When has religion irked you personally and why?

I notice he didn't reply.

Look thats bull crap. Im going to hell because I dont believe in god/s or at least I dont have faith. And these bastard religious folk get to wollow in their perversions of the holy spirit. There is no justice. God/s need to show themselve/s and start wooping some ass.

Someone said that these people need to be hospitalized. No, they wont get better. They have to fight the perversion for the rest of their days, and are likely to give in. I say let them get raped by the big black guy from cellblock # 6 for the rest of their lives.


thank you

Wilso,

Sometime before you got mad at me I think that I had asked if the priest in question was sick.

Somehow you got the impression that I approved of some conducts. I didn't but that went right over your head.

Since I have been accused of being "sick and depraved" it just makes me wonder what a person who equates skinny dipping in a unisexual setting with forcible rape would be called?





"Repressed" perhaps

If the shoe fits--- wear it

Phoenix, I am not justifying any forcible rape with football.

What I am remarking on is the fact that in our society we have a great tendency to make matters worse. I don't know this, but I imagine that there are things that an adult could do with a minor that are harmless, even educational perhaps that would be called in some circles sexual abuse.
As you may have noticed that one priest was castigated for swimming naked with boys.

Somehow I think that mixed age nude bathing may be more educational than actionable. I am not sure that the priest actually anally penetrated those boys (in another case) and if he did not then I would regard it in a somewhat different light than if he caused them pain and fear.

In some circles mixed sex dancing is a sexual offense. Merely looking upon an unveiled female face is punishable in some parts of the world.
Yet others run around buck naked and seem to suffer little harm. There are even some African societies that consider a girl unmarrigable if she isn't pregnant.

I was attempting to point out that a sexual crime depends a great deal on what society one lives in and wondering how much harm is actually done by the society as compared to the harm actually inflicted by the act itself.

Football players are often injured in the commission of the "sport". Most of them have not reached "the age of consent". Yet the are urged on by adults who should know better. Urged to force, beat, and bludgeon the opposing team, yet blessed by society.

So what is it in our society that approves organised mayhem but if a person was to engage in a harmless "mutual masturbation party" or look at a scantily dressed human they are castigated as sexual offenders.

Seems to me that some sexual offenses may be no worse than shooting hoops in the backyard with ones son. But some are forced, and some are simply selfish. What is the difference between a man beating his son than forcing his daughter to have sex?


Worse--- Why do we tolerate a difference between the two acts of violence vis-a-vis the courts. We do though. And by regarding a sexual crime as more heineous than mere brutality we often make matters worse. This leads to the points that you mentioned earlier as to lowerd esteem leading to prostitution, and continuation of sex crimes through the generations.

Lost for words.

Yesterday a computer programmer in Brisbane was sentenced to 10 years prison for the rape of three 6-year-old girls.

Hey mech, maybe they seduced him?

He's baa-aack....

I am not a bluenose, but I do believe that when priests are socializing with their parishoners, they need to have their clothes on. Considering the instances of pedophilia in the clergy, and the scandal that was brought about by unpriestly behavior, I think that a priest has to be either a complete moron or an unrepentent degenerate to even consider swimming naked with boys.

akaMechsmith - better late than never, I suppose.

May I remind you that this is what you were talking about when this particular conversation began?

"Ex-priest jailed for child sex crimes

A 63-YEAR-OLD former Catholic priest was today jailed for indecently dealing with young girls in his former north west Queensland parish. Neville Joseph Creen was sentenced in the Brisbane District Court to three and a half years in jail, suspended after 14 months.

He pleaded guilty to 34 charges of indecently dealing with 20 young girls in the Mt Isa school attached to the parish where he served as a priest between June 1973 and December 1981.

The girls were then aged between four and 13, the court was told.

District Court Judge Ian Wiley said two of the girls were aged six or less at the time of the offences.

The court was told Creen touched them on the chest, vagina and penetrated them digitally, often after he had asked them to sit on his knee.

"You have betrayed your God, your religion, your vows, your parishioners, your friends and each of the girls and their families," Judge Wiley said.

