Richard Dawkins vs The Pope

Richard Dawkins is at least 70 now, I think, and formally retired as a scientist.Anyway, I see no reason at all why he shouldn't be free to campaign on whatever issues he likes, whether or not he is retired. What has it got to do with anything that he is or was a scientist?It seems kind of unfair if scientists should not be allowed to exercise a democratic right to campaign on whatever issue they choose, just like anyone else; especially if it's decided that men who wear silly hats and believe in sky fairies should be allowed to run a worldwide systematic cover up of sexual abuse of little children.It's fantastic that he has the courage to make this stand, and frankly shameful that the rest of us didn't even think to do so. We all have knowledge of this widespread atrocity, so we all have a responsibility to alert the legal authorities to the perpetrators and their crimes.

I still don't understand why any civilised law-abiding person would be against anyone else from taking a stand against a systematic cover up of child abuse. Who needs friends or allies who would be against taking a stand in a case such as this?This case of abuse is a prime example of exactly why Dawkins and others are so opposed to the power that irrational belief can wield in society. It would be perverse and hypocritical of Dawkins not to make this stand in this case. Again, I couldn't disagree more. I agree with Wounded King that if respected scientists campaign on a particular issue, that should lend credibility to the cause. I fail to see how a respected scientist campaigning on an issue could harm the cause.The implication of what you are saying is that someone who campaigns for bringing to justice perpetrators of a foul crime is bringing disrepute upon themselves and therefore any other cause they may support. I can't see how that makes any sense. If I was undecided about the Evolution/Creation debate, and I heard that the supporters of Evolution Theory were also campaigning against paedophiles, whereas supporters of Creation Theory were campaigning in support of protecting paedophiles, it would only make me think that the Evolutionists were more capable of thinking the right way. If it affected my opinion in the Evolution/Creation debate, it could only be in favour of Evolution.

I see what angle you are coming from, and that is the viewpoint many people have in debate on this issue. But you have to stop and think:"Why does Dawkins have a deep hostility to religion?"The answer is because he sees it as a cause of harm! It's precisely because religion is responsible for providing people with a smokescreen to get away with special privilige - including all kinds of abuse!If religion was a completely benign phenomenen, that caused nobody any harm, then he wouldn't be motivated against religion!To argue that Dawkins is should not take action against the Catholic Church in this case because he is a known campaigner against religious abuse, is the same as saying that the RSPCA (Royal Society for Protection Against Cruelty to Animals) should not take action against someone for starving their dog, or that Greenpeace should not take action against an oil company for negligently causing polution.

Where did you get the above idea? I don't think Dawkins has ever made the above argument, although many of his critics may have implied that he has to throw up yet another smokescreen.Dawkins is quite clear in his writings that he is very strongly against people being indoctrinated with religious beliefs. He often expresses sympathy for those who have been led to believe in various religions and the emotional problems that has caused them. I have never heard him criticise a "regular" christian for holding a belief that they have been indoctrinated with, because he understands extremely well how easy it is to indoctrinate people, especially children. He admits he believed in god himself as a child.His criticisms are against the system and the individuals responsible for the indoctrination, especially where he sees they are using it to gain power and influence over others.It is clear from the many debates I have seen on this subject, that even many atheists feel uneasy about the idea of the pope being prosecuted. It's because we have pussy-footed around religion for far too long. There has to be a time when we break the spell. It will undoubtedly ruffle a lot of feathers, and may well cause a backlash of sorts, but in the long run I think it will only be a good thing.