Interesting Stuff Thread

oscarBravo · 07-02-2017 6:32pm

recedite wrote: »

What you can defend against is allowing the support network to exist inside your country. Safe houses, sleeper cells etc. The whole fifth column network.

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

recedite · 07-02-2017 6:34pm

looksee wrote: »

I can't help seeing a connection between the people in this video and the decision to go Atheist...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4180626/Fascinating-film-captures-reactions-diving-board.html#v-8284470162306809370

yes, sorry its the Daily Mail, still worth watching.

There's a great Mr Bean video on this subject, very funny. Unfortunately the stigma of walking back down the stairs is such that most people arriving at the edge of the platform can neither go forward nor backward, so they stand there in an oscillating state of indecision.

I like to go up to Lisburn pool every once in a while to challenge myself, but its only half that height. Even at 5 metres its hard to see exactly where the surface of the water is, all you see a kind of shimmering, mesmerising effect.

There's one diving pool in the republic, in Blanchardstown, but sadly they don't allow random fools to just arrive in and use it.

recedite · 07-02-2017 6:41pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

Demonising would be counter-productive alright.
You'll notice that there is very little terrorism in Japan though.
Their population may be falling, but they just don't seem to care about that.

Peregrinus · 08-02-2017 5:25am

recedite wrote: »

What I mean is, there is no real defence against the suitcase. It could arrive in on a shipping container, or be carried by an American who thinks they are being paid to smuggle marijuana.

What you can defend against is allowing the support network to exist inside your country. Safe houses, sleeper cells etc. The whole fifth column network.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

Demonising an entire population when there is no evidence at all that they have been involved in supporting a network of safe houses, sleeper cells, etc. That's rather the point. There is no evidence-based case for linking Trump's measure to the threats which Americans face.

The western liberal tradition would say emphatically that it is wrong to treat someone as a potential terrorist simply because he shares a nationality (or a religion) with other people known to be terrorists. But if, like Trump and his enablers, you're happy to piss on western values while posturing about defending them, at least associate terrorism with the nationality of the known terrorists. There hasn't been a single death in the United States from terrorist attacks perpetrated by people of any of the seven nationalities which Trump has sought to ban. There have been numerous deaths in the US from terrorist attacks perpetrated by people of nationalities against which Trump has taken no action.

Even if you believe that Trump is justified in victimising people on the basis of their nationality, he has chosen the wrong nationalities. That's what I mean when I say that we can't really think that Trump's measures have anything to do with protecting people from terrorist threats. They plainly don't.

robindch · 08-02-2017 12:01pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

It doesn't and while DJT appears to be sufficiently deluded to think it does, I'd imagine that the smarter people in the wider GOP are probably aware of one likely path for the strategy they're now following.

Namely, that random terrorists, quite possibly from one or other of the banned countries, will figure out that this is a golden (orange?) opportunity to carry out a terrorist attack. Unlike most things with DJT, it's likely that size won't matter here since they know that DJT will overreact regardless of what happens.

In any case, the event is likely to be exploited by DJT/GOP to legitimize a power grab probably by restricting civil liberties at home, and abroad, by precipitating some cock-eyed military engagement or ill-aimed sanctions or something like that. That response will then legitimize the terrorists' attack and provide them with political reality and power which they don't currently have.

It's a tried and trusted political path they're now on and it's been followed by unfit leaders since time immemorial.

silverharp · 08-02-2017 12:13pm

in as much as poll are correct these days :pac:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration#

C4IRvu-WYAEc4Vr.jpg:small

recedite · 08-02-2017 12:30pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

at least associate terrorism with the nationality of the known terrorists. There hasn't been a single death in the United States from terrorist attacks perpetrated by people of any of the seven nationalities which Trump has sought to ban...

Maybe you are happy with non-lethal terrorist attacks. The judge who put a stay on Trumps EO got it wrong when he went further and said no arrests had been made.

Jeff Sessions has obviously done a lot of research on this whole area, and when the democrats stop delaying his nomination to AG, I presume he will take his place and mount a good legal defence of the EO.

Also worth noting that it is not a ban, and not directed at all Muslims. Most Muslims live in countries unaffected by the enhanced vetting procedures.

As it was the Obama administration who picked out the named countries, why were you not outraged by the choice of countries on the list when it was first drawn up?

