• Pope requests legal immunity
    41 replies, posted
"You are not to be unjust in deciding a case. You are not to show partiality to the poor or honor the great. Instead, decide the case of your neighbor with righteousness." (International Standard Version) Leviticus 19:15
Maybe he wants to confess stuff he covered up.
[QUOTE=Killuah;39614889]Maybe he wants to confess stuff he covered up.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm hoping.
[QUOTE=Killuah;39614889]Maybe he wants to confess stuff he covered up.[/QUOTE] That would be the best option. id still fucking hate him for doing it in the first place though.
That's some bronze-age thinking right there.
[QUOTE=Reds;39610094]Because religion. And let's face it, religion will cause bias in pretty much anything when you have a religious court or religious judges.[/QUOTE] assuming that he was sent to court, if a judge was catholic he would pretty much be forced to stand down from the case because she has a conflict of interest. [editline]17th February 2013[/editline] hell in the usa judges can't preside over the same defendant more than a couple times before the defense is able to successfully get the judge to stand down because of an emotional conflict of interest.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;39613954]I could see giving someone immunity, in order to get their help and testimony to bring down bigger criminals. He's the Pope though, I don't think criminals get much bigger than that. Maybe he has some dirt on a President or Prime Minister or maybe he has the Holy Grail stashed somewhere and he can trade that.[/QUOTE] We need him so we can finally charge god
Generally high standing members of governments are given legal immunity (Diplomatic immunity being the most tedious and well used form of this) because it's nearly impossible to prevent conflict of interest. Particularly because it's almost certain that enough lawyers piled into one spot with an agenda can find a reason to find a reason to put someone in court. In the 1920's and 30's it was common practice in America to get rid of Communist sympathisers by bringing them to court on small but innocuous things. A ticket, a fine, slander, this or that. Then hit them with lots of heavy legal proceedings one you had them detained, ultimately deporting them or essentially ruining them. "But that's nothing like this!" Says the Pope-trialer. Not really. A year or so ago, some Attorneys wanted to file a class action lawsuit against, guess who. Because he was/is the head of the Catholic church, it was just a publicity stunt. Now let's imagine they can sue him. He's one little old man, technically sure. But he's also the FORMER POPE. If an unbiased judge could be found to approve the case, the Church would have to mount a meticulous defense, while the Lawyers would essentially role in unmitigated fame as "the men who tried a pope." That's assuming you can find an unbiased judge or jury though. Just not being Catholic won't cut it. It's virtually impossible to form a hypothetical Christian judge who won't have some bias for or against. "Find an Athiest or an Agnostic Judge." That's probably even worse. If you sincerely believe that these philosophies let them try a religious head fairly, then you're mad. A corner stone of modern and post-modern Atheism is Anti-Theism. Combating religion to "clear away the opiate of man kind." Agnostics are no better. It would take a spinelessly agnostic judge or jury to 'fairly' try the head, former or current, of a major religious institution. I'm not saying it's impossible but it would require that they have absolutely no personal view except that of justice. Which while admirable, is found only in cartoons and caricatures of judges and juries. "Alright alright, how about an arbiter that isn't Christian or Atheist?" Then we remember that Benedict did well to shit on Christianity's ties with other religions. The only way to try Benedict fairly would be if you found a judge who had managed to over the last several years eject every thought of Religion, Catholicism, or Pope Benedict from their head, and disregard any news about it all. Which won't happen.
Here are the unsigned court papers served to the Vatican back in 2011: [I][B]"Criminal Charges against Dr. Joseph Ratzinger, Pope of the Roman Catholic Church on grounds of Crimes against Humanity According to Art. 7 ICC Statute"[/B][/I] [URL]http://www.kanzlei-sailer.de/pope-lawsuit-2011.pdf[/URL] Pretty interesting read.
dirty fucker i hope he doesn't get shit, resigns & gets his ass arrested i have a hard time thinking of scumbags worse than those who actively help child-molesters escape justice so they can do it again
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;39616663]Generally high standing members of governments are given legal immunity (Diplomatic immunity being the most tedious and well used form of this) because it's nearly impossible to prevent conflict of interest. Particularly because it's almost certain that enough lawyers piled into one spot with an agenda can find a reason to find a reason to put someone in court. In the 1920's and 30's it was common practice in America to get rid of Communist sympathisers by bringing them to court on small but innocuous things. A ticket, a fine, slander, this or that. Then hit them with lots of heavy legal proceedings one you had them detained, ultimately deporting them or essentially ruining them. "But that's nothing like this!" Says the Pope-trialer. Not really. A year or so ago, some Attorneys wanted to file a class action lawsuit against, guess who. Because he was/is the head of the Catholic church, it was just a publicity stunt. Now let's imagine they can sue him. He's one little old man, technically sure. But he's also the FORMER POPE. If an unbiased judge could be found to approve the case, the Church would have to mount a meticulous defense, while the Lawyers would essentially role in unmitigated fame as "the men who tried a pope." That's assuming you can find an unbiased judge or jury though. Just not being Catholic won't cut it. It's virtually impossible to form a hypothetical Christian judge who won't have some bias for or against. "Find an Athiest or an Agnostic Judge." That's probably even worse. If you sincerely believe that these philosophies let them try a religious head fairly, then you're mad. A corner stone of modern and post-modern Atheism is Anti-Theism. Combating religion to "clear away the opiate of man kind." Agnostics are no better. It would take a spinelessly agnostic judge or jury to 'fairly' try the head, former or current, of a major religious institution. I'm not saying it's impossible but it would require that they have absolutely no personal view except that of justice. Which while admirable, is found only in cartoons and caricatures of judges and juries. "Alright alright, how about an arbiter that isn't Christian or Atheist?" Then we remember that Benedict did well to shit on Christianity's ties with other religions. The only way to try Benedict fairly would be if you found a judge who had managed to over the last several years eject every thought of Religion, Catholicism, or Pope Benedict from their head, and disregard any news about it all. Which won't happen.[/QUOTE] so he should get away with things just because...?
[img]http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/john-ratzenberger.jpg[/img] God damn it, John Ratzenberger. . .just what are you hiding?!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.