When has religion irked you personally and why?

(Cav - I will now remove the humungous post I was using to refer to!!!)

0 Replies

Phoenix, re your post of Dec 10, 9:32
Thank you, I think that you finally noticed what I am trying to show.

cavfancier, I agree. I never denied it in a case where abuse is shown. But I did try to point out that abuse is often a subjective term. In Australia for instance the definition of abuse depends upon whether or not you are of European descent or a native. Check out the legal forum on A2K for a discussion of the differing standards for "rape" in Australia.
Merely complaining that the boys were anally raped does not tell us if they were harmed or not. It may have been a simple ritualistic type ceremony that hurt the boys not a wit. Or it may have been a forced violent encounter that will leave the boys emotionally and physically scarred for life. The excerpt that was provided in that case gives us no clue as to which it was.
The priest was clearly wrong in that society, but was he sick or was he criminal, or just plain stupid? I would consider a lifetime spent in a Hospital for the Criminally Insane as sufficient protection for society.

BUT and a big BUT in the fullest sense of the word.

The priests supervisors, the ones that have these persons transferred from facility to facility thus exposing more and more children to potential abuse, are culpable.

The offense that a bishop, an archbishop, or cardinal is guilty of should be "Conspiracy to assult a minor" and he should be jailed. There is no question of his mental health and he is not subject to the various interpretations of the law concerning abuse. Nor is there any question of temporary insanity. The priest may well have been sick (mentally). The "abuse" may or may not have been abusive but the actions of the supervisors (in merely transferring the offenders around) was IMO simply criminal.

When society assigns a position of responsibility to a person I think it fair to expect him to act responsibly. He (in this case the supervisor) did not act responsibly but he goes free. Hence society, by refusing to castigate those who have made a bad thing worse MUST bear some of the resopnsibility.

Since Grand Duke and Frank Apisa noticed the point right off I don't think that my objection to the automatic punishment of the priest was totally obscure, although perhaps I would argue it differently next time.

May I suggest again that the authors of some of the more ridiculous posts on this thread read "Alice in Wonderland" or Aldous Huxley's "Island"
before you criticize my method of social commentary. But I will admit that "Alice" is obscure. I didn't understand it my self until I was about twelve years old. "Island I caught right off the bat. Wilso and gozmo, If the shoe fits wear it Exclamation

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Merely complaining that the boys were anally raped does not tell us if they were harmed or not. It may have been a simple ritualistic type ceremony that hurt the boys not a wit.

This is the type of stuff from you that is disgusting. The boys were indeed told that their rape was ritualistic. The priest said it was and raped them.

That you portray this as harmless is simply sick and demented and a product of your own perversion. You keep trying to act like you are just misunderstood or obscure but this is very clear. You are rationalizing a type of rape and calling it harmless.

Reading "Alice" will not change that this is sick. Rolling Eyes

You are not misunderstood, you are disagreed with. Most decent people do not support rape and do not rationalize it as harmless.

Frank's stock as far as I am concerned has been reduced to nothing for defending your perversion. I have no respect for those who rationalize sexual abuse.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank's stock as far as I am concerned has been reduced to nothing for defending your perversion. I have no respect for those who rationalize sexual abuse.

Craven, there are times when you are such a jerkoff, I really have trouble understanding why I ever thought you had reasonable observations to share.

Your cartoon style indignation with me is so laughable, I probably shouldn't dignify it by comment, but I've just finished dinner; I can't watch the news until Nancy is finished with her soaps; and I guess there are some who would buy into your blatant distortion of my position if I don't at least call you on it.

Interesting to see that you are not satisfied spewing that phony indignation all over Mech, who is, by the way, your intellectual and, in my opinion, moral better. Now you have to try to paint me with that same venomous brush.

I don't rationalize sexual abuse -- and no reasonable reading of what I had to say could lead anyone to that conclusion -- including the remark about the mature woman giving a blow job to a 15 year old.

In any case, I can't wait for the moment when you dramatically reveal that you were abused as a child (or was it someone close to you?) -- so everyone has to understand your deep, deep sensitivities in this regard.

Well, Craven, I don't know -- nor much care what happened to you. If you cannot handle it any better than you are, you're a jerk -- which I think you are in any case. But whatever it is that happened, it's something you have to deal with -- and smearing others in order to feel better about yourself isn't going to get that job done. Go see a shrink, if you have to -- but also consult a proctologist -- and see if he can help you extracate your head from your ass.

