…and this is a 
Bill Donohue must be greatly distressed right now, since a commission has blown open the doors on a long history of child abuse by the Irish Catholic Church. He's scrambling to do damage control and making a pathetic spectacle of himself. He basically belittles the trauma that those kids experienced to salvage the reputation of his beloved Catholicism…it doesn't work.
Reuters is reporting that "Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children," yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes "being kicked"; neglect includes "inadequate heating"; and emotional abuse includes "lack of attachment and affection." Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, "many of them [are] now more than 70 years old." And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.
Regarding sexual abuse, "kissing," and "non-contact including voyeurism" (e.g., what it labels as "inappropriate sexual talk") make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved "inappropriate fondling and contact." None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that "Irish Priests" were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).
The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape.
By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.
Whoa. The insensitive gall of the man.
It does not excuse anything to say that many of the reports are from before the 1970s. It wouldn't make the slightest difference if this report were of events in the 970s — it would still be an indictment of the casual brutality and cavalier disregard of the church for basic human rights, an indictment reinforced by the casual lack of concern given by Bill Donohue now. He ought to be howling in fury at the way the church has betrayed Christian principles (if he believes they actually have them), rather than making excuses for them.
Then to claim that this was merely pedestrian "corporal punishment", and dismiss the victims as "miscreants" — Jebus. It's like all the recent rationalizations by right-wing amoral monsters that torture is only like fraternity hazing, and besides, the terrorists deserved it. Is this what the Catholic Church is about, the dehumanization of children and the justification of abuse? Culture of life my ass.
And these were children and young adults. Donohue doesn't think "lack of attachment and affection" is such a big deal; does he have no kids of his own? Has he forgotten his childhood completely? If that were all the church had done, denied children love, stripped them of their families, put them in isolation, then I would still say that it is a monstrous institution that must be torn down.
Then he belittles "kissing" as sexual abuse. Is Bill Donohue in the habit of walking up to teenaged girls and kissing them? I hope not; most girls would consider that a demeaning and disgusting assault. And if Donohue were in a position of authority of them, using implied coercion to force them to put up with his slobbering intrusions on their persons, it would be even more offensive.
Only 12% of the cases were rapes. ONLY 12%. Does this somehow excuse the crime? I am reminded of the line by Father Ted: "We're not all like that. Say if there's two hundred million priests in the world, and 5% of them are pedophiles-- that's still only ten million!"
Of course, Father Ted was a comedy show. I presume Donohue wrote that with a straight face and thought he was making a serious point.
But what you really need to do is read the personal accounts and the report's discussion of the evils that were performed in Jesus' name.
What was going on in the workhouses was Dickensian in its awfulness — this was child slave labor. Ah, but the little miscreants deserved to be worked to exhaustion, right, Mr Donohue?
The commission report documents the pattern of abuse in considerable detail.
Reported abuse ranged from inappropriate fondling and touching to oral/genital contact, vaginal and anal rape. There were 128 reports of sexual abuse from 127 female witnesses (34%).7 One witness reported that she was sexually abused in two different Schools. Witnesses described their experience of sexual abuse as either acute or chronic episodes occurring throughout their admissions in the Schools. Witnesses reported being sexually abused by religious and lay staff in addition to other adults, the majority of whom were understood to be directly associated with the Schools. Witnesses also reported being sexually abused by co-residents.
I am waiting for Donohue to protest that only 127 girls were abused. Wouldn't one be enough? Also note that 34% of the women interviewed reported sexual abuse. We know that the shame of these encounters also means they are often grossly underreported.
The secretive and isolated nature of sexual abuse together with witnesses' experience of having their complaints disbelieved, ignored or punished contributed to the environment in which sexual abuse was reported to have occurred. Witnesses reported that the culture of obeying orders without question together with the authority of the adult abuser rendered them powerless to resist sexual abuse. Witnesses further reported that the fear of punishment, the threat of being sent to a more restrictive institution or their siblings being removed to another School also inhibited them in resisting, reporting or disclosing sexual abuse. Some witnesses spoke for the first time about being sexually abused during their hearings with the Committee.
