Hundreds of childrens' lives destroyed by paedophile priests with the full knowledge of officials in the Catholic Church. The report published in Ireland yesterday will enrage you: priests shared abuse victims between each other; high church officials relocated paedophile priests knowing that they were likely to abuse more children. When they did, the paedophile priest was merely moved again. This is a sickening report. The Garda (police) refused to investigate the abuse because the priests were seen as above the law. From the Irish Times:

The commission investigated the handling of allegations made against a sample out of 46 priests out of 102 against whom complaints were made between 1975 and 2004.

Among its other main findings were:

All archbishops and many of the auxiliary bishops in Dublin handled child sexual abuse complaints badly. None of the four archbishops reported their knowledge of abuse to gardaí “throughout the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s”.

Church authorities used the concept of “mental reservation”, which allows senior clergy to mislead people without being guilty, in the church’s eyes, of lying.

:: One priest admitted sexually abusing more than 100 children;

:: Another accepted he abused on a fortnightly basis during his 25-year ministry;

:: One complaint was made against a priest who later admitted abusing at least six other children;

:: It took gardaí 20 years to decide on a prosecution of one priest.




The vatican refused to cooperate with this three year long investigation.

Oh this will be a fun thread to watch...

State and religion should never be intertwined as it puts forward a skewed view on morality, as demonstrated above.

Best way to go about it is for them to see religion as a business then hunt those paedophiles down with sharp erasers.

I could start hammering away with jokes at this stage, but i rather not get banned for them lol.

I have a feeling this thread will be destroyed pretty quickly.

I can't imagine THIS thread going badly at all...

JD21290 wrote:I could start hammering away with jokes at this stage, but i rather not get banned for them lol.

I have a feeling this thread will be destroyed pretty quickly.

I am resisting so hard to not make any jokes that my pores are bleeding...

Jimi, tell you what, we will give it an hour, if its still here and stable we will start with a single joke each, then 2 each and so on

1st one to end up locking the thread wins


PS: Would the MOD that locks this please let us know who won?

Because rape and child abuse is funny

Someone get a stake, I'll get the kindling.

The Catholic church in ireland has too many skellies in the closet of this variety. however Carholism elsewhere is far less prone to such abuses. In Ireland it is difficult to critique the church, even now.

I have met one victim who came to our writers circle for a talk a couple of years back, she said that victims could only get compensation if they signed an NDA and were hounded by the Irish government for one, not so much the church. It's a secret that is long under wraps, which causes the rot to fester.

I spoke to her about my family background with my suster and my mothers time under the care of the Catholic church in Stafford. She expected to hear another abuse story, and made comment as such, but in fact what I had to say was that my family were taken care of. My mother had a messy divorce from a very brutal husband back in the day when divorces were rare. Without anywhere to go and no means to educate my sister my mother turned to the convent where she was educated. They accepted by sister without a further word and looked after her.

I know of many otyhers with a convent eduucation around the same time periods and after, no signs of abuse anywhere, planty of evidence of decent care and faithful ministry. It is poinient to note that my family were and are not Catholcis either. Sectarismism, not the slightest glimmer.

Here in England it is more difficult - though certainly not impossible as reports have shown - for abuse to flourish. I know this is the case in most other European countries.

The abuse rife church is limited to Irish catholicism, in Ireland and elsewhere and some parts of South America. In general in those areas where Catholicism is above the law by popular tradition. Even so in those areas the majority are not corrupted.

It is long time for the abuses to be exposed and stop, but 'catholicism' as and of itself is not to blame. I am also prepared to believe that a clear up is part of the agenda of the current Pope, its a matter of exposing what is hidden not only to the outside world, but also to the majority of the catholic community worldwide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An addendum for all those above who posted 'in before lock' style posts.

here on Dakka we CAN discuss religion (and politics) from widely different viewpoints without trolling. Please join in the discussion or stay out, dont naysay though, it doesnt help. Suee on a lot of forums such threads might only last half a page, but experience proves otherwise here. We have theists, atheists and others who can string an intelligent post together and read same without getting upset. Please give us some credit, or at least some room.
Many if not most relgion threads here last several pages of informed arguement back and forth without trolling and without a thread lock. Look back, the evidence is here, threads I refer to are still open for you to read - though preferably not to necro.

I will be hoping and expecting the mods to delete the comments from any trolls who turn up without blocking the duiscussion that ensues.

The Catholic Church in the US isn't doing much better. At least one archdioceses and several dioceses have had to declare bankruptcy to protect them from lawsuits brought by victims of abuse. (That's Archdiocese Portland, and Diocese including Wilmington, Davenport, San Diego, Tuscon, Spokane, Fairbanks, and others)

Child abuse is endemic to the Catholic church, and yet most Catholics seem to turn a blind eye to it. I simply don't understand. If I had been Catholic, I'd have left the church after finding out how widespread the problem is.

I believe I saw a south park on this very issue In all truth though I far from condone what these men have done, and strongly believe in hangings I feel that to a certain point the church itself pushed them into their sick and twisted sexual desires.

For a long time not allowing priests to marry in all honesty goes against gods own beliefs of going forth and multiplying, as such they are forced to submerge their sexual desires and taught it is a sin to at least indulge on their own selfs to satisfy these feelings. Any shrink will tell you repressing our most basic of emotions will begin to distort those feelings and as such screw up the persons head.

Now I am sure this offends a bunch of you out their and to that effect well I am just stating an opinon on the topic at hand, and in my own feel the church has bread this sick and twisted action and by not moving forward in certain thinkings they have condoned(not sure if I spelled that right) the actions of these priests. I mean honestly when was the last time anyone heard of a Prodestant, or Baptist minister touching children..... no idea huh because im not saying it hasnt happened, but it has been soooooo infrequent over the century's because of the family ideals and allowing these men and women to marry. Only recently did I see on CNN that the Catholic church was allowing women to take more of a role as priests instead of just nuns.

I think you will find a recurring pattern, some parts of the Catholic church are rife with paedos, others are free of them. I did mention some communities in the US as problem areas. Normally those with Irish rather than Italian cultural origin, though the rot has spread a little in the melting pot.

Here in England the Catholic church is child safe for purposes of boarding schools and other activities that are high risk from your experiences. Had I any kids I would trust them to the same convent that educated and cared for my mother and sister without worries.

The major difference is that a paedo English catholic priest wont get away with it, then and now. even before PC the police would act and the state would not whitewash. Those paedo scandals we have had are due to social work incompetence and well covered up rings.

It would be no easier for a paedo priest in France or Germany, Catholicism isn't above the law their either, so the abuse culture cannot develop easily. There will always be exceptions but those are individuals, not a culture of abuse.

Many of the finest priests in the Catholic church are Irish, and a good many of them get out of Ireland to minister. I wonder if there is a connection.

I am by no means singling out the irish especially here in the states. I just was saying as a whole.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151078368

Mate, what has gone on is an absolute and utter disgrace. The government helped?!!

It turns my stomach. How ANYONE can defend a paedo beggars belief, even if you were brainwashed from a young age. Ireland will end up a theocracy like Iran unless some large changes are made. And abortion is still illegal. Its 2009 ffs.

Anyway, the reason people are saying humorous things, is not cos its a funny topic. Its because Dakka is an American website, and you know, they dont like it when you criticize religion.

You can criticize Politicians, Peoples taste in clothes or music, and comment about how ugly peoples faces are, but point out what is an obvious truth, an astoundingly obvious truth, that Organised Religion has a habit of causing otherwise good people, to do terrible things and your thread will be locked faster than you can say "INFIDEL"

And yes, the Earth is older than 6000 years. It is a proven fact. And evolution is not "just a theory".

Anyway, glad i got that off my chest! I agree with your revulsion. Shame on the swines that did this, but your thread aint gonna last past 1700hours!

The problem is in the states we do have do "tip toe" if you will around religous conversation as it is a huge strong point to many. Personally I am devoutly religous, but I also believe in science heavily. I can't remember who the scientist was who said "the more I study the universe the more I can not not believe their is a higher power" or something along those lines. The problem is our country has developed into a bunch of either right wing or left wing nut jobs who in the end are pretty damn much the same. Those of us in the grey area or middle such as I am are forced to not follow through with our freedom of speech as for fear of law suits till next tuesday.Even though America is the land of the free and we are far better off then a lot of nations the fact is we care more on handling the rest of the worlds problems then our own. At least our leadership does, and sadly yes their have been tons of these child molestation cases amongst the church out here, and cover up's galor, but the problem is our laws followed to the point in court that you could end up screwing yourself over beccause your lawyer didnt read the fine print. I know it's confusing to understand what I am implying, but really it's confusing overall.

mattyrm wrote:http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151078368

Mate, what has gone on is an absolute and utter disgrace. The government helped?!!

It turns my stomach. How ANYONE can defend a paedo beggars belief, even if you were brainwashed from a young age. Ireland will end up a theocracy like Iran unless some large changes are made. And abortion is still illegal. Its 2009 ffs.

This looks directed at me. obviously you havent read the post at all though, just skimmed it and then got upset. Try (re)reading it please, you seen to be violently agreeing.

mattyrm wrote:
And yes, the Earth is older than 6000 years. It is a proven fact. And evolution is not "just a theory".

What has this got to do with it.

mattyrm wrote:
but your thread aint gonna last past 1700hours!

It should be ok, noone has to troll, and no mod has to lock when they can selectively target the guilty.

JD21290 wrote:Jimi, tell you what, we will give it an hour, if its still here and stable we will start with a single joke each, then 2 each and so on

1st one to end up locking the thread wins


PS: Would the MOD that locks this please let us know who won?

