When has religion irked you personally and why?

Husker, just for the record I don't think all believers are idiots.

My point is that just as they have a right to believe that I will burn forever for my beliefs I have a right to believe that their beliefs are silly.

I respect one's right to hold those beliefs but am under no obligation to respect the beliefs themselves. I'm also of little inclination to do so since most religions are very intolerat of other beliefs (e.g. "believe something else and you'll burn forever").

I didn't talk about "believing" anything.



Of course you will. That seems to be the way "beliefs" work. You decide what you want to "believe in" and then "believe" it.




I understand that. But a person does not have to "believe" in any of the gods in order to think it important to "invoke guidance." I'm an agnostic. I think it is important to attempt to "invoke guidance" into you.




Right. Just as it is the agnostic thing to do when you are an agnostic.

Each of us feels there is some value in the philosophy we have adopted -- and naturally, we want to share it.




Well, you are assuming that a person has to "believe in God" to understand that relationship. But my opinion is that you are wrong. In fact, I suspect it is easier for me as an agnostic -- and for atheists -- to understand "how a relationship with God work" better than most theists. But I doubt you are ready to tackle that notion just yet. We'll work up to that.



No problem! It was the least I could do considering you were willing to offer your opinions and judgements to me.




I would never want to say anything that will "hurt" you -- although one means of getting through to some people is to "irk" them -- so I may do that.

I also respect your opinions, Lost, and I invite you to keep yours coming also. If nothing else, they help me make my point.


Peace, Lost.

fish sticks are not irrelevant!

Fishsticks irk me.....
Oh, and so do evangelical christians but not much. They make me laugh more than anything so Lost, well done, you have given me my morning chuckle.

Dlowan and Craven, (because of the thread spread)

Back to one thread and then I am done.

Defending an alleged pediophile and defending pediophelia are entirely IMO two different things.

Amongst other things that I have learned on this thread is how a group of perfectly decent God fearing people could hang a great number of young women in Salem, Massachusetts as witches.

Before I joined the crowd clamoring for the priests blood ( in the case of the boys whom were allegedly violated while participating in an indoctrination ceremony ) I would like to know that a violent crime had been commited. And I would like to know about other circumstances i.e mental illness, lack of responsibility, lack of supervision, transfers of a troubled priest, and concealment of any offences by his superiors.

I'd have thought that would not have been argued with such vehemence.
There are some people posting on this thread whose view of reality has little to do with facts. Nor do they pay much attention to what was said compared to what they think was said.

Allusions have been made as to my being a liar, pervert, and pediophile.
(considering the sources of these aspersions on my character I could percieve this as flattery .

Warning-----

Be careful how you eat phish stix. They could easily be misconstrued.

I am unaware of much baying for blood, aka - I, for instance, said that I had no real anger or hatred for paedophiles, seeing them as tragic, damaged folk - from whom children nonetheless needed protection.

Neither Craven nor I have called you anything except an apologist for ideas that paedophiles use to justify their actions. I consider these to be highly fallacious and dangerous, which is why I refute and condemn them.

I, for one, have no idea who or what you are. What I DO know is that you do propound the same ideas that paedophiles use in their propaganda.

If you choose to see this as flattery, so be it.

Dlowan---What

The Idea that a sexual deviant may be mentally ill?
The Idea that a superviser should accept responsibility for his actions?
The Idea that sexual mores vary with society?
The Idea that someones fantasies are a valid basis for societies conduct?
The Idea that children should not be used selfishly by adults?
The Idea that some types of societies encourage child or female abuse?
The Idea that some societies are homophobic by nature and doctrine?
The Idea that a society that is both homophobic and prevents consensual heterosexual activities is condusive to inciting child abuse?


(IMO) Merely because some arguements are also used in causes for which you don't agree with the conclusions does not render the arguements invalid.

Hohum - you know perfectly well which ideas.

I sooo wasn't gonna get dragged into this trackless wilderness again!