All Trump has done is to take the same list, and make the proposed extra vetting even more restrictive than Obama had already envisioned.

robindch · 08-02-2017 12:59pm

recedite wrote: »

Most Muslims live in countries unaffected by the enhanced vetting procedures.

Indeed - and all countries affected by the travel ban provided no terrorists at all.

recedite wrote: »

As it was the Obama administration who picked out the named countries, why were you not outraged by the choice of countries on the list when it was first drawn up?

Cherry-picking.

Four countries were identified by Congress and Obama's DHS added three more to make up the list of seven. The intention of the previous administration was to subject people who travelled to these countries to additional scrutiny as it is known that radicalized individuals travel to them (there are other countries whhcih radicalized people visit, but they were not included - probably for political reasons).

The intention of the DJT/GOP order, however, extends that additional scrutiny and actively bans all travel by citizens of those countries - all of which are majority-islamic. It's the ban which people object to and that's the doing of DJT/GOP and not Obama.

You can find more on this here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/07/trumps-claim-that-obama-first-identified-the-seven-countries-in-his-travel-ban

recedite · 08-02-2017 1:21pm

robindch wrote: »

Indeed - and all countries affected by the travel ban provided no terrorists at all.

Perhaps you didn't have time to read my link above? You'll see this claim is false.

Regarding the "ban", It was only going to be a "ban" for the 90 day period until the enhanced procedures could be established and put into place.

Your link goes into a lot of hairsplitting detail, but it does not dispute the basic fact that it was the Obama administration that identified these countries as a particular danger.

It is patently obvious that was because of the level of active Islamic extremism and violence in those countries. Yet nobody at the time claimed it was "religious discrimination".

The 90 days will probably be up by the time the stay is lifted and the EO is reactivated, so I'm not sure how that will play out.

robindch · 08-02-2017 1:30pm

recedite wrote: »

Regarding the "ban", It was only going to be a "ban" for the 90 day period until the enhanced procedures could be established and put into place.

A ban is a ban, even if it's for just three months until whatever "enhanced vetting" procedure is deployed.

If a ban doesn't ban something, then is it an "Alternative Ban"?

recedite wrote: »

Your link goes into a lot of hairsplitting detail,

I'd have thought that was quite a good thing in a fact-checking article unless one is searching for "Alternative Accuracy".

recedite wrote: »

but it does not dispute the basic fact that it was the Obama administration that identified these countries as a particular danger.

Four of the countries were subject to additional scrutiny already. The DHS identified three more while ignoring others. See the link I provided above.

Can you provide evidence that Obama wrote that list and supplied it to the DHS?

recedite · 08-02-2017 2:33pm

A temporary ban that is unenforceable anyway because of a legal stay could be described as an Alternative Ban alright.

Hairsplitting detail is not helpful when its main purpose is to form a distracting smokescreen.
Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

oscarBravo · 08-02-2017 2:58pm

recedite wrote: »

Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

Just so we're clear: it's your assertion that those countries were chosen on the basis of the Obama administration's analysis?

You're telling us that the current administration has so much admiration for the work of its predecessor that it's uncritically implementing its policies?

TheChizler · 08-02-2017 3:07pm

silverharp wrote: »

in as much as poll are correct these days :pac:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration#

I wonder how similar that graph would be one where the question was "Do you agree that ALL migration should be stopped." A more relevant question might be "Do you agree that ONLY migration from mostly Muslim countries should be stopped."

silverharp · 08-02-2017 3:33pm

TheChizler wrote: »

I wonder how similar that graph would be one where the question was "Do you agree that ALL migration should be stopped." A more relevant question might be "Do you agree that ONLY migration from mostly Muslim countries should be stopped."

If you asked "all migration" Im guessing the figures would be much lower, I guess the question is would you vote accordingly? I guess elections in France and Holland might throw some light on it.

robindch · 08-02-2017 6:06pm

recedite wrote: »

Hairsplitting detail is not helpful when its main purpose is to form a distracting smokescreen.

So you're accusing me of dishonesty? That's a fairly unhelpful accusation, I have to say, and somewhat beneath your ability to debate.

recedite wrote: »

Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

As above, the DHS rolled out the names of the three countries, I presume on the basis of evidence provided by the CIA. Other countries with similar problems were not listed by the DHS. Obama was president when this change happened. The congress and the senate were controlled by the Republicans when this change happened.

