1000's of kids making their communion today

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Eh, that's the same thing. Why are people cool being associated with an organisation that has so many child molesters- that's what I asked. Well done for spotting it after 12 pages.

No Kenny, this is what i was referring to -

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Is it okay to molest thousands of kids? People seem cool with it.

What kind of an incredibly stupid question is that? Followed by an even more incredulously stupid "observation".

It's neither edgy, nor original, and it shows a piss poor understanding of logical argument on your part. It simply comes off as smartarse trolling, thanks whoring, rather than a genuine inquiry that deserves a genuine answer. I don't think you really were looking for a genuine answer, and your attempted thanks whoring has fallen flat on it's arse with each and every subsequent post.

Kenny Bania

eviltwin wrote: »

You kinda implied people who identify as Catholic and do all the associated stuff are condoning those actions by continuing to support it.

That's exactly what I implied, and meant.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

That's exactly what I implied, and meant.

You are blaming everyone then!

eviltwin

Kenny Bania wrote: »

That's exactly what I implied, and meant.

But that isn't true Kenny. It's simply not true. People can separate the scandals from their faith. In a lot of cases you're talking about cases from way back. It would be different if it was actually happening right at this moment but it's not.

Bristolscale7

Kenny Bania wrote: »

That's exactly what I implied, and meant.

Yes. If you are in fact a catholic you had a moral obligation and responsibility to reject the church based on its defense and protection of rapists. Failure to do so implies acceptance. In ethical terms, failure to act when you have a special moral obligation is only justifiable in situations like nazi germany where standing up to the institution responsible for atrocities would have resulted in death.

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Yes. If you are in fact a catholic you had a moral obligation and responsibility to reject the church based on its defense and protection of rapists. Failure to do so implies acceptance. In ethical terms, failure to act when you have a special moral obligation is only justifiable in situations like nazi germany where standing up to the institution responsible for atrocities would have resulted in death.

Baby out with the bathwater stuff there Bristolscale. By your logic, the victims of institutional abuse that I have talked to who do not reject the Catholic Church, implies that they accept and approve of the way they were treated. You really don't need me to point out how untrue that is.

Bristolscale7

So they continue to provide financial resources that the church uses to protect rapists of children. Unfortunate. Sexual abuse destroys people. The psychological damage is irreversible. That some victims stay in the church is related to the damage done by the abuse and the unique context of the abuse.

unseenfootage

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Are people just not aware that the Catholic Church molested 10's of 1000's of kids around the world and covered it up, or do they just not care?

Why are people cool with kids being molested, especially being parents themselves? And I believe they must be "cool" with it, otherwise why would they voluntarily choose to associate with this very same organisation.

And not only that, a few weeks before their communion, they send their kid into a box with a dirty old man who asks them about all the naught things they've been getting up to lately!! aka 'first confession'. They're 8 - they have nothing to confess to you, ya big weirdo FFS!

Am I the one that's crazy here? Is it okay to molest thousands of kids? People seem cool with it.

Tens of thousands of children get molested in schools.
According to your way of thinking, if people send their kids to schools then they are cool with their children being molested.

Bristolscale7

unseenfootage wrote: »

Tens of thousands of children get molested in schools.
According to your way of thinking, if people send their kids to schools then they are cool with their children being molested.

Not unless the school protects the abusers and uses its political influence to cover up the abuse. However, you are correct in that if you do willingly send your child to a catholic school (it may be your only option) you are tacitly accepting the history of abuse.

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

So they continue to provide financial resources that the church uses to protect rapists of children. Unfortunate. Sexual abuse destroys people. The psychological damage is irreversible. That some victims stay in the church is related to the damage done by the abuse and the unique context of the abuse.

There's so much wrong with the above, I could practically write a thesis on it. I don't have time to write a thesis on it though and I'm not sure you would even read it if I did.

Suffice to say your assuming an awful lot about people in order to make grossly sweeping generalisations about people.

unseenfootage

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Not unless the school protects the abusers and uses its political influence to cover up the abuse. However, you are correct in that if you do willingly send your child to a catholic school (it may be your only option) you are tacitly accepting the history of abuse.

The OP did not state that in his post.
In USA, abuse in secular schools by teachers is more than abuse in the church. (I mentioned schools. Not sure why you would change that to catholic schools.)