Bye bye - have a nice life.

I grew up in a small NSW south coast town called Windang. At the north east corner of the town, there was (and still is) an airstrip. At the time I was living there it was home to the local shark patrol plane which was owned and operated by local councillor and former Lord Mayor of Wollongong Tony Bevan. The airstrip was also used by local youngsters to ride their mini bikes. I had a couple of friend with bikes living near there and rode there on many occasions. One weekend Mr Bevan offered a couple of us a ride in the plane, which we obviously jumped at. It was my first time in an aeroplane and I'll never forget it.
I remember being there at some later time, when Mr Bevan was taking a few kids for a ride, and when he saw me he said "if you come back next week I'll take you up for a ride". I don't remember why but it was an opportunity I never took up, and I don't remember being there much again or ever seeing the man again. At the age of eleven we moved out of the town to Shellharbour (that was in 1978). Only a couple of miles, but a long way for an eleven/twelve year old, starting a new school etc. I never heard about Tony Bevan again, until shortly after his death from cancer in 1991.







Needless to say, considering what for me would appear to be a narrow escape, I have more than just a passing interest in this subject, no matter who the perpetrators might be. Religiously affiliated or otherwise.

Wilso, Please read carefully the last sentence of your first quote in your post of Jan 16, 10:15 PM.

(I don't know why I bothered)

Would this not indicate to you that the boys feared the potential exposure more than they feared the illicit sex?

aka, that is one of the most stupid bloody things i've ever read!

They didn't want anyone to find out so they must have secretly liked it?

Do you REALLY think that?

Wilso, don't take his bait. He's determined to keep harassing you on this.

aka,

Perhaps, but that means little. The shame is part of the abuse.

Now to pre-empt your next argument to support pedohilia, no, it's not society's abuse.

Look at a comparable situation. I once saw a young girl stripped nude and spanked in public. Her abusers justified the act saying that shyness is not "natural" and that there's nothing to "be ashamed" about being nude.

And those pedophiles use many of the same justifications that you do.

The abuser commited the act in a situation in which said shame of exposure was inevitable.

Now you can rightly contend that if "society's illogical prohibitions" on rape and such were not an issue there would be less harm.

But then again if shooting someone in the head did not kill them it would be less of a crime, taht in no way justifies the act of one who shoots another in the head.

Stripping the girl naked and spanking her in public might not have been so psycologically scarring to her and she might not have tried to kill herself for the next 3 months if "society's illogical prohibitions" about nudity did not cause her shame.

But the act was not performed in a hypothetical, the act was performed in a reality in which said result was predictable if not inevitable.

So yes, if humans could just manage to get over their "illogical prohibitions" on rape as you call them yes, the abused would suffer far less.

But you consistently err in faulting society and exonerating individual acts perpetrated in reality against the demented hypotheticals you posit.

Yes, he calls forcible rape "harmless pleasurable sexual activity" that is only wrong because of "society's illogical prohibitions".

Direct quotes.
But I advise against getting into it, he'll start following you around trying to make your every thread one about his support for rape.

Yeah, I know. Have been reading along for a while.
Up 'til now I had thought aka was playing devil's advocate. (Too strongly)
Now...

Edited to remove childish name calling.

I too thought he was just pulling chains, and to some extent he is (by making it a point to bait people through overstatement). After having private messages forwarded to me in which he went much much further than he has here on the thread I decided to challenge it.

But even so, please don't call him names. The rules here are "attack the idea, but not the person".

So the defense of pedophilia is, indeed, idiotic and absurd, but I reserve comment on aka himself.

Sorry Craven, forgot my manners.

PLEASE note, I did not say LIKED. I said "feared less". In no way does this imply any willingness on the part of any minors although it does not preclude it.