"There is nothing to suggest the girls did anything to invite your misconduct."

Creen had pleaded guilty to the offences but said in a statement to the court on Tuesday his "repulsive behaviour" had been due to his own sexual naivety and his sheltered upbringing."

So I have no idea where you are going with your skinny-dipping and suchlike comments - and your reaction doing more harm than the act comments, either, really. How is this situation an example, even if your examples had any validity, of anything that could be, however wrongly, defended in such a manner?

As for the no harm skinny dipping stuff, as Phoenix has commented, for an adult in charge of young people to do this would imply a lack of boundaries that would make me concerned that other boundary breaches had, or might, occur. This is, indeed, one area where "slippery slope" arguments have great validity - since progress towards sexual abuse can often be marked by a series of violated boundaries - either knowingly and strategically organised or stupidly and/or wilfully blindly blundered across.

Your putative "circle jerk" situation would be so far down this "slippery slope" as to be clearly a criminal offence - as a similar activity organised by a group of young males for and by themselves, with no coercion of any kind, would not. (Though they might be very embarrassed if caught.)

Are you incapable of seeing and understanding the role of an adult in such matters?

It is telling and sad that the comment "There is nothing to suggest the girls did anything to invite your misconduct." " was made by the judge at all.

The whole point of being a kid is supposed to be that you can do your growing up around adults who are responsible and in charge of themselves. Part of this growing up at times includes fluttering your sexual wings - the job of the adult in such circumstances is to be an adult and make the situation safe for the kids. Even if the older girls had been a little flirtatious, this would not have been "Inviting misconduct" - it would have been part of their growing up and they would have been entitled to expect to do so safely.

Inviting misconduct indeed!

The repetitive nature of mech's references to swimming naked with boys and circle jerks really sends up a red flag for me. Posting it once, to make a controversial point, okay, fine. Over and over, sounds like an obsession to me.

Wilso, re your post of Oct 12, 2:19 AM

You refer to a priest molesting children. This was the only reference you made prior to my post!
a. Molestation as I pointed out can be very subjective. Many perfectly innocent acts could be called molestation by a sufficiently motivated person.
b. A portion of society that is perfectly capable of imagining gods, demons, and Original Sin is IMO perfectly capable of imagining molestation when they want to.
c. You assumed that that I would believe that some unknown judge was able to know molestation and when it was harmful. Perhaps in Australia you are right but in the US the top judge in law enforcement believes in virgin births and original sins also. At first glance you appear to have a lot more "faith" in your courts than I do.

Hobitbob Oct 12 subsequent to the post of Wilso's.

No doubt about that particular episode.

Wilso Oct 13 You failed to give details in the post. Consequently a little clarification was in order. Thats about when you got mad. You have my permission to print out our PMs if you wish.

Wilso Oct 14 Sorry about that. I cannot agree. Vengence has no place in society. Of course that only my opinion.

Hobitbob Oct 23 First lets acertain that there was actual abuse. Second if so remove him from society, perhaps terminally.
But I wonder, are you condeming the sex or the violence

Wilso Oct 24 1:30 AM To your first comment-- You did not show this.
Your second comment-- "Obviously sick" You would punish him for being sick

I am also mildly amused to find myself defending Catholics. Usually we are on opposite sides

dlowan Oct 25 Another voice of sweet reason About time!

Phoenix, Try hitting on American Naturist Association. Your views, as expressed in your post are not universal albiet they do show a bit of common sense.

dlowan Dec2 4:25 This is the first time that particular incident was clearly mentioned on this thread.

cavfancier, If I seem obsessed it is only with fairness. The obsession with genitals I leave to those of the Abramic persuasions. They spend a lot more effort at mutilating the genital organs of both male and female children than the most rabid athiest. They also seem to spend a lot more effort in worrying about it that I think is reasonable or normal.
Read the Old Testament a bit. A shot at the Koran also wouldn't hurt. Now thats obsession for you

The football allusion sure got some attention. Wow. Could it be that footballers are not as sure of their masculinity as they would wish??

