This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Interview with Richard Dawkins

Interview with Richard Dawkins - Comments

Live_and_Learn's Avatar Comment 1 by Live_and_Learn

Beware the Atheist!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:19:00 UTC | #459441

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 2 by Tyler Durden

"I'm just confused as to how is this a crime against humanity, I suppose?"

Well done Hala, keep the CNN flag flying!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:22:00 UTC | #459442

cdg123's Avatar Comment 3 by cdg123

Way to keep up the pressure Richard...

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:22:00 UTC | #459443

Harlon57's Avatar Comment 4 by Harlon57

The interviewer was not paying attention.

After Richard mentioned that the Pope, then cardinal, had been complicit in the cover up of a crime, she asked him why the pope should be held responsible for the actions of some priests.

Incompetent, or just didn't hear what Richard said because she doesn't like what it meant.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:23:00 UTC | #459444

rsharvey's Avatar Comment 5 by rsharvey

Nicely done Richard. Perhaps the interviewer was just playing devils advocate, but I can't honestly believe the stance that most people take on this issue. This is almost a reductio ad absurdum of the privileged position religion holds within society. Who else would they defend in such a position?! The closest I can think is of the way the American right wing protect their politicians, but I should think even they would stop short of condoning the systematic cover up of child rape.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:24:00 UTC | #459445

dinc12964's Avatar Comment 6 by dinc12964

I really don't understand how Mr. Dawkins maintains his composure but he does. Kudos

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:00 UTC | #459446

sarith21's Avatar Comment 7 by sarith21

How many thick interviewers like this does Richard have to deal with...

She just doesn't seem to get the point. How did the pope do anything wrong ethically? I wonder if she'd ask that question if she'd been raped by a school teacher as an 11-year old, and the principal ordered the 'interests of the school' be put first.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:34:00 UTC | #459452

helena!'s Avatar Comment 8 by helena!

CNN International has equally dumb reporters asking equally idiotic questions as the american one.

I can't watch CNN anymore it really kills brain cells and lowers one's intelligence. It's just filled with pro faith and pro religion idiots including the reporters.

Richard again keeps his composure as he communicates reason and logic. But to the irrational they simply cannot comprehend anything rational.

I am enjoying all this negative press against the pope. He deserves everything he gets. Welcome to reality popey.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:35:00 UTC | #459453

ljietuvis's Avatar Comment 9 by ljietuvis

Of course, the probability of the pope really being arrested is really low. Pope is one of the most powerful people in the world. Also, I respect the interviewer's point that this doesn't fit the definition of crimme against humanity. I don't know the real definition, but I guess covering up a paedophile man isn't enough.
Anyway... I respect both Dawkins and Hitchens for what they're doing. And, as Dawkins said, this is good for conciousness-raising.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:37:00 UTC | #459456

blayzekohime's Avatar Comment 10 by blayzekohime

They kept asking the same question over and over.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:39:00 UTC | #459457

markg's Avatar Comment 11 by markg

It's great that this is on CNN International. Now when is the mothership - CNN - going to have the balls to let this air in America.

I don't get it. They've had weeks of coverage of all the current sex abuse scandals. But to report atheists are pursuing efforts to arrest the pope is forbidden?

The New York Times brought much to light after the Murphy report in Ireland. But now they too are saying diddly squat about arresting the pope.

The U.S. mainstream media has failed here.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:45:00 UTC | #459461

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 12 by Diacanu

Y'know what I like?

Psycho-Christians.
Full blown, no internal censors.

The kind that write foaming invective in e-mails and on message boards, all caps, terrible spelling, shit like "fuck you, Atheist! Fucking ahteeeiiiistt!!! go to Heeeellll!!!", you can just imagine them at their keyboard, hands trembling, face all red, tears dribbling out, teeth grinding, "must...fight...you...must defend...my...CHUUUURCH!!", croaking from the back of their throat.

Know why I like a guy/gal like that?

The honesty.

They put the bullshit right up on the table with a dull wet "thud".
No pretense.