What power an Abrahamic (fantastic) society has over us when reasonable debaters are perfectly willing to attribute meanings that are in no way consistent with wordings or intent. This, in this thread, has even gone so far as to add words and meanings to my posts that no reasonable person would have even surmised. (this is a polite way of alluding to a "knee jerk reaction" to anything involving human genitalia.
This seems to be an "Abrahamic" (Jewish-Christian-Moslem) response.

I did not wish to hijack this (already hijacked) thread. I am going to make a couple of suggestions. Thread titles perhaps.

Do not be afraid to call me names. I always consider the source. The scources value to me though MAY be reduced by name calling or "Arguementum ad hominum" (kill the messenger).

Craven does not have a very clear idea of where "I am coming from". Therefore allowing his opinion to color your response MAY (as opposed to will) lead to embarassment. This seems to be Cravens problem and hopefully we can help him deal with it.

So--- Should justice be subjective ie (meaning) should a crime be anything that I say it is? ( a paraphrase from Alice) Or should we endeavour to find out if anyone (child or adult) was "harmed".

Or--- Should justice be objective ie Before punishing (castigating) anyone should we endeavour to acertain that "harm" was done anyone.

Was the priest "sick". IMO, I am no shrink. Any male who is sexually stimulated by a childs (younger than puberty) buttocks is probably mentally ill. (not wrapped to tight)

Should society bear some blame? In Wilso's last post it is obvious that the boys were afraid to mention to their parents that they had been violated (seduced?) probably (IMO) because of the approbriation that would fall upon them. Societies uneasiness to talk about things like that MAY add to the problem (of child abuse).

Should the priests society bear some blame? Despite the Catholic Churches "homophobia" (fear of aberrent sexuality) the priests consience and fears are neatly assuaged by the "rite of confession". He's home clean for eternity no matter what, as long as he doesn't die without last rites or before Friday (traditional time for the rites of confession in the US)

Should the priests supervisor bear some blame? He was aware that the priest was engaging in activities that were sure to bring the disgust of the parishoners (parents). He was also aware that the activities were illegal. (against "mans" laws).

He was also aware thats the priests activities were "immoral" (against churchly laws). (Leviticus- man that lieth with another man is an abomination). (IMO that would also be true for male children but bibically I think that he would be allowed the rape of a female minor, but if you know of a passage in the bible that prohibits lieing with a minor I would be glad to retract that last sentence). Keep in mind that; I do not "KNOW" if there are any Abrahamic proscriptions against the rape of a female minor.

Frankly what I would like to see is some secular supervision of ALL organized religions as pertains to children. It's obvious to me that some is needed.

In Australia ( see the "legal" forum) it is perfectly legal to take a girl, physically restrain her and make her submit to penile-vaginal insertion. I would call that rape but if she is black that is not "rape" in Australia.

What seems to have set Craven off is that I repeatedly asked if the boys were "harmed". Given the vagaries of Australian laws, Catholic dogma, and societal perceptions I think it a fair question. He doesn't. C'est la vie!!!

Now please give us another thread if you wish to keep argueing! There is no need to PO CI any more. (piss off Cicerone Imposter)

You did more than imply it elsewhere. You flat out stated it.



I have no qualm with references to genitalia. I grew up in a more sexually open society than you can deign to imagine.

What I object to is your support for pedophilia.



No, this is in no way a problem for me. And any embarassment you reference is a figment of your imagination.



aka. you repeatedly deny harm in situations in which it is clear. You are willing to give the pedophile the benefit of any convoluted doubt you conjure for him but question the victim's testimony alleging harm and question the competence of the courts in determining that it happened.

Frankly I think you have no interest whatsoever in finding out whether the victims whose abusers you defend were harmed. You simply use the "we can't know if they were harmed" defense to justify the pedophile's actions.

The cases cited whose abuser you defend were cases in which the evidence of "harm" was very substantial.

If you would like to actually examine the cases of the serial rapists whose cases were cited here we can. But thus far you have illustrated that you will give all your support and the benefit of the doubt to the rapist so I doubt it will help.



