"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Osgoodisgood

prinz wrote: »

Let's have a look at this SAVI Report shall we...

That covers all religious denominations by the way...it goes on to say...

You may also note the finding that in a quarter of child sex abuse cases in the study 25% were committed by other children or adolescents.

95% of the people I just interviewed think you're quote-mining

prinz

robindch wrote: »

According to figures from the "Irish Catholic" "newspaper", priests are forty (40, four-zero) times more likely to be convicted of child-abuse and serving time in prison than non-priests. Specifically, it claimed that while priests made up 0.1% of the population, they made up 4% of the convicted pedophiles in prison.I rather suspect you may not understand the rates of abuse.

Your figures would actually show that contrary to popular beliefs priests are being held accountable for their actions. Perhaps moreso than others?

MrStuffins

optogirl wrote: »

It is unfortunate that atheist discussions come back to the whole RCC/Paedophile chat because really what my atheism stems from is a lack of belief in god/gods. However - when religious people bring the RCC brand into it, it is hard to ignore the humiliating trauma they have put this country through.

+1

it's hard for me to hear someone up on their soapbox preaching to me who has extended their "blind faith" and their non questioning to the point where they will defend their church in the face of such atrocities!

smash

only 3.2% of abusers... so does that make it ok?

But if you think that a high percentage of abuse happens in the home where there's maybe 1 or 2 children, if only 3.2% of abusers are clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers, how many children do you think they abused each? I'd say it's a lot more than 1 or 2.

prinz

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

95% of the people I just interviewed think you're quote-mining

Whatever. Read it, don't, revel in ignorance.

mossyc123

Are the figures out there? Were/Are you any more likely to be a Child Abuser if you are a Clergyman? Until I see a verifiable source i'll go with my instincts and say your no more or less likely to be an abuser whether your a Priest or a Layperson.

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

only 3.2% of abusers... so does that make it ok?.... how many children do you think they abused each? I'd say it's a lot more than 1 or 2.

You'd need to have the cop on to know the study traced the path from the victims back to the abusers. Therefore the number of abused kids is reflected in the figure already.

AudreyHepburn

MrStuffins wrote: »

So you think it's ok to support child rape facilitators as long as some of it goes to your local parish?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Here's your problem right here.

You are supporting an organisation which facilitates, defends and harbours child rapists.

MrStuffins you know damn well I don't in any way support the rape and abuse of children. I think what happened was sick.

I don't give money in order to help the cover-up or to encourage the abuse but I think you that really.

Don't you ever get tired of acting smug all the time?

AudreyHepburn

MrStuffins wrote: »

+1

it's hard for me to hear someone up on their soapbox preaching to me who has extended their "blind faith" and their non questioning to the point where they will defend their church in the face of such atrocities!

I don't believe anyone's doing that to be honest. But again you know that too really.

Osgoodisgood

optogirl wrote: »

It is unfortunate that atheist discussions come back to the whole RCC/Paedophile chat because really what my atheism stems from is a lack of belief in god/gods.

Agreed

However - when religious people bring the RCC brand into it, it is hard to ignore the humiliating trauma they have put this country through.

I'm delighted it was humiliating. I hope every person remembers every disgusting revelation of abuse with a due sense of revulsion and embarassment that this heartless bunch of child molesting thugs (rapists and those who facilitated the abuse) have such an incredibly pervasive influence in this country to this very day. I consider it shameful that the RCC has not been treated as any other organisation would if found guilty of such disgraceful activities, that is of course, to be closed permanently and dragged one by one through the judicial system.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't believe anyone's doing that to be honest. But again you know that too really.

I don't think Stuffins is saying people actively encourage paedophilia however millions continue to support the organisation responsible for the horiffic treatment of children in this country - not only sexual abuse but abuse of single mothers, homosexuals etc. By not taking a stand against this organisation there is an element of compliance.

smash

prinz wrote: »

You'd need to have the cop on to know the study traced the path from the victims back to the abusers. Therefore the number of abused kids is reflected in the figure already.

It still doesn't make it better. And you can be guaranteed there are still a lot of abused people that didn't come forward. And lets not forget apart from the sexual side, the physical and mental abuse the catholic church dished out was horrid.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

MrStuffins you know damn well I don't in any way support the rape and abuse of children. I think what happened was sick.

I don't give money in order to help the cover-up or to encourage the abuse but I think you that really.

Don't you ever get tired of acting smug all the time?

Why the personal attack? I was asking a simple question and you attack me/ That's not very nice.

My post was in NO WAY smug.

You say you don't in any way support the rape and abuse of children, but when you give money on the collection plate that is exactly what you are doing, whether you like it or not!

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

I don't think Stuffins is saying people actively encourage paedophilia however millions continue to support the organisation responsible for the horiffic treatment of children in this country - not only sexual abuse but abuse of single mothers, homosexuals etc. By not taking a stand against this organisation there is an element of compliance.

This is what I have issue with. Going to mass, slipping 1 euro into the collection basket on Sundays etc DOES NOT EQUAL compliance or acceptance at all.

Every Catholic I know is embarressed and sickened by what happened.

coffee_cake

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't give money in order to help the cover-up or to encourage the abuse but I think you that really.

You give money to them. You acknowledge the money goes toward the coverup. His question was not smug or attacking it was a fairly straightforward question based on what you've said.
I wish you would stop being so sensitive sometimes, it's difficult to have a constructive conversation

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

It still doesn't make it better. And you can be guaranteed there are still a lot of abused people that didn't come forward. And lets not forget apart from the sexual side, the physical and mental abuse the catholic church dished out was horrid.

Good thing no one was trying to make it better then.

strobe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't you ever get tired of acting smug all the time?

That's pretty smug Audrey.......

