When has religion irked you personally and why?

My last manager irked me by illegally bringing fundamentalist religion to the workplace. She also put Rush Limbaugh on the office radio more than once. She had a way of taunting me with it, once she saw my reaction, but I finally forgot our boss/underling relationship and told her what I thought about it. From that point on I occasionally threw a few barbs at her and she threw some at me up to the point where her health caused her to retire. I don't understand why they would jamb it down one's throat like that. I am never the first to mention religion or politics in the workplace.

Damn, this is getting a bit tiresome. I will try to synopsize my position one more time without any big words.

Phoenix,
You may well find a Catholic conducting services at a Naturist type gathering, although most are advertised as non-denominational.

You may find that some things that are illegal are not harmful.

You may find some things that are legal are harmful.

You may find that some crimes are done by the mentally ill.

You may find not guilty by reason of insanity is accepted throught most of the modern world.

You may find that a priest may have strange ideas about sex in general.

You may find that a church has it's own definition of sin which allows them to merely transfer offenders from post to post without compunction.

This whole problem in various forms has bedeviled mankind for centuries.

This is Known as "Who will watch the watchers" . There is a latin term for this but I don't remember it right now.

And despite all the flack I have caught I would still defend the priest. Simply , He's sick. A short defense will follow and then I will rest.

Any man who is sexually stimulated (should I be more graphic) by a prepubescent person has something wrong with his mind.

Any man who is sexually aroused by a panicked,crying six year old girl also has something wrong with his mind.

Any society that denies any expression of sex to its leaders is also sick.

Any organization that tends to concentrate persons that have notions of sex, sin and forgiveness that may differ from actual observation should be watched very carefully.

It is quite one thing for adults to choose to live in the surreal world of fantasies occupied by organized religion.

It is quite another thing to give them essesentially free acess to children.

But we, as a society, have permitted this.


I Rest.



But there is an idea for another thread in all this.

What kind of supervision should society impose upon religious organizations

Nobody has a problem with the size of your words. It's the rationalization of pedophilia and the desire to shift blame onto everyone but the pedophile that's the sticking point.

It's the repeated characterization of pedophilia as "harmless" and an "illogical prohibition".

Your post did nothing to address those points of contention.

Goz, we believe he is suffering from a sickness of mind which excludes him being able to see the horror of his opinions.

Edited - way too big, and no longer needed.

Ok - You know, I seldom get really obsessed with who said what when - but here I am. Why? Hmmmmmm - perhaps because I hear the arguments Mech has proposed from so many offenders - note, I do not posit that Mech is a paedophile, but I do note that his arguments are used by many such to defend their activities - and are used to victims, to confuse and silence them - and make them feel responsible - to great effect, I might add.

As I have said a couple of times on this thread, this is no closeted debate on a nice safe forum - these are sophistries used in the real world to justify and excuse the abuse of real kids. I will not be silent in the face of such stuff, wherever it is put forward, nor will I be silenced by Frank saying I am being mean and nasty.

First point of contention: Mech has been extremely slippery in his arguments - when confronted, he has repeatedly changed the ground, nature, or context of his pronouncements.

For instance, he has tried to say that, in his comments about the so-called benign nature of much that is labelled abuse, he has denied that his comments were in reply to Wilso's post about a priest convicted of molesting children - AND sentenced to SIX years. (Anyone versed in this field knows that this is a long sentence for such activity in Oz - if you wanna rape someone, choose a kid, the younger the better - it is hard to prove, because their testimony is considered more open to doubt than even that of an adult - true.) This is gonna be for anything that might, even with the most lax, self-serving and stupid will in the world, be labelled "harmless sex play"? Hmmmmm....well, here it is:

"Wilso: Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:19 am
Last week in Brisbane a Catholic priest was sentenced to 6 years in prison for molesting children. The church had previously moved him twice after accusations, but as usual refrained from informing his new congregation. When will they ever stop doing this?" "

"AkaMechsmith: Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:48 pm Post: 400087 -
Re priest in Brisbane.

I get a real tickle out of these little episodes. Mutual, non coercive sex play between two persons is doing no more harm than taking a kid for a boat ride or a camping trip.

It is largely the attitudes of the church that made a mutually pleasant activity sinful.


For instance, Take 11 highly sexed boys, Form them into a circle (in the parlance of football called a huddle). Tell them to go out and stop 11 other boys from accomplishing a goal by slamming into them with all their might. Injuries are common in the game. The boys get a certain amount of pleasure out of it. Successful coaches are rewarded.

Take the same 11 boys , form them into a huddle. Announce a "circle jerk" contest. Nobody hurt and the boys get a certain amount of pleasure out of it. But the coach will likely be severely castigated.

Talk about being "hoist by your own petard" ."

Hmmmm - posted five and a half hours after Wilso's post - but not relating to it? Please, pull the other one, it is lonely.

