The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

Some bishops taking matters into there own hands does not an instituional cover up make. As for the personal attacks....we'd all appreciate it if you could knock it on the head and grow up. Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok. Everyone is in agreement that the abuse was a sickening disgrace.

Yes it does, especially given the way the RCC is run, and especially with the Ryan report...And no one is has said outright that abuse is okay, however well...Live the same old self enforced ignorance that smiled on internment of kids into work camps where they were sexually abused. The fact of kids being placed into work camps in the first place is sick enough.

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

we'd all appreciate it ..

speak for yourself, do not speak for others

Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok ..[/QUOTE]
ISAW has made little of abuse by members of the RCC. He did not report his own abuser and does not advocate that people should report clerical abusers. He was not appalled that abusers were sheltered/ moved around without penalty or criticism. That comes pretty close to saying certain abuse was ok.

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

So you make an accusation but can't be bothered to supply the proof ?? He has talked about the abuse before. It was non sexual. I'm sure he'll give you details if you so require them.

For someone with only a few dozen posts, you seem to know ISAW very well....;)
He has posted five and a half thousand posts. Have you read them all ?

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

LOL....I have debated hardcore Unionists who have denied that the Loyalist death squads were a vital part of British policy in the north, and once they get a few beers in them their attitude becomes collusion was no big deal...Similarly here, what does his persistent denial of the insitutional cover up which has been revealed say about? I know what it says but you cant face that reality...

As for you being a parent, you obviously believe that the kids abused were ontologically inferior to your own and so had it coming...Not very Christian.

Some bishops taking matters into there own hands does not an instituional cover up make. As for the personal attacks....we'd all appreciate it if you could knock it on the head and grow up. Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok. Everyone is in agreement that the abuse was a sickening disgrace.

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

ISAW is not burying his head in the sand and saying that abuse never happened. He is not defending abuse that has occured. In fact he has stated quite .

LOL....I have debated hardcore Unionists who have denied that the Loyalist death squads were a vital part of British policy in the north, and once they get a few beers in them their attitude becomes collusion was no big deal...Similarly here, what does his persistent denial of the insitutional cover up which has been revealed say about? I know what it says but you cant face that reality...

As for you being a parent, you obviously believe that the kids abused were ontologically inferior to your own and so had it coming...Not very Christian.

andyjo wrote: »

post 1012 of this very thread.

A few days ago I remember reading where he implied he had been sexually assaulted too, but I cannot be bothered trying to read through more of his numerous posts to find it.

So you make an accusation but can't be bothered to supply the proof ?? He has talked about the abuse before. It was non sexual. I'm sure he'll give you details if you so require them.

ISAW wrote: »

The discussion was specifically about sexual abuse but yes in my experience in schools more physical abuse was doled out by lay teachers then by brothers. And I speak as someone who had a pitchside pole from a sideline flag broken over my back by a Brother when I was ten years old. Actually my vertibrae are weak there and I have no idea if the two are linked. If I met the brother tomorrow I would bear him no ill feelings.

post 1012 of this very thread.

A few days ago I remember reading where he implied he had been sexually assaulted too, but I cannot be bothered trying to read through more of his numerous posts to find it.

The idea of Stockholm Syndrome seems to fit this victim, and may be an explanation for the way he can can blank out the horrible actions and just see the good, like a wife sees only the good in her brute husband who hits her and feels that she is the one in the wrong and that he is doing it for her own good. Indoctrination 24/7 at a vulnerable age has had a lasting effect on the poor fellow. I'll say a prayer for him, he needs it.

andyjo wrote: »

if you put certain key words inc ISAW in to the search engine at the top of this page, it does not take long to where ISAW admits he was physically assaulted by a Brother. ( page 68 of this thread).

Physically....not sexually. And it wasn't just Brothers who physically assaulted children in schools.

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Indeed he didnt..andyjo speculated that he had been .

if you put certain key words inc ISAW in to the search engine at the top of this page, it does not take long to where ISAW admits he was physically assaulted by a Brother.

