. Poor carlo. He just wanted to state his opinion lol.

eldee:

So you're proud to admit that 'Saint Peter's successor' committed a crime against humanity and is only escaping from flaws in the law??
Wow!!! I'm apalled . . . WWJD??

Obviously the Pope is not St.Peter's successor.

eldee:

So you're proud to admit that 'Saint Peter's successor' committed a crime against humanity and is only escaping from flaws in the law??
Wow!!! I'm apalled . . . WWJD??

Good for you!

What most peeps don't get is that the Papacy is an institution, one that dates back 2000 years at that. Cardinal Ratzinger can answer for what Cardinal Ratzinger did (If you can prove that he did anything wrong). On the other hand, the papacy is the Office of the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI has no case to answer on these allegations, or better still can you seperate the man from the office he holds in this case?

@ eldee

No reasonable man would support paedophilia, agreed. Show me anywhere the papacy advocated or shielded paedophiles.

As for the Bishopfry, several Bishops have owned up to 'mishandling' reports brought forward by victims against paedophile priests. Some have resigned in disgrace. Is this a case of the Vatican not putting enough pressure on the recalcitrant ones to follow suit or a case of the Vatican shielding paedophiles? If it is the latter, then the Pope has not lost the moral battle.

Concealment of a serious crime is a crime against the state, but the charges contemplated are for crimes against humanity. I restate that Paedophilia is not a crime against humanity. It would appear that you missed the second point.

You can not try the Pope for reasons aforesaid, So I am afraid there isn't going to be any trial except as you and I have agreed in the Moral Court.

The Bishop of Rome is a Head of State and is accorded full rights of a visiting head of state wherever he goes. At least he's not visiting China. Whether or not the Vatican is recognised by the UN is topic for another day.

Rheinmetal:

Wish I had my chance to make an input before the moralists and catholic-bashers derailed the thread.

That said, the salient issue is that those who wish to argue from a moral pedestal would fail, since the only court of morality I know is my conscience. As wrong as I percieve a certain practice to be, till the law declares it so, it remains right. Can the Pope be arrested in the instance is not a moral question. It is a legal question. Is Paedophilia a crime? Yes! Is it a crime against humanity? According to the UN  charter on Human Rights, No! It is a sexual crime- a crime against an individual. So Dawkins and his ilk calling for the Pope to be tried for crimes against humanity have lost round one moreso where charges that the Pope supressed reports or protected alleged paedos are yet to be proven. Can the Pope be arrested while on a state visit? No! As a visiting head of state he has diplomatic immunity. Dawkins and his ilk has lost round two. 2nd round TKO if you will. End of story!

Pure drivel.

^^^
Pure drivel to you sir!

Rheinmetal:

W[b]hat most peeps don't get is that the Papacy is an institution, one that dates back 2000 years at that. Cardinal Ratzinger can answer for what Cardinal Ratzinger did (If you can prove that he did anything wrong). On the other hand, the papacy is the Office of the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI has no case to answer on these allegations, or better still can you seperate the man from the office he holds in this case?[/b]

Complete BS.

I have to give you props though. Wonderful sleight of hand. You're a correct magician  

Just change the names around and you have two different people abi? Pope Benedict <> Cardinal Ratzinger abi?

You state that Cardinal Ratzinger can answer for what cardinal ratzinger did ---- except there isn't a cardinal ratzinger anymore! - boy you almost got me on that one.

He has become a new creature aint it? - Ratzinger?, not here, nothing to see here, move it along! smokescreen!!

Respectfully, the rest of your post is equally BS.

@ eldee

No reasonable man would support paedophilia, agreed. Show me anywhere the papacy advocated or shielded paedophiles.

As for the Bishopfry, several Bishops have owned up to 'mishandling' reports brought forward by victims against paedophile priests. Some have resigned in disgrace. Is this a case of the Vatican not putting enough pressure on the recalcitrant ones to follow suit or a case of the Vatican shielding paedophiles? If it is the latter, then the Pope has not lost the moral battle.

Concealment of a serious crime is a crime against the state, but the charges contemplated are for crimes against humanity. I restate that Paedophilia is not a crime against humanity. It would appear that you missed the second point.

You can not try the Pope for reasons aforesaid, So I am afraid there isn't going to be any trial except as you and I have agreed in the Moral Court.

The Bishop of Rome is a Head of State and is accorded full rights of a visiting head of state wherever he goes. At least he's not visiting China. Whether or not the Vatican is recognised by the UN is topic for another day.

^^^ Respectfully sir! Easy to type in the letters B.S. aint ? But to articulate the points to counter B.S. probably not your forte

If you've followed the thread, you will see that most of your points have been thoroughly refuted.

I think we both agree on one point: that sadly, pope benedict (cardinal ratzinger) would not be arrested any time soon.