By the way, I don't have much respect for liars and distorters like you -- so I guess that makes us even.

Oh yeah -- my very best wishes for the festive season coming up, Craven. Hope all is well with you and yours

0 Replies

Craven,

Your characterization of my arguements as "bull" is fair enough in this forum. It's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

Your unwillingness to differentiate between the differing degrees of pediophelia is also fair. It's your "belief" and if you are an adult you are welcome to it. And furthermore I give you free rein to attempt to convince me that ritual circumcision or clitoridectomy is not harmfull to children. You may also try to convince me (on another thread) that nude unisex bathing is equivalent to forced violent rape. You're welcome to do so, also with my blessing. Don't bet on success though!

But and a big BUT,

When you keep cutting off my E-Mail Updates on this thread thus causing a certain amount of confusion as to who said what when, I really don't think thats fair. But since you are running this service there is little that I can do about it "IF" I wish to keep conversing with this august company. IMO it will not benefit your business. This comment is from experience Exclamation

0 Replies

Quote:

The priest was clearly wrong in that society, but was he sick or was he criminal, or just plain stupid? I would consider a lifetime spent in a Hospital for the Criminally Insane as sufficient protection for society.

Quote:

The offense that a bishop, an archbishop, or cardinal is guilty of should be "Conspiracy to assult a minor" and he should be jailed.

aka- I agree that the supervisors are as culpable as the pedophile. He may have committed a worse transgression for permitting these acts to go unpunished, right under his eyes. But, in your words, the supervisors were in a "conspiracy to assault a minor". Then, in your words, there WAS an assault. Therefore the pedophile is guilty of perpetrating that assault.
Unless the priest is adjudged unable to know the difference between right and wrong, (which is the legal definition of insanity in the US) he belongs in the slammer along with his supervisor!

Quote:

just plain stupid

If you think that a person can sexually assault a child simply out of stupidity, what would you call murder? Bad judgement?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't rationalize sexual abuse -- and no reasonable reading of what I had to say could lead anyone to that conclusion -- including the remark about the mature woman giving a blow job to a 15 year old.

You called aka's posts rational. He was rationalizing rape.

Quote:

In any case, I can't wait for the moment when you dramatically reveal that you were abused as a child (or was it someone close to you?) -- so everyone has to understand your deep, deep sensitivities in this regard.

Of all your ad homs in that post this is the most pernicious. But I am surprised that you do not know this.

I grew up in a self-described "sex cult" whose rationalization for sexually abusing children is exactly (to the letter) the rationalization aka uses.

I was personally never abused sexually but do indeed know many who were. Pretty much all the girls I knew till I was 10.

This doesn't reflect much on my "sensibilities. Do note that the others who found mech's position to be disgusting had vastly different backgrounds.

0 Replies

Craven, My recommendation as to "Alice" still stands. This reccomendation is intended for your's and Wilso's personal edification.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Your unwillingness to differentiate between the differing degrees of pediophelia is also fair.

I have no "unwillingness" in this regard. I have no problem with differentiating, my qualm is with your support for rape.

Quote:

And furthermore I give you free rein to attempt to convince me that ritual circumcision or clitoridectomy is not harmfull to children.

Why should I? I have never once said anything to you on that subject.

Quote:

You may also try to convince me (on another thread) that nude unisex bathing is equivalent to forced violent rape.

I never asserted this, but the situation you posed (a priest swimming naked with children) is something I know a lot about.

As dlowan said it represents a lack of boundaries. I know this very well as I have personally witnessed the slippery slope.

Quote:

When you keep cutting off my E-Mail Updates on this thread thus causing a certain amount of confusion as to who said what when, I really don't think thats fair.

I've not touched your email updates. Get a grip on reality.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Craven, My recommendation as to "Alice" still stands. This reccomendation is intended for your's and Wilso's personal edification.

And my comment that you are displaying your perversion still stands, as does my comment that reading Alice (I happen to be reading it right now) will do nothing to make me share your opinion that rape is harmless and pleasurable.

0 Replies

The concern for victims here is very selective. I would suggest that the offender who was abused ought be helped not thrown in the pit. These people after all are those most harmed by abuse. It would be more consistent if we locked the children up with their abusers, after all there is a fair chance they will grow into abusers. Abandon them now rather than later.

