Catholic Church claims it is above the law

hinault wrote: »

Agreed it's in no way racist.
It's a statement of fact made by an Irish person (me) about Ireland.:p

I see the dictionary definition of irony sailed over your head, no doubt akin to many other facts.

hinault wrote: »

Glad you can tell the time.

So still no "excerpt". Fine. I think we can dismiss your earlier claim as being bogus as usual.
So ends this exchange.

Good luck with that. As Stephen in Braveheart said: "God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."

hinault wrote: »

I'm not the one making claims that cannot be backed up.

Sure you are. You're the one who called the Republic of Ireland a nation of child rapists. Father.

hinault wrote: »

Au contraire : for the record.

And of course some yahoo on the internet making completely insane claims about the predilictions of a country towards child rape constitutes solid empirical evidence.

As entertaining as this mildly demented exchange has been, let me deliver the reality to the real people reading this thread, as opposed to the nutty propagandists:

The church has betrayed whatever ragged remnants of its faith it might have represented. The only solution remaining for an organisation that sees fit to hide and protect child rapists is to seize all remaining assets and let them preach their faith from a pulpit of faith. I'm sure god will see fit to magic a few churches out of the bedrock to support the pious. And we wouldn't be the first to have gotten rid of them.

Lord knows the public property they lay claim to can serve a better purpose than they are putting it to.

Suzie Sue wrote: »

Liam, your at it again. It's not about me, it's about the issue.

I don't own an at.

Liam, there is a thing called the golden thread of justice.
That means everyone is innocent untill proven guilty beyond all resonable doubt.

Absolutely. But at the time that the charges are made the point has NOT been "proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Before that decision is made - by a suitable forum - people have to accept that there is merely a case to answer. We're talking DPP here - not even the court itself. You refuse to accept this, claiming that there isn't even a doubt and then - despite you declaring this as if it were a fact - you then attack those correcting you by pretending that your preconceived stance has no part in the debate.

Suzie Sue wrote: »

The burden of proof lies with those claiming the Pope is guilty.
If you have any proof, I'll still be happy to discuss it with you.

As I said, your post saying "no doubt" is the equivalent of saying "no doubt his finger slipped" - you simply don't want to accept that there is a case to answer; you have already made up your mind as stated in that post.

Every post since has tried to deflect from your opinion because of that slip-up. You cannot have "no doubt" unless you are the pope. You said earlier that the pope couldn't know what his co-author was thinking, and yet you claim to know that yourself.

Come back to me when you open your mind. There is a case to be answered.

Anyway, life's too short to debate about this with someone who appears to have inside knowledge of what an old man was thinking while writing a letter.

I FOLLOWED GHOST BUSTERS LINK AND SUZIE HAS BEEN BANNED FOR TROLLING, RED CARDED FOR REPEATEDLY "LOLING" 'ATTACKING AND ANTAGONISING POSTERS RATHER THAN ADDRESSING POSTS AND GENERALLY BEING...SIGH..... STUPID.
DONT FEED THE TROLL!!!!

philologos wrote: »

Suzie Sue: For as long as the Pope has diplomatic immunity how do you expect us to prove anything about him?

Knight Who Says Meh: Going from a subsection of one particular denomination to all organised religion seems like making the fallacy of some to all. It's been too common in this discussion.

Not with ya sir

philologos wrote: »

I'm referring to this:


I'm suggesting that this is a specific problem. One can recognise that without dismissing the whole idea of people having some form of collective beliefs.

Ok.
However I was refering directly to one post suggesting the banning of organised religion (Daft)
Which was countered by the increasingly ridiculous Suzi with the tiresome "Oh they tried state atheism before in...random country..... and it was bad yadda yadda yadda" (Dafter)
So the opposite of organised religion is not atheism and is definately not state atheism. My own wife, God bless her sense, is a Witch;) and does her own thang in her own time and we dont even have to discuss it. Refreshing!:D

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, because Ireland is genetically predisposed toward child abuse. Have you some problem with reading the thread? Because a short sighted racist just brings up more Goebbels than Hellen Keller, sorry...


I see the well considered arguments are out in force in this thread. It's almost as good as that "Min" creature, caught out numerous times perpertrating bald falsehoods in the thread, but still waiting for ten pages to pass before making a glorious comeback!

Now where have I heard that before...

I did not tell any lies in this thread, not my fault you can't open links to the Irish Times newspaper.
You are not worth replying to when you can't read what was posted.
Blind to anything that disagrees and can only see and believe what you want.

philologos wrote: »

A church of any form is organised in the sense that people arrange to meet together at a certain time, they arrange to worship, they arrange to pray, they arrange to study the Bible in a certain way. If you even wanted to look at the most unorthodox structure of church but a rapidly growing one, that is the house church. That's still organised.

The only thing other than organised would be a person praying, and worshipping and doing these things alone. The community is lost though. Christianity without the sharing of others isn't really Christianity, it's something else.

Organised religion does not of necessity require a leader with a special relationship with God. Rather I would argue that all people are on an equal footing when it comes to Him irrespective of how long they have gone to theological college, or how 'holy' they may perceive themselves to be. Many will disagree with me no doubt, but that's how I feel about it.

Even if I move away from religion, even secular humanist groups and atheist groups are organised.

Gotcha. I suppose the issue is with organised hierarchical religions who attain enormous power and influence over centurys and we all know the saying about power corruptin and ultimate power yadda yadda.
Im thninking in particular about Catholicism which treats and is allowed to treat its congregation like children and has the blind unquestioning dedication we see so very often in this country.
Even by Mrs organises get togethers with her Witchpoo mates from time to time but it would be stretch to call Wicca organised.

I think any time that people organise to meet together for faith / religious purposes that's organised religion. In the case that you mean insidious heirarchies with no accountability / covering up / domineering traits that's something entirely different and something I would wholly agree with you on. They aren't confined to religious institutions either I'm afraid.