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Indeed he didnt..andyjo speculated that he had been and I contradicted that.

Are you a parent? If you arent its probably impossible for you understand unless you have been abused yourself.

Indeed i am. ISAW is not burying his head in the sand and saying that abuse never happened. He is not defending abuse that has occured. In fact he has stated quite frequently that he abhors it and has condemned it as wrong. What he is doing is pointing out that it was carried out by a tiny minority of priests. That sexual abuse of minors is a serious problem in society, and to focus soley on what has happened in the church is to miss the bigger picture. Especially when you take the percentages into account.This is not deflecting the blame....it's simply pointing out the media's unfairness in it's reporting of these issues.

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

The Pslam he referenced in 50 in Roman Catholicism, surely you must know it? Its been set to music so much....Its 51 in the KJV, this isnt my nordie paranoid side kicking, its clear as day light!

My objection is based on your psychological assessment of contributors to the thread, as to the 'motives' etc. I think you are unqualified in fact - I think they are baseless and not worth a whole lot really.

The same could be said of your assessment of how truthful Catholics are who praise God. I think you are drawing your very own personal portrait and it isn't representative of anybody else really except what is important to you as a person....

..so join the club.

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

He never said he was sexually abused. As for the other rubbish, you are out of order. And i thought personal attacks wern't allowed around here....

Indeed he didnt..andyjo speculated that he had been and I contradicted that.

Are you a parent? If you arent its probably impossible for you understand unless you have been abused yourself.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, I think it's good to approach this thread in humility, but I must say that the opportunists are abundant, and the guess work is beyond bizarre...and not lacking in exuberant name calling.....crazy stuff really.

Afterall, nobody wants to debate a fool? Surely....I can entirely guarantee that ISAW is not a fool...

The Pslam he referenced in 50 in Roman Catholicism, surely you must know it? Its been set to music so much....Its 51 in the KJV, this isnt my nordie paranoid side kicking, its clear as day light!

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

Well, I think it's good to approach this thread in humility, but I must say that the opportunists are abundant, and the guess work is beyond bizarre...and not lacking in exuberant name calling.....crazy stuff really.

ISAW, imo is not of Protestant descent - in fact, I don't know if he/she is of any traditional descent that I could actually pin down, all I know is that they don't suffer fools gladly, and he/she is very truthful and scholarly in debate...and I think 'this' person is a very valuable asset to the forum - so troll doesn't fit guys.

Afterall, nobody wants to debate a fool? Surely....I can entirely guarantee that ISAW is not a fool...

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

He never said he was sexually abused. As for the other rubbish, you are out of order. And i thought personal attacks wern't allowed around here....

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

Well, I think it's good to approach this thread in humility, but I must say that the opportunists are abundant, and the guess work is beyond bizarre...

ISAW, imo is not of Protestant descent - in fact, I don't know if he/she is of any traditional descent that I could actually pin down, all I know is that they don't suffer fools gladly, and he/she is very truthful and scholarly in debate...and I think 'this' person is a very valuable asset to the forum - so troll doesn't fit guys.

Afterall, nobody wants to debate a fool? Surely....I can entirely guarantee that ISAW is not a fool...

andyjo wrote: »

its quite obvious he is. If you look back over the numerous posts he/ she made on this thread , its obvious that either he is a troll , or else the abuse he claims to have suffered under a Brother when he was at a very vulnerable age has left a deep psychological wound. I feel sorry for him.

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

lmaopml wrote: »

ISAW is not a troll....

its quite obvious he is. If you look back over the numerous posts he/ she made on this thread , its obvious that either he is a troll , or else the abuse he claims to have suffered under a Brother when he was at a very vulnerable age has left a deep psychological wound. I feel sorry for him.

lmaopml wrote: »

I like ISAW, and he/she is not a protestant. Pay more attention..

What Roman Catholic would refer to that Pslam as Pslam 51? The fact that I was paying attention made me cop that he wasnt RC.

