When has religion irked you personally and why?

As has already been pointed out, to defend rape of children too young to make mature decisions is perverse. I don't see that other societies' moral decisions make it okay, in America or over there. Just because Joe Schmo does it does not make it alright.

0 Replies

Frank,

You may rest assured that I never did, nor ever would condone any forcible sexual activity with anyone, especially a child.

But I did ask for some proof that a crime had been committed.

I further asked asked if the children had been harmed.

I further surmised that if a priest actually sexually assaulted these children then he was probably mentally ill.

And I further mentioned that the clergy may attract persons whose views of reality vis-a-vis crime and punishment may be at variance with observation.

And it was further mentioned that if you were looking for pedophiles one would look in places that there were a concentration of children.

And I further mentioned that a person who entrusts his children to an organization that has been sympathetic to pedophiles and deviates for 4000 years may not be the brightest pea in the pod.

And I further mentioned that a shepherd that pens his sheep with his dogs isn't to bright.

The chains sure rattled Very Happy

To everybody. I was hopeing for a concensus of opinion that Society is failing in our duty to protect our children. Society allows many organizations to function with virtually no oversight or regulation of any sort.
The separation of church and state is generally accepted to mean that we will not police the parochial schools, teaching orders, the madrass's, the monastaries, Christian Colleges, or bible studies.
It is becoming clear to me that the failure of society to supervise these activities is resulting in harm to our children.

I declared that the priest that MAY have anally penetrated young boys was mentally ill. Somehow that doesn't seem to be too farfeched a hypothesis to me. It is for most of this group.

I still suspect that Wilso, amongst others, reads Alice in Wonderland as a fanciful fairy tale. I offered to explain it to him on another thread. What more can one do Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Only a twisted sick demented mind could actually infer that the sexual assault of a child is not harmful. A mind that in fact, should probably be put out of our misery.

0 Replies

Quote:

Phoenix ---- Religious services do occur at Naturist gatherings and at American Sunbathing Asso. resorts.

aka- I did not say that RELIGIOUS SERVICES never occurred at Naturist gatherings. What I DID say was:

Quote:

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 was making a supposition, which you altered to a statement that I DID NOT make!

0 Replies

Folks

Much as I hated to do it again, I actually took the time to re-read every post on this issue starting, as Mech suggested, on page 30.

Here is the way I see things -- acknowledging right at the start that decent, reasonable, intelligent folks can disagree with me completely.

At several points, Mech went out of his way to assure all of you that he was not supporting rape or molestation of children -- and that his main thesis was an intellectual look at the questions "Why do parents trust their kids in the custody of priests or ministers?" ...and "Is deviant action necessarily criminal?"

I think the first is as good a question as, "Why do parents trust their kids to spend the night at Michael Jackson's LaLa Land?" - and I think the second is a part of being American and a proponent of the rule of law.

Mech, in his most controversial bit of advocacy, questioned whether all so-called sexual contacts between adults and minors was harmful.

Without getting too deeply into this contentious area and causing more friction, I can tell you that I remember a newpaper article about a middle-aged female teacher who was accused of sexually abusing a minor by giving a fifteen year old student of hers a blowjob.

Folks, no one, anywhere, using any kind of argument is ever going to convince me that the woman did any harm to that young man -- and I would gladly argue in debate that she did something that was not only pleasurable for the guy, but also was a positive in his psychological growth rather than a negative.

Said another way: At times, the law is a ass!

My feelings are that Mech did not do as good a job at explaining this part of his advocacy as the rest -- but I still think he made himself clear enough so that the kind of vilification heaped on him on its account was unwarranted.

In any case, at several spots, Mech stated unequivocally that he was not speaking in support of many of the things you folks have been accusing him of supporting.

Wilso and Craven have been especially off-base in this thread -- way out of line with the name calling and over-blown indignation. But it is my opinion that several others of you have twisted this thing beyond anything reasonable considering the arguments Mech has actually made.

Mech has been called names that no honest debater should have to endure in one of these forums - and although there have been calls for civility, I don't think the name-calling or accusations of deviancy nonsense were adequately handled.

There is a part of me right now that makes me wish I had just continued to avoid this element of this thread. It has a no-win smell to me; Mech is more than capable of defending himself; and most of you who have, in my opinion, stepped off the cliff on this one will be back in reasonable form when the next topic comes up.

But now that I've committed myself, I have to reaffirm what I said in the post at the point where I did get involved.

You folks are WAY off base in your comments about Mech here. Mech is not the animal some of you paint him out to be; the questions he has raised are legitimate questions; the arguments he has made are reasonable arguments - and at moments, like each of us, he has been more than slightly full of ****.

