Atheist asks for the Pope to be arrested when he visits the UK.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Vatican scoffs at calls to arrest Pope on UK trip

THE Vatican has dismissed calls by atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins for the Pope to be arrested when he visits the UK.

Professor Dawkins wants Pope Benedict arrested on his trip in September for questioning over accusations the Catholic Church covered up cases of sexual abuse of children by priests.

But Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said yesterday: "This is a bizarre idea. It looks like the intent is to make a public opinion splash.

The Pope's visit is a visit of state, and so it would be very strange if during a state visit the person who is invited to make a state visit is arrested."

Prof Dawkins told The Scotsman: "All I'm doing is supporting an initiative by a couple of lawyers who are looking into the case against the Pope in a lawyer's way. They've concluded that the status of the Vatican as a sovereign state is extremely dicey."

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Vatican-scoffs--at-calls.6223900.jp

[Pooky 3,787]

I think someone needs ...

[Darnell 8,478]

If he can get a subpeona to appear, under Scottish Law, then more power to him.

[Danno 1,228]

It's rather pathetic to use abused Children as an excuse to wage another attack on Religion.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's rather pathetic to use abused Children as an excuse to wage another attack on Religion.

It is fascinating how your brain works, quite unique.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Danno is just parroting that shite he posted a few days ago from that Pat Buchanan Op-Ed piece.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm...So, it's not pathetic to abuse children?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't fall in step with those atheists who wish to bring down organized religion by hook or by crook, (if indeed there are atheists who have that goal) but I do know that it's an enormous stretch to say that someone who calls for the pope to be arrested is 'using abused children to attack religion'.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I don't fall in step with those atheists who wish to bring down organized religion by hook or by crook, (if indeed there are atheists who have that goal) but I do know that it's an enormous stretch to say that someone who calls for the pope to be arrested is 'using abused children to attack religion'.

so what atheists do you fall in step with?

[Peikko 1,575]

so what atheists do you fall in step with?

Is there any point to that question at all Charles, really?

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Is there any point to that question at all Charles, really?

to get an answer, obviously. nice dodge though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If it's a silly question (i.e. Meaningless) why would not answering it be a "dodge"?

Unless of course the contention is that the question is not silly, but that is even sillier.

VI is a weird place sometimes

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If it's a silly question (i.e. Meaningless) why would not answering it be a "dodge"?

Unless of course the contention is that the question is not silly, but that is even sillier.

VI is a weird place sometimes

VI?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unsure? Really?

[alienlovechild 75]

VI?

It's how he spells one of his former names on OT when he puts his laurel wreath. It usually happens when he thinks he'####### another poster with a zinger.

Edited April 14, 2010 by alienlovechild