Another red herring. A court of law determined that said harm occured in many many cases. It was ascertained and you simply choose instead to question teh competence of the court.



aka, this is a very good example. Knowing nothing of the perp you defend him while at the same time saying that not enough is known about the victims.

I agree that he is probably "sick". But do note the willingness you exhibit to make a defense based on what you know but t the same time deriding the decision of the courts who convicted him.

How do you manage to assert a defense for him based on knowing less than the court that convicted him? All the while asserting that we do not know enough to assert harm?

You are deliberately obtuse about the "harm" and leap to the pedophile's defence with even less data than the court whose competence you question.



"Society" is to blame for everything. But the perpetrator is to blame for his decisions as well.



So? That is part of the perp's abuse. Now your use of "seduced" is a bit odd. Do you think children can give informed consent?

For example, if a baby were to nod does that constitute consent for you?

I doubt that even you would say so, so that implies a line. Where is that line for you?



The fact that people bleed to death adds to the "problem" of being shot.

Doesn't justify the shooter in any way. The shooter acts in a reality in which your hypothetical is not in effect.

The rapist acts within this society. Not in your hypothetical one.

In short were rape not harmful to the individual then of course his act would not be treated the same. But "society's illogical prohibitions" on rape do in fact exist. And the rape occured within that reality. Not in your hypothetical one.

Again, if firing a shotgun into a human's face were not to cause harm it would be less severe a breach of individual rights.

But it does. And in this case yes, if society at large were different the harm the perpetrator causes would be lessened. But that does not change the fact that the perp caused said harm.



Should the perp? You have thus far mentioned his blame not once.

Forget the other scapegoats you seek. Does the rapist merit your censure or not?



Yawn, same applies for murder as well. This is a red herring.



Sure, should the perp?



How do you know this? Remember you still assert that the body of evidence about the rapes does not illustrate harm.

You seem very willing to pull other things out of the air while denying a court's conviction.

So tip your cards, I allege that the harm was demonstrated based on a body of evidence in the case that we can explore.

Upon what do you base the assertion that the supervisor was aware?

I suspect you are pulling this out of thin air, like much of your defense for the man.



Cite please, or this goes in teh thin air category.



That's nice, what I'd like to see is for you to address the perp for once and to cease to deny established harm.



I do not believe this is true without her consent. And with consent this is legal everywhere.

If this is the "vagaries of Australian laws" you might want to get your facts straight first.



What would convince you about whether thay were harmed? You go to great lengths to deny the harm.

Would a picture of their bleeding anuses help? I can't supply pictures as minor records won't allow it. But what exactly would convice you?

You have a standard of evidence for establishing "harm" that is absurd, while your critria for all your other unsupported assertions is equally absurd in the opposite direction.

On one hand you deny the existence of harm that a court established.

Yet you feel free to speculate widly about everything else in the case.



I am not angering CI.

Craven, Specifically to your post. Please note and accept that I have never denied that "abuse" exists. It does, probably in all societies.

Sorry-- "The shame is part of the abuse". Yes it certainly is, and with it is societies convivance (unwitting probably, unthinking surely) in shaming the girl.

"IF" and a big IF nakedness was not deemed shameful by society the public spanking would not "harmed" the girl as much. This is an example of "society" making a bad thing (the spanking) worse.


The mere fact that a pediophile can use many of the same arguements does not mean that my arguements are invalid when used in support of objectivity.


"The act (of spanking) was performed in reality" Which I may point out has been determined for us by the Abrahamic religions which have a view of reality which has NO correspondence with either reality or fact.


P.S. "FORCIBLE" rape was not shown in the case of the boys. It was only alleged by Wilso, whose penchant for overstatement has already been documented on this thread. He's nearly as bad as I am
Personally I suspect it was more of a ritualistic type ceremony, and without societies approbriation would have damaged the boys not a wit.(other than public health considerations)
Or at least not nearly as much as ritual circumcision. (another Abrahamic invention)