Why Religion Fails

[friedrice]

religious fanatic, theocratic and fascist leader continues to make people angry



Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims

Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict's claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn't considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.

In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said. (!!!!!!!!!)

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than' and a ‘worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself.” (double !!!!!!!!!)

The Pope said abuse revelations in 2010 reached “an unimaginable dimension” which brought “humiliation” on the Church.

Asking how abuse exploded within the Church, the Pontiff called on senior clerics “to repair as much as possible the injustices that occurred” and to help victims heal through a better presentation of the Christian message.

“We cannot remain silent about the context of these times in which these events have come to light,” he said, citing the growth of child pornography “that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society” he said.

But outraged Dublin victim Andrew Madden last night insisted that child abuse was not considered normal in the company he kept.

Mr Madden accused the Pope of not knowing that child pornography was the viewing of images of children being sexually abused, and should be named as such.

He said: “That is not normal. I don't know what company the Pope has been keeping for the past 50 years.”

Pope Benedict also said sex tourism in the Third World was “threatening an entire generation”.

Angry abuse victims in America last night said that while some Church officials have blamed the liberalism of the 1960s for the Church's sex abuse scandals and cover-up catastrophes, Pope Benedict had come up with a new theory of blaming the 1970s.

“Catholics should be embarrassed to hear their Pope talk again and again about abuse while doing little or nothing to stop it and to mischaracterise this heinous crisis,” said Barbara Blaine, the head of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,

“It is fundamentally disturbing to watch a brilliant man so conveniently misdiagnose a horrific scandal,” she added.

“The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context' he can't control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context' he can influence — the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.”

The latest controversy comes as the German magazine Der Spiegel continues to investigate the Pope's role in allowing a known paedophile priest to work with children in the early 1980s.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...age-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1eOACtREg

You can't make this shit up. You just can't.

But don't worry, pedo protector RLD (who apparently spends all day on Terb, along with Blackrock. Hmmm. IP check, please?) will be along soon to talk about all the good the church does.

This quote from the piece sums up nicely:

“The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context' he can't control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context' he can influence — the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.

If ANY head of any other non-religious organization the size of the Catholic Church ever said what the Pope says in the piece quoted above, which is to say in public, they'd be out on their ass the very next day. Never mind if the very same person was involved for 20 years in covering up sexual abuse, shuffling priests, silencing victims, and being accused of crimes against humanity in The International Criminal Court.

Religion is the best shield ever invented for abusing children and getting away with it. Look no further than the Pope, the greatest aider-and abbetor of child sexual abuse the world has ever known (if there are worse, please post them. Previous popes are too easy. Scouting organizations get double points) and yet despite the efforts of some brave folks to bring him to trial, it will never happen, mostly because society would have to face reality about The Church and by extension their own "beliefs".

Get some guy with white hair and dulcet tones, put him in a fancy robe and a hat, make him an "intellectual" for further bullshit panache religious cred, have him bless you in the father-knows-best way, fondle the rosary beads, and you....can....get...away....with.....murder.

What's fascinating, and predictable when people create a blind spot in their otherwise rational minds for religious bullshit, is you get someone like RLD, who spends all day (and I mean all day. The "experienced litigator" has plenty of time to sit on TERB mutually masturbating stay-at-home robot poster Blackrock) posting passionate human rights and moral arguments for Occupy protests, yet looks the other way when it comes to The Church and The Scouts.

Makes you go hmmmmmmmmm. Why is that?

Write it off to the great reality distortion device that is religion. Or maybe his monthly subscription to Nambla's newsletter? (should I apologize in advance for that RLD. I'm sorry. Really. Just kidding :eyebrows: )

People ask "what's the harm in religion?" It's rather simple: A pedo who rapes your child at the playground is either killed or charged the minute he is identified. But if you're head of The Catholic Church, you just keep enjoying the fruits of your gig, paying hush money, shuffling priests, and saying stuff that would get you fired instantly anywhere else.

Ahh religion!

For those who are interested in the movement to try The Pope, Maclean's has a good starter piece here.

