Prev: Bad Questions?
Next:  True/False: “ The cosmos has remained uniform but lost density. ”.
From: Benj on 12 Apr 2010 22:42
On Apr 12, 8:53 pm, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> because unlike many other data bases, human memory fades.  Thus, the
> accuracy and credibility of the testimony becomes less credible the further
> away it is from the incident.  Therefore, a limitation is reasonable.  In
> addition to which, relevant data is lost.  People lose records.  Records are
> destroyed based on scheduled dates.  It would be unreasonable for record
> holders to keep information for such a long time just in the event some one
> might one day decide to sue about an incident or residual described in said
> record might be needed.  Storing such records is costly.

Come on you idiot! Stop with the reasonable debate already!
We are attacking religion and especially the Catholic Church here.
Child abuse is so shocking that we don't even need a trial to give
someone
a punishment. I say if someone suddenly "remembers" some sexual
advances
from a priest or anyone else then that should be good enough! Get out
the twigs
and the stake and get the weenie roast started. Jail is too good for
these guys.
I say, they should be tortured until they "confess" and then burned at
the stake.

Everybody knows that because of celibacy, ALL priests are latent
pedophiles!
They are just pedophilia waiting to happen. All those children can
only be saved
if we start killing all priests NOW! Once the priest is tortured and
dead we don't
need no stinkin' records. The church made the mistake of keeping
records back
during the inquisition. No records. No blame. Simple.

We'll do it for the CHILDREN!
From: default on 13 Apr 2010 09:25
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:53:34 -0400, "Ala" <alackrity(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message
>news:8de435fe-a243-4742-a06a-9d955f6b0b7a(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I don't know why there are statues of limitations on any liability
>>suits at all.
>
>because unlike many other data bases, human memory fades. Thus, the
>accuracy and credibility of the testimony becomes less credible the further
>away it is from the incident. Therefore, a limitation is reasonable. In
>addition to which, relevant data is lost. People lose records. Records are
>destroyed based on scheduled dates. It would be unreasonable for record
>holders to keep information for such a long time just in the event some one
>might one day decide to sue about an incident or residual described in said
>record might be needed. Storing such records is costly.

In theory I would agree with you. Catholics specifically, and
religions generally, are in the brainwashing business when it comes to
indoctrinating people. Their methods are very effective. A child is
relatively defenseless - not like they can tell their parents, their
indoctrinated parents merely punish the children for lying.

When they do take the child's side, the rectory pretends it is a
single, out of the blue, isolated incidence. Parents agree to remain
quiet and the priest is supposed to get the help he needs so it can
never happen again. If they even believe the allegations, that is.

The rectory holds most of the power. It is embarrassing all around
and they hush it up to "protect the reputations of the children
involved" (if you can believe it). the result is a secret conspiracy
to hide crimes against children and we go along like this for decades.

The religion is in the god business, so people want to believe what
they are told - to start questioning is to "loose faith," which is a
sin punishable by hell. To speak out publicly you incur the stares in
church, snide comments, public ridicule etc.. No parent wants that,
so their choice is change parishes or move away.

I'm against one size fits all - type of justice. While the argument
that records and memory is lost is valid and works against justice, a
free pass it isn't warranted in this situation either. The RCC has
been writing its own ticket for thousands of years, they are due for
an awakening.
--
From: Double-A on 13 Apr 2010 14:50
On Apr 12, 7:42 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:53 pm, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > because unlike many other data bases, human memory fades.  Thus, the
> > accuracy and credibility of the testimony becomes less credible the further
> > away it is from the incident.  Therefore, a limitation is reasonable.  In
> > addition to which, relevant data is lost.  People lose records.  Records are
> > destroyed based on scheduled dates.  It would be unreasonable for record
> > holders to keep information for such a long time just in the event some one
> > might one day decide to sue about an incident or residual described in said
> > record might be needed.  Storing such records is costly.
>
> Come on you idiot! Stop with the reasonable debate already!
> We are attacking religion and especially the Catholic Church here.
> Child abuse is so shocking that we don't even need a trial to give
> someone
> a punishment. I say if someone suddenly "remembers" some sexual
> advances
> from a priest or anyone else then that should be good enough!  Get out
> the twigs
> and the stake and get the weenie roast started. Jail is too good for
> these guys.
> I say, they should be tortured until they "confess" and then burned at
> the stake.
>
> Everybody knows that because of celibacy, ALL priests are latent
> pedophiles!
> They are just pedophilia waiting to happen. All those children can
> only be saved
> if we start killing all priests NOW!  Once the priest is tortured and
> dead we don't
> need no stinkin' records. The church made the mistake of keeping
> records back
> during the inquisition. No records. No blame. Simple.
>
> We'll do it for the CHILDREN!


And if only one child is saved from a pedophile priest, wouldn't it be
worth it?

If they ever make the office of Grand Inquisitor elective, you have my
vote!

Double-A

From: James Burns on 13 Apr 2010 18:02
Benj wrote:

> Come on you idiot! Stop with the reasonable debate already!
> We are attacking religion and especially the Catholic Church
> here. Child abuse is so shocking that we don't even need a
> trial to give someone a punishment. I say if someone suddenly
> "remembers" some sexual advances from a priest or anyone else
> then that should be good enough! Get out the twigs and the
> stake and get the weenie roast started. Jail is too good for
> these guys. I say, they should be tortured until they "confess"
> and then burned at the stake.
>
> Everybody knows that because of celibacy, ALL priests are
> latent pedophiles! They are just pedophilia waiting to happen.
> All those children can only be saved if we start killing all
> priests NOW! Once the priest is tortured and dead we don't
> need no stinkin' records. The church made the mistake of
> keeping records back during the inquisition.
> No records. No blame. Simple.
>
> We'll do it for the CHILDREN!

Strawman much?

Now that you've got that out of your system, what do you suggest
society as a whole do now about pedophile priests? Trust the
Church to handle it?

Trust the same Church which does not even dispute the news stories
of members of the hierarchy ordering victims and "clean" priests
to stay silent, of moving abusing priests to new locations
without even warning their new co-workers about their history
of abuse?

Jim Burns


From: Ala on 13 Apr 2010 21:00

"[SMF]" <snbsmf(a)yahooligo.com> wrote in message
news:hpv45q$n7e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> On 4/12/2010 7:05 AM, Yap wrote:
>
>> Why should RCC be so blatant obvious to wish to protect those
>> molestors, especially those supposedly god's servent?
>> It shows religious bigots do not think there is god to punish them in
>> hell....
>> which in turn really is telling every one that there is no such thing
>> as god, hell, or heaven.
>
> They're not allowed to marry, or be with women...you figure it out.
>

you are suggesting something illogical. They are also not allowed to be
with men or children either.

In my experience, RC priests falter in that they break their celibacy vows
with women, men and children.

Those that do break their vows are breaking their vows no matter which
category they've dallied with.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Bad Questions?
Next:  True/False: “ The cosmos has remained uniform but lost density. ”.