You know you guys need to report these threads.
If we kept to Orlanth level then yes its a thread to discuss, and when I read his I went to edit my own to keep open. Then I read the posts after and realized, yep this ones going to flamewar. WTF does evolution have to do with this? Slamming the entire C Church ebcause of this is also bad form.

I am shutting it down. I could see this one as attacking the entire C Church. Personally I hope the priests that covered this up and the ones that did it, are dealt withand have a special place in hell waiting for them. But this is not all Catholics or all priests so shutting down. Closing to avoid a flame war.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK reopening after vociferous request by Orlanth and Da Boss. Batter up but if this turns into a free ranging Catholics (or other people of faith or atheists) are evil and/or stupid I'm shutting it back down. Here's your chance to prove me wrong peoples.

mattyrm wrote:
You can criticize Politicians, Peoples taste in clothes or music, and comment about how ugly peoples faces are, but point out what is an obvious truth, an astoundingly obvious truth, that Organised Religion has a habit of causing otherwise good people, to do terrible things and your thread will be locked faster than you can say "INFIDEL"

Politics, economics, nationalism, and many other things all have similar 'habits'. Should we sit around a campfire and accost those things as well?

I mean, its pretty clear to me that the real thorn in humanity's side is the 'family'. People that develop 'bonds' with their 'genetic relations' are a scourge upon this earth who impede the fair distribution of resources based on merit.

mattyrm wrote:
And yes, the Earth is older than 6000 years. It is a proven fact. And evolution is not "just a theory".

Evolution is just a theory. The problem is that most people have a deep misunderstanding of the term 'theory' as it applies to science.

olympia wrote:
:: One priest admitted sexually abusing more than 100 children;

Great scott thats disgusting. Hopefully the Catholic Church didn't put that one back in service.

Jimi Nemesis wrote:I am resisting so hard to not make any jokes that my pores are bleeding...

That's going in my sig! How is this thread not locked yet? The real-world inquisition must be on vacation. Or too busy hunting down Dan Brown.

All this jumping around about the Catholic Church, you do know about the rate of child sex abuse in the Jehovah's Witnesses, right guys?

When I was working in the SS, we had several rings of paedophiles uncovered who had joined the JWs, because of the way in which JWs don't trust external things like the police, the social services, the school authority etc and instead govern all aspects from inside the community via 'Elders', several of whom were themselves child molesters. The traditional stance as ordained by the watchtower is that if an allegation is made by a child, that it's best for the family to try to work it out themselves over the course of several weeks before the elder should take any further action...

Quite terrible things are going on, even when the reports are made by children to elders, the elders simply submit the reports back to the watchtower. The Governing Body of Elders is reputed to hold a database with the largest list of unreported child sex attack allegations in the world.

This mentions the database:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silentlambs

Churches are particularly choice targets for pedophiles due to the kids. We have serious back ground tests and procedures for any volunteers with children. We also will exclude people who check out but don't feel right.

We don't let damnyankees in either, but thats a whole different issue.

Frazzled wrote:Churches are particularly choice targets for pedophiles due to the kids. We have serious back ground tests and procedures for any volunteers with children. We also will exclude people who check out but don't feel right.

We don't let damnyankees in either, but thats a whole different issue.

See, that's why certain churches/denominations are going to be lower risk, the open style and freedom of expression seen in a modern baptist church for example, or methodist, would be extremely difficult for a predatory paedophile to operate in, since they rely on being left alone with children in a religion that teaches silence and ingrains guilt and a sense of sin. JWs and Catholic backdrop is based around absolute authority of the elder or priest as the living word. Much emphasis in those faiths is built around suppression and obedience and silence.

Your average, open, lively church that encourages interaction and community is far less likely to be targeted and far more difficult for a sexual predator to commit crimes in.

Paedophiles do try to gravitate towards certain professions and vocations because it makes grooming easier, honest people who happen to share those professions share our disgust.

Perverts and other social predators also flourish in closed communities. Cults as mentioned above - it goes furtgher than the JW's, some minorities are also prone - especially ones where underage marriage is not a taboo. This is dealt with on a case by case basis and not tolerated but the statistics are firmly swept under the carpet to avoid inciting race tensions. This is very understandable and is not a whitewash because authorities will punish the guilty when they find them.

As far as im concerened, any organization that would hide, help, or ignore a child molester should be delt with as harshly as the offender when caught. Church, government, cult what ever. Make them pay for their inaction or actions weather it was turning a blind eye or defending the Pedi.

mattyrm wrote:

Anyway, the reason people are saying humorous things, is not cos its a funny topic. Its because Dakka is an American website, and you know, they dont like it when you criticize religion.

It's more like we've developed a gallows humor about the subject. It's so tragic you
make jokes to deal with it.

It is also because, while acting like this is BIG NEWS, it has been in the news for at least over a decade. This has been talked about a lot already and nothing said here has not already been said before.

Hawkins wrote:As far as im concerened, any organization that would hide, help, or ignore a child molester should be delt with as harshly as the offender when caught. Church, government, cult what ever. Make them pay for their inaction or actions weather it was turning a blind eye or defending the Pedi.

'Nice' sounding sentiment, but very dangerous if unchecked. How do you prove culpability, and where does the trail end? This is how tyranny starts, looking for the undesirables in a section of the community, and labeling whole sections as part of a great evil. we are seeing some of this earlier on the thread. If peadophiles can be hated and Catholics are paedophiles, thus Catholics can be hated.
Its difficult to clean up organisations, and dangerous to label them, this is the primary reason and is potentially one of the few things worse than child molestors because we have seen exactly where the hates lead in our history books, and on the TV new today.

Three quick thoughts:

1) It sounds obvious, but when you label all kinds of sex as bad, except sex between married couples, and then elminate that as an option... well, you're not going to have a lot of recruits that are all about male/female intercourse. It's an open secret that many of the seminarians are either gay, asexual, not overly sexual, or have less savory desires. When you eliminate those men for whom regular sex with women is important, you end up with a pretty skewed sample.

2) The way the Catholic Church handled these scandals was a shame, and it deeply saddens me that my Church would act in this way. I'd like to remind everybody, that the Church is merely the richest backer of paedophiles, not the biggest supplier. More kids are molested by close family members than by anything else. We hear about the Priests, but not the uncles. And we should, of course. it's just important to keep perspective.

3) While the victims no doubt deserve their money, it's not like the cash used to pay these settlements is coming out of the pockets of the rich priests. The Catholic Church has a pretty admirable track record of charitable giving, especially with regards to education.

Polonius wrote:1) It sounds obvious, but when you label all kinds of sex as bad, except sex between married couples, and then elminate that as an option... well, you're not going to have a lot of recruits that are all about male/female intercourse. It's an open secret that many of the seminarians are either gay, asexual, not overly sexual, or have less savory desires. When you eliminate those men for whom regular sex with women is important, you end up with a pretty skewed sample.

Well considering the orthodox interpretation of Scripture and its definition of sexual immorality, the Church is just following the rules. As far as whether or not priests should be married or not is a whole different issue. Remember, becoming a man of the cloth is not something to be taken lightly, and the Church should be more selective in its process. It isn't just a job, you are literally married to the Church, in accordance with the wishes of St. Paul, and therefore you are supposed to give up carnal desires and wants in order to better serve God and the Church. As far as the RCC is concerned, I am fairly happy with its state, so much so that I seriously toyed with the thought of converting. I find that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are both very Godly men, and worthy holders of the Ring of St. Peter. I am continually surprised at the growing passion and vigor among the many Catholics that I know, and many of my good Catholic friends are very competent amateur theologians. I am very optimistic about the future of the Church and its relations to the other major sects of Christendom.

As a PK, and a man, I find the the requirements of the of the Catholic Church ridiculous in the modern (or any other) world.

I simply do not believe that the issue of pedophilia is a recent monster. The idea of an entirely celibate clergy strikes me as foolish from the get-go.

dogma wrote:As a PK, and a man, I find the the requirements of the of the Catholic Church ridiculous in the modern (or any other) world.

I simply do not believe that the issue of pedophilia is a recent monster. The idea of an entirely celibate clergy strikes me as foolish from the get-go.

Yeah, I don't really know how I feel about it either at this point. I mean I am a stickler for tradition, I must have been born old, but I think that the Church may be following an overly strict interpretation of St. Paul when he practically begs the men and women of the Church to not marry in order to better serve God. Its a tough issue to be sure, especially in the modern world...I may just be missing something entirely, but at the risk of sounding naive, what do you mean PK? I assume you don't mean Powerklaw....

It is worth pointing out that the actual underlying reason for Catholic priests to not marry came about in the 11th Century due to land inheritance issues and the Pope of that time introducing priestly celibacy as a way of avoiding sons of priests wanting to inherist land that was deemed to belong to the Church. It is not something that goes all the way back to the creation of the Church.

The actions of some leaders within the Catholic Church are abhorrent, but any organisation as large as the Catholic Church will have abhorrent people within it. The main problem is the institutionalised and automatic defense of its own members due to some seeming notion of infallibility. Too many members of the Catholic hierarchy seem to feel this infallibility is passed down from the Pope to the entirety of the Catholic clergy, or to the Church as an organisation. To my eyes there is a lot in common with Japanese traditions that it is more important to maintain the impression of honour/decency/morals than the actuality of it. It seems to me that the Catholic Church is, in many cases, happier to cling to a lie than to admit the truth, Even when everyone, including the Church, the victims, the public, everyone, know that it is a lie.

Of course, as I said before, it is worth remembering that despite the awful people in the Catholic Church, there are also a large number of very decent people within the Church. It can only be hoped that over time they can alter the dominant culture of cover-up and self-interest that seems to often dominate.

I work in a Catholic school myself and am sorry to say that the school leadership seems more interested in the forms of worship and the outward demonstrations of faith than in actual faith itself or in a genuine message of goodwill to those in their employ or under their care and tutelage.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I may just be missing something entirely, but at the risk of sounding naive, what do you mean PK? I assume you don't mean Powerklaw....

