Dawkins versus the Pope

The provocative announcement made by Dawkins and his colleagues of looking into the possibility of arresting the Pope during his coming to the UK has caused a reverberating effect upon the whole world. Everyone became suddenly concerned - both Christians and non-Christians alike - though their concerns are rather extremely different. For the Christian (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox), the concern lies not in the arrest of one particular individual, but in the overall symbolism the arrest signifies. This also is indubitably what is in the mind of non-Christians as well, and to Dawkins and his horsemen, this is probably their underlying agenda anyway.

Dawkins' attack on the Pope is but a part of his outspoken distaste against religion in general and Christianity in particular, and his general crusade to make the world supposedly delusion-free. Although Dawkins' campaigns have generally been appealing and successful, he knows that victory is far from being achieved. In the first place, even if he totally got rid of Christianity, there are a few more God-believing religions he would need to grapple with next. As I see it, the attack on the Pope is a sign of a growing impatience--an impatience that is fuelled by the seemingly slow progress of the death of religion, no matter how many assassins he and his friends send. In a sense, the attack on the Pope is something that Christians should have anticipated. Why not? The Pope is the most well-recognized figurehead of Christianity. Although it is logically false to conclude that the fall of one means the fall of the whole movement he is but a part of, the subjective implications of winning are temptingly high. Opponents would not miss this. So an attack on the Pope can be interpreted as an aggressive move - a once and for all king-versus-king battle. However, Dawkins and his gang would have also already realized that their move carries a big risk. If they win, they win big; but if they lose, they also lose bigtime.

What most people don't understand or appreciate concerning this whole Dawkins-versus-Pope issue is that there are so many things at stake. Whether we like or not, people who know of the present dilemma are choosing which side they are on. They might not be outspoken, but their views will affect their families. And what is the basic unit of societies again? This present dilemma will surely affect history in general.