I honestly think that's what's hiding behind the veneer, the social masks, of the dipshits that try to "gotcha", Richard (and fail miserably).

It's in the eyes.
And the little micro-expressions.
Teeny forehead wrinkle, teeny lip curl.
It's all there.

Yeah, I don't like veneers, costumes, games.
Not a big intrigue person either.

I like directness, and to receive it in return.

Give me the crazies any day.

You can whack 'em with a stick, and be done in time for an hour lunch.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:46:00 UTC | #459462

cdg123's Avatar Comment 13 by cdg123

Richard,

A couple more talking points for you to consider. When Ratzinger the Cardinal did take over the CDF he presided over 3000 cases of sex abuse of priests against minors

-Did Ratzinger notify the authorities outside of the church about any of these 3000 cases.
- Did Ratzinger send out into the public hundreds or thousands of pedophiles for us or our children to have fend off?
- Doesn't a person of "moral authority" have a responsibility to protect the public at large?
- How many of these offenders repeated once removed from the church?

I have four small children and I would appreciate some consideration from the church...

This is from Catholic News Service: (and taken from a Blitz442 comment)

"Since 2001, when the doctrinal congregation took over juridical control of accusations of sex abuse by priests against minors, it has processed about 3,000 cases, dealing with crimes committed over the last 50 years."

"Most cases have been handled without a church trial, because of the advanced age of the accused, and the penalties in such cases has usually been the imposition of strict limitations on the priest’s ministry. About 20 percent of cases resulted in a church trial, with most of the accused found guilty. In the most serious cases, about 10 percent of the total, the pope has dismissed the offender from the priesthood, and in another 10 percent the priest has been laicized at his request."

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:50:00 UTC | #459464

Ashira's Avatar Comment 14 by Ashira

Good job! The interviewer kept asking the same question but doesn't listen to the answer because it isn't what she wanted to hear. Was she playing with her iphone on air?! that is unprofessional.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:01:00 UTC | #459473

Harman Smith's Avatar Comment 15 by Harman Smith

That was... a pretty terrible interview. There were really only two questions, and the first one kept getting repeated.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:10:00 UTC | #459476

Rikitiki13's Avatar Comment 16 by Rikitiki13

There once was a pontiff named Bennie
Whose priesthood they never got any
Except with the kids
Whom they fiddle-dee-did
If caught, just relocate, Va bene!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:20:00 UTC | #459480

Justin Vasquez's Avatar Comment 17 by Justin Vasquez

I respect the interviewer's point that this doesn't fit the definition of crimme against humanity. I don't know the real definition, but I guess covering up a paedophile man isn't enough.


It think it absolutely fits the definition.

Crimes against humanity are defined as particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice


It doesn't look like there's much wiggle room here.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:22:00 UTC | #459482

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 18 by Mr DArcy

Let me first declare an interest: I have no love for religion in general, and I hate the RCC.

The real damage this institution has done to humanity is incalculable. The whole edifice is based on this chain of command leading up to and ending with the Pope (Holy Joe). Quite apart from the sexual abuse of mostly young human beings, and the shielding of the perpetrators, its real crime is the shackling of millions of minds with its mystical and magical viewpoint presented as "Truth". It has enslaved vast numbers in its mesh, and together with its bully boy hierarchy has largely ensured obedience to its odious theology and thereby had massive control over human behaviour. It loves "sin" and for humans to be sinful. "Sin" is the RCC's bread and butter, making millions of people feel guilty about being human! Whilst in no way belittling the illegal fucking of young people or other abuse, its real crime lies in holding back humanity's progress by its reactionary views.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:29:00 UTC | #459485

Quine's Avatar Comment 19 by Quine

What a joke it is, indeed.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:40:00 UTC | #459491

DeusExNihilum's Avatar Comment 20 by DeusExNihilum

Holy moly, what an incompetent interviewer.

Well done Richard, you are a bastion of calm, rational thinking as always :)

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:02:00 UTC | #459500

Damien Trotter's Avatar Comment 21 by Damien Trotter

10, 11, 12 year-old children


It gets far worse than that.

