Is the sex abuse scandal our holocaust ?

megaton

Such a disgrac, it makes me so angry with the church.

It's not just the abuse system, my parents grew up in a time (they were born in the 1930's), where religious were horrible people

they both kept strong faith. But would tell me stories about horrible experiences with priests and nuns, even before the abuse became known

why should i keep the faith,

philologos

No. The Holocaust involved mass murder.

You will probably get a varied response in here. Not all the posters are Catholics many are Christians from other denominations. You will find that most if not all will find the abuse un-Christian. There are also other threads all over boards.ie about this.

I think it's an overgeneralisation to say that all religious people were "horrible" people in the 1930's.

sml68

Sex abuse scandal is a disgrace but it aint no Holocaust!!

Jimbo

Jakkass wrote: »

No. The Holocaust involved mass murder.

You will probably get a varied response in here. Not all the posters are Catholics many are Christians from other denominations. You will find that most if not all will find the abuse un-Christian. There are also other threads all over boards.ie about this.

I dont know, it may well be our own little holocaust.
It was certainly more than un-christian, it was inhumane.

We're talking about mass abuse, rape and sometimes even murder of little children over very long periods of time all while the outside world turned a blind eye to and even sent their children to.

People tend to under-estimate or ignore the sheer scale of horror and abuse that was inflicted on hundreds of young defenseless children and the damage it continues to do to them throughout their life.

The whole thing has certainly made me take a look at my own catholic faith.

Soul Winner

megaton wrote: »

Such a disgrac, it makes me so angry with the church.

It's not just the abuse system, my parents grew up in a time (they were born in the 1930's), where religious were horrible people

they both kept strong faith. But would tell me stories about horrible experiences with priests and nuns, even before the abuse became known

why should i keep the faith,

The pain that these monsters perpetrated on these littles ones will not go unpunished.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6

philologos

Jimbo wrote: »

I dont know, it may well be our own little holocaust.
It was certainly more than un-christian, it was inhumane.

Considering the OP posted in the Christianity forum, it might had been notable to point out that it went against the virtues of Christianity as a world faith.

Jimbo wrote: »

We're talking about mass abuse, rape and sometimes even murder of little children over very long periods of time all while the outside world turned a blind eye to and even sent their children to.

I'm quite aware, but it is not comparable to killing 6 million Jews and others of varying minorities. I think the word Holocaust should be used very carefully.

Jimbo wrote: »

People tend to under-estimate or ignore the sheer scale of horror and abuse that was inflicted on hundreds of young defenseless children and the damage it continues to do to them throughout their life.

It's not underestimating something to refuse to accept that "Holocaust" should be used to describe it. It was horrific, but the Holocaust was much more than merely horrific.

Jimbo wrote: »

The whole thing has certainly made me take a look at my own catholic faith.

I'm sure it has done. I take comfort in knowing that Jesus is my Lord, and that Christianity is about Jesus, not about authorities or mere structures of men.

Jimbo

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering the OP posted in the Christianity forum, it might had been notable to point out that it went against the virtues of Christianity as a world faith.



I'm quite aware, but it is not comparable to killing 6 million Jews and others of varying minorities. I think the word Holocaust should be used very carefully.



It's not underestimating something to refuse to accept that "Holocaust" should be used to describe it. It was horrific, but the Holocaust was much more than merely horrific.



I'm sure it has done. I take comfort in knowing that Jesus is my Lord, and that Christianity is about Jesus, not about authorities or mere structures of men.

I agree. It certainly wouldn't effect my Christianity, but my faith in the Catholic church.


Thinking about it, compairing it to the Holocaust may be extreme but it's just worring that the whole thing will be forgotten about again in time.

In my opinion, it certainly was one of the darkest chapters in Irish history and should never be understated.

Euro_Kraut

I think what the OP is suggesting is not that the abuse scandal was human suffering on the same scale as the Holocaust, but rather that it is our 'greatest national shame' in a similar vein to the shame Germans/Austrians have. The Americans have slavery the South Africans have apartheid.

So in that sense I would say yes - this is the great scandal in this History of the Irish State and the events (or culture perhaps) that we as a Nation should be most ashamed of.