In large type for everyone to see, from the Maclean's piece:

The Church dealt with its offenders in secret via a parallel system of justice, its own canon law, as overseen by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, itself overseen by cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from 1981 until he became Pope Benedict in 2005. Insofar, that is, that the Church dealt with them at all. Penalties, in comparison with secular law, were negligible, ranging from spiritual exercises (extra prayers mainly) to the canon law’s ultimate “degradation”: being returned to the lay state. A church dedicated—in its best incarnation—to the belief that the worst sinners can be saved, and—in its worst mode—to avoiding scandal, did what came naturally to it, what Fitzgerald had warned against.

 

[blackrock13]

FR, you are so late to this dance and have nothing to offer of importance you might as well crawl back in your crate. CM was given the opportunity to show clearly that child abuse was as common as he claimed and he failed miserably. You're just going over the the same stuff as has been blown out of the water numerous times.

 

[friedrice]

FR, you are so late to this dance and have nothing to offer of importance you might as well crawl back in your crate. CM was given the opportunity to show clearly that child abuse was as common as he claimed and he failed miserably. You're just going over the the same stuff as has been blown out of the water numerous times.

Only in your strange world is the issue of childhood abuse in religious organizations "settled". Believe it or not, some poor souls fucked in the ass by rogue priests don't have the luxury of intellectual bullshit on a message board. They need regular, ordinary people to help force The Catholic Church, The Scouts, and other safe hideouts for pedophiles, to start putting their needs first and "tradition" second. The more the veil is taken off religion, the sooner people will stop seeing the church as benevolent and see it for what it is, which is an evil organization interested in protecting its own at all costs.

You two clowns just get in the way. For reasons only you seem to know, but I can easily guess at. When RLD scoffs at abuse and talks about "all the good" the church does, it's from the position of not having his kid buggered in the ass and then bought off. Nice place to be. Thankfully, most average people have a little more sympathy the weak.

The fact that you live all day on a sex board does not bode well for how I imagine you are in the real world. :eyebrows:

 

[blackrock13]

Only in your strange world is the issue of childhood abuse in religious organizations "settled". Believe it or not, some poor souls fucked in the ass by rogue priests don't have the luxury of intellectual bullshit on a message board. They need regular, ordinary people to help force The Catholic Church, The Scouts, and other safe hideouts for pedophiles, to start putting their needs first and "tradition" second. The more the veil is taken off religion, the sooner people will stop seeing the church as benevolent and see it for what it is, which is an evil organization interested in protecting its own at all costs.

You two clowns just get in the way. For reasons only you seem to know, but I can easily guess at. When RLD scoffs at abuse and talks about "all the good" the church does, it's from the position of not having his kid buggered in the ass and then bought off. Nice place to be. Thankfully, most average people have a little more sympathy the weak.

The fact that you live all day on a sex board does not bode well for how I imagine you are in the real world. :eyebrows:

Please show us where in my last post, or any other post, I claim the problem is 'solved'.

It's pretty presumptuous of you to describe yourself as average. It's not the quite the word I would use to describe you.

If you were paying attention in your tenure on this BB, you'd know that pedophiles haved affected a few in my circle of friends closer than most and I've made it clear on TERB they are not to be treated kindly. Yet I have also mentioned that the same claims have been laid on some in the same circle and have later been found to be totally false the lives of the falsely claimed and his family were already ruined. The people in authority that fed the flames got away with all they did and carried on up the food chain to long a fruitful careers and most who watched from the sidelines simply summed it up to, 'ooops, shit happens'.

Again, please show us where in my last post or any other post do I claim the problem is 'solved' and I've protected pedophiles. Actual quotes would be good and not just your claims.

 

[friedrice]

If you were paying attention in your tenure on this BB, you'd know that pedophiles haved affected a few in my circle of friends closer than most and I've made it clear on TERB they are not to be treated kindly.

Great, point me to any post of yours on TERB condemning the Catholic Church for the way it has handled the sexual abuse scandal. RLD dismissed this absolutely horrifying BBC documentary on Ratzinger and sex abuse, which told me everything I needed to know about him, so tell me what you think. :thumb:

Would any person not in the halcyonic glow of religion find Ratzinger anything but the most vile of all pond scum, rather than head of the one of the most "spiritual" religions the world has ever known? Even if I did as RLD has suggested and consider "the good the church does", what am I to think of the fact that its billion followers have neither demanded him to resign nor tried to drag him into court to face charges? Would the pedophile cruising Starbuck's at 3:30pm at Yonge and Bloor be afforded the same support?