Preacher's/Pastor's Kid.

Orlanth wrote:

Hawkins wrote:As far as im concerened, any organization that would hide, help, or ignore a child molester should be delt with as harshly as the offender when caught. Church, government, cult what ever. Make them pay for their inaction or actions weather it was turning a blind eye or defending the Pedi.

'Nice' sounding sentiment, but very dangerous if unchecked. How do you prove culpability, and where does the trail end? This is how tyranny starts, looking for the undesirables in a section of the community, and labeling whole sections as part of a great evil. we are seeing some of this earlier on the thread. If peadophiles can be hated and Catholics are paedophiles, thus Catholics can be hated.
Its difficult to clean up organisations, and dangerous to label them, this is the primary reason and is potentially one of the few things worse than child molestors because we have seen exactly where the hates lead in our history books, and on the TV new today.

Your absolutely right where does it end, how do you check it. if it were up to me you wouldnt, persecution agaist child molestation should not be checked, if you hid a pedi or knew of one and as a higher member of the chuch did nothing or hid the fact, you should be just as culpable (same goes for government). There are ways of finding that out legally. As for labling organizations, its easy if you have the nerve, i wont let a preist (from any denomination) alone with either of my children and im blunt and up front that i dont trust the chuch, any chuch. becasue of just those fears. most priests, heck every priest ive ever talked to is if not happy, at least willing to let me burn in hell about it As for Tyranny, against a convicted childmolester and those found guilty of cupability, they should IMO without a dout be terrorised (sorry i have two kids, i am not and can not treat sex offenders, especially child sex offenders with anything but hate and violence. Call me zero tollerant)

Yay! Its back open, i love a good debate about this stuff.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that paedos do not gravitiate towards the church. I honestly believe that the Churches bizarre demands cause otherwise normal people to have some sort of mental breakdown.

Humans need sex for example. We are poorly evolved mammalian animals that have primal instincts, and i feel that when these people deny them, they go a bit nuts.

There was a big case lately (seen in on CNN when i was in California) when a Catholic priest guy got all kinds of gak in Mexico cos he got photographed kissing and cuddling on the beach with his old enough entirely pleasant consenting girlfriend. Maybe someone can link the story im on about. I think he converted to Anglican or something?

The Catholic church needs to get with the times and allow grown ups to have girlfriends and wives.

They have already made progress with evolution and contraceptives and such (although the new pope looks far less sensible than the last one)

Let priests shag people and i guarantee this problem will go away.

And anyway, can a catholic enlighten me? Exactly what is wrong with having sex with a consenting adult? Cos i just dont get it... :S

Thank you for reopening this thread. A few points:
1) Insofar as the Vatican itself refused to cooperate with the inquiry then the pedophilia in the Irish Catholic Church is a problem of the Catholic Church in general. Why would the Vatican refuse to assist the Murphy Commission? It is impossible to conceive of a response to this question that is favorable to the Catholic Church.
2) The Murphy report looked at priests in the Dublin Archdiocese. According to the news, 77 priests in the diocese alone were accused of abuse from 1940 to 2008. Evidently that is just in one diocese! There are calls for a nation-wide audit now.
3) The Murphy Commission clearly shows that sex offenders were relocated by the Church and that they did abuse new victims each time they moved. This was with the knowledge of Church officials.
4) Civil authorities most notably the Irish police colluded in covering up the abuse.

There is talk now that the people involved in the cover up (priests and police) could be prosecuted. We'll see.

thanks for reopening the thread!

Just wanted to give a bit of perspective on what it is (or was) about Irish society that allowed this to happen.
After independance, our political class were very closely allied with the Church. They allowed the church to completely control all the schools in the country for example. The Church used this to oppose free education in the Vocational Schools (state run) when they were built, and keep women from doing subjects like maths and physics, or being trained in trades. They kept a stranglehold on Irish culture and especially education aided and abetted by the political parties. Even to this day, the Church has control over most schools, and the government doesn't go near it.
But what this created was an atmosphere of ignorance and lack of freedom of thought, a narrow vision where the parish priest was trusted more than anyone else, and had massive amounts of power in terms of setting policy. The church and the state were hopelessly mingled. So when these abuses happened, it was easy for the church to cover up. The people involved were outraged and disgusted, but the people in power didn't want to upset the status quo. Our government allowed it to continue.
Recently, more people are better educated in this country than ever before. Attendance at Mass has dropped to historically low levels. Numbers of men becoming priests have dropped off completely. There is very likely going to be a huge crisis in that there won't be enough priests to go around in another 10 years or so. The church is seen very negatively by a large proportion of the population, and priests are generally disrespected by younger people. Even my mother, who is quite religious, says she believes in God but not in the church. This would be the most common form of religious belief over here.
There are still some very devout catholics, but their numbers are dwindling. Through their evil actions, the Church may have destroyed themselves in Ireland. It remains to be seen whether my countrymen are smart enough to realise that the Church only got away with all this through collusion with government at the highest levels, and finally destroy the politcial dynasties which have been running the country since the civil war. Corrupt bastards.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I may just be missing something entirely, but at the risk of sounding naive, what do you mean PK? I assume you don't mean Powerklaw....

Preacher's/Pastor's Kid.

I was confused to. I thought maybe you were one of those guy in MW2 that would fire a Javelin randomly in the air killing your own teammates.

That's a no-no? No wonder I can't find players in MW2. Haha.

Good post Boss, as i have always said, education is our ally here. There is a proven link between the level of your education and the likelihood of you being religious. It sounds arrogant to say it, but it is a proven fact. Hopefully Ireland is better suited for moving forward now than it ever has been.

I believe that a decent argument can be made for Deism (not one i would accept of course) But Theism is just plain wrong. What these people are essentially saying is "i am in charge because i know what God wants"

And no you dont.

I hope that this issue gets pushed to the limit. The Catholic church has purposely and knowingly assisted the abusers by moving them to other parishes, when they KNOW that they have commited terrible cruelties.

They are beneath contempt for this crime.

mattyrm wrote:Humans need sex for example. We are poorly evolved mammalian animals that have primal instincts, and i feel that when these people deny them, they go a bit nuts.

That is your opinion, whereas most Christians would disagree with the idea that we are "poorly evolved". I don't have a problem with the priests not marrying. They know what they are getting themselves into. They aren't forced to serve the Church, and the Church relies on Scripture, albeit a bit overly zealously, to support its stance.

mattyrm wrote:There was a big case lately (seen in on CNN when i was in California) when a Catholic priest guy got all kinds of gak in Mexico cos he got photographed kissing and cuddling on the beach with his old enough entirely pleasant consenting girlfriend. Maybe someone can link the story im on about. I think he converted to Anglican or something?

He did convert.

mattyrm wrote:The Catholic church needs to get with the times and allow grown ups to have girlfriends and wives.

Why does the Church have to conform to opposing points of view just because time has progressed? I feel this whole thing is devolving into a witch hunt...

mattyrm wrote:They have already made progress with evolution and contraceptives and such (although the new pope looks far less sensible than the last one)

Uh, please enlighten me on its progress with contraceptives? The Church's stance hasn't changed, and evolution was acknowledged before JPII. Benedict is awesome, and a brilliant theologian to boot.

mattyrm wrote:Let priests shag people and i guarantee this problem will go away.

Like all the people in society who can have sex already, but they still rape children? Poor logic.

mattyrm wrote:And anyway, can a catholic enlighten me? Exactly what is wrong with having sex with a consenting adult? Cos i just dont get it... :S

Well as it is defined in Scripture it is just fine, and even encouraged, between a husband and wife. That isn't just Catholic theology, that is orthodox thinking.

Da Boss wrote:Recently, more people are better educated in this country than ever before. Attendance at Mass has dropped to historically low levels. Numbers of men becoming priests have dropped off completely.

Da Boss wrote:There is very likely going to be a huge crisis in that there won't be enough priests to go around in another 10 years or so. The church is seen very negatively by a large proportion of the population, and priests are generally disrespected by younger people.

I find that hard to believe since studies on mass attendance by Georgetown puts it at 48% weekly. That is very nearly the majority of the country as at least loyal Catholics. And as far as younger people are concerned, we tend to be the most arrogant, selfish and whiny people in society so of course they disrespect the priests, as well as: the police, teachers, politicians, etc.

Da Boss wrote:Even my mother, who is quite religious, says she believes in God but not in the church.
This would be the most common form of religious belief over here.

Well considering that is orthodox beliefs, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. You are supposed to have faith in Christ as the Redeemer of humanity, not an earthly institution such as the Church.

mattyrm wrote:Good post Boss, as i have always said, education is our ally here. There is a proven link between the level of your education and the likelihood of you being religious. It sounds arrogant to say it, but it is a proven fact. Hopefully Ireland is better suited for moving forward now than it ever has been.

Why does moving forward need the lack of religion? And is this "progress" so many desire really a good thing?

mattyrm wrote:I believe that a decent argument can be made for Deism (not one i would accept of course) But Theism is just plain wrong. What these people are essentially saying is "i am in charge because i know what God wants"

You are getting awful close to flat out bashing religion, and will get this thread locked. There is nothing wrong with theistic religions in so far as you can't prove they couldn't have happened, or that their deities exist, EOS. That being said I am in no way a religious pluralist.

mattyrm wrote:And no you dont.

Do you know that for a fact? And if you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter.

mattyrm wrote:I hope that this issue gets pushed to the limit. The Catholic church has purposely and knowingly assisted the abusers by moving them to other parishes, when they KNOW that they have commited terrible cruelties.

