The 2,000 year old modern problem
Following on from my previous post about the Pope’s apparent direct involvement in covering up the illegal sexual activities of some Catholic church staff, here’s something that illustrates how old this so-called “new problem” really is:
The Beast File: Catholic Church Sex Scandals
Two thousand years of sweet fuck-all being done about this problem strongly suggests that exactly the same will continue to be done about it unless the public makes it happen. The right-leaning religiosity of most modern Western governments almost guarantees they won’t be doing anything about it anytime soon.
However, as pointed out by Jack of Kent recently, care does need to be taken to determine whether crimes have actually been committed by Ratzinger. Particularly when you’re looking an international borders and legal differences.
Hat tip: PodBlack Cat
loading...
“The right-leaning religiosity of most modern Western governments almost guarantees they won’t be doing anything about it anytime soon.”
[Blatant libel and demonstrable untruths removed for the legal wellbeing of both the commenter and the site owner].
And as for this problem being ‘new’, think back to Sodom and Gomorrah and realize this sin has been going on much longer, only God will judge those after the rapture rather than immediately as he did back then. Comforting thought perhaps?
@jeremy
I’m getting tired of pissing into the wind with you, Jeremy. If you’re going to continually counter with tales from the Bible (particularly those that even most biblical scholars argue about) or chapter and verse, then we’re going to get nowhere. Such activity wastes both your time and mine. Rather than searching for responses from your dogma and book, try exercising the mass of white meat between your ears.
And kindly refrain form posting libellous content — particularly that which has been proven to have no basis in fact — or I will ban you from this site. You have been approved to post here because I thought you and I could discuss our differences like mature adults, but if you’re going to step over the line then I will have no compunction about revoking that approval. This is your first, final and unequivocal warning on the matter.
So what we have is a religion that is huge, powerful and rich. This power is used not for good but institutionalised rape, molestation and then covering their tracks. Not a handful of examples, but hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals involved. But as god will judge them it’s ok really.
Any Government would see it as political suicide to stand up to them. After all, what politicians want to look after are not the people, but themselves. What good are morals if you’re chucked out of office?
Anyone who brushes this under the carpet, offers excuses or turns a blind eye is as guilty as the persons carrying out the acts.
But hey, I’m not christian, what do I know? Or matter as far as you are concerned.
I think you do know the truth but refuse to acknowledge it.
[Blatant libel and demonstrable untruths removed for the legal wellbeing of both the commenter and the site owner].
I do believe Vanessa has already demonstrated via email the truth of what I wrote with web links as undeniable proof.
The very fact you claim they are ‘demonstrable untruths… particularly that which has been proven to have no basis in fact’ yet provide no counter proof for this claim erodes your own integrity to tell the truth.
@jeremy
I’m not sure what email you’re referring. The reason I removed the contentious subject matter is because you were making statements of fact that have, at best, shady supporting evidence from a subjective source. If you can provide me actual court information (type, circuit number, case number, etc), I will give it further time. Otherwise you’re merely repeating what someone else thinks is factual, when it’s actually opinion, and may then fall under libel law that can be used to hammer you as the commenter and me as the site owner (for allowing it).
You may consider such recklessness worthwhile in your self-appointed mission; I do not.
The tape in question has never been denied by James Randi (he has given at least 3 different accounts for the tape, the last and most ridiculous being that he was trying to help the police catch a pedophile(???))
The tape has emerged as evidence in 2 court cases: Byrd v Randi (Civil Action No. MJG-89-636 in the United States District for the Court for the District of Maryland.] Transcripts of the tape are also part of the court record in Geller v Randi, (Civil Action No 91-1014-SSH in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The transcripts are contained in Exhibit 40 to Exhibit U].
Whether or not you believe his excuses for the tape are genuine or plain ridiculous is up to you of course. But surely if you knew a friend of yours told you openly that he was a pedophile the very first thing you would do is distance yourself from that person and phone the authorities?
This is why his last excuse makes no sense to me as he himself seems quite comfortable to mingle with the likes of Paul Kurtz who see’s no problem in publishing pro-pedophile book and Vern Bullough (CSICOP member who served on the editorial board of Paidika), just read this horrific extract that he published with his wife for more proof.
And last but not least Ralph Underwager (co-founder and former FMSF member (wife is still a member)): who seems to think pedophilia is a responsible choice for the individual (see link for whole interview in which he states this)
[Disclaimer: This comment (as with all third-party comments on this blog) does not necessarily reflect the views of HurtlingThroughSpace.com or its owners. This comment is the sole responsibility of the commenter calling himself jeremy, though similar claims and comments such as this do appear elsewhere on the Internet].
I think we’ve gone about as far as we can with this thread. Comments are devolving into ad hominems, us-vs-them retorts, rehashing of old arguments (some refuted, some not), repetition, and general off-topic, unproductive and non-constructive content. It is not my intent to debate who did what or who can prove what with this blog. I realise this will be an unpopular decision, and expect the usual and varied accusations in response, but comments are now closed.