There are many ways to abuse children and adults. Most are ignored by society, even though the harm caused may be as great as in sexual abuse, these other forms are not viewed as seriously. I would suggest that many of you would be as flippant about these as Mech is about sexual abuse. The fact is our horror of paedophilia is related to our view of what constitutes a proper sexual relationship. We would recoil even if there was no harm done in much the same way that as early adolescents we recoiled from the thought of our grandparents having sex. In fact I think that much of the damage is done by the perception that the child has been involved in something evil. The child who at the time may have enjoyed the activity later sees it as evil and feels evil as a result. I am aware of this effect in at least one person who was grossly abused. It is wise that we examine our motives from time to time and ensure that our intervention is appropriately conducted.

The view of what constitutes fair comment here is also very selective. Anything less than outright condemnation of Mech is considered evidence of moral inadequacy by some. That is absurd and not in the spirit of the site. Mech has presented a provocative and badly flawed argument. It is difficult to know his true position but it is also wrong to suggest there is no merit in what he says. For example the suggestion that not all children are harmed is probably true. That that is sufficient to void the offence is of course another consideration.

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

There are many ways to abuse children and adults. Most are ignored by society, even though the harm caused may be as great as in sexual abuse, these other forms are not viewed as seriously.

This is very true, anything related to sex is given extra attention.

But I disagree that the condemnantion of portraying rape as harmless means that the criticism is unfairly leveled. Criticism of sexual abuse and criticism of other abuse is not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

I would suggest that many of you would be as flippant about these as Mech is about sexual abuse.

Upon what do you base this claim?

Quote:

The child who at the time may have enjoyed the activity later sees it as evil and feels evil as a result. I am aware of this effect in at least one person who was grossly abused.

I am aware of this in about 25 individuals with whom I grew up. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a defense of the act but if so I reject that.

Sexual abuse's repercussions are not immediate. Many of the victims of sexual abuse that I know enjoyed some aspects of it at the time, be it the attention of the feeling of being an adult, this does not make it any less damaging.

Sexual abusers often manipulate those feelings for their own sexual satisfaction.

Quote:

The view of what constitutes fair comment here is also very selective. Anything less than outright condemnation of Mech is considered evidence of moral inadequacy by some.

This is pure bull. There are many members here who did not condemn mech. Their moral compass was not questioned.

Only those who argued that mech's support for rape is "morally superior" and "rational" had their own moral compass questioned.

Quote:

For example the suggestion that not all children are harmed is probably true.

Upon what do you base this claim.

Mech said that children who are anally raped might not be "harmed". In what situation do you think raping a pre-pubescent child (we were talking about a priest who molested children as young as 4) is harmless?

0 Replies

Hmm - I assume that Mech's ridiculous assertion that Craven has been interfering with his email updates, thus confusing him, is his response to my demonstration that what was being discussed when he began to call abuse harmless and pleasurable included rape? I assume this only because he has not responded in any other way.

For those commenting that anyone here is obsessed with sexual, as opposed to any other, child abuse, I would reply that this is the abuse under discussion. Believe me, sexual abuse holds no special or distinct horror for me as opposed to other kinds - I am way too familiar with all varieties - however, sexual abuse IS what was being discussed here, and what was being minimised and justified in the most appalling way - as sexual predation of many kinds is justified in our society, in ways that most other forms of violence are not - or not so publicly.

I have but a short time - but I will note that, seemingly in contrast to some who are agreeing with me, I do not give rape an especially higher place in the canons of abuse - the trauma, unless it is inflicted with special brutality, is not, in my view essentially different - it is the breach of trust and of physical and psychological boundaries that holds the key to the deep harm done by child sexual abuse (or adult ditto - except the child/adult breach of trust is often far more profound, and the developmental inappropriateness of great significance.)

I find it laughable that accusations of psychological instability are flying here in relation to those of us who are challenging the minimisation of sexual abuse. Craven has indeed, always been extremely open re the experiences he has had which give him a depth and breadth of knowledge re the subject. Had he also, himself, suffered such abuse, would this not increase, rather than disqualify his understanding of the issues? Does my 23 year experience working in the field make me more, or less, qualified to comment? Are the kids and adults I work with more or less qualified than anyone here to speak with knowledge? I certainly gain my deepest perspectives from them - and I speak here partly to keep faith with them.

One final comment - re the throw the kids into prison now, or whatever ridiculous thing was said - I hope it was satirical - but nonetheless feel the need to say that the great majorityof abused kids do not become abusers - especially where they disclose and receive support and protection.