Do we really want to persecute Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia, China, Japan, USA etc. for all the things they have done wrong? Don't forget, the Church is not merely an institution, it is in fact a sovereign nation that is recognized the world over, and has representation in the UN.

Jeb, the stats on priest numbers are from the Irish Times and were made public by the church over here itself. So believe it or not, it seems like it is true. I said a historic low in attendance, and it certainly is one.

As to your point about young people, completely debatable but I would say young people over here respect nurses, gardai and teachers far more than they do priests. And rightfully so, given the behaviour of the church.

Ahtman wrote:
I was confused to. I thought maybe you were one of those guy in MW2 that would fire a Javelin randomly in the air killing your own teammates.

That's how we spread the Word.

There is nothing wrong with theistic religions in so far as you can't prove they couldn't have happened...

And there should be nothing wrong with taking the opposite position. You can't prove that God exists, yet you believe in him. If you or anyone else has a problem with me saying that perhaps you should ask yourself why. That's not 'bashing' anything. If you have 'Faith', then as long as you are not being personally insulted, nothing said should affect you.
That said, I don't go in for 'hurrr bible-bashers!!!1!!'type statements - but stating the factual truth should not get any thread locked IMO.

Why does the Church have to conform to opposing points of view just because time has progressed? I feel this whole thing is devolving into a witch hunt...

Interesting choice of words Perhaps the Catholic chuch should root out paedophiles with the same vehemence that they did 'witches'?

mattyrm wrote:Good post Boss, as i have always said, education is our ally here. There is a proven link between the level of your education and the likelihood of you being religious. It sounds arrogant to say it, but it is a proven fact. Hopefully Ireland is better suited for moving forward now than it ever has been.

There are so many thing I want to say in reply to this that picking only one is going to be a chore, so I'll narrow the field with a question.

Do you know what the word religious means?

mattyrm wrote:
I believe that a decent argument can be made for Deism (not one i would accept of course) But Theism is just plain wrong. What these people are essentially saying is "i am in charge because i know what God wants"

You clearly don't know what Theism is. You also have no understanding of what you're saying by rejecting it outright. Underlining an opinion with a divine endorsement is not at all distinct from rejecting any given categorical theory from a stance of atheism.

This thread is starting to turn into a bashing religion thread.

It was ever thus.

Mods have their eyes on it.

JEB_Stuart wrote: points of view just because time has progressed? I feel this whole thing is devolving into a witch hunt...

Look at his avatar. What did you expect? Reason?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I find that hard to believe since studies on mass attendance by Georgetown puts it at 48% weekly. That is very nearly the majority of the country as at least loyal Catholics. And as far as younger people are concerned, we tend to be the most arrogant, selfish and whiny people in society so of course they disrespect the priests, as well as: the police, teachers, politicians, etc.

Its been my experience that my (our?) generation tends to be more religious than the one that preceded it.

Underlining an opinion with a divine endorsement is not at all distinct from rejecting any given categorical theory from a stance of atheism.

Evidence is the key factor in this particular situation - religious people assume the existence of 'The Divine' and reinforce their assertions with scriptural and philosophical 'evidence'. An Atheist would not consider such things factual evidence as they are completely non-scientific in nature.

If you read out: 'And God said:"Let there be light"

I'm not taking a faith position by saying:

'Prove that god exists, prove that god can interact with the physical world, prove that god spoke, then prove that god said those exact words, please.'

If you could not provide the scientific proof for any of these things, it would be perfectly reasonable to reject the statement as untrue.

@Garrett - No it isn't - stop being juvenile and contribute something.

dogma wrote:Look at his avatar. What did you expect? Reason?

I try to be optimistic....

dogma wrote:Its been my experience that my (our?) generation tends to be more religious than the one that preceded it.

That is definitely true in the US, but I don't know about abroad.

Albatross wrote:
Evidence is the key factor in this particular situation - religious people assume the existence of 'The Divine' and reinforce their assertions with scriptural and philosophical 'evidence'. An Atheist would not consider such things factual evidence as they are completely non-scientific in nature.

Atheists are not necessarily scientists. Indeed many atheists are very unscientific when it comes to their understanding of religion.

Albatross wrote:
'Prove that god exists, prove that god can interact with the physical world, prove that god spoke, then prove that god said those exact words, please.'

If you could not provide the scientific proof for any of these things, it would be perfectly reasonable to reject the statement as untrue.

No. It would be reasonable to reject the statement as unproven. This is not the same as rejecting it as being untrue. You are taking a faith based position by equivocating the two.

Hence the common rebuttal: prove that God does not exist.

Also, if God is not real, then all the scripture being quoted is simply moralistic text that the quoter believes to be significant. The fact that God is involved is simply a matter of semantics, and changes nothing about the moral impetus of any given statement.

Albatross wrote:Evidence is the key factor in this particular situation - religious people assume the existence of 'The Divine' and reinforce their assertions with scriptural and philosophical 'evidence'. An Atheist would not consider such things factual evidence as they are completely non-scientific in nature.

But that in it of itself helps to support many Christian thinkers' own philosophy. We don't believe that humanity is above God in any way, therefore the rules of science do not apply to Him since He is above human explanation. To rely purely on physical evidence shows a level of arrogance, to a Christian, that is on the border of being disturbing.

Albatross wrote:If you read out: 'And God said:"Let there be light"

I'm not taking a faith position by saying:

'Prove that god exists, prove that god can interact with the physical world, prove that god spoke, then prove that god said those exact words, please.'

Yes, because it requires faith to also believe that it couldn't have happened.

Albatross wrote:If you could not provide the scientific proof for any of these things, it would be perfectly reasonable to reject the statement as untrue.

Well assuming God was nothing more then a man, then yes you would be correct. But according to our definition of the divine and His power, that statement is unrealistic.

Priest aren't paedophiles,those that are have surely scumbed to their desires.

Most pit bulls arent dangerous. go ahead put a kid in the cage.........

Hawkins wrote:Most pit bulls arent dangerous. go ahead put a kid in the cage.........

nice troll

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Hawkins wrote:Most pit bulls arent dangerous. go ahead put a kid in the cage.........

nice troll

But thankfully he isn't Gwar.

Sorry guys your speeking over my head, what the hell is a Troll, and why should he be thankfull im not Gwar? oh and you changed your post ivan... why?

I actually like Gwar!, his posts were at least entertaining...

Hawkins wrote:Sorry guys your speeking over my head, what the hell is a Troll, and why should he be thankfull im not Gwar? oh and you changed your post ivan... why?

I was joking about GWAR and I have thought diffrently how to write my post so I did.

Ok i see, but you didnt answer the first question, whats a troll?

Hawkins wrote:Ok i see, but you didnt answer the first question, whats a troll?

An http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 or more funny http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Troll

What Ivan said...

Weird, i didnt think that post was at all trolling, inflamitory maybe but i thought it had a point concerning your origional post, and on topic.......
thanks for the clarification.
Still I'll be sure to add the quote im commenting on in the future.

One quick point:

One of the reason the early church, as seen in Paul's epistles, was so against sex/having kids/doing anything other than waiting for jesus to come again is because they thought that the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes (mostly due to that being one of Jesus's messages).

It's one thing to tell people "I got this message from god, we need to spread to everybody we can, he'll be here in a few years, so drop everything and focus on this." It's another thing, 2000 years later, to expect people to stay as committed. Let's not forget that those early christians had first or second degree associations with the Divine. Paul was literally knocked off his horse while riding to Damascus before he converted.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Churches are particularly choice targets for pedophiles due to the kids. We have serious back ground tests and procedures for any volunteers with children. We also will exclude people who check out but don't feel right.

We don't let damnyankees in either, but thats a whole different issue.

See, that's why certain churches/denominations are going to be lower risk, the open style and freedom of expression seen in a modern baptist church for example, or methodist, would be extremely difficult for a predatory paedophile to operate in, since they rely on being left alone with children in a religion that teaches silence and ingrains guilt and a sense of sin. JWs and Catholic backdrop is based around absolute authority of the elder or priest as the living word. Much emphasis in those faiths is built around suppression and obedience and silence.

Your average, open, lively church that encourages interaction and community is far less likely to be targeted and far more difficult for a sexual predator to commit crimes in.

I apologize but thats not particularly accurate. What is safe are certain procedures put in place that everyone knows about and violations of, even if minute, are dealt with harshly. Two people in a room with children at all times is an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Good post Boss, as i have always said, education is our ally here. There is a proven link between the level of your education and the likelihood of you being religious. It sounds arrogant to say it, but it is a proven fact. Hopefully Ireland is better suited for moving forward now than it ever has been.

Another post like this and I am closing this thread and suspending the poster. I am as serious as a heart attack.

@ Frazz: I find the average Dakkite's contempt for religion as puzzling and troubling as you do, but the man raises a valid point. Was his tone hostile? Sure, but he's speaking about and from facts. Sanctioning people for that isn't keeping the peace, it's a gag order.

There is no shortage of posts that show offensive things written about religion. Let's not go looking for things to be offended by. Particularly since the problem in Ireland wasn't just one of religion, but one of religion's hold on the state.

Polonius wrote:One of the reason the early church, as seen in Paul's epistles, was so against sex/having kids/doing anything other than waiting for jesus to come again is because they thought that the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes (mostly due to that being one of Jesus's messages).

Where does Christ say when He will come back? He very clearly says that He has no idea when, and that only the Father knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:@ Frazz: I find the average Dakkite's contempt for religion as puzzling and troubling as you do, but the man raises a valid point. Was his tone hostile? Sure, but he's speaking about and from facts. Sanctioning people for that isn't keeping the peace, it's a gag order.

I do think that the idea in it of itself is hostile. To put forward the idea that religion is a restraint, or that religious people are somehow backwards or blindly opposing progress is offensive. It makes sense to keep people from equating stupidity with religion, which is what the post essentially did.