Powerhouse

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I think what the OP is suggesting is not that the abuse scandal was human suffering on the same scale as the Holocaust, but rather that it is our 'greatest national shame' in a similar vein to the shame Germans/Austrians have. The Americans have slavery the South Africans have apartheid.

So in that sense I would say yes - this is the great scandal in this History of the Irish State and the events (or culture perhaps) that we as a Nation should be most ashamed of.

When Germans/Austrians have laws against denying the holocaust they do not mean someone denying 'shame'. It is a very specific physical event that is referenced by the word 'holocaust' and it was an inappropriate choice of word as it inevitably misled the discussion assuming you are correct in your inference about the OP.

Fanny Cradock

This thread has a very limited shelf life, I believe. The idea that you can compare the most regrettable sexual abuse by one time trusted members of society with the slavery, emaciation, torture of people the Nazi's weren't too fond of is absolutely preposterous. The Nazi's killed killing by gunfire, Zyclon B gas, carbon monoxide poisioning, dogs, torture, experiment, throwing live people into blazing furnaces and scores of other untold and unimaginable evils of their death factories.

I suggest that the OP actually read up on what went on in these camps.

Fanny Cradock

BTW, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the famine or the then British policy towards Ireland, so lets not go there.

achtungbarry

Soul Winner wrote: »

The pain that these monsters perpetrated on these littles ones will not go unpunished.

Ha ! This is Ireland after all !!!!

It is true that some priests have been convicted opf these vicious crimes but I would like to know why we have not seen one of the bishops (who covered up these crimes and protected the abusers by simply moving them from Parish to Parish) being led out in handcuffs.

Justice, yeah right !

Fanny Cradock

OK, I can see this thread is going down the route of ever other sexual abuse thread on this forum.

studiorat

As Bruce Arnold states in the Irish Gulag:

Everyone in the country had a whiff in their nostrils of the fear emanating from behind the high walls of the industrial schools.

What sickens me about the whole affair is that, as I believe someone already said. Even the dogs on the street knew this was going on. Everyone knows some who can tell you a story about abuse by a member of the clergy. It wasn't just bishops covering it up, the whole country knew about it and stood by. One or two people tried to do something but in general, the government, police, other religious, doctors, lay teachers, the whole lot, just took it to be a fact of life and carried on.

For example in the Kennedy report in 1970 the closure of the Daingean industrial school is recommended, mainly because of antiquated plumbing and other physical defects. The fact that the children were flogged mercilessly is not recorded.

The religious orders did in fact educate the "back bone" of Irish society for decades, civil service, garda, government, etc. through out economic depression, world wars, civil war and the rest of the strife that the Ireland went through as a post colonial republic. Whether the country could have done this without them is another debate, but, I believe a certain loyalty to these educators from this "ruling class" served to compound the issue.

So if the OP meant Holocaust as the shame of Irish society as a whole, then Yes I believe they are correct. And it would be wise to remember that practically the whole country did stand by while this went on.

philologos

Just a request, perhaps this thread would be better suited in Humanities than on the Christianity forum.

Powerhouse

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

BTW, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the famine or the then British policy towards Ireland, so lets not go there.

Why not? Somebody suggested what "our holocaust" was and rather then diagreeing for the sake of it, I pointed out the obvious choice for that sobriquet for Ireland as the phrase has actually been used by Roy Foster to describe the famine. I don't see why it is unreasonable to flesh out an argument in that way.

Of course we have no shortage of famine deniers ourselves who don't like to hear this stuff but I think it is grossly unfair to object to my posts while trotting out details about gases used in death camps yourself. If we are to stick rigidly to your vision of a discussion board then why not let's just both say "I disagee" and leave it at that? It doesn't make for much of a discussion board though. Anyway, this is my last contribution on this as I know that challenging a moderator at any level just doesn't work around here.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, I can see this thread is going down the route of ever other sexual abuse thread on this forum.

It would seem by your 3 posts FC you are going to steer it that way.
Firstly I believe the OP was talking about the effect on the country in terms of shame etc. Points which were already made before your first post and suggestion of the OP to read up on the concentration camps.

Secondly by bringing the Famine into the discussion, which you in fact did yourself, by mentioning it.

