Heartland

@ EB I take it you're here all week and we really should try the veal. Yeah?

Andrew S wrote:So, the opposite of this problem

Noo Andrew, ye ken I aspire tae a drinking recepticle of that magnitude. Please dinna taunt me.

EvilBastard wrote:

7anthea7 wrote:...church-sponsored charities are responsible for bringing education to Third-World children who might otherwise never have such opportunities.

I'm all for education, but when those same church-sponsored charities spend too much time shoving cant down the throats of kids in the developing world ("If you wear a condom you're going to hell. They don't stop you from getting AIDS, you know - and yes, I know your entire family died from it - it's because they were evil filthy perverts and they were smote by the hand of god almighty!") and not enough time teaching them to read, write, and 'rithmetise then there's a problem. Not to say that they're all like that - some are really very good - but there's enough ignorant crap being peddled around by people who should know better to people who don't know anything else for it to be a worry.

No argument from me on that. It apparently wasn't as implicit as I thought in the phrase 'bringing education' that I meant...'bringing education'. As opposed to religious indoctrination...

James Blast wrote:Catholic and sans guilt...

Next!

"Bless me father for I have sinned..."
My religion is my religion and I don't force it down anyone's throat
The fact I draw some spiritual salve from it should really be no one's concern and to see it openly attacked on here so often is, well it's begining tae stick in my cra'.

I ken the Catholic church is guilty of many heinous crimes, but there are true and guid peeps out there who happen to believe in JC and can circumnavigate the hypocrisy, hatred and lies.

3 Hail Marys as usual then father?

Well said.

7anthea7 wrote:

Being645 wrote:religion and religious institutions are two different things.
And a lot more that made sense but would take up too much room to quote in full.

I'd add that religion and what religious people do are also two different things.

The various crimes mentioned are all awful but they were done by people and not by religions. They very much go against the tenets of the religions involved. (And I'm talking about the basic tenets as contained in various books of scripture as opposed to what subsequent religious leaders may have added on for their own amusement.)

Unfortunately, when a group of religious people do something wrong, lots of other people decide to tar the entire religion with that same brush. Suffice to say that the majority of Roman Catholic priests don't abuse choirboys and the majority of Muslims aren't suicide bombers.

Loking at it anoother way, no-one ever seems to call for a ban on football despite the amount of violence perpetrated in its name. And you wouldn't ban music just because of Renee & Renata.

James Blast wrote:@ EB I take it you're here all week and we really should try the veal. Yeah?

And remember to tip your waitress too, please

The true awfulness of this whole thing, though, is down to the Church - because they've known what was going on for a long time, and, rather than take steps to prevent it - which would require admitting both that they knew and that they had been flat-out wrong in the way they handled it previously - they chose to continue to protect their own at the expense of damaging untold numbers of defenceless children.

We've had a court case going on right here where a priest was transferred from a diocese on other side of the state. The bishop there knew he'd been molesting boys, and sent him here to receive sexual-deviancy therapy (remember, the church maintained that this was a condition that could be 'cured', which was why they let priests who had a history of abuse back into situations where they'd be in contact with children). But when the bishop requested that the priest be accepted here, he said it was because he wanted to study at the University. No mention was made of his history, nor of his therapy. This priest went on, needless to say, to molest many more boys here. The local bishop, when questioned, said it was standard procedure to obtain a priest's background information when such transfers were requested - but, in this particular case, he failed to do that. It wasn't offered, and he didn't request it. If he had, of course, he would have seen the reports and all the subsequent action.

What do you want to bet that there was an institutionalised 'don't ask, don't tell' policy going on? And how much forgiveness can as large and influential an organisation as the Roman Catholic Church expect when they have failed so catastrophically? Saying 'Ah, well, we feel really bad about that' is just a slap in the face if it doesn't conclude with '...and we're going to identify and turn the bastards over for trial'.

(Just to be clear: This is not intended in any way to malign all Catholics, but rather the Church bureaucracy that considered avoiding the expense and bad publicity of lawsuits, and protecting the complacency of their priesthood, more important than their obligation to shield children from abuse and exploitation.)

In other news:

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor wrote:the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils

(Source)

So not believing in god is worse than the abuse of thousands of kids is it, Cardinal?

Well fuck you very much.

Edit:

7anthea7 wrote:What do you want to bet that there was an institutionalised 'don't ask, don't tell' policy going on?

There was, and is. And it goes right to the top: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/ap ... protection

if i hadn't left the church years ago for its refusal to accept women as equals, this would have done it

emilystrange wrote:if i hadn't left the church years ago for its refusal to accept women as equals, this would have done it

Internally, I left the church at the age of eight, when they
told me that the Lord didn't love children that were beaten ...

Glad they made it clear to me so early, who I was dealing with ...
Anyway, this other large institution called "state" is not much better ...
but is seems there's at least a little latitude for development time and again.

"at the age of 8", I don't need to add any more

James Blast wrote:"at the age of 8", I don't need to add any more

... fortunately ...

knew it all then, did ye?

8 FFS!

Behave!!!

Being told that the "loving" God doesn't love you if you get beaten at any age is wrong.

James Blast wrote:knew it all then, did ye?8 FFS!Behave!!!

I had read the entire bible ... but certain facts had slipped my :: :: loving :: :: mind ...

such as those more than 30 genocides - once that Moses was buried - in the book of Joshua ... :: ...

Dark wrote: Being told that the "loving" God doesn't love you if you get beaten at any age is wrong.

A very common strategy, though, to blackmail not only kids into obedience ...

... ... ... ... NO BLACKMAIL ME ... ... ...

... ... very long ago ... ... and therefore - deeply rooted ...
:::

Credit where credit's due:

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin wrote:The church has failed people. The church has failed children. There is no denying that. This can only be regretted and it must be regretted. Yet "sorry" can be an easy word to say. When it has to be said so often, then "sorry" is no longer enough.

But "sorry" must always be the first word.

(Source)