He didn't equate religion with stupidity. He said that people with a higher level of education tend to be less religious, which is not really a comment on intelligence at all. I know plenty of well educated, yet horribly incompetent people.

Of course, I may be giving the poster in question too much credit, but given that I can only read what he has written I think its best to take the comment as one which isn't hostile.

I think it makes sense. Many people turn to religion for answers, and the more educated a person is, the more places he knows of to seek those answers. It doesn't mean he's seeking them in better places.

The study also seems to use the term religious, when plenty of educated people consider themselves spiritual or faithful, but not religious. The educated a person is, the more iconoclastic they tend to be.

As for the timing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming#Timing

JEB_Stuart wrote: To put forward the idea that religion is a restraint,

Religion is a restraint, in all its forms. It effectively drives any given believer towards a predetermined path of action through moralistic pronouncement.

Of course, that doesn't mean religion is bad. Though it certainly means that it can be.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Polonius wrote:One of the reason the early church, as seen in Paul's epistles, was so against sex/having kids/doing anything other than waiting for jesus to come again is because they thought that the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes (mostly due to that being one of Jesus's messages).

Where does Christ say when He will come back? He very clearly says that He has no idea when, and that only the Father knows.

And you know that that has never stopped anyone from trying to predict it. You also know that interpretations of these things vary not only in modern times but also in the past. Many early Christians were not unlike Jainists and just gave up everything because they were convinced it was going to happen very soon. We have the records and the tombs to prove this.

dogma wrote: I know plenty of well educated, yet horribly incompetent people.

I asked you not to talk about me behind my back.

And none of those sources even mention the Scripture that I referenced. I will look in greater depth later, but from my quick gloss, I find several points of their study to be unfounded, and some using poor conclusions on incomplete research.

Polonius wrote:I think it makes sense. Many people turn to religion for answers, and the more educated a person is, the more places he knows of to seek those answers. It doesn't mean he's seeking them in better places.

The study also seems to use the term religious, when plenty of educated people consider themselves spiritual or faithful, but not religious. The educated a person is, the more iconoclastic they tend to be.

I agree completely.

I'd also add that, in my experience, well educated people are prone to experience an obsession with categorical reasoning. Item X fits in category Y, and only category Y. The notion that something can seem, or feel, one way while actually being another way, when considered objectively, strikes them as incorrect rather than relevant. Its an emphasis on comprehension, as opposed to perception.


One more point: I've seen studies which correlate religiosity with poverty, which makes me think a devotion to faith has more to do with hardship than intellectual capacity.

Ahtman wrote:
I asked you not to talk about me behind my back.

Your reflexes are too good for me to do it from the front.

dogma wrote:Religion is a restraint, in all its forms. It effectively drives any given believer towards a predetermined path of action through moralistic pronouncement.

Poor wording on my part, shackles would have been more appropriate. I just found the cynicism and unfounded superiority in his comment to be in poor taste and offensive.

dogma wrote:Of course, that doesn't mean religion is bad. Though it certainly means that it can be.

You know I won't disagree with that.

Ahtman wrote:And you know that that has never stopped anyone from trying to predict it. You also know that interpretations of these things vary not only in modern times but also in the past. Many early Christians were not unlike Jainists and just gave up everything because they were convinced it was going to happen very soon. We have the records and the tombs to prove this.

I know that, and I find those people, including some of my own family members, who believe such things to be horribly misinformed. I see it this way: Christ claimed to not even know when the Second Coming would be, and therefore none of us are competent enough to try guess for him.

dogma wrote: I know plenty of well educated, yet horribly incompetent people.

Ain't that the truth...

JEB_Stuart wrote:And none of those sources even mention the Scripture that I referenced. I will look in greater depth later, but from my quick gloss, I find several points of their study to be unfounded, and some using poor conclusions on incomplete research.

I'm not talking about "religious" sources such as the bible; I am referring to historical sources. These events were after Christianity spread so obliviously they aren't in the bible. By sources I am talking about actual historical research as well as excavations of sites. Some of these sources are Christians writing each other and others are historians noting them. You can find pictures of these places. It is actually quite remarkable that the Church made it through the early celibacy and general ascetic phase to proliferate.

As to it not saying it in the bible, well the bible doesn't call for Rome to be the center of religious power but there it was (and kinda still is) for many years.

dogma wrote:One more point: I've seen studies which correlate religiosity with poverty, which makes me think a devotion to faith has more to do with hardship than intellectual capacity.

What is funny is that another study showed a correlation between wealth and the certainty of getting into heaven. The lower end of the economic scale had more doubts whereas the wealthier had much greater certainty that they were a shoe-in.

dogma wrote:One more point: I've seen studies which correlate religiosity with poverty, which makes me think a devotion to faith has more to do with hardship than intellectual capacity.

Well that has been apparent for some time now. That is what Christ meant, IMHO, when he said that a rich person will have a harder time getting into heaven then a poor person. The poor man relies on his faith in God because he just needs to survive, whereas the rich man has all that he needs and wants, so why should he rely on God for any physical needs. That is just my interpretation, but I think it is what was meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ahtman: That post wasn't directed at you, sorry that was for Polonius' citation of Wikipedia....

Frazzled wrote:Another post like this and I am closing this thread and suspending the poster. I am as serious as a heart attack.

I've not commented on mod policy before, other than to defend it once or twice, but locking threads and suspending posters for factual statements is a pretty bizarre policy. The relationship between education and religion has been strongly established in multiple studies.

There is also a positive correlation between religion and charity - even excluding religious donations the faithful give a greater proportion of their income. Is that a ban-worthy topic, as it could be seen as reflecting poorly on the non-religious?

What about the positive correlation between conservatives and charity? Because there's one there too. Is my pointing that out offensive to progressives?

I don't think I would call the post a statement of fact. The correlation between education and religious belief was, but his post also implied A. that religious belief was directly caused by a lack of education (and further education alone would reduce religious belief), and B. that religious belief is undesirable, and must be removed in order for society to "move forward".

You could question exactly what he was railing against (since it seemed like Da Boss was angry at the Irish branch of the Catholic Church and the Irish government moreso than religion in general), but since Mattyrm only referred to "being religious" I can see why it could be considered offensive (not so much as to warrant suspensions maybe, but that's sort of another issue).

I've been reading the report a bit more. It is a scathing indictment of the Irish Catholic Church in particular and the Catholic Church in general. I know frazzled is keen to lock this thread, and I present the following information from the report which was carried out by a panel of judges.

Let's get to the scary material. Pedophiles are statistically over-represented in the Irish Catholic Church. The commission started with an investigation of 102 priests. It then narrowed this down to 46. Page 12 of the report: "The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl." http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/diocese/1234.pdf . The commission concluded that in only one case of the 46 was the accusation false, and it further stated that there was strong suspicion regarding two priests were accusations were absent. Of these 46 priests, only 11 have been convicted of abuse. Fifteen of these abusers are still being supported by the Catholic Church, either in Ireland or abroad.

What is worse, documents that the Commission wanted for its investigation were transferred from the Dublin archdiocese to the representative of the Vatican in Ireland. This placed these documents under diplomatic protocols and thus out Irish civil subpoena authority.

Apologies for the delayed reply, i was out on the ale last night..

I am aware that this is a touchy subject, but calm down Frazz eh? I dont just make things up to upset people. I read that comment a while back here

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521842709&ss=fro

So i figured it was pretty reliable information.

I dont want the thread locked, and it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, i was merely refering to something i read in a book from a University Library which seems to be a credible piece of work.

Of course it is absurd to suggest all religious people are stupid, and i didnt say that. I just pointed at what i thought was a reliable statistic.

Anyway, we are also off topic, but rest assured i will wind my neck in.

Also, if God is not real, then all the scripture being quoted is simply moralistic text that the quoter believes to be significant. The fact that God is involved is simply a matter of semantics, and changes nothing about the moral impetus of any given statement.

Explain to me how god being involved is 'simply a matter of semantics'.

We don't believe that humanity is above God in any way, therefore the rules of science do not apply to Him since He is above human explanation. To rely purely on physical evidence shows a level of arrogance, to a Christian, that is on the border of being disturbing.

And your statement is even more arrogant. Your beliefs are based upon scripture ultimately, even if you aren't an orthodox christian. What evidence do you have that god exists outside of the physical world? Or that there even is a world outside of the physical world? I found that statement totally offensive, but I won't be complaining to the MODs - you're entitled to your opinion after all.

If you read out: 'And God said:"Let there be light"

I'm not taking a faith position by saying:

'Prove that god exists, prove that god can interact with the physical world, prove that god spoke, then prove that god said those exact words, please.'

Yes, because it requires faith to also believe that it couldn't have happened.

(sigh) I didn't say that. I just said there's no evidence that it happened. That's a fact. If you make an outlandish claim that is unsupported by evidence, it would be prudent to
disregard it. If you told me you'd been kidnapped by aliens, I would ask for evidence. If you couldn't provide it, I would remain skeptical.

Albatross wrote:
Explain to me how god being involved is 'simply a matter of semantics'.

God = all powerful being. Anything endorsed by an all powerful being must be correct. Anything which is correct must be tacit to that which would be endorsed by an all powerful being. Ergo, anything which is correct is tacit to that which might be endorsed by an all powerful being.

If you believe X to be correct, then you believe X would be endorsed by an all powerful being.

Albatross wrote:
And your statement is even more arrogant. Your beliefs are based upon scripture ultimately, even if you aren't an orthodox christian. What evidence do you have that god exists outside of the physical world? Or that there even is a world outside of the physical world? I found that statement totally offensive, but I won't be complaining to the MODs - you're entitled to your opinion after all.

What evidence do you have that you aren't a Christian?