Good debater, yup....Majorly looking Roman Catholics as heartless scum also.

ISAW is not a troll..and it is beneath a good debater to call foul Patricia. Or even to presume too much about denomination - Debate or don't but don't call foul when you feel challenged...

ISAW, imo is not exactly somebody I 'know' - but is very interesting and is defo worth reading - much like many others who are written off on this forum..for sadness! Many others of very different persuasions...in fact, are worth heeding too.

I like ISAW, and he/she is not a protestant. Pay more attention..

andyjo what Roman Catholic calls the pslam "Have mercy on me oh Lord, have mercy on me..." number 51? ISAW is some type of troll from a Protestant background, not that there is anything at all wrong with that but trolling on such a serious issue is sickening.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes you asked for a group with a higher level than 4%.

You clearly do not understand statistics, or else are being deliberately very misleading. 6.2% of accused or actual abusers may be uncles ( inc some priests.). That is not the same as 6.2% of uncles ( inc some priests.) being abusers or accused abusers.

The second point to bear in mind is that a high proportion of the population are uncles ( most men are uncles at some stage in their lives ) but only something like 0.1% of the population are Priests. Yet the damage done in terms of child abuse by these very same Priests / Brothers, ( and you admitted earlier in the thread you had experience of that, and chose - like many - not to report the Brother who abused you ) was out of all proportion to their percentage of the population.

Unsurprisingly, you still have not come up with a survey / study which found any other group in society which has 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape, like RC Priests. If 4% of all babysitters had been accused of child abuse / rape, there would be a national outcry.

________________________________________________________________
"4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2788-the-federal-scheme-to-destroy-fatherchild-relationships.html

andyjo wrote: »

The 6.2% figure you refer to is 6.2% of all abusers. Look carefully at page. Do not forget also that priests can also be Uncles;).

Yes you asked for a group with a higher level than 4%.
As it happens, as i pointed out that higher percentages of abusers are non priests.
AS regards priests being uncles if i recall two priests from the sample were.
But I only posted the executive summary.
Earlier in the thread I referred to the table which shows both per cent of abusers and percentage of authority figures. The point being if you claim no other group had more than 4% ( and don't forget your figures are accusations not abuse) the table shows several other groups e.g. babysitter Teacher who had a HIGHER level of child sex abuse.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73172531&postcount=1337

you keep parroting excerpts from a Newsweek story while you ignore the rest of that same article? You are given hard evidence from proper research but it wont stop you parroting part of an article wiothout reference to the rest of it.

You are doing the same

As for the 4%
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72964420&postcount=1177
has a graphic depicting proportion of authority figures and proportion of all abusers.

Try again. Try harder this time . Try to find a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ? Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like.

But the level of accusations are not relevant the level of actual abuse is.
In fact if the level is really really high say 40% of priests being accused all it shows is the level of media hysteria against priests!

Priests are people. The survey was on clergy in America, over 100,000 of them, and found ( and I quote from the staunch conservative Roman Catholic website and its sources ) that "4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

[/quote]

Please please please read the actual report. the updated version.
There are two Causes and context and Nature and Scope
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

Here is a html version
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/#preface

page 29

The surveys reported 75,694 diocesan priests and approximately 34,000 religious priests in ministry with 4,392 accused of abuse. If the total of the accused priests (4,392) is divided by the total of all priests in ministry between 1950 and 2002 (109,694), the result is 4%; for diocesan priests only, (3,282/76,694), the percentage is 4.27% and for religious priests, (929/34,000), 2.7%.