Witnesses reported sexual assaults in the forms of vaginal and anal rape, oral/genital contact, digital penetration, penetration by an object, masturbation and other forms of inappropriate contact, including molestation and kissing. Witnesses also reported several forms of non-contact sexual abuse including indecent exposure, inappropriate sexual talk, voyeurism and forced public nudity. Witnesses gave accounts of being sexually abused both within the Schools and in other locations while in the care of the authorities in charge of the particular institution. They reported being sexually abused in many locations, including: dormitories, schools, motor vehicles, bathrooms, staff bedrooms, churches, sacristies, fields, parlours, the residences of clergy, holiday locations and while with godparents and employers.
I should add that this particular document only describes the girls' treatment, and the summary report points out that the sexual abuse of girls was relatively light, compared to the pervasive sexual brutality of the boys' workhouses. Donohue didn't even bother to address the plight of the boys from this report.
Donohue was wrong. Reuters actually played down the horrors of the Catholic workhouses from the commission report — read it yourself and you'll find that it isn't making "wild and irresponsible" accusations at all, but is soberly stacking up a mountain of evidence that the Catholic Church in Ireland was practicing great evils.
I also don't buy the excuse that this was done in the past and is irrelevant today. Donohue makes it relevant, acting as he does now as the embodiment of the mindset that allowed these nightmarish conditions to exist.
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 9:14 AM
Any word yet on how crackers were treated?
Posted by: JarrodB | May 22, 2009 9:14 AM
This is the most sickening, enraging thing I could read. Bill Donahue also says that the statistics show that only 4% of priests are guilty of child abuse. Is that a low number to him? 1 in 25? How many abused children is okay? What about the clergy who did not perform the physical abuses, but hid the priests and caused the victims pain by painting them as liars and troublemakers? Did we make that percentage a little higher?
Would you leave your child with a priest? How about 25 of them?
Posted by: MickyW | May 22, 2009 9:21 AM
I'm so glad you posted on this PZ. I've been stewing all night thinking about the gall of Donahue. At least the representatives of the RCC here in Ireland seem to have the good sense to know when to shut up and at least pretend to be sorry.
Bastard, sometimes I wish there was a hell.
Posted by: jagannath
|
May 22, 2009 9:21 AM
Butt, butt, but those children were not true christians, so it does not count as a big sin.
Besides having the ability to self-absolve ones sins makes the sins be automatically absolved, so there isn't even any actual sinning happening in the first place.
There you have it, no sin, no crime, neh?
Posted by: Ron Gove | May 22, 2009 9:21 AM
I suppose if one can believe in transubstantiation, than one can accept anything--even the rape of "only" 137 young girls.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 22, 2009 9:22 AM
*Speechless*
All I can say is, I'm glad this guy isn't near me right now. Seriously, he's entitled to hold his silly little beliefs, but there's a line, and he just drove a bulldozer through it.
He needs help.
No joke.
Posted by: diegopig | May 22, 2009 9:22 AM
"Culture of life my ass" is right spot on.
Some times ago an italian comedian (impersonating a priest) said:
"Look, we care about life from the conception to the birth. After that, we don't give a damn."
Culture of life my ass, indeed.
Posted by: JarrodB | May 22, 2009 9:23 AM
And, PZ, you say in your post that Bill Donahue should be howling in rage that the church betrayed christian principles. We have to stop equating christianity with morality. You know better than anyone. I just want to point out how conditioned we are to speak as if "christian" and "good" were interchangeable when it is in fact the opposite.
So, they very well expressed christian principles. "We are the chosen people. We can do whatever we want. If you oppose us, you are evil, of the devil."
Posted by: KI | May 22, 2009 9:24 AM
My inner Stalin will kill off my outer Ghandi if I don't quit reading this blog. I am being driven to denounce non-violence, and advocate taking everything he owns and leaving him naked and hungry in some megalopolis (Cairo or Mumbai or New York City).