I'm not familiar enough with how the US is run to say which branch of government proposed and which approved the list. It's likely that Obama proposed a bunch of countries, Congress and the Senate edited the list, and Obama approved the final list from Congress/Senate.

If you have evidence that Obama directed the DHS to list the three additional countries off his own bat and without any oversight, I'd love to hear it.

robindch · 08-02-2017 6:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're telling us that the current administration has so much admiration for the work of its predecessor that it's uncritically implementing its policies?

One suspects that DJT/GOP are attempting to transfer the blame for the public relations disaster.

recedite · 09-02-2017 9:54am

robindch wrote: »

If you have evidence that Obama directed the DHS to list the three additional countries off his own bat and without any oversight, I'd love to hear it.

Nobody has said that.

robindch · 09-02-2017 11:03am

recedite wrote: »

robindch wrote:

If you have evidence that Obama directed the DHS to list the three additional countries off his own bat and without any oversight, I'd love to hear it.

Nobody has said that.

Well, you asked the following question:

recedite wrote:

Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

...and I explained my current understanding of what happened. I trust you found that useful.

If you'd prefer instead to play language games to get DJT/GOP off the hook for implementing a sudden ban on travel from seven countries, well, that's really in the realm of "alternative reality".

recedite · 11-02-2017 5:22pm

An odd but interesting little video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19A53SyAUak&feature=youtu.be

pauldla · 28-02-2017 3:57am

China, atheism, and the perceived spread of Islam in the People's Republic. Quite an interesting read.

The Atheist Manifesto

robindch · 28-02-2017 9:36am

Interesting story about a Benedictine monk who travels around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, attempting to secure the future of ancient manuscripts:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/the-monk-who-saves-manuscripts-from-isis/517611/

recedite · 28-02-2017 11:27pm

pauldla wrote: »

China, atheism, and the perceived spread of Islam in the People's Republic. Quite an interesting read.

The Atheist Manifesto

I had to laugh at this quote, sometimes it takes an outside perspective to remind you how ridiculous things must seem in your own country to other people. At least we can eat pork and wear short skirts!

First you can’t eat pork, then girls can’t don short skirts…, then your kid can’t go to school because enrollment favors kids from certain religions. It’s about our very dear interests!

This is also interesting...

Popular Weibo posts opposing the proposed measure cite the “secular joys” of the Han Chinese life as worthy of protection, going all the way back to the times of the Monkey King when such classic literary works as the Journey to the West could make fun of the ridiculous aspects of religion. “The proposed rule will destroy a core part of Chinese culture”, asserts one post.

I'm not familiar with the works mentioned, but its interesting that the Han Chinese now seem to consider an irreverent view of religion, and secularism, as an ancient part of their culture, ie predating communism. Whether this is actually true or not is another thing I suppose. They did have that whole "son of heaven" emperor thing going on before communism, which seems to be at variance to the above quoted version of history.

Hotblack Desiato · 01-03-2017 9:21am

Is this a first in Ireland?

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/drive-thru-ashes-do-ash-wednesday-without-leaving-your-car-1.2992209

The usual practice of receiving ashes comes via attending a Mass. If you had to be analytical about it, parishioners in the past might have thought you had to earn your ashes on your forehead by putting in the time at Mass. Now you can just turn up at the drive-through in Glenamaddy and get them anyway. It does beg the doctrinal question: are the ashes distributed via a drive-through less meaningful than ashes received after attending a Mass?

What’s next, by way of convenience and church services? Might we see a time in the future when parishioners don’t actually go inside the church at all, but drive-through its car park? If you can receive ashes without having to attend Mass, might there be a time when you can receive Communion without even having to enter the church? Will the car be the new confession box?

'Less meaningful' :pac:

Of course those oh-so-devout catholics who are too busy to go to a mass during the day could just rock up in the evening and get the ashes then. But then nobody would get to see them going around with ashes all day which is surely the point of the whole exercise to the extent that it has a point at all.

robindch · 01-03-2017 10:50am

UK PM Teresa May's spokesman has taken time out from working towards the heat death of the UK, to announce that the PM - a catholic - has given up crisps for lent:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39121559

One eyed Jack · 01-03-2017 2:19pm

robindch wrote: »

UK PM Teresa May's spokesman has taken time out from working towards the heat death of the UK, to announce that the PM - a catholic - has given up crisps for lent:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39121559

All fairness, I think they're taking a leaf out of the Icelandic Prime Ministers play book -

"Down wiv de yoof - Check"

In actual interesting news (hope this is ok Mods?), this weeks Boards AMA is with a Research Scientist -

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057711773

recedite · 01-03-2017 11:19pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...But then nobody would get to see them going around with ashes all day which is surely the point of the whole exercise to the extent that it has a point at all.