By the way, I'm not Catholic.
It's just that the OP's argument is seriously flawed.

eviltwin

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

So they continue to provide financial resources that the church uses to protect rapists of children. Unfortunate. Sexual abuse destroys people. The psychological damage is irreversible. That some victims stay in the church is related to the damage done by the abuse and the unique context of the abuse.

Woah hold your horses there. Full disclosure I was sexually abused as a child, by a priest incidentally, and I now work with victims of sexual abuse. The damage is not irreversible. There are many victims of abuse who have moved on and made good lives for themselves, who are not defined by what happened to them and who are not damaged. I can go to a church for a wedding etc and remove that from what happened to me. Some of the best people I know are religious and don't condone any kind of abuse.

Bristolscale7

irreversible was a poor choice of a word. I should have said that it changes a person. I am separating religiosity from support for the institution that sponsored the abuse.

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Not unless the school protects the abusers and uses its political influence to cover up the abuse. However, you are correct in that if you do willingly send your child to a catholic school (it may be your only option) you are tacitly accepting the history of abuse.

What's the point in saying this, genuinely? Is it to 'shame' people into rejecting religion?

Have the tactics of very thing you object to actually taught you nothing? Shaming people just doesn't work if they don't feel they have done anything to feel guilty for. In this case, sending their children to Catholic ethos schools is nothing to be ashamed of, and clearly most parents don't feel they have anything to be ashamed of. That really sucks donkeyballs for your position, because shaming people just, doesn't, work.

This also goes back to Kenny's original piss poor effort to shame people for choosing to raise their children according to their faith, as members of their Church. I have a question of my own, and eviltwin alluded to it earlier -

Why should anyone feel they are doing something they should be ashamed of, just because you personally don't understand it, or you don't approve?

eviltwin

I go to Catholic weddings, funerals and christening of people I know. Am I being complicit too?

frostyjacks

I still have my communion money.

Bristolscale7

Catholics do guilt better than they do shame

unseenfootage

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Catholics do guilt better than they do shame

lol

Atheists do ridicule better than they do reason.

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Catholics do guilt better than they do shame

That really doesn't make any sense. Your argument is that members of the Catholic Church have a moral obligation to reject the Catholic Church, and they should be ashamed for not rejecting the Catholic Church. By your logic that means that members of the Catholic Church who do not reject the Catholic Church have something to feel guilty for, and yet, they don't. That doesn't sound like Catholics doing guilt very well at all.

Yours and Kenny's attempts to shame people into feeling guilty for not living their lives according to your standards aren't going to work. Your attempts to use their own children against them, aren't going to work. Your attempts to use the suffering of victims of institutional abuse aren't going to work.

The fact that you feel no shame in trying to use all of the above tactics in trying to shame people into submission and make them feel guilty for something they haven't done, is no different to the same crap that was once peddled by craw thumpy fcuknuts who used religion to further their own agenda. When people didn't submit to their agenda, they used shaming tactics and had people declared mentally ill. You tried the same earlier when you declared that their disagreement is a consequence of the way they were treated.

You simply cannot, and will not accept that people have minds of their own, and when you try to use the suffering of other people to further your own agenda, they have the ability to pull you up on it and say "actually, no. I can speak for myself thank you very much, you don't get to speak for me, and you don't get to use my experience to further your own agenda".

Your efforts are insulting to people, on so many levels, but that hardly comes as a surprise to anyone who has a mind of their own, and who is able to think and speak for themselves, without needing you to speak for them, because you don't.

Hotblack Desiato

Kenny Bania wrote: »

That's exactly what I implied, and meant.

Exactly. Every person of integrity and morals should disassociate themselves from that vile organisation.

It's not as if there aren't alternatives - the average (still believing) RC these days is protestant in all but name.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Exactly. Every person of integrity and morals should disassociate themselves from that vile organisation.

By that logic, I have no integrity or morals according to your standards. So if I were to disassociate myself from the RCC, I will meet your standard of morals and integrity then?

Isn't that the same line the RCC tried to use to get people to tow the line in the past?

How's that working out for them?

It's not as if there aren't alternatives - the average (still believing) RC these days is protestant in all but name.

But what if they do not want "alternatives"? That's like me suggesting that there are alternatives to your lack of belief. I'm sure you're well aware of the fact, but I'll just go ahead and patronise you anyways...

