Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So who's going to see the Pope?

Options
1…3334363839…135

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Je_suis_Jean wrote: »
    So in order to trump the RCC in the paedophilia and multiple abuse charts you'd have to group everyone on the planet (excluding orphans) into a single organisation.

    Nice.

    Sorry I didn't realise you were looking to create a chart. I'm not looking to "trump" the abuse perpetrated by the RCC, I'm stating a very clear fact.

    The UN have carried out research in this area. What I;m trying to say is that the people we should be most wary of when it comes to child abuse are people within our own families. Now it's a given that this makes people feel uncomfortable but it's an unavoidable fact.

    To clarify, I'm not trying to create a hierarchy of abuse here, I'm not saying abuse perpetrated by one element of society is worse than another or vise versa. But the constant fixation of abuse perpetrated by the RCC seems to act as a a diversion of attention away from the main perpetrators of abuse worldwide......families


  • Options
    #1053
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    blacklilly wrote:
    To clarify, I'm not trying to create a hierarchy of abuse here, I'm not saying abuse perpetrated by one element of society is worse than another or vise versa. But the constant fixation of abuse perpetrated by the RCC seems to act as a a diversion of attention away from the main perpetrators of abuse worldwide......families


    Yes family members are responsible for abuse, however the RCC has a record of moving abusers to new areas to carry on their activities and covering up these activities. Part of the cover up was swearing child victims to secrecy. The same facility is not available to family abusers.


  • Options
    #1054
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1055
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Yes family members are responsible for abuse, however the RCC has a record of moving abusers to new areas to carry on their activities and covering up these activities. Part of the cover up was swearing child victims to secrecy. The same facility is not available to family abusers.

    Unfortunately Hitman it is all to common an occurrence in family abuse also; sweep the abuse under the carpet never to be spoken about again, terrify the child in to secrecy and let the abuse continue.

    The thing about perpetrators of abuse is that irrespective of whether they are a family relation or a member of the RCC, the aim in the same, their thinking is relatively in line with each other and neither want to be found out.

    All perpetrators need to be held to account and anyone that was aware of the abuse and ignored it, facilitated it etc also needs to be accountable.


  • Options
    #1056
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    blacklilly wrote:
    Unfortunately Hitman it is all to common an occurrence in family abuse also; sweep the abuse under the carpet never to be spoken about again, terrify the child in to secrecy and let the abuse continue.


    Not true, many court cases recently and i'm familiar with some of these cases in a personal capacity. You wish to share the blame in defence of the church fire ahead. Most can see it for what it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,792 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Hope they don't forget to email my 50 tickets.
    I've received so far my 18 privately booked tickets as an individual
    I have not yet received my block booked tickets of which there were approx 2000.


    I wonder if these are issued elsewhere (or if I have given a different email address!)


  • Options
    #1058
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Not true, many court cases recently and i'm familiar with some of these cases in a personal capacity. You wish to share the blame in defence of the church fire ahead. Most can see it for what it is.

    With all due respect the court cases we hear about are sadly only a drop in the ocean.

    I'm not trying to share any blame, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

    What I've pointed out is that main perpetrators of abuse are family members. That does not diminish in anyway, shape or form the abuse by members of the RCC so please do not try to suggest that I am trying to share the blame and thus in some way dilute it.


  • Options
    #1059
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    blacklilly wrote:
    With all due respect the court cases we hear about are sadly only a drop in the ocean.


    You only hear about the ones that the victims wave anonymity. As far as I'm concerned you are seeking to deflect form the church.


  • Options
    #1060
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    I thought it quite apt they showed the Spotlight movie the other night.

    We think abuse was just bad in Ireland because the church was so intertwined into the state and it's institutions, but just look what happened in the US and Australia where there was never such an official relationship between church and state as here.

    And the Spotlight movie really showed how some very influential people were working with the church hierarchy to keep a lid on things.

    The destroyed lives of people and the continous targeting of children meant nothing to these people. :mad:

    The church is indeed like a lot of large institutions in that the main goal is to often defend the institution at all costs, but what is utterly despicable in it's case is that it is meant to be an institution that is primarily concerned about the well being of it's members and has always tried to control the morality of it's members.

    The ultimate irony about the last pope's visit was that the two main guys he shared a stage with were two high profile members who continously dispensed moral advice to the public on behalf of the church all the while they had no morals in their private lives.

    Hypocrites of the highest order. :rolleyes:

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Options
    #1061
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    You only hear about the ones that the victims wave anonymity. As far as I'm concerned you are seeking to deflect form the church.

    Not true, many cases are reported on where anonymity is kept.

    One could argue that you are trying to deflect from the other forms of abuse also and are only concerned with church abuse.

    Anyway I'm not sure what exactly we are in contention with, I think we both agree all forms are abuse are despicable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    blacklilly wrote:
    One could argue that you are trying to deflect from the other forms of abuse also and are only concerned with church abuse.


    Talking about abuse perpetrated by members of a organisation whose leader is coming to this country which this thread is about. Please if you want to start a thread about family abuse I'll happily contribute and I promise I won't deflect by mentioning the systemic abuse carried out by the RCC.


  • Options
    #1063
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Je_suis_Jean wrote: »
    The only mitigating factor in such a circumstance is that there will be a large number of fragmented churches/religions rather than one dominant one. That alone should ensure that no single church becomes dominant.

    We absolutely won't see a large dominant church with numbers that ever come close to the RCC in Ireland. However looking at a country like the US, where many of these new "Irish" churches are coming from. They are politically canny and have managed to exert more sway over government and policy than their numbers justify. There doesn't need to be a particular dominant church for religious zealots to find ways to interfere with public life.