Its also in the church's interest to have a large number of people going around advertising their ash badge.
IMO drive-thru ashes is the median stage of the slippery slope.
Final stage is when ash merchants stand in the street and hassle passing pedestrians into accepting "free" ashes.

Best of all is when you can convince people that something is valuable, but restricted. That makes your product offering exclusive and highly sought after. The punters would have to queue up to get it, having already earned it by sitting through a weekday mass.
But the halcyon days of the ash being something of worth are now in the past, it would seem. Now its just a matter of getting it out there, smeared on as many foreheads as possible.

pauldla · 02-03-2017 7:55am

From National Geographic:

This May Be the Oldest Known Sign of Life on Earth

Stalks of iron-rich minerals, each a fraction the size of an eyelash, may be evidence of the earliest life-forms to inhabit the newborn planet Earth. The tiny hematite tubes are as much as 4.28 billion years old, according to the scientists announcing the find, and they are stunningly similar to structures produced by microbes living around undersea hydrothermal vents.

Discovered in slices of rock recovered from northern Quebec, the microscopic metallic detritus—plus chemical signatures associated with ancient metabolisms—could push back the date at which life arose on Earth. If verified, these fossils would surpass 3.7-billion-year-old microbial mats found in Greenland as the oldest known traces of life.

The microfossils also lend support to the idea that the warm, watery, mineral-rich neighborhoods around submerged vents are prime places for life to emerge, whether on this planet, on the seafloors of icy moons, or elsewhere in the universe.

Let there be life, eh?

Full article here.

smacl · 02-03-2017 8:55am

recedite wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the works mentioned, but its interesting that the Han Chinese now seem to consider an irreverent view of religion, and secularism, as an ancient part of their culture, ie predating communism.

Don't remember these guys from your childhood then?

Journey into the West, and Heroes of the marshes were serialised as kid's tv in the guise of Monkey and The Water Margin. Romance of the three kingdoms made it into a series of video games almost as long and epic as the Luo Guanzhong original. Interestingly, all the tv and video game stuff was made in Japan, but ended up published in China and hugely popular there.

Michael OBrien · 02-03-2017 11:02am

pauldla wrote: »

From National Geographic:

Let there be life, eh? Full article here.

I view that line of research the most likely to end up being true.

Michael OBrien · 02-03-2017 11:03am

smacl wrote: »

Don't remember these guys from your childhood then?

Journey into the West, and Heroes of the marshes were serialised as kid's tv in the guise of Monkey and The Water Margin. Romance of the three kingdoms made it into a series of video games almost as long and epic as the Luo Guanzhong original. Interestingly, all the tv and video game stuff was made in Japan, but ended up published in China and hugely popular there.

Used to love that program, although I cannot remember ANY actual story other than they seemed to travel constantly and have adventures along the way.

smacl · 02-03-2017 12:13pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Used to love that program, although I cannot remember ANY actual story other than they seemed to travel constantly and have adventures along the way.

Been quite a few years since I've read them, but from memory the books were every bit as rambling and episodic as the TV shows and would have been the equivalent of soap opera in their day. Three kingdoms does this to such an extent that by the last third of the book we're dealing with children and grand children of the original characters (still wandering about the place). I remember struggling through another Chinese classic, the Story of the Stone, and giving up about three volumes in out of nine with the feeling that I'd tried to watch the Chinese version of Coronation Street as a boxed set in one sitting.

recedite · 04-03-2017 4:13pm

Ah yes, grasshopper, I remember that series. It seems we were subliminally indoctrinated into Chinese secularism by the TV as kids!

If only the church had known what was happening, they could have banned these programs before it was too late.

recedite · 04-03-2017 4:19pm

Actually grasshopper was a different one...... equally dangerous to young minds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbNCBVzPYak

The Black Oil · 09-03-2017 10:01pm

Erm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsAIPE2f0QQ

Hotblack Desiato · 11-03-2017 2:33am

Land of the Free, my arse.