Albatross wrote:
(sigh) I didn't say that. I just said there's no evidence that it happened. That's a fact. If you make an outlandish claim that is unsupported by evidence, it would be prudent to
disregard it. If you told me you'd been kidnapped by aliens, I would ask for evidence. If you couldn't provide it, I would remain skeptical.

You aren't operating from skepticism. You are operating from disbelief. These are not the same.

Sorry JEB, i am trying to be respectful here, but i have to say, surely it doesnt require faith to believe that something did not happen?

I mean, if something didnt happen, you dont believe it based on the evidence right? Ergo, there is none. If i dont see any evidence for an event, i dont believe it happened. How can that be defined as faith?

Faith
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I say this because it annoys me terribly when people say that my "religion" is atheism. I dont subscribe to that because the reason i believe in evolution is a staggering amount of evidence. If it has evidence, by definition (see above) it cannot be faith. (logical proof or material evidence)

This in turn makes me doubt Theism because Jesus quoted Genesis and we know that the earth is not 6000 years old and we know that women didnt come from ribs etc etc Hence i cannot bring myself to believe in books that i know (well, i think i know, due to some physical evidence) are wrong about things.

But blah blah blah.. i wont bore you with my life story.

Oh and Dogma, i will change my avatar if you think that it is "proof" that i cannot be reasonable or is offensive in some way. Surely that is typecasting someone far more than anything i have said? Are you implying that if someone thinks that Creationism is ridiculous they cannot be reasonable people? I assure you that many millions of people find it worthy of ridicule. This does not make them incapable of reason.

Anyway yeah, ive already apologised.. i will allow this already hugely derailed thread to attempt to salvage itself from inevitable bannage.

it would be great if we could save the tired old atheism vs. religion arguments for a thread on that topic. This thread has a very specific topic, clerical abuse of children in the Republic of Ireland.

Jeb, all the posts I am making are from the irish perspective. I would definitely agree that from what I have seen Americans seem to be much more religious altogether, and I do not see this as a negative thing. It seems to me the institutions in the states have a much healthier relationship with the government than the Irish Catholic Church ever did. Ireland is in something of a backlash against the church- this report isn't the first one to come out and damage their public image here, just the most recent and possibly the most shocking.

I will say though, my post about declining numbers of priests was based on a Church statement in a respectable newspaper. I don't have a study, but I would tend to take them at their word. I also went to University in Maynooth, which is a seminary too, and they had photos of the graduating class of each year on the wall. You could clearly see the huge drop off from the eighties onwards down to a tiny number of people graduating these days. And numbers attending mass are much much lower than they were. Back in the day, EVERYONE went, even atheists a lot of the time, that was the social pressure. I'm pretty sure my dad is atheist, but he used to stand at the back of the church with his arms folded anyway, probably to avoid causing a stir by not going to mass. These days he just doesn't go, and no one cares.

My point about education is linked to the fact that the Church controlled all education here and it was a VERY BAD THING. It's historical fact that they opposed measures like free education and education of women, as well as gay rights and the like. This is the catholic church in Ireland I should stress. If you're arguing for the Church being better in the states, I could easily believe that, because they aren't as intertwined with a weak and corrupt government.

mattyrm wrote:Sorry JEB, i am trying to be respectful here, but i have to say, surely it doesnt require faith to believe that something did not happen?

Wait for it.

mattyrm wrote: surely it doesnt require faith to believe

I can make it clearer

mattyrm wrote: surely it doesnt require faith to believe

In case I haven't made my point, believing something did or didn't happen, absent empirical evidence, is a leap of faith. Logic can only take you so far, which is usually the statement "there is no empirical evidence to support this, and so I'm not going to believe it"

Polonius, did you read the rest of my post?

I AGREE with you. Something that is "absent empirical evidence" IS a leap of faith.

But if you believe in something that has STACKS of evidence, then how is that "faith" ?

I put the dictionary term for faith right there in the post... it is

Faith
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So, if you DO have logical proof, and you DO have material evidence. How can it be called faith? Surely according to the dictionary definition, it is the exact opposite of faith?

I dont understand the point of your post. If it was to make your point that "believing something did or didn't happen absent empirical evidence is a leap of faith"

Then i wholeheartedly agree with you!

Albatross wrote:And your statement is even more arrogant. Your beliefs are based upon scripture ultimately, even if you aren't an orthodox christian. What evidence do you have that god exists outside of the physical world? Or that there even is a world outside of the physical world? I found that statement totally offensive, but I won't be complaining to the MODs - you're entitled to your opinion after all.

Did you find it offensive simply because I made a point? To have faith in something is actually the antithesis of arrogance. It is the acknowledgment that you don't know everything, and that something lies out of your realm of control or understanding. To truly have faith is a hallmark of humility. So stop flaming.

Albatross wrote:(sigh) I didn't say that. I just said there's no evidence that it happened. That's a fact. If you make an outlandish claim that is unsupported by evidence, it would be prudent to
disregard it. If you told me you'd been kidnapped by aliens, I would ask for evidence. If you couldn't provide it, I would remain skeptical.

And there is no evidence that it didn't happen.

mattyrm wrote:I AGREE with you. Something that is "absent empirical evidence" IS a leap of faith.

Like disbelief in God?

mattyrm wrote:But if you believe in something that has STACKS of evidence, then how is that "faith" ?

What are these stacks you are referring to? I haven't seen stacks anywhere...

mattyrm wrote:So, if you DO have logical proof, and you DO have material evidence. How can it be called faith? Surely according to the dictionary definition, it is the exact opposite of faith?

If you are referring to disbelief in God, origins of the universe etc., you don't have conclusive proof at all. You have theories and and ideas that you try and draw human conclusions on, but that doesn't mean they aren't still based on faith. It requires just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian, and in my opinion even more.

@Da Boss: I can live with that.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Did you find it offensive simply because I made a point? To have faith in something is actually the antithesis of arrogance. It is the acknowledgment that you don't know everything, and that something lies out of your realm of control or understanding. To truly have faith is a hallmark of humility. So stop flaming.

Patience is also a pillar of 'true' humility. Saying 'to "truly" have faith' is about as vague as it gets without any reference. I truly have shoes, and they make me happy; but at no point did I describe how those shoes equate directly to my happiness. Having shoes, and truly having shoes, mean exactly the same thing; just with room for a lot of error in the latter.

It requires just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian, and in my opinion even more.

This is a game of equitable opinions...

This is so off topic. If god exists or doesnt, does not have any berring on the subject.
The post is dealing with priests, the Catholic church, and child molestation.

Agreed. We have the atheist vs. religious debate so often it should be obvious now that it's not going to change any minds. I've been rolling my eyes reading it, I have to admit, and I'm usually all for organic discussion. But this horse has been beat so hard it's practically jam.

@Hawkins - true.

@JEB - I'll take this up via PM.

Hawkins wrote:This is so off topic. If god exists or doesnt, does not have any berring on the subject.
The post is dealing with priests, the Catholic church, and child molestation.

These threads always end up in this vicinity at one point or another. I feel that it is mainly because people run out of things to talk about on the subject; but personally, this thread should be able to stay open if it maintains a level of decency.

Keeping the thread open, does require all of us to stay well away from flame-bait. Regardless of how you may feel about any of this, there is legitimate, and contextually offensive material from both sides; this is itself is one of the main problems with such a subject. If people can take away the labels, and focus on the situation without skewing the context far and wide, we all may be able to learn something.

My hope from all of this is that those who are responsible for any cover ups would be prosecuted and punished, and that it causes a wake up in Irish society about the role of the church and the corruption endemic in our political system. It's gone on too long.

I just had something else to add. I find it amusing that most of the non-religious types on Dakka take the Bible more literally than almost any of the Christians I know. It is a constant point of annoyance for me that people try and "educate" me on Dakka on what I am supposed to believe. And people please, stop bringing up Creationism. Not one person on this thread has mentioned it, or suggested it in any way, yet it has been brought up and pointed to as the mainline belief. Trust me it is not. That is all, I just felt that needed to be said.

Da Boss wrote:My hope from all of this is that those who are responsible for any cover ups would be prosecuted and punished, and that it causes a wake up in Irish society about the role of the church and the corruption endemic in our political system. It's gone on too long.

That i can agree with.

mattyrm wrote:
I say this because it annoys me terribly when people say that my "religion" is atheism. I dont subscribe to that because the reason i believe in evolution is a staggering amount of evidence. If it has evidence, by definition (see above) it cannot be faith. (logical proof or material evidence)

If you don't want to be seen as religious you should probably stop relating atheism and evolution as though they are bedfellows. There's no reason any given atheist has to believe in evolution, nor is there any reason for any given evolutionist to be an atheist. You're speaking almost as though you have an established dogma.

mattyrm wrote:
Oh and Dogma, i will change my avatar if you think that it is "proof" that i cannot be reasonable or is offensive in some way. Surely that is typecasting someone far more than anything i have said?

Of course it is. Why do you think I wrote it?

mattyrm wrote:
Are you implying that if someone thinks that Creationism is ridiculous they cannot be reasonable people? I assure you that many millions of people find it worthy of ridicule.

I'm implying that someone who thinks Creationism is ridiculous is unlikely to possess a fair mind with respect to religion.

mattyrm wrote:
This does not make them incapable of reason.

It might if the reason in question pertains to religion.

Being as everyone is sick to the back teeth of this, i shall keep this type of stuff for PM. My apologies.

Da Boss wrote:My hope from all of this is that those who are responsible for any cover ups would be prosecuted and punished, and that it causes a wake up in Irish society about the role of the church and the corruption endemic in our political system. It's gone on too long.

