Experts: Bishops covered up priests' child abuse

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1268436 wrote: I cannot for the life of me see how charges of pedophilia can be considered exemplary even if the abuser is affiliated with "the church" let alone a fen massive cover up!

To me that says far more about "the church" than the disgusting acts themselves!

"the church" has the tenacity to cover up massive pedophilia child abuse as opposed to allowing for the rightful incarceration of the "priests'" guilty of child sexual abuse. 'the church" is defined as covering up this ungodly horrific act as being guilty of not seeing to it that these "priest's" are appropriately sent to prison to rot "for an eternity" and the statement from that point on of them wishing to not allow charges to be correctly filed against these monsters, by default, defines them as being hypocritical to their "faith", a disgrace not only to humanity but God/"god" and only shows what a crock of horse feces the entire proclamation of the catholic "religion" has claimed to have been, is, and ever will be!

Anyone wishing to convert me to any religion can go to hell, and I'm not sorry for it!


My apologies, after the thread on homosexuality I had you down as a religious fruitcake-albeit of a protestant disposition.

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1268491 wrote: My apologies, after the thread on homosexuality I had you down as a religious fruitcake-albeit of a protestant disposition.


No, I oppose the suggestion that bottling ones logic into a confined doctrine is excusable virtue and consider religion to be none other than brainwashing garbage. It was necessary in times of extreme hardship in the despair of those without any control over their own personal freedoms but not today.

You'd assumed I were placing moral/religious connotations behind the context of the word "natural" when I'd used it and I surely had not. I don't differ homosexuality to be any different as greasy fried chicken with the exception of preference in one's desire to engage in either. I eat my greasy fried chicken without the fear of being judged for it in the same I'd hope homosexuals wouldn't be because I respect people's right to their own opinion. The difference being I don't find eating greasy fried chicken to be natural because it serves to kill people slowly and ever so logarithmically increases upon each instance it's consumed and I surely wouldn't want anyone suggesting to my child or any that eating greasy fried chicken were healthy.

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1268506 wrote: No, I oppose the suggestion that bottling ones logic into a confined doctrine is excusable virtue and consider religion to be none other than brainwashing garbage. It was necessary in times of extreme hardship in the despair of those without any control over their own personal freedoms but not today.

You'd assumed I were placing moral/religious connotations behind the context of the word "natural" when I'd used it and I surely had not. I don't differ homosexuality to be any different as greasy fried chicken with the exception of preference in one's desire to engage in either. I eat my greasy fried chicken without the fear of being judged for it in the same I'd hope homosexuals wouldn't be because I respect people's right to their own opinion. The difference being I don't find eating greasy fried chicken to be natural because it serves to kill people slowly and ever so logarithmically increases upon each instance it's consumed and I surely wouldn't want anyone suggesting to my child or any that eating greasy fried chicken were healthy.


Not so much that as the type of arguments used was similar-I know therefore I am right despite any evidence to the contrary. I was brought up with the same prejudice but having got to know a few and seeing a bit more of the world and given thought to the matter I find it a natural phenomenon but singularly unappealing from a personal point of view but the hard thing in life is accepting that people are different and learning to appreciate it. Religion works against that IMO, especially the I am the way and only way type of belief. it's incredibly destructive.

Can't say I see the attraction of greasy fried chicken either but if I was going to eat it i would be more concerned about whether the chicken was given oestrogen to fatten it up. I had a bag of chips with nippy sauce last night-you have to rebel against the health police sometimes.

What is shocking about this episode and other like it is the sheer arrogance of a religion that thinks it is somehow above the law and should not be criticised or called in to question. Monotheistic religions are all the same.

[Ted]

I think that I can agree with what gmc has posted. Yes "we have the only way" is dangerous and contrary to the mainline churches today, at least those in North America.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

Ted;1269875 wrote: I think that I can agree with what gmc has posted. Yes "we have the only way" is dangerous and contrary to the mainline churches today, at least those in North America.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Actually most of the fundamentalist clap trap seems to stem from the states. religion is almost a non issue here and in europe although Tony Blair converting to catholicism while in office would have caused ructions, I think, and it's about to become a big issue again. A pity really sectarianism was showing signs of dying out.