Would the head of GM, or Amnesty International or a groping head of the IMF get the same immunity?

Ever wondered why that it is? Does it trouble you any? Am I a hysteric for asking such a question? Apparently not, as many, many others are asking the same question.

From Chris Hitchen's piece "The Great Catholic Coverup" is this flattering paragraph:

"Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)"

In those two bolded (mine) sentences you have everything that's wrong with Ratzinger, wrong with religion (shame and guilt, we decide when and where, insanely so) and wrong with the sheeple who support it.

Meanwhile, the kids who were buggered get victimized thrice by the clowns who cluck cluck "that it's not religion, it's the people", "religion does so much good", blah blah blah and these kind of mincing denials just keep telling people "move along, nothing to see".

Ahh, religion and the people who love you!

As if human beings couldn't care about each other without a disgusting, monolithic, authoritarian, evil organization in the middle telling it how or under what terms to love one another.

How silly. Comical if not so tragic.

 

[Aardvark154]

Only in your strange world is the issue of childhood abuse in religious organizations "settled". Believe it or not, some poor souls fucked in the ass by rogue priests don't have the luxury of intellectual bullshit on a message board. They need regular, ordinary people to help force The Catholic Church, The Scouts, and other safe hideouts for pedophiles, to start putting their needs first and "tradition" second.

You don't believe that every religious denomination here in the West takes the issue of sexual abuse quite seriously? That the number of such crimes is vastly less than it was 30 years ago?

The more the veil is taken off religion, the sooner people will stop seeing the church as benevolent and see it for what it is, which is an evil organization interested in protecting its own at all costs.

Oh come on, how on earth can you post such nonsense with a straight face.

 

[blackrock13]

Great, point me to any post of yours on TERB condemning the Catholic Church for the way it has handled the sexual abuse scandal. RLD dismissed this absolutely horrifying BBC documentary on Ratzinger and sex abuse, which told me everything I needed to know about him, so tell me what you think. :thumb:

Would any person not in the halcyonic glow of religion find Ratzinger anything but the most vile of all pond scum, rather than head of the one of the most "spiritual" religions the world has ever known? Even if I did as RLD has suggested and consider "the good the church does", what am I to think of the fact that its billion followers have neither demanded him to resign nor tried to drag him into court to face charges? Would the pedophile cruising Starbuck`s at 3:30pm at Yonge and Bloor be afforded the same support?

Would the head of GM, or Amnesty International or a groping head of the IMF get the same immunity?

Ever wondered why that it is? Does it trouble you any? Am I a hysteric for asking such a question? Apparently not, as many, many others are asking the same question.

From Chris Hitchen`s piece "The Great Catholic Coverup" is this flattering paragraph:

"Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church`s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)"

In those two bolded (mine) sentences you have everything that`s wrong with Ratzinger, wrong with religion (shame and guilt, we decide when and where, insanely so) and wrong with the sheeple who support it.

Meanwhile, the kids who were buggered get victimized thrice by the clowns who cluck cluck "that it`s not religion, it`s the people", "religion does so much good", blah blah blah and these kind of mincing denials just keep telling people "move along, nothing to see".

Ahh, religion and the people who love you!

As if human beings couldn`t care about each other without a disgusting, monolithic, authoritarian, evil organization in the middle telling it how or under what terms to love one another.

How silly. Comical if not so tragic.

Easily done as a matter of fact both the church and Scouts Canada were dealt with in one post. Now looking for a church reference might take some time considering the tomes that have been posted on the subject.

How`s your search coming of my supposed support for the church and it`s pedophile priests?

#5

I`m guessing you weren`t a Scout. By the way, they don`t wear brown shirts. Nice try at making a false connection with the Nazi Brown Shirts of the past. I would be surprised if the incidents of predators is higher in Scouts than in schools.