That however is no consolation to the many many lives that have been broken due to this sad episode in the church's history.

@ Omo this episode is sad indeed. All the world needs is more honesty. I believe in fairness. If the Pope is guilty and really a man of God/ Righteous he needs to do the time simple. If he is a man of his word he needs to be more than willing to face his judgment. Bottom line. But being who he is, that wont happen and all of his pawns/ puppies/ pets wont have that.

Rheinmetal:

What most peeps don't get is that the Papacy is an institution, one that dates back 2000 years at that. Cardinal Ratzinger can answer for what Cardinal Ratzinger did (If you can prove that he did anything wrong). On the other hand, the papacy is the Office of the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI has no case to answer on these allegations, or better still can you seperate the man from the office he holds in this case?

A killed B when he worked as a Mechanic in 1952
A becomes a policeman and gets right to kill legally.
Does that mean A's 1952 crimes disappear??

There goes your flawed argument.

Rheinmetal:

No reasonable man would support paedophilia, agreed. Show me anywhere the papacy advocated or shielded paedophiles.

As for the Bishopfry, several Bishops have owned up to 'mishandling' reports brought forward by victims against paedophile priests. Some have resigned in disgrace. Is this a case of the Vatican not putting enough pressure on the recalcitrant ones to follow suit or a case of the Vatican shielding paedophiles? If it is the latter, then the Pope has not lost the moral battle.

Concealment of a serious crime is a crime against the state, but the charges contemplated are for crimes against humanity. I restate that Paedophilia is not a crime against humanity. It would appear that you missed the second point.

You can not try the Pope for reasons aforesaid, So I am afraid there isn't going to be any trial except as you and I have agreed in the Moral Court.

The Bishop of Rome is a Head of State and is accorded full rights of a visiting head of state wherever he goes. At least he's not visiting China. Whether or not the Vatican is recognised by the UN is topic for another day.

1. The person now known as Pope Benedict not the office has been accused. There is already enough evidence for this for them to even start to think of suing him. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not me.

2. The evidence has been brought forward that the letter was not manhandled.

3. Aiite, let's do this again, A kills B, C protects A from federal investigation. Unlawful murder is a crime against the person but concealing it is a crime against the state. Paedophilia is a crime against the person too (Under European Law) and the same could go for it.

Now have you read the news today?? Since 2002, heads of state are no longer immune from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

So that's two possibilities . . . Tried in England or tried by the International laws on Child Rights in the ICC.

eldee:

So you're proud to admit that 'Saint Peter's successor' committed a crime against humanity and is only escaping from flaws in the law??
Wow!!! I'm apalled . . . WWJD??

In this 21st century, some folks still believe that Jesus apostles Simon Peter has a religious title during his life on earth and was a pope. What a load of rubbish, Jesus never touched the European soil let alone Rome and the same goes for Peter himself. Jesus apostles during Jesus time on earth and after he departed to heaven were discouraged by Jesus himself on the issue of a human leader. He told them that none of them should claim to be a leader, that if you want to be a leader you must first of all serve others and demonstrated by washing their feet.
Catholic Church both ancient and modern has no relationship with true Christianity founded by Jesus. It was a rebranded ancient Roman paganism religion, that use the brute force of Roman empire to hijack the new religion called  Christianity, after many years of trying to stop it spread and killing the believer, hence the Roman phrase of “If you can’t stop them, then join them and change thing from within.  That is the genesis of much ancient paganism festival like Christmas, Easter, Valentine’s Day and many others.
Has anyone ever gone into any of their churches? It is full of idols and images that the Christian constitution called the bible condemned totally.  Bible history showed that Jesus follower never had a clergy class unlike the Catholics had today. Jesus said that all his followers shall be called brothers, not big sounding names like "his eminence, his grace and other nonsense’s they arrogate called themselves.

Apostle Peter by the way was a married man and so were many of his brothers in Christ, so where concept of the celibacy among the clergy class did comes from? There is little different between Catholic Church and our local Sango worshippers as they both worship past dead humans, it is just that one called his own ancestors and the other the saints. How can a human being be called a saint when Jesus himself rebuffed the idea of calling him good?

Reading the various comments on this thread, I must say that its been totally interesting seeing tempers flare and read emotionally-laden comments. Lets stay objective people. This is a simple matter really. The pope cannot be arrested if he goes to London because there are so many considerations. Topping the list is that the London police cant afford to arrest him because they have no jurisdiction in the matter. That aside, Cardinal Radzinsky (as he then was )was wrong in his decision on the issue. If it were to be punishable, of course he can be arrested for goodness sake. He just human like every one of us. And where the hell did we hear that he took over from St. Paul as Gods representative on earth. Ovbiously, most of us are high on doctrine as opposed to history as it really happened.