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that logic, I have no integrity or morals according to your standards. So if I were to disassociate myself from the RCC, I will meet your standard of morals and integrity then?

You might.

Isn't that the same line the RCC tried to use to get people to tow the line in the past?

No. I don't condone or cover up child rape, so that puts me a step above that lot.
And it's toe the line. Toe.

But what if they do not want "alternatives"? That's like me suggesting that there are alternatives to your lack of belief. I'm sure you're well aware of the fact, but I'll just go ahead and patronise you anyways...

If Anglicanism really is too much of a stretch for you, you could set up or join an alternative church with identical doctrines to the RCC, but which is not vastly wealthy and at the head of a global conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and which does not use a fake state to gain sovereign immunity.

Hotblack Desiato

Just to clarify - to all intents and purposes Anglicanism is Catholicism without the Pope. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland describes itself as a Catholic Church. it's just not Roman Catholic.

They have scandals of their own but a magnitude or two less, so kick with the left foot it's the moral choice :pac:

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You might.

Y'know I absolutely have the utmost respect for you and all HD, but if you judged me by my affiliation with a particular club that you didn't approve of, I'd be thinking meeting your standards of morals and integrity would be the least of my worries.

No. I don't condone or cover up child rape, so that puts me a step above that lot.
And it's toe the line. Toe.

I'd have taken that sentiment more seriously if it hadn't come with the spelling correction. That being said, I don't condone or cover up child rape either. I also don't see child rape and covering up child rape as an issue unique to the RCC. If I were to disassociate myself from every organisation which tried to cover up child rape, I'd eventually find myself in a position where I would have to distance myself from the whole of humanity.

As I said to Bristolscale earlier, I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater - you don't address an issue by running away from it and leaving them to carry on as before, ruining something which I value greatly. You identify and punish the culprits, and work within the organisation to effect change. I'm not going to change the organisation from the outside, nobody is, but by all of us within the organisation saying "why the hell should we leave, we didn't do anything wrong?", it forces the organisation to rethink their policies. LGBT members of the RCC didn't leave. Women who have had abortions didn't leave. People who have been the victims of horrific abuse didn't leave, why the hell should they? Because the leaders of the organisation are corrupt as fcuk? Yeah, then it's time to have them leave, not the vast, vast majority of people who have never done anything to be punished for!!

If Anglicanism really is too much of a stretch for you, you could set up or join an alternative church with identical doctrines to the RCC, but which is not vastly wealthy and at the head of a global conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and which does not use a fake state to gain sovereign immunity.

Look, I'll put this as simply as I can for you. If I say I like apples, and you say to me - but wouldn't you rather an orange instead? I'm going to tell you what you can do with your orange.

I have massive, massive issues with the RCC, and some of those issues have been covered in this thread, and been mentioned by other posters already, and you know I have never been an apologist of any sort for the RCC. I have never shied away from being critical of the RCC Hierarchy when they absolutely deserved it.

But to suggest that I lack morality and integrity because I choose to exercise my human right to freedom of religion, well, I'm going to tell you with the greatest of respect to blow it out your other end tbh. I would hope you don't take that personally though, it's just a difference of opinion based upon our different perspectives. I still think you're alright all the same.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Boards history: the moment Absolam realized his religion was a sham.

Alternatively, just another post that Bristolscale7 got fundamentally wrong, nothing new to see here

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Yes. If you are in fact a catholic you had a moral obligation and responsibility to reject the church based on its defense and protection of rapists. Failure to do so implies acceptance. In ethical terms, failure to act when you have a special moral obligation is only justifiable in situations like nazi germany where standing up to the institution responsible for atrocities would have resulted in death.

That's absolute nonsense. Not rejecting something in no way implies accepting it, that's rhetorical rubbish designed to provoke people who aren't part of your personal crusade to feel obliged to take your side or be portrayed as guilty parties. It's disingenuous and shows that unable to rely on your own ability to put forward your position you have to rely on underhand tactics to drag people into agreeing to look they support you when they don't. Godwinning it only proves the point; your attempt doesn't carry enough weight even in your own eyes so you need to throw in Nazism to try and get it across the line.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know I absolutely have the utmost respect for you and all HD, but if you judged me by my affiliation with a particular club that you didn't approve of, I'd be thinking meeting your standards of morals and integrity would be the least of my worries.