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This is what I have issue with. Going to mass, slipping 1 euro into the collection basket on Sundays etc DOES NOT EQUAL compliance or acceptance at all.

Every Catholic I know is embarressed and sickened by what happened.

A few hundred people donating this much every month is a heavy contributor and does equal a degree of compliance if you like it or not.

MrStuffins

bluewolf wrote: »

I wish you would stop being so sensitive sometimes, it's difficult to have a constructive conversation

I really couldn't have said it better myself.

AudreyHepburn

MrStuffins wrote: »

Why the personal attack? I was asking a simple question and you attack me/ That's not very nice.

My post was in NO WAY smug.

You say you don't in any way support the rape and abuse of children, but when you give money on the collection plate that is exactly what you are doing, whether you like it or not!

You accused me of thinking supporting paedophilia is ok as long as part of that support also goes to my local church and did so in a smug tone when you knew that wasn't really what I was saying at all.

I have said already I think paedophilia is sick. They should all be hanged. I do not and would never support or condone it.

coffee_cake

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You accused me of thinking supporting paedophilia is ok as long as part of that support also goes to my local church and did so in a smug tone when you knew that wasn't really what I was saying at all.

I have said already I think paedophilia is sick. They should all be hanged. I do not and would never support or condone it.

I'm not sure you can really say you would never support it if you acknowledge that your money DOES go in support of it.

My name is URL

MrStuffins wrote: »

So you think it's ok to support child rape facilitators as long as some of it goes to your local parish?

Is it ok to support child labor by buying branded goods manufactured in sweatshops? Is it ok to support bloodshed in other countries by paying taxes in a country engaged in war? It is not immoral to altruistically support your local parish, and it isn't fair to blame the people doing so for supporting atrocities within the church. The problem doesn't lie with the people, it lies with the hierarchic nature of the church.

mossyc123

steve06 wrote: »

A few hundred people donating this much every month is a heavy contributor and does equal a degree of compliance if you like it or not.

Also equals "compliance" in a lot of good work that wouldn't go on without the Church. I must be missing something here, has there been some sort of benevolence fund set-up for convicted Paedophiles?!

smash

prinz wrote: »

Good thing no one was trying to make it better then.

It's only started to get better in recent times and it's sickening that it even happened in the first place.

My biggest issue with people who support the catholic church is that they try and go back to statistics and basically say "well other people did it to and they weren't priests" as if it makes it in any way better.

The fact that there were so many cover up leads me to believe only 1 thing, people didn't become priests and then become paedophiles. People were paedophiles and then became priests, because they were able to get away with it and were covered up by their friends. By doing this, the church actively encouraged and harboured these kinds of people.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

That's pretty smug Audrey.......

It probably was, I'm sorry

I'm aware of where the money goes but I do not condone Child Abuse.

And I not am being sensitive. I just get frustrated when any religious discussions go back to this because most Catholics hate what the Church did to children, young unmarried mothers etc yet people assume we condone it because we remain part of the faith.

Apologies for being difficult though.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You accused me of thinking supporting paedophilia is ok as long as part of that support also goes to my local church and did so in a smug tone when you knew that wasn't really what I was saying at all.

I have said already I think paedophilia is sick. They should all be hanged. I do not and would never support or condone it.

Audrey, they're pretty straight-forward questions and statements.

You just fail to see your hypocrisy here.

You are financially supporting the RCC.

The RCC are an organisation who facilitate, defend and harbour child rapists.

I can't be any clearer here!

You are trying to defend your support of them by saying "sure some of the money goes to the local parish".

So, again, are you telling me it is ok to support an organisation that facilitates child-rape, as long as your parish gets its fair share?

Stercus Accidit

My name is URL wrote: »

Is it ok to support child labor by buying branded goods manufactured in sweatshops? Is it ok to support bloodshed in other countries by paying taxes in a country engaged in war? It is not immoral to altruistically support your local parish, and it isn't fair to blame the people doing so for supporting atrocities within the church. The problem doesn't lie with the people, it lies with the hierarchic nature of the church.

None of those things are really ok, we have a varying degree of say in our compliance with them though. Stop paying your taxes and you will be put in jail for example, people stop buying products produced by child labour and so on, this analogy is self defeating.

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

It's only started to get better in recent times and it's sickening that it even happened in the first place.

My biggest issue with people who support the catholic church is that they try and go back to statistics and basically say "well other people did it to and they weren't priests" as if it makes it in any way better.

The fact that there were so many cover up leads me to believe only 1 thing, people didn't become priests and then become paedophiles. People were paedophiles and then became priests, because they were able to get away with it and were covered up by their friends. By doing this, the church actively encouraged and harboured these kinds of people.

I can't imagine they would knowningly have taken in Child Molesters and Abusers even though they later covered them up.

smash

mossyc123 wrote: »

I must be missing something here, has there been some sort of benevolence fund set-up for convicted Paedophiles?!

No, but there was before they were convicted.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I can't imagine they would knowningly have taken in Child Molesters and Abusers even though they later covered them up.

Knowingly took them in? probably not. But covering up for them? Absolutely. They didn't even kick them out of the church ffs. This in itself encourages it.

MrStuffins

My name is URL wrote: »

Is it ok to support child labor by buying branded goods manufactured in sweatshops? Is it ok to support bloodshed in other countries by paying taxes in a country engaged in war? It is not immoral to altruistically support your local parish, and it isn't fair to blame the people doing so for supporting atrocities within the church. The problem doesn't lie with the people, it lies with the hierarchic nature of the church.

................... and what's your point here?

Have i ever said i do any of these things?

Who said i buy branded goods?

I don't live in a country engaged in a war.

What are you on about?

All of this "i can list many wrongs, so this wrong is right" business is silly!