The Scouting movement builds good things in young boys, discipline, responsibility, personal skills, and curiosity for new things that doesn`t come from a game console. They get to do things with new friends their own age from different backgrounds or neighbouhoods and sometimes from different countries and cultures. The total time for kids in Scouts is perhaps 500 hours a year; one meeting a week and two week long trips. There`s plenty of time left for parenting and family togetherness.

The response and the cover up is shameful and they should have their feet kept to the fire until proper restitution is made, perhaps similar to the church and residential schools. As for the reference to little boys, The Scouting movement involves up to the 17-21 age group, hardly `little boys`.

Para military type activities? Oh ya, like volunteering in hospitals, seniors home, food banks, and shelters. I wonder if the apples they sell have subliminal message etched in their skins, which by chance, or not, happen to be RED, the colour of blood and communists.

 

[Aardvark154]

North Carolina church: No more weddings until gay marriage is legalised
by Stephen Gray for PinkNews.co.uk
22 November 2011, 11:30am
Email this Pink News story
The church has historically taken stands on social issuesThe church has historically taken stands on social issues

The progressive Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, has said it will not be holding marriages for anyone until the state legalises same-sex unions.

The Raleigh Observer reports that the congregation voted in favour of the move on Sunday.

They agreed blessings for relationships will still be held, but no official weddings will take place.

The congregants said North Carolina is discriminating against its gay couples “by denying them the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.”

The church’ statement said: “As people of faith, affirming the Christian teaching that before God all people are equal, we will no longer participate in this discrimination.”

In September, North Carolina’s House of Representatives approved plans for a voter referendum on a gay marriage ban.

Although the state does not recognise gay marriage, the move would enact a constitutional ban on the practice, which would prevent the courts from ruling for marriage equality.

This month, a Democrat sitting in the state’s House of Representatives defended her statement that there was a “special place in hell” for the Republicans who approved the referendum.

The Pullen Memorial Baptist Church has taken action against perceived social injustices since the 1950s. First opposing racial segregation and welcoming black people into the congregation, it later spoke out against the Vietnam War.

The church was critical of the nuclear arms race and the more recent invasion of Iraq.

In 1992 it officially endorsed full involvement of its gay followers.

Yes, I did notice that C-M ignored your post.

 

[friedrice]

Originally Posted by hamermill
"There is no God.

If there were, then that would mean people deserve all the horrible things that have happened to them."

You obviously don't know that that 's part of Gods great plan. Have faith.

Priceless.

"Don't worry about your little Timmie's ass, Doris, it's all part of God's Great Plan. Pope Ratzinger will make it all better according to God's Great Plan. But they'll be some settlements first and some suicides and some venal politics, but it's all working out the way it should. According to Dad, er God."

"Now if Timmie were my boy, I'd find the fucker who did this and cut his balls off, but since it was Father Timothy, I'll look the other way because it's part of GOD'S GREAT PLAN"

See my friend you don't have to explicitly support pedophiles, you just have to support an evil organization that silences them to be one and the same. "God's Plan." Wretch-inducing.

But you guys never see it that way. "Where on TERB did I say I support pedophiles!!"

Or "They were trying" (as you said in the Scouts thread).

And so on..

 

[friedrice]

Religion fails for a number of reasons...
1- There is no god (Really, there is no god. No proof what so ever. None. Zippo.)
2- Religion is created by man to hold power over others
3- Religious leaders are, for the most part, immoral.
4- Morals come from us not god.

From NYT earlier in 2010. Apologies if this has been posted.

Top Vatican officials — including the Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

One priest - 200 boys. The catholic church, as usual, is more concerned about being embarrassed. On a happier note, 'Jesus loves little boys too.'


The pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

Tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed. This from the man that claims to know god's will. All praise Jesus Christ our saviour.


The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

The chief doctrinal enforcer covered up crimes of priests fucking little boys. Praise be to god.


The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

Thousands of cases over decades (that we know about). Arguably a small percentage of the incidents of priests licking and fucking the assholes of little boys. Oh god that is holy we ask for your blessings for we are the leaders of your divine holiness. We claim to do your will. Thy will be done. Not just Will but little Johnny and Sam and .... we'll do them all.


In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

Secret trials to cover up the filth. God is love.