Please note the description of the molestation:

"I get a real tickle out of these little episodes. Mutual, non coercive sex play between two persons is doing no more harm than taking a kid for a boat ride or a camping trip.

It is largely the attitudes of the church that made a mutually pleasant activity sinful."

I see - the very same church that becomes a hated abuser, "ravening wolves" that no sane parent would let a child near because of their disgusting and perverted history of sexual abuse, hence vilifying the parents and making them responsible for any molestation? Here, in its first appearance in Mech's arguments re this subject, it is a mean, puritanical spoilsport which condemns unwarrantedly a little sexual play between priests and kids.


damn, it is now very late. I shall take this matter up tomorrow night.


(Cav - would you like this moved to another thread? If so, could you ask a mod to do it? I do not want to further dominate your thread with this stuff, if you object.)

I might ask to move it, but let's see how it goes for a while. Technically, church pedophilia, statuatory rape and abuse of the power of being a priest all still qualify for this thread.

I am still awake - more's the pity.



Hobitbob then attempts to clarify the nature of the offences being discussed - though it seems he finds another priest being sentenced for different - less "serious" offences, if the sentence, which is, in effect, less than half that of given to the first priest mentioned by Wilso, is viewed as an indicator of relative seriousness:


"Hobitbob, posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:10 pm,"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. "


So - few would, I think, doubt that we are talking rape, amongst other offences, no? (Not that there is very clear clinical evidence that "non-violent rape" is any more damaging than other, seemingly less intrusive abuse - there IS clear clinical and research evidence that ALL abuse is harmful, though. Some might argue that non penile rape is not rape - this is just legal quibbling - most jurisdictions are now more interested in sexual assault, anyway, than pointless argy-bargying about minutiae of what does or does not constitute rape - generally, in Oz, penetration by anything = rape, anyway. It is generally of little concern to victims - unless the object inserted is in and of itself especially damaging or offensive - I won't go into the details of the kind of thing I mean)

However, Mech, whether speaking of the first, or second priest, which I assume, despite his later wrigglings and denials, he is doing - having posted many hours later, seems unfazed:

"Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:26 pmThere are sufficient health reasons to censure the priest for what he did. The shame comes when society will castigate the girls for participating, albiet blamelessly. They will also blame the priest although the Church has required him to live unaturally. Society often does this unwittingly, (assigns blame) mores the pity.

I do think it was sexual harrasment which is a very different thing from a mutual masturbation party. Or a football game for that matter. But if it wasn't for the church and society making such a big thing out of it ,the girls, in this case, altar boys in others, patients of a Mormon gynecologist, in another, then this would be merely a medical problem. "


Health reasons? Hmmm - I have no idea what he means - if he is including mental health, I agree - but, somehow, I do not think he is. The type of response I see from kids thus abused include (prior to disclosure) nightmares, sleeplessness, clinging, nocturnal and diurnal enuresis, sometimes encopresis, dissociation, obsessive masturbation (I mean until they are raw and sometimes bleeding - sorry, this is the truth - it isn't pretty), obsessive engagement of other children (and sometimes animals) in sexual activity, tantrums, episodes of violence or intense verbal anger, self-abuse - like hitting self, banging head, rocking, over-eating or anorexia, cessation of normal washing and self-care, withdrawal, school failure, intense anxiety and fear, lowered self-concept, sexualised approaches to adults, regression - eg wanting bottles, nappies, return to cot, loss of speech, spending lots of time in foetal position, loss of social skills with peers, thieving, - I could go on and on ...but you may have the picture..... would anyone like me to comment on the frequent seuelae of such abuse in adolescence and adulthood? especially if it is not disclosed and the child is not protected and helped? I am happy to.

Please note, all of these are symptoms commonly observed BEFORE disclosure.

But - none of this, it seems exists, according to Mech. Or, if it does, it is the result of societal over-reaction. The children have, after all, just been harassed. Well, I could comment on the effects of THIS, which are also great - but to label the behaviour CLEARLY being discussed "harassment" is so ridiculous that I see no need to.

Mech continues" "But if it wasn't for the church and society making such a big thing out of it ,the girls, in this case, altar boys in others, patients of a Mormon gynecologist, in another, then this would be merely a medical problem. "

So - the abuse and its results disappear - without society's stupid diappproval it would be like a cold, or a scraped knee, it seems. This is a reasonable intellectual argument, made by a person who had no knowledge of the type of behaviour being discussed, and whom we have musunderstood and vilified? This view is standing up very poorly to examination, I think.

Note - by now society is also to blame - also the church - which, somehow, "forces" the priest to live an unnatural life. I didn't know we had press-gangs for the catholic priesthood? Ar ethere bars on the seminaries?

It seems anyone and everyone is to blame except the offenders - both for the offences, and the damage.