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 1:49pm

first time known (well, in recent times i suppose) that a diocese in ireland will go a day without mass being said:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/no-mass-to-take-place-in-limerick-diocese-next-tuesday-1.3056560

recedite · 21-04-2017 3:20pm

Its a nervous time. Hopefully the sky won't fall down on top of us, or anything.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-04-2017 5:19pm

I thought only teachers went off on in-service training days causing everyone to get a day off

Wonder what the topic is. "How To Not Rape Kids"?

seamus · 21-04-2017 11:03pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

first time known (well, in recent times i suppose) that a diocese in ireland will go a day without mass being said:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/no-mass-to-take-place-in-limerick-diocese-next-tuesday-1.3056560

This on the same week that a spoofer on After Hours was doing his best comical Ali impression, claiming that the church in Ireland was just fine, wasn't reducing in size and was evolving to meet the needs of the modern congregation.

This is good news. Not only do they not have the native clergy, but clearly they can't import enough/any to do the job either.

One eyed Jack · 23-04-2017 8:07am

seamus wrote: »

This on the same week that a spoofer on After Hours was doing his best comical Ali impression, claiming that the church in Ireland was just fine, wasn't reducing in size and was evolving to meet the needs of the modern congregation.

This is good news. Not only do they not have the native clergy, but clearly they can't import enough/any to do the job either.

A fella wouldn't want to be paranoid seamus, would he?

robindch · 02-05-2017 9:02am

Dublin churches collect over ?45 million in the 18 months to the end of December 2015, a further ?43 million from other sources, apparently bringing the available cash balance to ?177,450,000.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/dublin-church-collections-bring-in-45m-accounts-show-1.3068004

The accounts are available here and they make for interesting reading:

http://www.dublindiocese.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CHARITIES-OF-THE-ROMAN-CATHOLIC-ARCHDIOCESE-OF-DUBLIN-1.pdf

recedite · 02-05-2017 9:43am

200,000 Euro was donated to assist with the build of a church in the Diocese of Pinsk, Belarus

Great for them, that they had the cash to spare, while the general public continues to pay out for the Redress scheme here in Ireland..

On P.28, 5(iii) of the document they have listed some income generated from "Garda Vetting" and "Mixed marriage papers".
Anyone know what that is all about?

Peregrinus · 03-05-2017 1:21am

recedite wrote: »

Great for them, that they had the cash to spare, while the general public continues to pay out for the Redress scheme here in Ireland..

SFAIK, the Archdiocese of Dublin has no liabilities under or in connection with the Redress Scheme. Those liabilities arise under an agreement between the State and 18(?) religious orders, but there are no dioceses involved. None of the dioceses operated any residential institutions.

recedite wrote: »

On P.28, 5(iii) of the document they have listed some income generated from "Garda Vetting" and "Mixed marriage papers".
Anyone know what that is all about?

No idea what the "mixed marriage papers" entry relates to. FWIW, I'm a Catholic who married an Anglican, and I complied with the Catholic church formalities at the time and filled out various forms, but I don't recall paying (or being asked to pay) any fees. So whatever this entry relates to, I don't think it relates to fees paid by spouses in mixed marriages.

As for Garda Vetting, an individual who applies to be vetted (usually because it's a condition of being appointed to a certain job) can be required to pay a fee to the National Vetting Bureau to cover (or contribute towards) the cost of the process. The actual procedure is that you complete a form applying for and consenting to the vetting, and then give it to your prospective employer who countersigns it to say, yes, they are a "relevant organisation" and they have an obligation to get a vetting report on you, and they they send it on to the National Vetting Bureau.

So - wild guess here - it may be that the individual applicant also pays the fee to the relevant organisation, and they send both the form and the fee on to the Bureau. In which case the 15k of income is balanced by 15k of expenditure which is (presumablyy) included in the figure for expenditure on "child protection services" in note 6(ii).

recedite · 03-05-2017 9:59am

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK, the Archdiocese of Dublin has no liabilities under or in connection with the Redress Scheme. Those liabilities arise under an agreement between the State and 18(?) religious orders, but there are no dioceses involved. None of the dioceses operated any residential institutions.

Indeed. The RCC has more separate registered subsidiaries in Ireland than Zoe developments, which is why neither organisation can be bankrupted by litigation.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So - wild guess here - it may be that the individual applicant also pays the fee to the relevant organisation, and they send both the form and the fee on to the Bureau. In which case the 15k of income is balanced by 15k of expenditure which is (presumablyy) included in the figure for expenditure on "child protection services" in note 6(ii).