You wouldn't judge someone if they said they were part of the KKK?

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You wouldn't judge someone if they said they were part of the KKK?

I don't think HD is a member of the KKK though? (I like to think I've gotten to know people around here a little bit over time), but of course it would raise an eyebrow, in the same way as people assume I couldn't possibly be religious, and then when they find out I am, it raises an eyebrow for them because it's a bit odd and they'd never have thought it. If they decided they could no longer associate with me based on that fact, or based on the fact that I'm a member of the RCC, why should that be my fault?

If their morals and integrity are more important to a person than showing compassion, kindness and caring to another human being, then how are they any different to the people whom they despise?


Edited to give an example:


A friend of mine who is Catholic, black, unmarried mother, someone whom I care for deeply. We're spending the evening together and knocking back a few whiskeys and chatting about life, love, happiness, sadness and everything in between. She loves to hear how my child is getting on and I love to hear how her child is getting on.

So I tell her about my child going to mosque with his mates, and she comes out with "Nooo! Don't let him do that, they will try to convert him!", and she's deadly serious! Now I know my son, and I know his friends, and I'm as good friends with their parents as I am with this girl. I know there's absolutely nobody has any intention of having him convert (hard enough for their parents to get their own children to go to mosque at the best of times ).

But this friend of mine, I know her opinion is based upon preconceived ideas about other people based upon what she doesn't know of them. I'm absolutely not going to fall out with her or abandon our friendship because she's got some funky views about people she doesn't know.

I can only hope that in time she comes to realise that you can't make generalisations about people on the basis of particular identifiers and make assumptions about whole groups of people on that limited basis! It flies in the face of objective reason, it's the basis of identity politics, and I have absolutely no time whatsoever for that shìte, because as fcuked up and all as religion is, identity politics is so, so much more fcuked up, and is absolutely detrimental to society IMO.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

..I know there's absolutely nobody has any intention of having him convert (hard enough for their parents to get their own children to go to mosque at the best of times )...

Except the Imam, and most of the congregation. Very few religions are not actively trying to recruit new members. Judaism is the only one I can think of, off-hand.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Except the Imam, and most of the congregation. Very few religions are not actively trying to recruit new members. Judaism is the only one I can think of, off-hand.

recedite you're absolutely right in fairness, but I don't think that's a trait exclusive of religion either. I think it's more a people thing though than a religion thing. It's marketing at the end of the day really. Best example of it though I can think of from the perspective of religion are JW's and Scientologists (recognised religion in UK, not too sure about here). They'd put Apple to shame for their ability to convince people their lives aren't complete without a shiny turd, or God, or Thetan Xenu or whoever the fcuk anyway.

If I didn't know better about Jews, I'd say every single one of them were a difficult birth, telling the doctors they're not coming out, just for the sake of argument! :pac:

Pentecostals are a fun bunch alright, lively as fcuk, I go to a Pentecostal service in the afternoon on Sundays (mass in the morning, service in the afternoon), and it's the complete opposite of the Irish Catholic mass, you really feel lifted after coming out, of a service! :pac: But that's the thing - the minute I heard they wanted my PPSN, it left a nasty taste in my mouth that as much as I enjoy the service, it's tainted by the whole money issue again.

I enjoy other religions for what they are, other religions, other belief systems (Hinduism seems alright actually from what I know of it, and the Baha'i faith, if I wasn't RC I'd probably be leaning more that way, but they're a very, very small community in Ireland), but I'm not going to be converting any time soon, when I simply don't feel a need to. I'm perfectly happy as I am.

My son is equally perfectly happy as he is. If there comes a time when he's decided that another religion better suits what he's searching for, I'll be more than happy to encourage him to pursue it. If he feels at some point that what he's searching for won't be found in religion, I'll be more than happy to support him and encourage him to continue to look elsewhere too.

I'd feel it would be wrong of me to raise my child by someone else's standards. That's why I don't envy single parents sometimes - it means they have one less person arguing with them over the best way to raise their children! That's why I truly do wish when people don't understand something, that they would never be afraid to ask, rather than assume the worst in people.

Assuming the worst in people you don't understand, is a horrible way for anyone to live IMO, regardless of their particular brand of funky ideology.