My children will be going to an "Educate Together" school--that's for sure (this is what, in the u.s., counts as a normal elementary school meaning you don't attend mass or use class time to study for your confirmation [or is it first communion? whatever]). I want to know why the Vatican refused to cooperate with an investigation into child abuse. Why would they refuse to share the requested documents? What have they got to hide other than pedophile priests and/or knowledge that implicates the Vatican itself in covering up the abuse?

No idea Olympia, but its not the first time the Vatican has done so on many a subject. The good thing though is the Vat has no power outside its own sphere so some priests convicted in say canada, US, etc, will face justice. so there is some punishment handed out, even though you feel as i do, that its not enough because others escape justice.

I am genuinelly stunned that the church did not coperate with the investigation. I cannot for the life of me see why, or what they would gain from this.

mattyrm wrote:I am genuinelly stunned that the church did not coperate with the investigation. I cannot for the life of me see why, or what they would gain from this.

This is the genuine sentiment of the majority of Christians. Lacking shock, a certain distrust has most definitely developed through these actions.

Even accounting for the fact that the Church may have genuine reasons (which I do not feel like writing an essay about...), there is still an amount of serious disregard for the children's welfare to be accounted for. There are messed up people in the world, but I have no need for the worst of them to be in positions of any sort of power. All of these allegations should be taken very seriously, and all that are accountable, should be held so.

It is suprising, but it probably stems from wanting to avoid bad PR. I've known a lot of really decent priests in Ireland, and they're the ones I feel the most sorry for. I also feel that the catholic church is only half the problem, the collusion with the government is as bad.

Da Boss wrote:It is suprising, but it probably stems from wanting to avoid bad PR.

It actually isn't surprising at all, given the intuitive nature of such an institution. No one wants to be the pedo-bear look-a-likes, and frankly, such a claim is as hard to shake as any other politically engaged entrenchment.

I would go directly to claims of "Being true americans", but for the sake of the continuity of this thread, I will go ahead and refrain from going into direct comparison. You are x, I am y, x is bad, so y is good. Along those lines does such an argument automatically take.

Actually, one of the principles of Code of Canon law is that it is to reduce/repair scandal. The Church, unlike fundamentalist sects, is based less on scriptural authority and more on a tradition of spiritual authority, and in order to maintain that the established policy is to contain and minimize scandal. Cooperating with the government will not do that.

That is something that needs to be addressed then, because in the end it's not going to be good for the Church.

Hey look a thread on a Church related topic I almost missed(Turkey day feasting ensued).

Anywhoo, not going to comment on the evolution vs creation except to say that this topic seems to be brought up mostly by new comers(like mattyrm) that haven't experienced one of our debates. The rest of us have the "once bitten twice shy" mentality.

2nd:
I'll defend Frazz's threat of sanction, because it certainly seemed like what was being put forth was the idea that religious people are stupid, because a lot of highly educated people are not religious. You can defend the poster all you want, but that's what it appeared he was implying.(even though later he backed off)

Now onto the topic at hand. I tend to agree with what MGS has said concerning certain sects of Christianity(indeed other religious sects as well) that tends to attract this type of person, due to the secrecy and cover up that is inherent within their organization. I totally disagree with mattyrm's assssment that it somehow distorts these people and turns them into madmen. I believe they were mad to begin with and found a convenient organization to hide in.

I will also say that I believe that sexual abuse is a dark part of the human soul that is not isolated to religious organizations.

The bottom line, is don't trust any body with my children alone, unless I really, really, really, know them well. TBH I like Frazz's Churches aproach.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I will also say that I believe that sexual abuse is a dark part of the human soul that is not isolated to religious organizations.

The majority of abuse comes from within families, hence the 'pervo uncle' concept/meme. This in itself really sheds what some would consider to be light on the situation. I am of the frame of mind that this should be dealt with on an even block, not a skewed representation of what some would like to present.

There has been a 'horrendous' amount of coverage over this whole issue because of it's association with a relatively prominent authority figure. The main issue with all of this, is the steps that seemed to have been taken by the Vatican; to cover their own ass (to put it bluntly).

Going off topic again... my bad.

generalgrog wrote: TBH I like Frazz's Churches aproach.

GG

I agree that this is smart policy. However, from his post it seems that this applied only to lay volunteers not to the actual priests or ministers (not sure what type of church).

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Another post like this and I am closing this thread and suspending the poster. I am as serious as a heart attack.

I've not commented on mod policy before, other than to defend it once or twice, but locking threads and suspending posters for factual statements is a pretty bizarre policy. The relationship between education and religion has been strongly established in multiple studies.

There is also a positive correlation between religion and charity - even excluding religious donations the faithful give a greater proportion of their income. Is that a ban-worthy topic, as it could be seen as reflecting poorly on the non-religious?

What about the positive correlation between conservatives and charity? Because there's one there too. Is my pointing that out offensive to progressives?

Its not a factual statement, its a hit.

I'm on record at this point as stating that threads about religion should not be on Dakka due to the inevitable downward spiral.
It was an attack, quit your bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:I've been reading the report a bit more. It is a scathing indictment of the Irish Catholic Church in particular and the Catholic Church in general. I know frazzled is keen to lock this thread, and I present the following information from the report which was carried out by a panel of judges.

Let's get to the scary material. Pedophiles are statistically over-represented in the Irish Catholic Church. The commission started with an investigation of 102 priests. It then narrowed this down to 46. Page 12 of the report: "The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl." http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/diocese/1234.pdf . The commission concluded that in only one case of the 46 was the accusation false, and it further stated that there was strong suspicion regarding two priests were accusations were absent. Of these 46 priests, only 11 have been convicted of abuse. Fifteen of these abusers are still being supported by the Catholic Church, either in Ireland or abroad.

What is worse, documents that the Commission wanted for its investigation were transferred from the Dublin archdiocese to the representative of the Vatican in Ireland. This placed these documents under diplomatic protocols and thus out Irish civil subpoena authority.

Anything in the report or related about follow up. Aka are police gong after these s? There's no news about Irish C Church here, bu the US has been home to these scandals for some time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:

generalgrog wrote: TBH I like Frazz's Churches aproach.

GG

I agree that this is smart policy. However, from his post it seems that this applied only to lay volunteers not to the actual priests or ministers (not sure what type of church).

To be clear, I am speaking for my diocese. the safety rules/training/etc. applies to everyone who interacts with children or youth. Not everyone has the background tests, but the procedures themselves apply to everyone.

Frazzled wrote: There's no news about Irish C Church here, bu the US has been home to these scandals for some time.

I would be surprised if the Irish problem and the U.S. problem weren't somehow related. It seems to me, that it would have been easy to relocate a priest from Ireland to Boston. And if my memory serves, the Boston and New England areas were particularly bad about this stuff.

GG

You may be correct. i am not too familiar with the extent of this subject other than the firm belief criminal cases need to be pressed wherever the evidence supports.

The Frazzled we all know and love would also say RICO and other creative efforts should be pursued against those who knew and averted their eyes. Thats US only of course.

Around here, where you find deer, you will find a mountain lion hiding in the grass.

Any position that provides cover while stalking will attract these predators. The teaching profession is also rife with them. However, these news stories are slightly less compelling to the public.

In a Post Office, I saw poster with a man "wanted" by the police for similar crimes. In the description of the suspect, it listed under "known professions": Gynecological Nurse.

JD21290 wrote:

I have a feeling this thread will be destroyed pretty quickly.

Thats what she said

Frazzled wrote:
Its not a factual statement, its a hit.

I'm on record at this point as stating that threads about religion should not be on Dakka due to the inevitable downward spiral.
It was an attack, quit your bs.

Frazz, there comes a point where your attitude becomes self defeating. By being hyper sensitive towards all possible slights against religion, you're not helping the discourse, you're simply making it more appealing to post stuff that could bother you. It also reinforces to the heathens on this board that people of faith are whiny and weak.

There is a huge difference between a factually true statement that was made snidely, and a genuine attack.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Its not a factual statement, its a hit.

I'm on record at this point as stating that threads about religion should not be on Dakka due to the inevitable downward spiral.
It was an attack, quit your bs.

Frazz, there comes a point where your attitude becomes self defeating. By being hyper sensitive towards all possible slights against religion, you're not helping the discourse, you're simply making it more appealing to post stuff that could bother you. It also reinforces to the heathens on this board that people of faith are whiny and weak.

There is a huge difference between a factually true statement that was made snidely, and a genuine attack.

It also means I don't care to be on a board that attacks my faith.

Polonius wrote:... there comes a point where your attitude becomes self defeating.

Pot meet kettle.

Polonius, I think you and others are missing the point. As a mod, Frazz is trying to keep the peace and trying to keep the discussion from spiraling out of control. The guy made an attacking post that was offensive. Was it highly offensive? No.... Was it snide? Probably.

Experiance has shown that religious discussions on this forum can degrade fairly fast into bandwagon jumping attacks vs religion. Some are fair critisisms, and others(mainly from the nonregular OT forum dakkites) are blatant falsehoods and or downright meanspirited and or unfair.

I don't envy Frazz's dakka job at all.

GG

I don't envy Frazzled job either, except for the chicks and beer of course.

One of the main reason people have a beef with religion is because religion has, through it's history, generally not allowed discussion or critiques to be made that could in any way harm the reputation of the sect. In short, the authorities tried to control thought.

By reacting to that post the way he did, Frazz wasn't acting, in the view of most people, as an offended person of faith. He acted like a person that was trying to control though. He was, for lack of a better, the religious authority that all free thinkers fear.

As for "attacking your faith," can you be more emo? Wow, jerks on the internet like to mock religion. I'll call ripleys!

This is a board about little toy soldiers. If you want to attack religion how about posting on boards about religion?