But to be perfectly honest with you all - not nearly as full of **** as some of his detractors.

I think the best way to handle this thing is to simply agree that it has been talked to death -- that Mech has made abundantly clear (especially in his last post) that there is no way he is advocating forcible sexual activity with anyone -- especially with kids....

...and allow this thread to die a natural death.

Let's all meet somewhere else where there is less heat - and more amity.

It's damn near Christmas for crissake. :wink: :wink: :wink:

C'mon. Confused

0 Replies

Just as a cap, Mech should have started with his last post here, and perhaps there would not have been so much heat. I am willing to chalk it up as a bad start, and so obscure that nobody really knew what he was getting at. I happen to agree, pedophiles will obviously seek out places to work with high concentrations of children, that's a given. I also concur that the clergy does attract repressed sickos, and it's a bad idea to trust one's children with them.

Now, I do take issue with a couple of your assertions. I don't exactly know what you mean by "harmed." That is a nebulous term, with many definitions. Secondly, "proof that a crime was commited." Well, by the letter of law, a crime was commited, so no "proof" beyond what was gathered is neccessary.

Can we possibly get back to religion now?

0 Replies

Frank, I realize it's Christmas...but I'm not going to get the stuff on my list and I want to fight....meet me at exit 296A Jersey Pike...we'll get drunk and pick a fight with a couple of truckers.......by the way where the hell is exit 296A?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Frank, I realize it's Christmas...but I'm not going to get the stuff on my list and I want to fight....meet me at exit 296A Jersey Pike...we'll get drunk and pick a fight with a couple of truckers.......by the way where the hell is exit 296A?

Sounds A-OK to me, but there ain't no exit 296A.

I suggest exit 10 (easy to find), and I'll bring the booze. You gotta bring the drugs, though. I'm being watched.

0 Replies

Don't worry about that Frank...at this point in my life you can just lick the back of my hand....You'll be triiiiipin'

0 Replies

Well...as long as it's only the back of your hand....

0 Replies

Well yeah I wanted to be specific so as not to send the wrong signal.......

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is the way I see things -- acknowledging right at the start that decent, reasonable, intelligent folks can disagree with me completely.

There is nothing decent or reasonable about akaMechsmith's desire to characterize sexual abuse of children as pleasurable and harmlesss.

Quote:

At several points, Mech went out of his way to assure all of you that he was not supporting rape or molestation of children -- and that his main thesis was an intellectual look at the questions "Why do parents trust their kids in the custody of priests or ministers?" ...and "Is deviant action necessarily criminal?"

Bull, he went out of his way to defend the pedophile, doubting that the kids had been "harmed" (even though they were raped) and doubting the competence of the court. The only person he didn't doubt is the pedophile who he reserved the right to defend.

Quote:

Mech, in his most controversial bit of advocacy, questioned whether all so-called sexual contacts between adults and minors was harmful.

Yes and went on to say that it's society's "illogical" prohibitions that are at fault.

Quote:

In any case, at several spots, Mech stated unequivocally that he was not speaking in support of many of the things you folks have been accusing him of supporting.

Bullshit.

Quote:

Wilso and Craven have been especially off-base in this thread -- way out of line with the name calling and over-blown indignation. But it is my opinion that several others of you have twisted this thing beyond anything reasonable considering the arguments Mech has actually made.

Just because I do not share your criteria for abuse (note that you defend statutory rape here and we differ on that and most likely a heap of other moral issues) does not make us "off base".

I consider your support for statutory rape to be off base and your support for mechsmith (who supports sexual abuse of children) to be off base.

Quote:

Mech has been called names that no honest debater should have to endure in one of these forums - and although there have been calls for civility, I don't think the name-calling or accusations of deviancy nonsense were adequately handled.

He was called exactly what he should be called. A pedophile apologist.

Quote:

But now that I've committed myself, I have to reaffirm what I said in the post at the point where I did get involved.

Yes, you will. You can stay and defend his perversions. It should be fun. While you are at it we can talk about your support for statutory rape.

Quote:

You folks are WAY off base in your comments about Mech here. Mech is not the animal some of you paint him out to be; the questions he has raised are legitimate questions; the arguments he has made are reasonable arguments - and at moments, like each of us, he has been more than slightly full of ****.

Nobody has called him an animal. His position is sick and is one of a apologist for pedophilia but he has been afforded a respect that he does not deserve (by my estimation) in that he was not treated as you describe.

Quote:

I think the best way to handle this thing is to simply agree that it has been talked to death -- that Mech has made abundantly clear (especially in his last post) that there is no way he is advocating forcible sexual activity with anyone -- especially with kids....