But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.

'In the dignity of my priesthood.' Priests are the vessels of christ. Praise be to god.


The New York Times obtained the documents, which the church fought to keep secret, from Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan, the lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The documents include letters between bishops and the Vatican, victims’ affidavits, the handwritten notes of an expert on sexual disorders who interviewed Father Murphy and minutes of a final meeting on the case at the Vatican.

Fought to keep it a secret. Didn't simply try to keep it a secret, they FOUGHT to keep it a secret. Oh god on high we are your servants.


Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.

Never disciplined for fingering, licking and fucking the anus' of 200 boys. Making 200 boys suck his penis and eat his priestly cum. Three successive Archbishops reported to their holy boss and subsequently covered it up. How many are there, I wonder? Jesus loves us and protects us.


Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998, still a priest.

After fucking 200 boys, Father Murphy was rewarded with 24 years of unencumbered access to more children. Jesus Christ rewards those who are faithful and protects the weak. Praise Jesus Christ.


Even as the pope himself in a recent letter to Irish Catholics has emphasized the need to cooperate with civil justice in abuse cases, the correspondence seems to indicate that the Vatican’s insistence on secrecy has often impeded such cooperation.

Seems to indicate. Seems to indicate. Oh Lord give us strength. I will need strength to fuck so many children. They squirm around a lot. Especially when I slide my penis into their little love hole.


At the same time, the officials’ reluctance to defrock a sex abuser shows that on a doctrinal level, the Vatican has tended to view the matter in terms of sin and repentance more than crime and punishment.

The vatican's reluctance has nothing to do with sin vs crime. It has to do with keeping their image nice and pious to maintain their power. How else do you keep a religious stranglehold on the sheep? Or were they doing god's will?


The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, was shown the documents and was asked to respond to questions about the case. He provided a statement saying that Father Murphy had certainly violated “particularly vulnerable” children and the law, and that it was a “tragic case.” But he pointed out that the Vatican was not forwarded the case until 1996, years after civil authorities had investigated the case and dropped it.

We are innocent I tell you! Never mind that we knew about the investigation. We were not 'officially' given the case until 1996. We have no sin. Let god be our judge.


Father Lombardi emphasized that neither the Code of Canon Law nor the Vatican norms issued in 1962, which instruct bishops to conduct canonical investigations and trials in secret, prohibited church officials from reporting child abuse to civil authorities. He did not address why that had never happened in this case.

It can only be that most priests are covering up or participating in the debauchery. They are all doing god's will of course.


As to why Father Murphy was never defrocked, he said that “the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties.” He said that Father Murphy’s poor health and the lack of more recent accusations against him were factors in the decision.

Yes... he became too old to get an erection and that slowed him down. Naturally you can't take action against a poor old priest. He has given so much of himself. Buckets.

Tip of the iceberg. The reason the church covers it up is because they know about THOUSANDS of cases. They can't possibly be honest about that now can they? It would hurt business. The amazing thing is, it wouldn't destroy the business

No. That's the best part! In the Boy Scouts thread, RLD wagged a finger at me and said something to the effect "careful what you wish for" (when I said burn the organization to the ground to get to the bottom of sexual abuse, if need be) implying that you would destroy all the goodwill of the organization (strange first priority there, but never mind). Ironically, I totally disagree. In the case of Scouts, all the good will flow back in because Scouts does good things. In the case of the Church, if the Catholic Church approached the scandal and horrors with as much transparency as people are demanding, the Church would enjoy an incredible resurgence a) because people are such sheep and b)because those "moderate" or "Liberal" (feeling?) Catholics would feel that this really was the Church and not some Mafia-like organization.

 

[blackrock13]

FR, that your proof that I support pedophiles and the church in their actions? You really are a class 'A' moron. At least we have insight into one of your problems, english comprehension. Your post is complete gibberish.

 

[friedrice]

FR, that your proof that I support Pedophiles and the church in their actions? You really are a class 'A' moron. At least we have insight into one of your problems, english comprehension.

I actually have a life and have to leave now, but two posts up explains it well (though I'm sure there's lots more). Please explains "God's Plan" as it relates to pedos so we can see your humanity in all its glory.