And thirdly by already chalking it down as a thread that will possibly descend into chaos and be locked.

Considering the OP expressed their anger at the Catholic Church this could actually be the right place for it...

Euro_Kraut

Powerhouse wrote: »

When Germans/Austrians have laws against denying the holocaust they do not mean someone denying 'shame'. It is a very specific physical event that is referenced by the word 'holocaust' and it was an inappropriate choice of word as it inevitably misled the discussion assuming you are correct in your inference about the OP.

I agree with you. Anything that references or makes comparisons with Nazis tend to inhibit rational discussion.

studiorat

The term Holocaust has been used for hundreds of years to describe a clamity delivered on a large number of people. It has been restricted in it's use since WW2. There is descriptions of a holocaust from WW1 aswell.

I suppose there is now a difference between a holocaust and The Holocaust. I for one read the OP in terms of the country's reaction to the abuse scandal rather that considering it as a comparison to The Holocaust per se.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

It would seem by your 3 posts FC you are going to steer it that way.
Firstly I believe the OP was talking about the effect on the country in terms of shame etc. Points which were already made before your first post and suggestion of the OP to read up on the concentration camps.

Secondly by bringing the Famine into the discussion, which you in fact did yourself, by mentioning it.

And thirdly by already chalking it down as a thread that will possibly descend into chaos and be locked.

Considering the OP expressed their anger at the Catholic Church this could actually be the right place for it...

Studiorat, did you consider the possibility that I deleted a post that unnecessarily discused the famine? No, you just launced into your post - fingers flailing in outrage at what a Christian says.

Fanny Cradock

Powerhouse wrote: »

Why not? Somebody suggested what "our holocaust" was and rather then diagreeing for the sake of it, I pointed out the obvious choice for that sobriquet for Ireland as the phrase has actually been used by Roy Foster to describe the famine. I don't see why it is unreasonable to flesh out an argument in that way.

Of course we have no shortage of famine deniers ourselves who don't like to hear this stuff but I think it is grossly unfair to object to my posts while trotting out details about gases used in death camps yourself. If we are to stick rigidly to your vision of a discussion board then why not let's just both say "I disagee" and leave it at that? It doesn't make for much of a discussion board though. Anyway, this is my last contribution on this as I know that challenging a moderator at any level just doesn't work around here.

Let's not muddy the waters. I did not deny that the famine happened, nor did I comment upon the morality of it. The reason your diateribe was deleted was not becuse I personally find it objectional, it's because it has nothing to do with Christianity. OK?

May I suggest that you take it to the humanities, politics or history forum (I can proide a copy of the post if you wish) and we might find that we have more in common than you think. However, here your post has been deleted because it is superfluent to the subject of the forum: Christianity. Clunking "famine denier" accusations aside, the deletion of your post really boils down to relevance. It is that simple.

cronndiesel

apart from uber unionist arnold trying to drum up a bit of scandal for yet another waste of rainforest:rolleyes: who in their right mind is taking this seriously??

is the circumcision of children sex abuse?? its happening every day to little boys and girls just like our sons and daughters- look up what it entails:eek:

now if a catholic priest demanded that what would happen??

an other thing to consider where did these people come from?? they didnt come from mars or the moon any more then paedaphile firemen,streetcleaner or (shock horror) journelists! yes journelists can be paedophiles as well though i doubt we ll ever see it in ahem! large print

what really sickens me is the amount of money made from selling books and such like from this awful situation its almost an industry now what next a fucin theme park and yet nothing really done to stop any of this
have you seen the latest "fashon" for "tweenys" if the likes of all these fecers who are using the sexual abuse of children to take a whack at a section of society they dont like, if they care so much about these victems and their familys why dont they demand the banning of these fads like "tweenys" thats turning our ten year olds into tarts

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Studiorat, did you consider the possibility that I deleted a post that unnecessarily discused the famine? No, you just launced into your post - fingers flailing in outrage at what a Christian says.

No outrage here. Quick to jump to conclusions I think. The fact that say you are a Christian makes no difference to me. Read my first post, I wasn't talking about christians I was talking about the people who were afraid to bring it out in the open back when it was happening.

