Prev: Well done Holden, $210+ million loss...
Next: Portable Satellite Navigation Units
From: Sylvia Else on 2 Apr 2010 07:11
On 2/04/2010 9:54 PM, Doug Jewell wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 2/04/2010 8:14 PM, Doug Jewell wrote:
>>> John Tserkezis wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How absurd that the church leaders should use Easter as an excuse to
>>>>> attack a non-belief system.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863269.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems the church is again stirring their sheep to revolt against a
>>>>> perceived threat which is just a protection mechanism against their
>>>>> own insecurities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they should spend more time investigating priests and their
>>>>> actions and helping the victims so fewer people become disenchanted
>>>>> with religion and the church...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they keep forgetting how many little boys their church members
>>>> have fucked lately.
>>> How many little boys have been fucked by people who aren't church
>>> members? How many are fucked by school-teachers? random strangers on the
>>> street? their own relatives?
>>>
>>> The vast majority of church goers and the vast majority of priests are
>>> NOT pedophiles, just as the vast majority of the non-church-going
>>> population aren't either. But of course the media has a field day when
>>> it's a catholic priest, when it's anyone else you barely hear about it.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder what *percentage* of priests are paedophiles, compared with
>> the general population.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Found some research that does seem to do direct comparison:
>
> "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford
> University and Santa Clara University states that "available research
> suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual
> experience with a minor" which "is lower than the general adult male
> population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%".
>

One has to be careful how the numbers are interpreted. That 8%, for
example, could be including males who had sexual contact with minors
while they themselves are still a minor, or recently so. While such
contact would be unlawful, it wouldn't, in everyday language, be abuse,
and the person would not be considered a paedophile.

The figure for priests, by contrast, could be restricted to the time
during the person was a priest, when there is likely to have been both a
significant age difference, and a position of authority that was abused.

Of course, neither of these may be true, but it makes the point that the
raw numbers say very little. To form a considered view, one would need
access to the details.

Sylvia.
From: John Tserkezis on 2 Apr 2010 07:52
Doug Jewell wrote:

> While researching to answer Sylvia, I found that in the USA, of 4392
> priests against whom allegations had been made, 1021 cases were referred
> to police, while about 3000 had already died by the time the allegation
> was made. So I'm afraid the facts don't agree with your statement "never
> prosecuted".

Oh fine, "hardly ever prosecuted" then, how's that?

> Furthermore, incidence of pedophilia is no higher within the priesthood
> than the community at large, and also the majority of pedophilia
> offences are committed by a relative or friend of the victim.

It's quite clear, that no-one in the community is ever in support of
pedo, aside perhaps from other pedos.

However in the church, it's only the *community* that yells about it.
There are first-hand accounts of students within schools where most have
known about it, it being treated as common knowledge.

I'm assuming the school management isn't that ignorant that something
that's common knowledge among students is completely unknown among
management.
Yet, they proclaim innocence, and deny all knowledge, either because
they *really* didn't know, or they *did* know, but are staying quiet in
case they get kicked for not doing anything about it.

Either way, that ain't good.

> Despite your apparent hatred for religion, the facts are that your kids
> are probably less likely to be molested at Sunday School than if you
> have a few mates around for a barbie.

Too bad that's my choice, and I choose my mates. As loud, crass, and
vulgar as they are, they'll give an example of what is out there in real
life, rather than the hairy-fairy stories taught at Sunday school.
From: Doug Jewell on 2 Apr 2010 08:46
Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:14:28 +1000, Doug Jewell
> <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
>
>> John Tserkezis wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> How absurd that the church leaders should use Easter as an excuse to attack
>>>> a non-belief system.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863269.htm
>>>>
>>>> Seems the church is again stirring their sheep to revolt against a perceived
>>>> threat which is just a protection mechanism against their own insecurities.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they should spend more time investigating priests and their actions
>>>> and helping the victims so fewer people become disenchanted with religion
>>>> and the church...
>>> Yes, they keep forgetting how many little boys their church members
>>> have fucked lately.
>> How many little boys have been fucked by people who aren't
>> church members? How many are fucked by school-teachers?
>> random strangers on the street? their own relatives?
>>
>> The vast majority of church goers and the vast majority of
>> priests are NOT pedophiles, just as the vast majority of the
>> non-church-going population aren't either. But of course
>> the media has a field day when it's a catholic priest, when
>> it's anyone else you barely hear about it.
>
> When people are perverse enough to follow a sick belief system like
> Christianity they are more likely to do other perverse things.
>
> Christianity is a filthy disease.
So I suppose you would do away with all of Christianity huh?
So show me the non-Christian equivalent of the Salvation
Army, St Vincent de Paul society, Lifeline, Anglicare,
Bluecare etc. Show me the non-Christian equivalent of the
Catholic health-care system. Show me the non-Christian
network of private hospitals that rivals the Christian
network. Show me the non-Christian equivalent of St John's
Ambulance. Show me the non-Christian equivalent of the
various youth-groups etc that provide friendship and
fellowship opportunities for teens and young adults.

That you would call a religion that collectively does more
for the welfare of humanity than any entity (religious or
non-religious) "filthy", says far more about you than it
does about Christianity.

--
What is the difference between a duck?
From: atec7 7 ""atec77 " on 2 Apr 2010 12:25
Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:14:28 +1000, Doug Jewell

> When people are perverse enough to follow a sick belief system like
> Christianity they are more likely to do other perverse things.
>
> Christianity is a filthy disease.
>
So is your constant self touching
now do you actually have anything relevant to say

or are you just going to continue being useless in the greater scheme ?
From: Milton on 2 Apr 2010 17:20

"Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:o76dnf4bJsiyeijWnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...


> So I suppose you would do away with all of Christianity huh? So show me
> the non-Christian equivalent of the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul
> society, Lifeline, Anglicare, Bluecare etc. Show me the non-Christian
> equivalent of the Catholic health-care system. Show me the non-Christian
> network of private hospitals that rivals the Christian network. Show me
> the non-Christian equivalent of St John's Ambulance. Show me the
> non-Christian equivalent of the various youth-groups etc that provide
> friendship and fellowship opportunities for teens and young adults.
>
> That you would call a religion that collectively does more for the welfare
> of humanity than any entity (religious or non-religious) "filthy", says
> far more about you than it does about Christianity.
>
The argument here lies with as youngsters, we were taught and we continued
teaching our own kids, to "never trust strangers or get into their cars".
The teaching continued that we could/should trust the Police,
Ministers/Priests/Pastors and school teachers. That is where the problem
lies.

Of course there have and always will be bad apples in every field of life
and I for one prefer to maintain my own personal beliefs about religion to
myself and God assuming there is God as we were taught. I still question
though, why is the Old Testament (which is full of wars, animal sacrifices
and any other cruel feat bestowed upon a living being) when the New
Testament is the complete reversal.

On whose authority was this changed? If we are the sheep of a Super Being,
why is so much happening in the world today that we have no control over?
Earthquakes, Sunamis, Cyclones/Typhoons/storms etc etc ..... innocent
children being born with major defects like Siamese twins for example?

However, having said that, if we all lived by the rules of the Bible,
really, we would have a much better future to look forward to. Even if it
applied to just the Ten Commandments and you didn't believe in God, just
abide by the Commandments.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Well done Holden, $210+ million loss...
Next: Portable Satellite Navigation Units