Otherwise it violates Dakka rule #1: Be polite. Guess what, you have to be polite about religions, or inversely the lack thereof, as well here. its a simple concept. Don't attack religions. Don't attack atheists. Don't attack people based on race, or sex, or nationality. If you don't like those strictures, mayhaps you should restrict yourself to speaking about toy soldiers.

Frazzled wrote:This is a board about little toy soldiers. If you want to attack religion how about posting on boards about religion?

Otherwise it violates Dakka rule #1: Be polite. Guess what, you have to be polite about religions, or inversely the lack thereof, as well here. its a simple concept. Don't attack religions. Don't attack atheists. Don't attack people based on race, or sex, or nationality. If you don't like those strictures, mayhaps you should restrict yourself to speaking about toy soldiers.

Alright, I'm off to talkorigins.net to start a flame war about the fifth edition 40K rules.

Well there's a thread attacking Islam and Frazzled, you don't seem to mind statements like "The swiss see Islam as a threat. They are right." Perhaps you view this as factually correct and not an attack a religion?

Frazzled wrote:This is a board about little toy soldiers. If you want to attack religion how about posting on boards about religion?

Otherwise it violates Dakka rule #1: Be polite. Guess what, you have to be polite about religions, or inversely the lack thereof, as well here. its a simple concept. Don't attack religions. Don't attack atheists. Don't attack people based on race, or sex, or nationality. If you don't like those strictures, mayhaps you should restrict yourself to speaking about toy soldiers.

I think that there is a certain level of snippiness that goes along with all discussions. You could shut down every thread for simply being impolite. A certain amount of thick skin doesn't hurt a person.

olympia wrote:Well there's a thread attacking Islam and Frazzled, you don't seem to mind statements like "The swiss see Islam as a threat. They are right." Perhaps you view this as factually correct and not an attack a religion?

My apologies I was off on a tangent on that thread about German boy scouts, scotch, Cuban cigars, and whether or not Hitler would have tried to conquer France had he been a cake lover. I'll look at.

Agreed with Polonius, also worth noting that such behavior really only comes from a particular mod and the tone/attitude he conveys is often times on the same level as the one he has beef with.

Also in the forum community I've noticed there are an interesting amount of double standards. Say anything remotely negative about Christianity and its going to be locked until a poster asks another mod to open it. Also the comments made about religion particularly in this thread are incredibly mild compared to conduct seen in threads where Obama bashing and other politically related discussion takes place. Also whenever scientology is brought up its quickly ridiculed and arguably another double standard despite it being an established religion in the USA. EDIT[b]: Things said about GW and its staff is also on a whole other level than all this combined.

Another problem is that whenever a thread based around science comes up, a religious person will mention god even though such action is nearly troll-baiting by nature in that context. Notably generalgrog did this in his first post of the "Life Beyond Earth" thread even though posters including a religious one stated "lets not bring god into this" to avoid the topic being potentially trolled.

I've had a post basically deleted that said children need education in a world where they can be molested by figureheads such as priests and school teachers; and since then 2 or so threads have popped on the very subject.

Cane wrote:Another problem is that whenever a thread based around science comes up, a religious person will mention god even though such action is nearly troll-baiting by nature in that context. Notably generalgrog did this in his first post of the "Life Beyond Earth" thread even though posters including a religious one stated "lets not bring god into this" to avoid the topic being potentially trolled.

Oh yeah I forgot the mere mention of God was offensive.

I'm sorry if I tried to expand the conversation, to allow people to look at the topic in a different light.

GG

In that context it can be perceived as such and users before and after your post interpreted it as possible troll baiting into degenerating another thread entirely. I did not comment on that in the thread either.

You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

Frazzled wrote:You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

This is a credible decision and I salute you for it. I'm sure other mods will be able to ensure rule #1 is applied.

Or close the OT.

No, what would be best if there were clear-cut guidelines on conduct. The stuff said about Obama, politics in general, GW, GW staff, religion etc all have different standards it seems and further complicated when biases are revealed by mods.

Frazzled wrote:You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

With all due respect, it is possible that some of the difficulties you have modding the OT is due more to your own personality, biases, and attitude than the posters being jerks.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

With all due respect, it is possible that some of the difficulties you have modding the OT is due more to your own personality, biases, and attitude than the posters being jerks.

You said jerks, not I. I'd happily blast away at the rest of you on this topic.

You are making a bigger deal out of it than anyone on that thread did. If you recall it didn't spiral out of control.

GG

edit:got ninjad many times( was directed at Cane)

I'll take it to PM's.

The only guideline we need is to be polite. Bashing God, obama, heck hello kitty is ok, so long as there is a valid point pretaining to the topic
example: (Gawd aint here man, he aint monitoring the posts and he dont go in for the direct reply to any post against his hairy arse. if he aint here yellin, the buck toothed megalomanic is fair game) . ok borderline but still not attacking anyone specificaly well no one thats ever been seen except by Moses.
Bashing each other though because of our belifes or the side we take is a big no no. i cant Bash you Cane for what you belive to be true, i can only disagree and thru dispute attemp to sway you to another way of thinking as rare a long shot as that is.
Example:
(ya like thats ever gonna happen, Cane will be caught in a helloo kitty porn first). clearly not being polite.

I dont think standards can come into it. every topic has a level of intesity, and people bring there own acceptable limit as well.
Its up to the mods to see that it doent get out of hand, i see nothing wrong with warnings. heck weve been issued what? 3 ? let the Mods do the job and concider why they give the warnings in the first place. with no restraints this topic in perticular will have people suspended in no time. and can and will create hard feelings in the long run. Oh and Mods are people too, they make mistakes just like all of us. so cut some slack and dont attack

back on topic

Wrexasaur wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I will also say that I believe that sexual abuse is a dark part of the human soul that is not isolated to religious organizations.

The majority of abuse comes from within families, hence the 'pervo uncle' concept/meme. This in itself really sheds what some would consider to be light on the situation. I am of the frame of mind that this should be dealt with on an even block, not a skewed representation of what some would like to present.

There has been a 'horrendous' amount of coverage over this whole issue because of it's association with a relatively prominent authority figure. The main issue with all of this, is the steps that seemed to have been taken by the Vatican; to cover their own ass (to put it bluntly).

It is completely true that the majority of cases occur with a family member or a close family friend, but the catholic church scandals are seen as far worse as for the most part there is only 2 people covering up the crime in a family setting, the pedo and the victim (unwillingly), while in the church setting there were multiple people covering up the crime, people who aided and abetted the pedos (moving them to other areas) and hid evidence from investigators. i feel it is not horrendous to show such coverage because only under a bright light like this that the rotten, corrupt parts of the organisation can be removed, allowing a positive move forward for the catholic church (this covers any large, powerful and corrupt in parts organisation)

What would be everyones thoughts on screening priests when they move to a new area? i know the states has a open policy in some states regarding suspected sex offenders, and public warnings hae been given out. what do you all think about a list of suspected pedo priests?
That way just like non priests, the comunity knows there is a danger, and the more strongly willed can get out the clippers.

Hawkins wrote:What would be everyones thoughts on screening priests when they move to a new area? i know the states has a open policy in some states regarding suspected sex offenders, and public warnings hae been given out. what do you all think about a list of suspected pedo priests?
That way just like non priests, the comunity knows there is a danger, and the more strongly willed can get out the clippers.

If you are talking government sponsored....
A list of suspected? NO
A list of proven? Absolutely.

If your talking grassroots then suspected would be fine. I would be surprised if something like this isn't allready out there. Although I suppose a site like that could be open to slander suits, if the situation hasn't gone beyond allegations.

GG

ok i see where suspected is the wrong word. Proven then.

The UK already screens everyone who has more than a passing contact with other people's children. You even have to be screened if you take your child to a weekend sports club and regularly give a lift to friend's child. I would assume it also applies to priests.

It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on paedophilia. As has been pointed out above, the great majority of paedophilia cases happen within the family, who aren't screened.

The problem with the screening process as regards the Irish situation is that the Church and State seem to have colluded to shield the errant priests from exposure and punishment. In this situation, a screening programme obviously would be no use.

Exactly. There needs to be political reform, serious political reform as much as Church reform. I feel the Irish authorities get too little of the heat in this, possibly because the Church is a nicer punching bag that people know more about. Down with Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael!
*froths incoherantly*

Frazzled wrote:To be clear, I am speaking for my diocese. the safety rules/training/etc. applies to everyone who interacts with children or youth. Not everyone has the background tests, but the procedures themselves apply to everyone.

My home diocese, the Diocese of Texas, is just as strict with its look into volunteers. But that is because my home church has an Episcopal school attached to the church. I don't recall if the priests themselves had a background check, but I think it is a likely possibility.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:To be clear, I am speaking for my diocese. the safety rules/training/etc. applies to everyone who interacts with children or youth. Not everyone has the background tests, but the procedures themselves apply to everyone.

My home diocese, the Diocese of Texas, is just as strict with its look into volunteers. But that is because my home church has an Episcopal school attached to the church. I don't recall if the priests themselves had a background check, but I think it is a likely possibility.

Oh my I think we're talking the same diocese rules then. I'd bet the ministers are checked as well as a condition of employ.

Seb i followed your advice mate, i asked the Discovey Institute if they think Marneus Calgar should be allowed an extra attack for having matched weapons and they emailed me back saying that they had no idea about the real science behind power weapons but they were definately the result of an intelligent designer.

And it begins

I thought it had maintained some civility. But then he did that....Not only did he just totally bash people's faith, but he also called out another poster in a true naming-of-names. -2 for him....

hey if you can't beat em join em, but of course the emails came out that it was a total fraud anyway so who cares? none of this impacts the essential essence of CAKE.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I thought it had maintained some civility. But then he did that....Not only did he just totally bash people's faith, but he also called out another poster in a true naming-of-names. -2 for him....

Wait? what?