An overwhelming 94% of respondents indicated that joint legal and physical custody, shared between parents, would be in the child’s best interest, with 78% of respondents indicating that a 50/50 time sharing agreement was appropriate. Another scenario was presented. In the second scenario the father has been accused by the mother of sexually molesting their child. The Department of Social Services and the police conducted an investigation and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the father committed sexual abuse. The question of custody is again asked. As a result of the unsubstantiated accusation against the father, 79% of the same respondents stated that sole legal and physical custody should be granted to the mother. Only 15% of respondents felt that the father should be permitted a minimum of 50% visitation with the children. In the final survey question regarding the respondent’s personal opinion of child molesters, 42% stated that they should be "locked away for life" and 48% responded that they should "burn in hell". Why do so many mothers file false sexual abuse allegations during custody cases? They work.

The father is not the only victim in a false child sex abuse allegation. Children are also victimized. Not only does the child have to submit to numerous interrogations and invasive tests to determine if abuse occurred, but needless therapy is often prescribed. The child, knowing at first that nothing happened, is subjected to counseling that reinforces the story that abuse has occurred. In time, many children grow to believe and accept that their fathers molested them. The emotional trauma is life-long. This phenomenon has become so common that psychologists have given names to the syndromes that result from false abuse claims, including Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Sexual Abuse in Divorce (SAID).

The 6.2% figure you refer to is 6.2% of all abusers. Look carefully at page
xxxvi of the Savi report, where you pluck that figure from.
Do not forget also that priests can also be Uncles;).

Try again. Try harder this time . Try to find a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ? Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like.

ISAW wrote: »

the John Jayt report was not a survey of 100,000 people. It was a survey sent our to priests!

Priests are people. The survey was on clergy in America, over 100,000 of them, and found ( and I quote from the staunch conservative Roman Catholic website and its sources ) that "4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

http://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=psycholrep&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dsavi%2520report%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCUQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fepubs.rcsi.ie%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1014%2526context%253Dpsycholrep%26ei%3DKnOhTsnCDMHRhAeM_qH6BA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHdKB0lh5fcSom9s0v6G48dbUXkrQ#search=%22savi%20report%22
Executive summary page xxxvi

andyjo wrote: »

I never said it was. However, as another poster remarked " I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder".
To which I replied" if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so."

I didn't spend any time making any excuses for child rape or any child rapist group!
Where did I?

No. I would imagine though that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on boards.ie who would be concerned and disappointed, if not appalled with the Catholic churches track record on clerical child abuse.

If you want to discuss the specific myth of "pedophile priests" this is the thread. for more broader anti Catholic media hype and spin see the new thread on that.

I did actually, and I lookeed up the link you supplied, and I found it was someones opinion ( not Hitlers) of the Jews in Germany at one point in time. Its completely irrelevant what some individuals racist or political opinion in wartime Germany was.

LOL! People who wrote anti Jew propaganda books for children and were subsequently found guilty at nuremberg and executed had nothing to do with the Holocaust?

There was a comprehensive and scientific study done in America of over 100,000 people which found that ( and I quote from the staunch Roman Catholic website and its sources ) 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people "

the John Jayt report was not a survey of 100,000 people. It was a survey sent our to priests!

Please supply the actual link and not the dead one you supply

http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

Dead link!

Have you found a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ?

Croat Med J. 2011 February; 52(1): 25–34.
Risk factors of child physical abuse by parents with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder
Parents with MADD and PTSD exhibit high risk of child abuse.

Child Abuse Negl. 2008 October; 32(10): 925–940.
Mediators of Childhood Sexual Abuse and High-Risk Sex Among Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men
childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and HIV risk behavior were examined for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM).Conclusions
CSA contributes to the ongoing HIV epidemic among MSM by distorting or undermining critical motivational, coping, and interpersonal factors that, in turn, influence adult sexual risk behavior.

I already supplied stats for Mc donalds earlier in the thread.

As I intimated, it would be more likely to occur in places wher there are children e.g. sports instructors, teachers, babysitters and not in say retiement homes. the SAVI report which you recently mentioned if I recall shows that in in the vast majority f cases that these professions account for a higher level of child abuse.

Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like.
A yes or a no answer will suffice,

Eh Yes. SAVI for one now that yuu brought it up .

I do not think even the Nazis proved that 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape, like Catholic Priests were.