I'll be baaaaaaack!

0 Replies

Craven,

Your last post is dishonest. You break my post down leaving out salient points. I am sure you quote in this way to discourage others to read the post referred to so the reader will share your distorted take. I read much of what you say here with interest but on this thread you have been as constructive as a bulldozer. You refer to your experience as if the rest have none. I know abuse first bloody hand not second hand. I live its effects. I know that you are Laird of the Manor round here but does that give you the right to insult and distort as you will, do you consider it your droit du seigneur.

I agree that some have been constructive here, you are not among them.

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

Craven,

Your last post is dishonest. You break my post down leaving out salient points.

That's not true. I left out the parts with which I did not wish to contend, this did in fact have defensible parts and I did not quote them because I did not wish to contend them.

I also left out some less defensible things (like your comment about throwing abused kids in prison).

Quote:

I am sure you quote in this way to discourage others to read the post referred to so the reader will share your distorted take.

Sure? And upon what do you base this claim? I always quote the specific points of contention. Your post is there in its entirety for anyone to read. Your claim that I distorted your post is absurd.

Quote:

You refer to your experience as if the rest have none. I know abuse first bloody hand not second hand. I live its effects.

That's just more bull. I referred to it only after Frank's ad hominem suggesting I had been sexually abused.

Quote:

I know that you are Laird of the Manor round here but does that give you the right to insult and distort as you will, do you consider it your droit du seigneur.

Ah the ole'"big brother" card. This is insipid as always. I have not afforded myself any special rights. For example, Frank's post full of insults to me would have gotten him banned if it were directed at anyone else.

The only difference that discussions with me have versus discussions with others is that there is greater lenience with insults directed at me.

Quote:

I agree that some have been constructive here, you are not among them.

You have a right to your opinion, but do it a disservice by basing it on false claims.

0 Replies

Gozmo
I knew abuse as a child, both sexual and several other forms. This does not qualify me as an expert. Nevertheless I have the good sense to know that Craven has so far not misfired. I support everything he has said. Dlowan also.

0 Replies

Phoenix, re your post of Dec 10 6:43

In some cases; yes. In the US it's often called manslaughter or negligent homicide and bears appropriate legal censures.

Craven,

I never supported the priest. I defended him. Please note the difference this time Exclamation

I have attempted to point out the difference at least three times.

If you, as a member of society, support ritual abuse as OK then why is personal abuse not acceptable Question

I mentioned this much earlier in this thread. I am sorry if I seem obtuse but with football, abuse or circumcision or clitoridectomy we still have a potentially injured child, either physically , morally, or mentally.

The lack of boundaries is (IMO) a fair point. The same arguement is used when the Jehovahs Witnesses or Christian Scientists deny the gift of lifegiving blood or surgery to a child. It is also used in the arguements pertaining to the decriminalization of marijuana use. It's not a very good arguement. (IMO) natch.

My E-Mail notifications to this thread have not been arriving normally. Therefore a crime against the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been committed. Is there no criminal involved Question

Ridiculous, every crime implies a criminal in this thread. Since you run the thread it's your responsibility. No such thing as a glitch in the software. Either in your software or in the priests mental functions.

Re your next thread. Your obtuseness is almost getting to the point of entertainment.

Nowhere did I say that rape is harmless and pleasureable. I have some confidence in that statement even without rereading. But that the boys were raped with violence and penetration was not shown. Perhaps I shouldn't be so picky but I don't know the legal definition of rape in Australia. In the US it is also possible to rape the forests with deforestation or to rape the rivers with pollution and irrigation. The word has been raped (reduced in usefulness)by overuse (IMO) .Websters Third New International Dictionary has five separate entries for "RAPE" one definition of which is :to make rapt" (as with delight) . To allow a statement that the boys had been raped without further clarification would be a rape of the principal of presumed innocence.

I did say, and I will defend this, that SOME activities that SOME societies would term sexual abuse may be harmless and pleasureable and perhaps even educational to all participants. Keep in mind that persons that take the view that ALL recreational sexual activities are proscribed were responsible for the "ritual" deaths of some 200 plus young women in Salem Massachussetts in the 1700s.

I'm glad you are reading "Alice". I hope that you are able to think about it a bit. If you wish to discuss it on another thread I will reread it again to prepare myself.