Watching a documentary on this very subject last Monday on one of the Freeview channels, I was astounded to hear of the rape of a 9-month-old baby by a priest in California. Not 9 years old - nine fucking months. I still can't get my head round how un-human these priests are. There really are no depths some of these priests will not embrace. It beggars belief.

DT

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:23:00 UTC | #459509

mgjinich's Avatar Comment 22 by mgjinich

This world seems to be a little better, isn't it? Imagine our dearest RD burnt at the stake for saying what he said!!!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:36:00 UTC | #459518

BirdofPrey's Avatar Comment 23 by BirdofPrey

21. Comment #480146 by Damien Trotter


There are decent priests. What they are is Pedhophiles. Don't make the mistake of saying Priest = Pedhophiles.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:37:00 UTC | #459520

The Plc's Avatar Comment 24 by The Plc

I fear that people are becoming desensitised to how terrible this institutionally crime is. The term "child abuse" really doesn't convey the level of humiliation, pain and degradation that the innocent child victims suffer because of these sadistic monsters. As a person raised in an relatively benign Irish Catholic background, I feel profoundly saddened, to the point of tears, when I read about the shocking, life destroying individual cases of clerical torture.

Keep up the campaign Prof. Dawkins and Mr Hitchens, you have all our support.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:38:00 UTC | #459521

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 25 by ANTIcarrot

Sorry, but Richard was a bit of an idiot here. I understand his reluctance to give 'uneducated' answers as a non-lawyer, but his defensiveness struck me as moral cowardess.

You don't need to be an expert to refer to Article 7 of the UN Treaty or the Rome Statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity#United_Nations

You don't need to be an expert to correct the misaprehension that crimes-against-humanity are the same thing as war-crimes. Orders aren't needed from a leader. Mere tollerence of widespread and systamatic abuse is all that needs to be proven.

These aren't technical legal questions. These are simple basic principles. It took me less than five minutes to find them online. And I'm sorry, but if Mr Dawkins can't spend five minutes doing homework before an interview, then he shouldn't have done it.

What he should have said was something like this:
"I'm not a lawyer, but... Crimes against humanity is a slightly different concept from war-crimes. CAH requires two things. Systamatic abuse, and the consent of a government, or defacto power. The pope didn't have to order child abuse to be guilty, he merely had to be aware of it and take no action to stop it. We can be fairly sure he did know, because we have evidence he issued orders to cover it up. If that evidence can hold up in court, then he is guilty."

Without this statement he came across like this:
You're not allowed to ask me why. Why? Because you're not. You're simply not...

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:51:00 UTC | #459527

Damien Trotter's Avatar Comment 26 by Damien Trotter

Re Comment #480157 by BirdofPrey

Well, according to the programme I watched, the Catholic authorities in California estimated that 10% of their own priests are paedophiles.

Nevertheless, I am sure there are still many well-meaning priests around. I only wanted to point out that in some cases, priestly abuse of the young is miles worse than one would want to consider.

DT

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:55:00 UTC | #459529

bethe123's Avatar Comment 27 by bethe123

The reporter was tolerable.

Of course members of the RD forum have been closely watching this unfold, and so her questions would have been rather basic for a forum member, but that would not necessarily be the case for the public at large. The basic questions she asked would have been wondered by somebody new to the drama, including the crimes against humanity question.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:59:00 UTC | #459532

The Plc's Avatar Comment 28 by The Plc

@Anticarrot

I think it's a lot more easier to discuss legal issue while one is at a desk and has the relevant Wikipedia pages open, when any lay person can talk about it with the impression of erudition. It's another question to go on a news programme and speak live about subjects you're a non-expert in.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:04:00 UTC | #459533

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 29 by Diacanu

ANTIcarrot-


...moral cowardess.


A female moral coward?

(I'm going to be laughing at that all day now)

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:08:00 UTC | #459535

cdg123's Avatar Comment 30 by cdg123

Wow check out this damning documentary

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sex-crimes-and-the-vatican/

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:10:00 UTC | #459537