The fact is you brought up the subject of Famine, if you did delete a post maybe you should have clairfied that fact. That was bad chairmanship of the discussion. Which as I've said already you seem to have already consigned to the dumper. In fact you have had nothing constructive to add to discussion thus far.

philologos

studiorat: Dragging this on is just you bringing it further off topic surely? I'm starting to agree with Fanny Craddock that there isn't that much to discuss (i.e its wrong, and nearly everyone if not everyone recognises that including Christians), or that this thread has a limited shelf life.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

No outrage here. Quick to jump to conclusions I think. The fact that say you are a Christian makes no difference to me. Read my first post, I wasn't talking about christians I was talking about the people who were afraid to bring it out in the open back when it was happening.

The fact is you brought up the subject of Famine, if you did delete a post maybe you should have clairfied that fact. That was bad chairmanship of the discussion. Which as I've said already you seem to have already consigned to the dumper. In fact you have had nothing constructive to add to discussion thus far.

Maybe I should have mentioned that the Christianity forum wasn't the place to discuss the actions of the British between 1846-48 in relation to Ireland. Or maybe you should have had enough sense to keep you powder dry when I was discussing a topic that clearly (even after the OP replied) didn't involve you.

If you want to critisie my actions as a mod thart is just fine. However, this is not the appropriate forum.

Aside from that, I'm perfectly intitled to object to any comparison between clerical abuse in Ireland and the Holocaust (despite how you choose to capitalise it). I find any comparisons between the deeds of the Nazi's and a select number of dirty priests and their protectors to completely skim over the horror of something like Auschwitz. You can try to equivocate this on a "national shame" level, but such blunt equivocations wont happen here.

I'm not defending what these priests did. However. when I critisise the Nazis I'm demarkating an organised evil so terrible in its aim and scope it that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as these individuals.

However, I'm thinking that your objection has little to do with my reasoning and more to do with some odd personal/ worldview reasons.

studiorat

cronndiesel wrote: »

apart from uber unionist arnold trying to drum up a bit of scandal for yet another waste of rainforest:rolleyes: who in their right mind is taking this seriously??

I'm no fan of Bruce Aronld let me tell you. Though I enjoyed the quote and rather take the credit for it I mentioned that it was his.

cronndiesel wrote: »

is the circumcision of children sex abuse?? its happening every day to little boys and girls just like our sons and daughters- look up what it entails:eek:

Circumcision is not sexual abuse. Look up what it entails. Nor was the abuse scandals discussed here soley of a sexual nature. It's another debate, but for the record female genital mutilation is abusive as far as I'm concerned. Male circumcision seems so widespread I'm afraid I can't comment. Tho a discussion on the matter would be of interest to me.

cronndiesel wrote: »

now if a catholic priest demanded that what would happen??

Are you talking about a priest questioning circumcision? Fr. Michael Murnagh has actually raised a lot of debate regarding the clerical abuse issue. I've already applauded him on this forum in the past.

cronndiesel wrote: »

an other thing to consider where did these people come from?? they didnt come from mars or the moon any more then paedaphile firemen,streetcleaner or (shock horror) journelists! yes journelists can be paedophiles as well though i doubt we ll ever see it in ahem! large print

Like I've said already it's not just about sexual abuse, it's also about the beatings that took place in those industrial schools. However given the amount of abuse charges taken against priests compaired to the abuse charges taken out against firemen, there would seem to be some correlation. Of course maybe we shouldn't write off a paedophile fireman ring...

cronndiesel wrote: »

what really sickens me is the amount of money made from selling books and such like from this awful situation its almost an industry now what next a fucin theme park and yet nothing really done to stop any of this
have you seen the latest "fashon" for "tweenys" if the likes of all these fecers who are using the sexual abuse of children to take a whack at a section of society they dont like, if they care so much about these victems and their familys why dont they demand the banning of these fads like "tweenys" thats turning our ten year olds into tarts

Oh the state of the nation!!!! God help us all. A point though. The abuse of children took place on children who were in the care of the state. And the state seemed quiet happy to leave that care to the clergy. Despite red flags being raised as far back as 1936.