...and allow this thread to die a natural death.

Fat chance Frank. You'll have to defend your support for statutory rape and your support for a pedophile apologist first.

I'll be back later on.

Quote:

Let's all meet somewhere else where there is less heat - and more amity.

It's damn near Christmas for crissake. :wink: :wink: :wink:

C'mon.

I have no desire to be friendly with apologists for pedophiles and their apologists.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith,

First of all this post (Post: 474443) is the most incoherent post I have ever seen.

But you did say:

akaMechsmith wrote:

Craven 4:10PM Never happened, Print the PMs if you wish.

Which I will, again. A pity your more obvious support for pedophilia in PMs was deleted when it was forwarded to me or I'd have a lot more to show for your perversions.

akaMechsmith wrote:

You may rest assured that I never did, nor ever would condone any forcible sexual activity with anyone, especially a child.

akaMechsmith stopped short of condoning it, this did not stop him from defending it and rationalizing other degrees of abuse. It speaks volumes that he has to actually clarify that he does not condone rape, his position was such that this very fundamental issue was in question.

While stopping short of advocating rape he did do everything else he could to rationalize it.

He says that my contention here "never happened" but that is patently false, as is his earlier claim that no specific crime was ever being discussed.

Wilso, in a PM to akaMechsmith reported to moderators on Fri Oct 24, wrote:

Ex-priest jailed for child sex crimes

Jailed paedophile and former Catholic priest Michael Charles Glennon will spend at least 15 more years behind bars. County Court judge Roland Williams set the minimum sentence for a string of fresh sex offences against Glennon. Judge Williams sentenced the 59-year-old to a maximum of 18 years on 26 counts against four young victims. But the judge said the new maximum sentence from Wednesday would in fact become 20 years, with two years added on from the sentence he is currently serving. Glennon has spent most of the past 13 years in jail. The former priest has been convicted of sexually abusing 15 children between 1974 and 1991, mostly at youth camps held at Karaglen, a rural property near Lancefield north of Melbourne, which Glennon helped establish and operate. The most recent trial heard that Glennon told his boy victims that the sexual offences were secret men's business and a necessary part of their initiation into Aboriginal manhood. Judge Williams said he believed that Glennon was one of a small number of offenders who were "just wantonly evil". He 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.

This is the type of person you'd protect?
_________________
A lie gets half way round the world, before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.

In that article a very specific criminal is being discussed. The priest's multitude of crimes is of such explicit nature that his guilt is not reasonably questionable.

And a series of other convicted sex abusers were being discussed dlowan refreshed aka's memory here.

akaMechsmith responded directly to that PM rationalizing the mans actions and, yes, defending them.

It is true that he asked if they were "harmed". Despite being told that they were anally raped he did, in fact, wish to clarify whether they were harmed. This was a major point of contention, we have dozens of children raped and mechsmith never was willing to admit they were harmed, instead choosing to blame society's "illogical" prohibitions of "plesurable sexual activity".

"You have not shown that the boys were harmed." he said, this directly after being told that they were anally raped. "I don't know if the boys were harmed and apparently neither do you. "

akaMechsmith said, "Sex play in itself is not intrinsically harmful. It's society that makes it harmful by its censures and illigical prohibitions. "

Here his response to the above quoted case is that society's prohibitions and sensibilities (about rape and such) are to blame. This conficts with his later assertion that he merely seeks to include society in the blame but is compatible with the overarching theme of removing and and all blame from the pedophile and rationalizing of the pedophile's act.

To further deflect from criticism of the rapist akaMechsmith compares the series of rape to football, saying the "sex play" is "not intrinsically harmful" but that football "is something that is intrinsically harmful".

So in the comparison of the priest's "sex play" with young children and football he says, "Any pleasureable harmless sexual activity is condemned, but the enticement into mayhem of young boys and men is rewarded."

This is where he brings in another party to the blame, it's a big party as he wants all of society but the pedophile to be criticized for his abuse.

He starts to blame parents, saying that it's their fault because they "pen sheep with the wolves". He will blame the victime, the parent, and society but the perp is defended "But I reserve the right to defend the perpertrator. He's sick.."

Now short of allowing akaMechsmith himself to examine the raped anuses of the boys there was little that was going to convince him that the series of rape perpetrated by the preist "harmed" the boys. But when it comes to the perpetrator he's simply "sick" and merits defense for his abuse. And society is at fault because of their "illogical prohibition" on anal rape as it's not "harmfull" to akaMechsmith.

He has not a shred of insight into the man, couldn't name him without looking it up, and casts doubt on the multitude of crimes he comitted but is perfetly willing to defend him with an insanity defense.