 

[blackrock13]

I actually have a life and have to leave now, but two posts up explains it well (though I'm sure there's lots more). Please explains "God's Plan" as it relates to pedos so we can see your humanity in all its glory.

I'm glad you think so. Members with at least half a brain will think differently.

 

[FAST]

So

Yeh, yeh, yeh this is the same tired argument you have made before. The only problem is that legally you are on the loosing side of this argument.

How many times must it be explained to you, LEGALLY... means very little in the REAL world, legally as per lawyers only.... the legal system is out of touch with the normal goings on in Canada.
Judges make absolutely dumb ass decisions based on THIER “feelings” about the so called “law” on that particular day, tomorrow, probably different.
And, actually, if you analyze their illogical, irresponsible decisions, you will realize that they are just creating more work for their comrades in the union, witness OCCUPY TORONTO.
Drop the lawyer shit, ...... irevilant.

FAST

 

[Aardvark154]

Anarchy is just such a gas when one has to deal with it in the factual rather than the theoretical. There are plenty of Hell holes around the world Fast where you can live it for real.

 

[canada-man]

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him

Richard Dawkins
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 10.00 BST



Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

 

[canada-man]

Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution... because it 'clashes with the Koran'


Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of Britain's leading medical courses, are walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran.

Professors at University College London have expressed concern over the increasing number of biology students boycotting lectures on Darwinist theory, which form an important part of the syllabus, citing their religion.

Similar to the beliefs expressed by fundamentalist Christians, Muslim opponents to Darwinism maintain that Allah created the world, mankind and all known species in a single act.

Steve Jones emeritus professor of human genetics at university college London has questioned why such students would want to study biology at all when it obviously conflicts with their beliefs.

He told the Sunday Times: 'I had one or two slightly frisky discussions years ago with kids who belonged to fundamentalist Christian churches, now it is Islamic overwhelmingly.

'They don't come [to lectures] or they complain about it or they send notes or emails saying they shouldn't have to learn this stuff.

'What they object to - and I don't really understand it, I am not religious - they object to the idea that there is a random process out there which is not directed by God.'

Earlier this year Usama Hasan, iman of the Masjid al-Tawhid mosque in Leyton, received death threats for suggesting that Darwinism and Islam might be compatible.

Sources within the group Muslims4UK partly blame the growing popularity of creationist beliefs within Islam on Turkish author Harun Yahya who, influenced by the success of Christian creationists in America, has written several books denouncing Darwinist theory.

Yahya associates Dawinism with Nazism and his books are and videos are available at many Islamic bookshops in the UK and regularly feature on Islamic television channels.

Speakers regularly tour Britain lecturing on Yahya's beliefs.

One such lecture was given at UCL in 2008 and this year's talks have been given in London, Manchester, Leeds, Dundee and Glasgow.

Evolutionary Biologist and former Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins has expressed his concern at the number of students, consisting almost entirely of Muslims, who do not attend or walk out of lectures.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.html#ixzz1ewGYziYG

 

[canada-man]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/WFive/20090306/wfive_church_090307/

profile of a cult called the dominion christian centre now known as one community church which currently have 2 branches one in Hamilton and another here in Toronto

 

[blackrock13]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/WFive/20090306/wfive_church_090307/

profile of a cult called the dominion christian centre now known as one community church which currently have 2 branches one in Hamilton and another here in Toronto

You must have been worked over really badly by some teacher or preacher in your earlier years to be this adamant to constantly barrage us with these water torture reports of isolated misdoings by small time religious groups or individuals and offer little else. No one on the BB has ever said these individuals or organization don't exist, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as you are trying to make people believe.

Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. Whatever float your boat, but all your doing is digging the hole you choose to live in bigger.

 

[canada-man]

You must have been worked over really badly by some teacher or preacher in your earlier years to be this adamant to constantly barrage us with these water torture reports of isolated misdoings by small time religious groups or individuals and offer little else. No one on the BB has ever said these individuals or organization don't exist, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as you are trying to make people believe.

Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. Whatever float your boat, but all your doing is digging the hole you choose to live in bigger.

were you ill this morning? i was starting to miss your reactionary complaints