There are already plenty of journalists writing about the "tweeny" fad. I persume that's how you know about it. Though ten year olds dressed as tarts has gone beyond me by now. But these "Tweeneys" as you say are not wards of the state and as such should be under their parents juristriction. So it doesn't really have a relevance in this discussion.

One of the reason people seem interested in the clerical abuse issues, or more so the literature on it is the fact that the various reports stretched to thousands of pages, and need someone with the research experience of someone like Mr. Arnold to digest it for public consumption.

Dont forget CroinnD. that if these journalists weren't doing their work, chances are that once again the whole thing once again would have gone under the radar.

@ FC and JACKASS. You are probably right that this should be moved. But since the OP did express their anger at the church, maybe it actually has a relevance here. I'm trying to figure out the defensiveness that seems to appear though. I've yet to see a snipe at christians (in general .) in this thread. Personally I think there's alot more people responsible than just the religious.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I'm thinking that your objection has little to do with my reasoning and more to do with some odd personal/ worldview reasons.

Is that a reference to my posts or some sort of personal slur?
Since as far as odd worldviews go I'd think certain christians may have the upper hand on me...

Powerhouse

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's not muddy the waters. I did not deny that the famine happened, nor did I comment upon the morality of it. The reason your diateribe was deleted was not becuse I personally find it objectional, it's because it has nothing to do with Christianity. OK?

May I suggest that you take it to the humanities, politics or history forum (I can proide a copy of the post if you wish) and we might find that we have more in common than you think. However, here your post has been deleted because it is superfluent to the subject of the forum: Christianity. Clunking "famine denier" accusations aside, the deletion of your post really boils down to relevance. It is that simple.

This is illogical and inconsistent. While it is interesting that you think that Christianity is simply an academic pursuit and its message is not applicable to real life situations, if you were being consistent you would have deleted the initial post which mentioned the holocaust - also nothing to do with Christianity if we accept your implied argument that Christianity is a separate entity with no message in these matters.

As someone suggested this is just trigger-happy moderatorship something which is generally dragging down these boards and preventing interesting and informed discussion from developing. Pity that.

phoenix48

To compare the systematic destruction of the Jewish people in the Shoah would be wrong in my opinion. In the Shoah, one madman's ideology was wiping of an entire people from the face of the earth. In the dreadful case of child abuse, the Church is the prime offender. I have read the Ryan report and it reduced me to tears. Like the Shoah (Holocaust), we should say that never again should we as a people close our ears to the evil that surrounds us.

Húrin

Yes, I think this will be seen as our Republic's worst national shame. It is important to remember that those who say that the Catholic church educated Ireland when nobody else would are ignorant of or are attempting to rewrite history.

Since the mid-19th century, nearly every attempt by the British and Irish governments to introduce universal multi-denominational education and health care was resisted (often successfully) by the Catholic church heirarchy. This was done so that they could maintain their own power over this country.

I am most happy that they are facing some sort of reckoning now.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Is that a reference to my posts or some sort of personal slur?
Since as far as odd worldviews go I'd think certain christians may have the upper hand on me...

You really are pushing it.

Fanny Cradock

Powerhouse wrote: »

This is illogical and inconsistent. While it is interesting that you think that Christianity is simply an academic pursuit and its message is not applicable to real life situations, if you were being consistent you would have deleted the initial post which mentioned the holocaust - also nothing to do with Christianity if we accept your implied argument that Christianity is a separate entity with no message in these matters.

As someone suggested this is just trigger-happy moderatorship something which is generally dragging down these boards and preventing interesting and informed discussion from developing. Pity that.

What are you talking about? Where did I state that Christianity was merely an academic pursuit? Your deleted post had nothing to do with Christianity - you didnt once mention it, in fact. Instead you discussed the famine, the British Gov, Fianna Fáil, and what Colm Tóibín had to say for himself. I've already been kind enough to suggest alternative forums that whould be relevant to the content of your post and offered to provide you with a copy of your post.

Powerhouse

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you talking about? Where did I state that Christianity was merely an academic pursuit?

If you show me where I said you 'stated' it that would be good.

As far as I am aware I drew an inference about what you thought based on your attempts to stymie any broader discussion on this thread - a perfectly reasonable inference - but like I said if I claimed you stated it please point it out.

