₦airaland Forum

chamotex:
Nah that was Sagna's fault. . . .as a full back you  should never be behind your centre backs.
Sol and Silvestre had pushed up

debosky:


Almunia should've saved that - he's just made that boy look good for no reason.  

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?

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

FL Gators:
Oluwaeldee,

I get am. . . . but e expensive small sha

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.