Possibly. I hope they are not making money out of volunteers who want to devote time to kids etc. at RC controlled facilities such as schools or scout dens.

robindch · 11-05-2017 11:21am

A crow shows a causal understanding of water displacement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04

robindch · 24-05-2017 8:04am

A study from 2013 may throw some light on the vexed question of how intelligence and religiosity may be linked:

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/study-suggests-atheists-are-more-intelligent-because-they-can-override-religious-instinct-/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266?journalCode=psra

Zuckerman, Silberman + Hall wrote:

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. [...]

Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

silverharp · 24-05-2017 5:06pm

robindch wrote: »

A study from 2013 may throw some light on the vexed question of how intelligence and religiosity may be linked:

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/study-suggests-atheists-are-more-intelligent-because-they-can-override-religious-instinct-/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266?journalCode=psra

if I remember the meme response to this is, so that's why more blacks and women are religious

magicbastarder · 25-05-2017 8:09am

https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/867627562247241728

Bristolscale7 · 26-05-2017 7:00pm

Today I learned that Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent and spy for the Soviets--"possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history"--was a turbo-christian Catholic and active member of Opus Dei. He was deviant in other ways too:

According to USA Today, those who knew the Hanssens described them as a close family. They attended Mass weekly and were very active in Opus Dei. Hanssen's three sons attended The Heights School in Potomac, Maryland, an all-boys preparatory school.[58] His daughters attended Oakcrest School for Girls in McLean, Virginia, an independent Roman Catholic school. Both schools are associated with Opus Dei. Hanssen's wife Bonnie still teaches theology at Oakcrest.[59]

A priest at Oakcrest said that Hanssen had regularly attended a 6:30 a.m. daily mass for more than a decade.[60] Opus Dei member Father C. John McCloskey III said he also occasionally attended the daily noontime mass at the Catholic Information Center in downtown Washington. After going to prison, Hanssen claimed he periodically admitted his espionage to priests in confession. He urged fellow Catholics in the Bureau to attend mass more often and denounced the Russians, even though he was spying for them, as "godless".[61]

However, at Hanssen's suggestion, and without the knowledge of his wife, a friend named Jack Horschauer, a retired Army officer, would sometimes watch the Hanssens having sex through a bedroom window. Hanssen then began to secretly videotape his sexual encounters and shared the videotapes with Horschauer. Later, he hid a video camera in the bedroom that was connected via closed-circuit television line so that his friend could observe the Hanssens from his guest bedroom.[62] He also explicitly described the sexual details of his marriage on Internet chat rooms, giving information sufficient for those who knew them to recognize the couple.[63]

Hanssen frequently visited D.C. strip clubs, and spent a great deal of time with a Washington stripper named Priscilla Sue Galey. She went with Hanssen on a trip to Hong Kong, and on a visit to the FBI training facility in Quantico, Virginia.[64] He gave her money, jewels, and a used Mercedes-Benz, but cut off contact with her before his arrest, when she fell into drug abuse and prostitution. Galey claims that although she offered to sleep with him, Hanssen declined, saying that he was trying to convert her to Catholicism.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

Thargor · 26-05-2017 10:49pm

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Today I learned that Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent and spy for the Soviets--"possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history"--was a turbo-christian Catholic and active member of Opus Dei. He was deviant in other ways too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Hanssen, possibly worried that he could be exposed during the ensuing political upheaval, broke off communications with his handlers for a time.[27]
The following year, after the Russian Federation took over the demised USSR′s spy agencies, Hanssen made a risky approach to the GRU, with whom he had not been in contact in ten years. Hanssen went in person to the Russian embassy and physically approached a GRU officer in the parking garage. Hanssen, carrying a package of documents, identified himself by his Soviet code name, "Ramon Garcia," and described himself as a "disaffected FBI agent" who was offering his services as a spy. The Russian officer, who evidently did not recognize the codename, drove off. The Russians then filed an official protest with the State Department, believing Hanssen to be a triple agent. Despite having shown his face, disclosed his code name, and revealed his FBI affiliation, Hanssen escaped arrest when the Bureau's investigation into the incident did not advance.

Ha, the Russians even made a complaint about him and they still didnt connect the dots...

Interesting Stuff Thread

Comments