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 22, 2009 9:24 AM
Dear Bill Donahue,
I'm all done with you.
A pox upon 'a you.
Love,
God
Posted by: SC, OM | May 22, 2009 9:25 AM
Reasonable people consider all of these forms of abuse.
Posted by: Revyloution
|
May 22, 2009 9:27 AM
Vile disgusting acts. Vile disgusting man.
I do disagree with this statement:
'It wouldn't make the slightest difference if this report were of events in the 970s'
Morality is not absolute, its a cultural norm. We value the rights of the individual, that is our cultural norm. In 970CE, the rights of the individual were not recognized the way they are today. The idea of abusing someone was common place. Slavery was legal, women were considered less than men, and the rights of the priest class trumped the rights of most people. (in Europe)
If this was reported during 970, It would probably have been met with indifference by the general populace. To judge moral actions, you must judge them within the social morality that they occurred.
Posted by: charley
|
May 22, 2009 9:27 AM
I see no reason why the RCC shouldn't cover all the costs associated with the victims of this horrible place (not that money will ever be enough). They had the authority to oversee this institution and the means to address the problems, yet they did nothing for decades. Sue their asses until it really, really hurts.
Posted by: J-Dog | May 22, 2009 9:28 AM
I wonder how "Miscrerant Bill Donohue" might react if he had some of "tough love" handed out to him by his beloved Irish Priests? It's way past time for Bene and the Rest to curb and disown this nut-bag.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 22, 2009 9:29 AM
Donohue
Posted by: Kseniya | May 22, 2009 9:29 AM
Wow. First, that's an unsubstantiated claim, of course. Second, does he really believe that?
Posted by: Ron Gove | May 22, 2009 9:30 AM
I suppose if one can believe in transubstantiation, than one can accept anything--even the rape of "only" 137 young girls.
Posted by: KrateKraig | May 22, 2009 9:31 AM
Some things never change...
The Onion from 2002... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27834
Posted by: CommiusRex | May 22, 2009 9:33 AM
I wish I could say I was shocked by his reaction, but...
This is symptomatic of one of the biggest problems with the Catholic church (in particular) as an institution, and the very same problem which meant that these abuses went on for years, unreported and uninvestigated: the "good name" and reputation of the Church is seen as paramount. When abuse was alleged or suspected, rather than alert the appropriate authorities, it was covered up so as not to "harm" the Church. Priests who abused children were not turned in to the police, but were moved on to different parishes, where some of them went on to abuse more children. This went on not only in Ireland, but in the USA, the UK and other countries around the world. The Catholic church needs to make it unequivocally clear that it is a greater "sin" (for those as believes in that sort of thing) to allow abuses to go unreported than it it to make them public. It is also less damaging to the church in the long run
Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2009 9:36 AM
Paddy Doyle has a time line
http://www.paddydoyle.com/historyofneglect.html
And this will make your hair curl
http://www.culturevulture.net/Books/SuffertheLittleChildren.htm
Posted by: CommiusRex | May 22, 2009 9:36 AM
I wish I could say I was shocked by his reaction, but...
This is symptomatic of one of the biggest problems with the Catholic church (in particular) as an institution, and the very same problem which meant that these abuses went on for years, unreported and uninvestigated: the "good name" and reputation of the Church is seen as paramount. When abuse was alleged or suspected, rather than alert the appropriate authorities, it was covered up so as not to "harm" the Church. Priests who abused children were not turned in to the police, but were moved on to different parishes, where some of them went on to abuse more children. This went on not only in Ireland, but in the USA, the UK and other countries around the world. The Catholic church needs to make it unequivocally clear that it is a greater "sin" (for those as believes in that sort of thing) to allow abuses to go unreported than it it to make them public. It is also less damaging to the church in the long run
Posted by: Amadán | May 22, 2009 9:36 AM
A few comments from an Irishman who was raised a Catholic:
1. The report clearly states that for logistical reason, only a sample of claims could be dealt with. The figures that Donohue makes so little of are only indicative of a much longer and wider history of abuse. If they were all the known cases, would that make it better somehow?