But you should - if being consistent - have deleted the original post as if you deleted one referencing the Irish Famine on the basis of having nothing to do with Christianity then it is hard to see how you see how you could justify retaining one on the holocaust. Perhaps you could explain the difference?

Fanny Cradock

While it is interesting that you think that Christianity is simply an academic pursuit and its message is not applicable to real life situations...

You didn't infer anything, you jumped in head first and made an unequivocal statement on what it is I believe. I've tried to be patient in our interactions but I see that isn't getting us anywhere. I have no interest in explaining my decisions to you, and if I hear one more peep out of you on this matter you will be taking a break from here.

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

Circumcision is not sexual abuse. Look up what it entails. Nor was the abuse scandals discussed here soley of a sexual nature. It's another debate, but for the record female genital mutilation is abusive as far as I'm concerned. Male circumcision seems so widespread I'm afraid I can't comment. Tho a discussion on the matter would be of interest to me.

Many feel that it has medical benefits. It has been encouraged in North America in particular in a medical rather than a religious sense, or at least I thought that much. It is a subject for debate I guess. However, I don't feel that Jews or Muslims are abusing anyone by carrying out a circumcision.

studiorat wrote: »

Dont forget CroinnD. that if these journalists weren't doing their work, chances are that once again the whole thing once again would have gone under the radar.

Yes, and no. I think that they have done a good service in bringing it to light. However, I think people should be trying to help the Catholic Church resolve their problems instead of criticising them and their members day and night about it.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Many feel that it has medical benefits

Medical benefits which are controversial, and have only come to light in recent years. Up to then it was typically religious or tribal custom and carried out for religious or tribal reasons, as, I would hazard, around 99.9% of it still is.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't feel that Jews or Muslims are abusing anyone by carrying out a circumcision

What about FGM all over, foot-binding in China, lip plates in Ethiopia, neck rings in Burma -- are these different in any meaningful way from penis circumcision?

How would you react if a religious guy came up to you this minute, whipped out a razor blade and said he'd like to cut away the top centimeter of skin from around the top of your knob, because his holybook told him it should be done.

Would you strip off immediately, or would you send him packing?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Would you strip off immediately, or would you send him packing?

I personally would send him packing due to my belief as a Christian I don't need a physical circumcision to be a part of God's people. I don't however deny Jews or Muslims the right to carry out their religious practices.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally would send him packing due to my belief as a Christian I don't need a physical circumcision to be a part of God's people.

We're not talking about what you need to do to make yourself one of "God's people". We're talking about whether or not cutting off a bit of a guy's knob constitutes abuse.

Say a rabbi came up and circumcised you while you were unconscious. Would you sue him for assault, or would you leave him go?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

We're not talking about what you need to do to make yourself one of "God's people". We're talking about whether or not cutting off a bit of a guy's knob constitutes abuse.

I don't think it's abuse.

robindch wrote: »

Say a rabbi came up and circumcised you while you were unconscious. Would you sue him for assault, or would you leave him go?

That would depend on whether or not there was damage caused

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

That would depend on whether or not there was damage caused

Well, assuming that he was able to find it and chop off the top, it would be safe to say that you wouldn't be happy?

philologos

I personally do not see an issue with circumcision or uncircumcision. However you are correct to say that I would prefer to remain as I am as the New Testament advises.

1 Corinthians 7:19-20 wrote:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called.

I personally see no issue with the practice itself.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally do not see an issue with circumcision or uncircumcision. However you are correct to say that I would prefer to remain as I am as the New Testament advises.

"As the New Testament advises"?

"As the New Testament advises"!!!!!??!!???

Wow! I've seen a lot of silly responses on this board, but good heavens, that one takes the biscuit! A guy wakes up to find that a rabbi has hacked off a chunk of his knob with a razor blade, so as he hobbles off after him, hands clenched around the remaining bits of his groin to stop the bleeding, and in excruciating pain, the guy yells, "Hey, come back! I want to remain as I am as the New Testament advises".

Your sang-froid would make a thousand-year-old corpse proud!

philologos

robindch: Look, simply I don't consider circumcision to be abuse in any meaningful way as it isn't genuinely harmful to the male in growth, development and so on. Where circumcision isn't carried out by people who know what they are doing, resulting in harm, yes, I would call that abuse.