A relatively small percentage of perpetrators fitted the current
stereotype of abusers of children: strangers were in the
minority - over 80% of children were abused by those known
to them. Fathers constituted 2.5% of all abusers with
clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers
constituting 3.2% of abusers. The most common other relative
or authority figure categories were uncles (6.2%),

ISAW wrote: »

What i spend my time doing is not under your permission or control.

I never said it was. However, as another poster remarked " I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder".
To which I replied" if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so."

ISAW wrote: »

did you know gigino?

No. I would imagine though that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on boards.ie who would be concerned and disappointed, if not appalled with the Catholic churches track record on clerical child abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

Again you didn't read my reply.

I did actually, and I lookeed up the link you supplied, and I found it was someones opinion ( not Hitlers) of the Jews in Germany at one point in time. Its completely irrelevant what some individuals racist or political opinion in wartime Germany was. There was a comprehensive and scientific study done in America of over 100,000 people which found that ( and I quote from the staunch Roman Catholic website and its sources ) 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

Have you found a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ? Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like.
A yes or a no answer will suffice, and if you go off on a "what about" tangent again about someones personal racist / political opinion in Germany , that will be taken as a no. I do not think even the Nazis proved that 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape, like Catholic Priests were.

andyjo wrote: »

+ 1. And if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so.

What i spend my time doing is not under your permission or control.

You were asked did you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?

You were asked did you know gigino?
Do you ? Why do you avoid the answer?

( like the study in America which found

I study I SUPPLIED to the thread. You havent read it and like gigino all you do is rehash the headline claim which

1. I disputed
2. Was revised ( you didnt read the revided version either did you?)
3. Does not relate to the issue because numbers of Accusations are not a measure of guilt!

The best you can come up with is one Nazi who for political reasons at the time wrote something in a newspaper that he personally thought "Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah".

Again you didn't read my reply. the Nazi was a top nazi how called Hitler "Adolph". No other Nazi called him that. The male body in particular was presented as an "Aryan Superman". It was only after the SD became dispensible that Hitler became antio homosexual and began to become more anti Jew than previously.

Here is an interesting take on it ~ the pink swastica
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html

furthermore the quote you attribute as being from you was not from the Homosexual nazi but from a different anti Jew propaganda publication.

F12 wrote: »

I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder.

+ 1. And if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so.

ISAW wrote: »

Look! If you are going to say anyone did someone at least try to produce some evidence.

lo thats a bit rich coming from you.

You were asked did you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ? ( like the study in America which found 4% of Roman Catholic Priests there had been accused of child abuse / rape. This study was not politically motivated ; in fact, to its credit, it was funded by the RC church itself. I quote from the staunch conservative Roman Catholic website and its sources which admitted / found that "4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

The best you can come up with is one Nazi who for political reasons at the time wrote something in a newspaper that he personally thought "Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah".

Pathetic.

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Its the fact that the organization of the RCC while claiming a divine dignity for its priests and bishops helped cover up and move around the evil in its ranks. That is what ISAW cannot face.

If you produced any evidence that the Vatican were involved in moving around abusers and covering up their abuse people would be really interested but in the absence of evidence yu assume guilt. I dont deny a handfull of bishops made mistakes . By that I mean bishops acting in isolation and without talking to or conspiring with any other bishops. By a handfull I mean maybe ten out of 10,000 or even out of 100,000 over the last century.

My mum once told me that in Ireland RC power freaks join the Priesthood and Protestant ones the RUC,

Great for the supporting evidence of the crime of the century we have "mu mum once told me" . sorry but we don't base guilt on old wives tales.

there was a lot of truth in that, only the RUC didnt claim that they were representives of Christ.

There was "a lot of truth" in that for you because you believed it! If your mother said "it was the space aliens did it" you probably would have believed that too. It doessn't make it true just because it is true for you. Many believed things about Jews that just were not true because someones mother compared them to poison mushrooms.
Look! If you are going to say anyone did someone at least try to produce some evidence.