I read all this with the fascination of one on the site of a train wreck.

People who belong to the American Naturist Association, are a small group of people with a specific lifestyle, which is not part of the mainstream. Their activities are circumscribed, and conducted in places set aside for the group. I would suspect that Catholic naturists would not frolic in the surf with their clergy!

I am hardly obsessed or concerned with my genitals there mech.

If you play football, you should be

This comment smacks of "rabid" anti-catholicism.

I have noted your hostility to religion in many places and have wondered about your objectivity. That some clergy and members of a church are found wanting says much about those particular people but nothing about the Church.

Just as can there be apologists who justify their perversions.



You continue to justify your perversion. It is not imagined, it is on display.



You assume your sense of perversion is superior to that of a court of law and society's boundaries.



And here lies the point of contention. Most of us do not consider forced anal intercourse with young boys to be "fair". You are obsessed with defending perversion and expressing it. You are an apologist for pedophiles. You may think it "fair" but I consider your defense of raping children to be sick and twisted. I trust the "unknown judge" who determined that the rape was harmful, I would not trust you with children as you justify and defend their rape, calling it "pleasureable harmless sexual activity".



No, it's that your perversion is disgusting and beyond the pale.

You gave Wilso permission to expose your PMs. I've seen them, Wilso forwarded them to the Moderators because he is justified in saying they sound like NAMBLA apologists for pedophilia (I initially did not agree and thought it was your usualy tendency of not making any sense, it was so perverted that I thought you were yanking chains and I cautioned Wilso against overreacting. You have repeated your justifications for the abuse of children several times now and it's clearly not just your average brainfart).

He repeatedly said he was talking about forcible anal raping of children and you repeatedly defended it saying society's norms are twisted and saying American football is worse (than forcible anal rape).

You now say that you do not trust the judge's judgement of the molestation that occured and repeatedly reference that people can "imagine" molestation and abuse.

False accusations are possible but not once here is anyone talking about imagined abuse. The abuse you defend is abuse of children as young as 4 years old. You defended cases of forcible rape of minors.

As you have given permission to expose the PMs I will do so. This is just a sample of what Wilso passed on.



Is that the type of person you defend? Apparently so.





He showed that the boys were determined to have been raped. Whether you consider it innocuous or not is only indicative of your moral deviations.



There goes that "society" again, spoiling all the fun by prohibiting the forcible rape of children.



Yep, here's the comparison again, of raping multiple minors to football.




Ahh, serial rape of children being called "pleasureable harmless sexual activity" again. Football's the real boogeyman.



Well what we do know is that a court of law convicted the serial rapist of abusing several young boys. We do know that the judge was moved enough by the perversion to say that the pedophile priest was had shown himself to be an "evil, callous human being", a man of cunning and planning who committed the most sordid crimes against his victims.

And we know that you call this serial rapists activities with young boys "harmless", "pleasureable" and say that Football is worse.

Your defense of perversion of this harmful nature is sick. Your comparison of raping a child to allowing a child to play football is a demented defense of raping children.

Because most religion attempts to interfere with lives. A scientific discovery cannot be utilised, unless the reliougous morons give it their OK. They knock on your door at 9:00 am and try to save your soul, because obviously if you don't share their fantasy, your going to hell. They protect the rapists of children, provided they ask for forgiveness. The list just goes on, and on, and on. And if am a rabid anti-catholic, so be it. It is one of the wealthiest, and most arrogant organisations on earth, attempting to control as many lives as their putrid tentacles can entwine. Their rabid attempts to prevent birth control, is nothing but an attempt to increase the numbers of their own believers, to give them even more lives to control.

I don't have enough hours to express it all. They're arseholes, and as I said on another thread, the sooner science proves that God doesn't exist, if it hasn't already, the better off the world will be.

Thanks Craven, reading that made my morning, honestly.

I constantly wish I could express myself as well. Maybe it's a matter of patience. A trait I'm not known for. among others