0 Replies

dlowan,

You are one who has been constructive here. I am very much in agreement with most things you have said. Clearly you have wide experience of abuse and I have assumed you are a professional working in that area. I am disturbed by this thread because I see a refusal by many to even consider their views. Their is also a horrible trend to vilify those who step from the orthodox line. I too could feign holier than thou outrage as some have but I am past that. I think that Craven is craven in his role on this thread but rather than be specific about "who" I expressed myself in a more general terms. That has led to misunderstanding so let me say that the chief offender here is cdk. Your contribution here is far removed from Craven's mischief.

BTW I have turned on emails many times but am not receiving updates.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Craven,

I never supported the priest. I defended him. Please note the difference this time I have attempted to point out the difference at least three times.

Noted, please note that I do not have a problem with defending the priest as much I disagree with your portrayal of his actions as "harmless sexual activity".

Quote:

If you, as a member of society, support ritual abuse as OK then why is personal abuse not acceptable I mentioned this much earlier in this thread. I am sorry if I seem obtuse but with football, abuse or circumcision or clitoridectomy we still have a potentially injured child, either physically , morally, or mentally.

I do not consider football to be an abuse. Despite its dangers.

Quote:

The lack of boundaries is (IMO) a fair point. The same arguement is used when the Jehovahs Witnesses or Christian Scientists deny the gift of lifegiving blood or surgery to a child. It is also used in the arguements pertaining to the decriminalization of marijuana use. It's not a very good arguement. (IMO) natch.

Why do you say it's not a good argument?

Quote:

My E-Mail notifications to this thread have not been arriving normally. Therefore a crime against the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been committed.

Bullshit. First of all there is no constitutional protection of email updates. Secondly it's more likely that there is a DNS problem and you are not receiving updates, see the forum help threads about this and if you want help resolving it ask for it there and I can try to help (I usually can't do much as it's usually the receiving server rejecting the email).

Quote:

Is there no criminal involved

No. Even if I did interfere with your email updates it would not be a crime.

Secondly your contention that the lacking email updates were imparing your ability to determine who said what is an absurdity as the email notifications do not contain a single bit of information about who said what.

Quote:

Ridiculous, every crime implies a criminal in this thread. Since you run the thread it's your responsibility. No such thing as a glitch in the software. Either in your software or in the priests mental functions.

You are making no sense.

Quote:

Re your next thread. Your obtuseness is almost getting to the point of entertainment.

What thread? You are confused. And you cling to the "I'm not perverted, I'm misunderstood" defense.

Quote:

Nowhere did I say that rape is harmless and pleasureable. I have some confidence in that statement even without rereading.

Yes you did.

When Wilso sent you the article about a serial rapist you said that the real problem was society's illogical prohibitions of harmless sexual activity.

Quote:

But that the boys were raped with violence and penetration was not shown.

So? Non-violent rape can still be harmful. Despite your repeated assertions.

Quote:

In the US it is also possible to rape the forests with deforestation or to rape the rivers with pollution and irrigation. The word has been raped (reduced in usefulness)by overuse (IMO) .Websters Third New International Dictionary has five separate entries for "RAPE" one definition of which is :to make rapt" (as with delight) . To allow a statement that the boys had been raped without further clarification would be a rape of the principal of presumed innocence.

This is an absurd evasion.

Quote:

I did say, and I will defend this, that SOME activities that SOME societies would term sexual abuse may be harmless and pleasureable and perhaps even educational to all participants.

I would defend that as well. But that is not what you said. You said the priest who was convicted of raping dozens of victims was engaging in "harmless sexual activity".

You did not just comment once on it, it was not an error and you were referencing clear cases of raping children (as young as 4).

Quote:

I'm glad you are reading "Alice". I hope that you are able to think about it a bit. If you wish to discuss it on another thread I will reread it again to prepare myself.

There is a thread on which i am already discussing Alice, feel free to join.

Why do you think reading Alice will make me rationalize sexual abuse?

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

Their is also a horrible trend to vilify those who step from the orthodox line.

You keep repeating this but it is patently false. The only vilification occured when sexual abuse was rationalized. It's not "any" unorthodox thinking but a very specific one defending sexual abuse.

Quote:

I think that Craven is craven in his role on this thread but rather than be specific about "who" I expressed myself in a more general terms.

And I think you are craven for making statements that were challenged and then ignoring the challenges and seeking to make absurd accusations about an abuse of privilidges.

Quote:

BTW I have turned on emails many times but am not receiving updates.

And I hope you don;t think this is a crime as well.

0 Replies

When has religion irked you personally and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know