In my view, it is clear that Mech is denying that the abuse is intrinsically harmful - and it is very serious offfending that he is denying the seriousness of.

More tomorrow.

I think that there are two points here. One is the propensity of society to turn criminals into victims- his upbringing made him do it, his mother didn't raise him properly...........the devil made him do it. What is interesting is that I always assumed that making the bad guys victims was an American phenomenon. Apparently many folks from Oz have picked up the same mindset.

IMO, the nature of the celibate priesthood deters many men with normal psychosexual development from joining. So, it is logical to assume that you have a disproportionate number of priests who have had difficulty with their sexuality, some having developed a deviant sexuality. That, together with the authority and trust vested in a priest by his parishoners, is a recipe for abuse.

As far as non-Catholic clergy, again the issue is power and control. These people are often privy to a parishoner's innermost secrets. Often, they are dealing with people going through crisis, and it is a simple matter for the clergyperson to take advantage of his position.

I would assume though, that amongst non-Catholic clergy, the rate of abuse is probably more in line with persons in other helping professions, who deal with individuals who are vulnerable, although I have no data to confirm this.

Holy Sh_t prolific as rabbits around here as in postings

I missed Mech's last post. I will just add one fact: Sick or not, most pedophiles are incapable of being rehabilitated. Although many have tried, the success rate is extremely low. Most become repeat offenders. Given that, your intellectual decision to defend this priest is misguided, at the very least. I don't often quote from religious papers but:

http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/advice/jun02/54964.asp

Gozmo,

Nobody's "abusing" him.

Yes, he has repeatedly characterized rape as pleasurable and repeatedly said that society's (or the Church's) prohibitions are to blame.

It is with this rationalization of sexual abuse that we disagree, mech's later evolution to arguing that he simply wants to include society in the blame is secondary.

Well, yes, this is done in Oz - I am unsure what told you this in the preceding posts, though. Actually, if you examine the histories of many paedophiles, they have, indeed, been themselves the victims of much abuse. I am actually very disinclined to vilify them - if it were not for the terrible harm they do, I would see them as sad bastards, worthy of a great deal of pity and any help they can be given (actually, I think they are anyway - sadly, they are notoriously difficult to treat effectively) - but kids must be protected from them.

If Mech were just pointing out that they were sick, and needed help, I would have no qualm - however, what he is saying is far more dangerous than this. He is DENYING THAT ABUSE IS HARMFUL - he is saying that the unreasonable attitudes of the church and society are what do the harm - and he is saying this not about anything that might be labelled - by those ignorant of the facts about the harm done by abuse - as lower level offending - but, despite his later attempts to wiggle out of it - about offending that includes extreme breach of trust and boundaries and actual rape.



Yep - I am very unsure about this, too, Phoenix. Here, the non-celibate Anglican church is in the middle of similar revelations.

The danger lies in attributing omniscience to an earthly (without getting into, um, other stuff) authority figure, in politics and in life.

You should listen to me on this, because I know everything.

I'm listening, I really am.

OK - Mech continues:

"Is the priest sick? If so he needs a hospital, not a jail.
Were the kids pained or harmed?
Will society add to or ameliorate any damages?
Does the unnatural life that a priest is required to live have a little something to do with it?

Does the prospect of living an unnatural life attract persons to the preisthood who had a rather tenuous grip on reality in the first place?

I do not approve of adult males forcing their attentions on defenceless little girls.

I also do not approve of high school and college coaches encouraging defenceless young men to go forth and maim each other on a football field. (as played in the US)

The coaches activity which often results in physical damage to growing bodies is is blessed by society and the churches.

The priests activity which seldom results in physical damage and any mental damage is due largely to societys treatment of the victims, both before and after the act, Is condemned.


IMO this irks me. In a fair and just society both the coach and the priest would be similarly treated. We do have a religious society."


At first this looks a little more reasonable. Mech is expressing a view that the priest is unwell and requires help - yes, that would indeed be nice - if he could be helped - perhaps he can. But, interspersed with reasonable questions about how the nature of the church might foster abuse, is his other theme - that the abuse which has clearly and several times been clarified to be at the "serious" level (in quotes because of what I know about the effects of so-called less serious abuse - but I quibble) is not in itself harmful:


"Were the kids pained or harmed?
Will society add to or ameliorate any damages?"

"The priests activity which seldom results in physical damage and any mental damage is due largely to societys treatment of the victims, both before and after the act, Is condemned."

So - in this admittedly rather confusing post, Mech is again questioning whether abuse is harmful, at first - not a totally unreasonable question - if a very ignorant one - but hey, we are allowed to question when we are ignorant about something - however, he then slips and shows his actual position - I think - which is that any mental damage arising from serious abuse and rape is due to society's treatment of the victims - ("both before and after the act" puzzles me...)