When has religion irked you personally and why?

LOL! Loophole I know.

Talk of child sexual abuse by the clergy is cracking you up? That concerns me. Can I take a wild guess at your religion? Catholic?

Wilso
relax it was the rabbit and bong that made he laugh - don't you have a pure logic answer for my religion? you're so far wrong it really makes me laugh. dude you take me far it serious - if I was going be nasty I'd just tell you to F.O. - and keep pushing yer buttons.

Some where you got this adverseral thing going with me and my friend - that's wrong. You need to read more of what I write and then read between the lines a little and you'll understand me far better.

if husker was the only christian I ever met I'd probably convert (well probably not but I'd be tempted)

here, in good ole South Aussie, 'tis the Anglican Church having to face the past - and very recent past indeed.

Thing is, Wilso, paedophiles are attracted to ANY venue where they have good access to young people. The churches, because of their extensive educational and welfare activities, have historically had enormous amounts of contact with especially vulnerable young people.

I actually would be hard-pressed to believe that, on average, clergy are any more likely to be paedophiles than any other group - they HAVE, however, had enormous amounts of contact with and great power over kids - with an almost unassailable social position - a scary combination, combined with a complacent and tragically pusillanimous (at best) upper hierarchy.

You will find paedophiles clustered in many other areas - places like scouting, surf life-saving, caravan parks, beaches....anywhere where there are kids.

I think you focus too much of your rage on the church as a CAUSE of abuse, Wilso - I suspect it has been more of an excellent VENUE - perhaps nearly as dangerous as the family, hey?

Forgive me for speaking in metaphor once again, while I do have a problem with organized religion, I have no objection to climbing Faith Hill.

:wink:

Dlowan,

Molestation ( the legal definition of) varies throughout the world and even in different cultures of the same country. In the "legal" forum of A2K look up the difference in Australia for instance. The thread in question is obvious.

Specific crime had not been mentioned. I re read all 32 pages and I don't think I missed it.

Unfair-- You got a better term that would satisfy society, priests and lawyers?

I have no intention of interpreting world wide legal terms. Remember that a lawyer who was a Rhodes Scholar, and the President of the United States proclaimed that oral or manual manipulation of another person to climax isn't sex. Do you wonder that we should be careful and not necessarily accept others definitions?

After your long quote of mine, which I think stands for itself, in order to answer your your comments.

Yes I do,

The Church lied.

It hasn't substancially changed in 4,000 years. We should know what to expect from them.

I am not denying harm, I am acertaining harm. There is a subtle difference.


Wilso,
It was intended as social commentary. However my obscureness ran smack dab into your obtuseness.

Try Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" or Aldous Huxleys "Island" but as social commentary I suspect that they also may go right over your head also. If you need them explained to you just start another thread. I'll be watching.
I do not claim to be of their calibre but I wouldn't be writing on A2K if I was.

Dlowan and Phoenix, regarding the previous paragraph. I had thought that you were brighter than that. I was mistaken. I apologize.

Joe Nation,--- Amen: Nobody has ever supervised the religious establishments. That is what I have been trying to point out for the last six pages. And that is partly the fault of everybody here. As members of society we all share some blame. There is enough of it to go around.

You're sick.

Mech, give it up. If it was just "social commentary", you would have been more clear from the start. Don't even try to justify your posts as just being "misunderstood".

They are all "misunderstood" - and "before their time" and such.

Mech
I can't possibly see you explaining your posts to where anyone but a pedophile would agree.

Your thoughts to me are very sick, disgusting, and concerning.

Some of us need to stop glorifying the establishmet....

It is my opinion that some of you folks are way out of line in your comments toward Mech -- and his thesis. And I think some of you protest way, way too much.



I think Mech has been trying to say that there are cultures where what we refer to as "sexual abuse of children" is considered "a significant part of training for adulthood."

And from what I've read, those cultures usually have fewer sexually related crimes and phsychological sexual disfunction.



Mech also seems to be saying that some of the young people who have encountered sexual activity with adults -- have not truly been abused and may have enjoyed and benefited from such encounters. My guess is there are many such encounters that are never reported -- and not because of fear or guilt on the young person's part, but because the young person never considered it to be abuse.



Since this area is so repellant to many of us (it is to me despite the argument I'm making here), perhaps it is best to assess it from a different perspecitive that might easier allow the detachment necessary to appreciate the argument Mech is making.

I would offer the fact that some people consider any use of recreational drugs to be "drug abuse." Often it isn't -- any more than occasional and reasonable use of alcohol should be considered signs of alcohol addiction.



I understand and appreciate the passionate feelings engendered in this discussion -- but to vilify Mech the way some of you have, is unwarranted -- and probably says as much about the people being so vocal than about Mech and Mech's ethics.

Mech raises a reasonable perspective for discussion -- and that kind of thing never is a negative for society -- where the kind of de facto censorship some here advocate, is.

Thanks Frank,

I really pulled somebodies chain with that one didn't I

Personally I suspect that there is a certain amount of denial going on here also. I also expect that it will be denied

Best, M

Ohhhh Please!!!!!

Frank
It is very rare that I do not agree with you and wish that this was not one of those times.

I will take you up on some of those points tonight Frank.

Frank- IMO, you are comparing apples with oranges. Unless someone is holding a person down, and sticking a needle in a person's arm, one cannot compare drug or alcohol abuse with pedophilia, where a child is either forced or enticed.

There are a lot of cultural practices in remote places, that would be seen as anathema to the Western mind. Just because something is practiced, does not automatically make it acceptable. Headhunting and cannibalism come to mind. Would you say that those practices are not abuse, because certain peoples practice, or have practiced it, and it is a part of their culture? What about crucifixion as a mode of execution? I understand that it was quite popular at one time.

I can think of cultures who thought that it was perfectly alright to destroy large groups of people who lived on their lands, who did not belong to the group in power. Was that OK, because it was part of a cultural norm?

truth
Phoenix, I agree with your general position. Cultural relativism does have its limits, but consider the following: an anthropologist friend of mine, who does his research in rural Mexico was hired as an expert witness in a case where a young man in his early twenties from a so-called Indian village in rural Mexico was accused of child molestation. He was married in Mexico to a post pubescent girl (14 or 16 years of age). They were living here with the girl's parents in what all in the family considered a perfectly conventional marriage. Nevertheless, he was dragged off to jail to the great surprise of himself, his wife and his in-laws. The anthropologist was called in by the defense to affirm that the behavior was not considered deviant in the defendant's culture. Nevertheless, the court concluded that his behavior was subject to the cultural and legal canons of the United States where he was residing. As far as I know he is still in jail, and his wife is pining for him. She does not consider herself a child, and she does not consider herself to have been molested.