    That doesn't mean that we think better the devil you know and keep the RCC in a place of power and influence. But it does mean that as secularism increases we should be vigilant about the kinds of churches that are attempting to gain a foothold here. Particular attention needs to be paid to education of children and steps taken to try and ensure that children who are in danger of world narrowing indoctrination, like that of the private fundamentalist Islamic schools in the UK or fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers in the US, are exposed to a variety of world views.


  • Options
    #1064
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    DickSwiveller wrote:
    I'll be going. Looking forward to it. Also looking forward to the trendy atheists whinging incessantly about how much they don't care


    If you need a few spare tickets let me know. Good price. : )


  • Options
    #1065
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    If you need a few spare tickets let me know. Good price. : )

    No thanks. I don't like dealing with bullies.


  • Options
    #1066
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote:
    No thanks. I don't like dealing with bullies.


    Paedophiles are so much nicer.


  • Options
    #1067
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Paedophiles are so much nicer.

    No, paedophiles and bullies. Don't like either of them.


  • Options
    #1068
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1069
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote:
    No, paedophiles and bullies. Don't like either of them.


    Supporting the church shows you do. Lot of abuse victims were bullied into silence, but this is ok bullying because the church did it. Cool . Can you say hypocrite?


  • Options
    #1070
    vicwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    ELM327 wrote: »
    It would be hilarious if they sort out a problem that doesnt exist.


    Huh?


  • Options
    #1071
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,792 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    vicwatson wrote: »
    Huh?
    If 50,000/100,000 of 250,000 tickets are protest tckets, there wont be the same level of traffic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Supporting the church shows you do. Lot of abuse victims were bullied into silence, but this is ok bullying because the church did it. Cool . Can you say hypocrite?

    You have the arguing skills of a teenager. I said I'm against bullies and pedophiles. What part of that can you not grasp?


  • Options
    #1073
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,792 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    You have the arguing skills of a teenager. I said I'm against bullies and pedophiles. What part of that can you not grasp?
    So you are against the church then, since they are both bullies and paedophiles.


  • Options
    #1074
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    ELM327 wrote: »
    So you are against the church then, since they are both bullies and paedophiles.

    No, 'The Church' isn't one person. It comprises many different things. I don't think you and the other angry atheists understand this.


  • Options
    #1075
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    ELM327 wrote: »
    So you are against the church then, since they are both bullies and paedophiles.

    Yes, I'm against bullies like you and the other fella, and also against bullies and paedophiles in the Church. Are you happy now?


  • Options
    #1076
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote:
    You have the arguing skills of a teenager. I said I'm against bullies and pedophiles. What part of that can you not grasp?


    The church you support has been shown to have a multitude of both, so clearly you are ok with certain bullies and paedophiles.


  • Options
    #1077
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Yes, I'm against bullies like you and the other fella, and also against bullies and paedophiles in the Church. Are you happy now?

    The actual organisation of the church protects those bullies and pedophiles. If you support the church in it's current form you are de facto supporting that systematic protection of bullies and abusers. That's the reality of the situation. Anyone who is angry about what is still going on in that organisation is entirely justified, so calling someone angry isn't any kind of insult. It's just a recognition of a normal state of human emotion when confronted with such unrepentant evil.


  • Options
    #1078
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,792 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    No, 'The Church' isn't one person. It comprises many different things. I don't think you and the other angry atheists understand this.
    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Yes, I'm against bullies like you and the other fella, and also against bullies and paedophiles in the Church. Are you happy now?

    The church is a collective term for both a) the organisation headquartered in Vatican City, and b) the "flock" of believers.


    "Angry atheists" as a term is not furthering your accusations that I am bullying you, quite frankly your derisory and risible attempt to label those of us that disagree with you is more akin to bullying than anything I have levelled at you.


    I thought you were adding me to your ignore list :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1079
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,792 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    iguana wrote: »
    The actual organisation of the church protects those bullies and pedophiles. If you support the church in it's current form you are de facto supporting that systematic protection of bullies and abusers. That's the reality of the situation. Anyone who is angry about what is still going on in that organisation is entirely justified, so calling someone angry isn't any kind of insult. It's just a recognition of a normal state of human emotion when confronted with such unrepentant evil.
    Ironically considering he's going around accusing people of not having "arguing skills" - whatever that may be interpreted as - he has resorted to labelling people with monikers that suit his warped view of the RCC and organised religion as a whole.


  • Options
    #1080
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Ironically considering he's going around accusing people of not having "arguing skills" - whatever that may be interpreted as - he has resorted to labelling people with monikers that suit his warped view of the RCC and organised religion as a whole.

    I'm fine with the label. I am an atheist and I am very, very angry at the RCC as an organisation, angry at the state for continuing to allow the church to abuse it's position and control so many of our state services. (How about putting the money spent on facilitating this visit into funding secular services?) And mildly angry (but mostly baffled) by anyone under the age of 70 continuing to support the RCC in any meaningful way.

    I also have a Tim Minchin earworm whenever I think about this visit. It's hard not to sing the words aloud but I don't want my 5 year old repeating them.:o


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    ELM327 wrote: »
    The church is a collective term for both a) the organisation headquartered in Vatican City, and b) the "flock" of believers.


    "Angry atheists" as a term is not furthering your accusations that I am bullying you, quite frankly your derisory and risible attempt to label those of us that disagree with you is more akin to bullying than anything I have levelled at you.


    I thought you were adding me to your ignore list :rolleyes:

    They didn't say you were bullying me. You and the other fella have all the hallmarks of bullies. Even when plenty of people are calling you out for being dicks you just smugly reaffirm your intolerance because you get some perverse kick out of it.


Advertisement