He is saying, that this priest's 17 years of abusing children is defensible under the insanity clause. The man's acts are morally repugnant but note that akaMechsmith downplays the acts, questioning whether the rapes were harmful, but immediately defends the perp suggesting a defense for which he has not a shred of substantiation.

akaMechsmith wrote:

I declared that the priest that MAY have anally penetrated young boys was mentally ill. Somehow that doesn't seem to be too farfeched a hypothesis to me. It is for most of this group.

No, what the group rejcted was akaMechsmith's incessant desire to cast doubt on whether the children had been harmed, akaMechsmith's desire to defend sexual molestation by characterizing it as harmless and akaMechsmith's immediate and unquestioning defense of the pedophile.

Now Frank, without seeing the Private Messages wishes to defend the apologist for pedophilia. This should get very interesting as Frank boldy asserts a position without seeing akaMechsmith's most incriminating messages.

Frank's blind support will be interesting to watch. I wonder if Frank cares that his ignorance of what akaMechsmith said might cause a problem for his bold assertions.

More on this later, I'd like to see how much blind support for akaMechsmith Frank is willing to give. Not having seen akaMechsmith's messages he is willing to call everyone else wrong. This should be funny.

See, when Wilso first started reporting akaMechsmith's messages I reacted the same way, telling Wilso his concerns were missplaced.

After seeing more and more of akaMechsmith's support for pedophilia in PMs I realized I was wrong.

What Frank bases his opinion on is anyone's guess. I'd like to know what he comes up with.

0 Replies

Lay it on, Craven. You got 'em with that last post for sure.

0 Replies

frank I also disagree with your take on this debate.

I totally disagree with you on the teacher giving the blow-job too - for reasons that I will return and defend.

0 Replies

Watching and waiting.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Without getting too deeply into this contentious area and causing more friction, I can tell you that I remember a newpaper article about a middle-aged female teacher who was accused of sexually abusing a minor by giving a fifteen year old student of hers a blowjob.

Folks, no one, anywhere, using any kind of argument is ever going to convince me that the woman did any harm to that young man -- and I would gladly argue in debate that she did something that was not only pleasurable for the guy, but also was a positive in his psychological growth rather than a negative.

I think this is simply wrong. This attitude goes along the lines that somehow an older women having sex with a under age boy is not only always enjoyable for the boy, but that he is lucky to receive this sexual activity and interest from an older adult female. Note it is not considered to be abuse or rape, but rather as Frank says, "positive in his psychological growth".

It is this kind of macho, biased attitude that prevents young under age males from coming forward with what they consider to be unwanted and abusive activity forced upon them by adult females, after all they are supposed to enjoy it.

Why Frank is so absolutely convinced that not only no harm has been done, or no sexual abuse has been committed by the adult female upon the male "child" but that the boy joys it is beyond comprehension.

I think it is from this attitude that many cases of sexual abuse occurring between adult females and male children, are not reported.

I'm sure there many cases where male children who have been forced, and/or manipulated by adult females, (in my view raped and sexually abused) into sexaul activity have resulted in those children (and yes a fifteen year old male is a child) being emotionally, sexually scared for life.

"What Is Sexual Abuse?

1.
Sexual abuse is defined as sexual contact, ranging from fondling to intercourse between a child in mid-adolescence or younger and a person at least five years older (Briere I992, p. 4). By implication, sexual abuse occurs when a person is involved in sexual activity that they do not comprehend and to which they cannot give informed consent. Children should never be regarded as being capable or sufficiently comprehending of giving consent. (In NSW the age of consent is I6 for girls and boys.)

In essence, sexual abuse is 'the exploitation of a child for the sexual gratification of an adult' (Fraser in Renvoize I993, p. 34). The South Australian Government Task Force defined child sexual assault as 'the imposition of explicit sexual activity of a child who lacks the power and authority to prevent being coerced into compliance (cited in Renvoize I993, p. 34). Such abuse can take many forms including exposure, fondling voyeurism and exhibitionism to oral sex, sexual intercourse (oral, anal and vaginal) and involvement with pornography and child prostitution. With respect to sexual abuse by women any of these acts other than penile penetration is possible. Digital penetration and penetration with objects does occur."

2.

0 Replies

"IT IS NOT ANY LESS OF A CRIME IF THE OFFENDER IS FEMALE."

yep.

0 Replies

cavfancier

Quote:

Can we possibly get back to religion now?

0 Replies

I do my best, but all points so far regarding the hijack were valid. Hopefully now, we can get back on track.

0 Replies

When has religion irked you personally and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know