It's really that simple. I don't see circumcision as an offensive or an abusive practice. I personally wouldn't have it done for my own personal reasons. As for your big objection to "as the New Testament advises". I would advocate that the religious freedoms of the Jews and the Muslims are respected, I would also advocate that my religious freedoms be respected. Quite reasonable I would have thought.

Fanny Cradock

Wow! From the Holocoust to circumcision.

robindch wrote: »

Medical benefits which are controversial, and have only come to light in recent years. Up to then it was typically religious or tribal custom and carried out for religious or tribal reasons, as, I would hazard, around 99.9% of it still is.

How would you react if a religious guy came up to you this minute, whipped out a razor blade and said he'd like to cut away the top centimeter of skin from around the top of your knob, because his holybook told him it should be done.

Would you strip off immediately, or would you send him packing?

Wow! I've seen a lot of silly responses on this board, but good heavens, that one takes the biscuit! A guy wakes up to find that a rabbi has hacked off a chunk of his knob with a razor blade, so as he hobbles off after him, hands clenched around the remaining bits of his groin to stop the bleeding, and in excruciating pain, the guy yells, "Hey, come back! I want to remain as I am as the New Testament advises".

Guys, this is hardly the place to discuss the medical benifits of circumcision.

However, I cant resist putting my oar in the water for a moment to address robin. It seems clear that in the US male infants are circumcised because the medical authorities see it as being medically benifical, not because of the opinions of some crazed, knife weilding Rabbi or whoever. The controversy surrounding secular circumcision (if I may call it that) is a medical controversy, not a religious one.

Anyway, could we leave the colourful scenarios out of it? I don't believe that anyone has mentioned that they agree with some guy hopping on his victim and slicing off his foreskin.

If you guys really want to debate this further I can cut the relating posts and place them in anther thread. Just say the word.

Powerhouse

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You didn't infer anything, you jumped in head first and made an unequivocal statement on what it is I believe. I've tried to be patient in our interactions but I see that isn't getting us anywhere. I have no interest in explaining my decisions to you, and if I hear one more peep out of you on this matter you will be taking a break from here.

Very classy - you will not explain your decisions, though they are inconsistent and illogical, and will start ban someone if they challenge you?

Consider yourself reported, though I realise it's a waste of time.

PDN

Powerhouse wrote: »

Very classy - you will not explain your decisions, though they are inconsistent and illogical, and will start ban someone if they challenge you?

Consider yourself reported, though I realise it's a waste of time.

And you consider yourself banned for a week for backseat modding.

Fanny Cradock

Powerhouse wrote: »

Very classy - you will not explain your decisions, though they are inconsistent and illogical, and will start ban someone if they challenge you?

Consider yourself reported, though I realise it's a waste of time.

I have patiently explained why your post was deleted and I'm under no obligation to provide you with any other explination. If you can't figure out why the OP remains and your post doesn't then that is of no concern to me. I consider the matter closed, I suggest you do the same.

Terra

I would say that the Irish Famine is more our Holocaust.

I guess now we don't feel bad about it as much as the older generation would.

But the famine is definitely the closest thing we have to a holocaust.

The abuse is the truth coming out...it goes to show no matter how powerfull and protected and institution is...the truth always comes out in the end...Justice always needs to be sought after.

studiorat

The famine was inflicted on the nation, according to some, at the hands of a foreign power. The child abuse over 40 years or whatever it was, was inflicted by members of the state on younger members of the state.

Terra

why are we argueing so much....

the church abuse is a bad thing...

The holocoust of ww1 and ww2 are bad things.


The famine is a bad thing.... they are all bad things, we can argue indefinetly over which is the worst of the bad things but what difference does it make to anything?

Lets agree yes they are bad things....and lets move on to figureing out how to make the bad good...if that is possible at all

prinz

studiorat wrote: »

The famine was inflicted on the nation, according to some, at the hands of a foreign power. .

Thanks for noting that. I find the Irish psyche has an amazing ability to redact and censor history to remove the role of Irish people in the less than memorable moments.

The abuse scandal could be cathartic in this, allowing us as a people to admit that yes Irish people did evil things too.