2. The report makes it clear that the gross acts of abuse (rape, beatings, etc) were only the consequences of a system that was designed to 'break' and dehumanise people. Even without the gross acts, the underlying system was unacceptable by any human standard, then or now. Does Donohue disagree? (Yes, by the looks of his comments)
3. Catholic congregations and their members were the proximate cause of this evil, but the system that encouraged and perpetuated this atrocity was owned and operated by the Irish State. It was our courts that sent these children to the institutions, under laws passed and updated in our parliament by politicians we elected. We were the guardians of these children and we handed them over to monsters knowing (or more accurately, not wanting to know) that the system was utterly wrong.
There is no defence to the indictment against Ireland, the Catholic Church or the people who operated under its protection. Donohue is a liar and hypocrite.
Posted by: blueelm | May 22, 2009 9:36 AM
Actually I tend to think about starvation and neglect first. But it's good to know you like thinking about rape, Bill, and that you consider it a lofty status beyond "cheapening" by mere beatings.
I can't even get my mind around the nastiness of that statement.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 9:36 AM
Unfortunately Donohue gets paid to defend the church, not the victims of the church. However, it says a lot about his own lack of morals by defending the church in this case. And people like Donohue wonder why church attendance is down...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 9:38 AM
Not all of the priests were rapists.
Not all of the rapists were priests.
Not all of the children were raped.
Not all of the abuse was rape.
Not all of the "abuse" was all that abusive, really.
So stop pickin' on Catholics, you bigots.
Posted by: CommiusRex | May 22, 2009 9:38 AM
I wish I could say I was shocked by his reaction, but...
This is symptomatic of one of the biggest problems with the Catholic church (in particular) as an institution, and the very same problem which meant that these abuses went on for years, unreported and uninvestigated: the "good name" and reputation of the Church is seen as paramount. When abuse was alleged or suspected, rather than alert the appropriate authorities, it was covered up so as not to "harm" the Church. Priests who abused children were not turned in to the police, but were moved on to different parishes, where some of them went on to abuse more children. This went on not only in Ireland, but in the USA, the UK and other countries around the world. The Catholic church needs to make it unequivocally clear that it is a greater "sin" (for those as believes in that sort of thing) to allow abuses to go unreported than it it to make them public. It is also less damaging to the church in the long run
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 9:38 AM
Shorter Donohue: The fact that Irish priests beat and raped children doesn't justify the wild and irresponsible claim that Irish priests beat and raped children.
Posted by: schnauzermom | May 22, 2009 9:39 AM
This is not news to anyone who has seen the film "The Magdalene Sisters." If anyone wants their inner Stalin to not only off their inner Gandhi but their inner Albert Schweitzer, their inner Martin Luther King, and their inner Helen Prejean, and then bust out to start getting medieval on the Dalai Lama, check out this film and the DVD extras that feature interviews with the abused women on whom it was based.
Bill Donohue is right in there with the Dick Cheneys of the world. Waterboarding is not torture and raping, fondling, beating,verbally and emotionally belittling, and enslaving children is not abuse. It's christian love.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | May 22, 2009 9:39 AM
These abuse cases, have been found in first world countries where there is a strong working press and reasonable law enforcement.
The Catholic Church operates missions in countries where there isn't a strong working press, and law enforcement is anything but reasonable.
The Catholic Church orchestrated a massive coverup, they set out not simply to make sure these priests and nuns got away with it, but that they were placed in positions where they could do it again, and again, and again.
4%? I wonder how many got away with it, and are still getting away with it, by getting posted to Africa?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 22, 2009 9:40 AM
Donohue.
Noted and logged. Thanks SC.
Posted by: CommiusRex | May 22, 2009 9:40 AM
Ugh... I apologise for multiple posts - that's due to crappy computer issues. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Amadán | May 22, 2009 9:41 AM
A few comments from an Irishman who was raised a Catholic:
1. The report clearly states that for logistical reason, only a sample of claims could be dealt with. The figures that Donohue makes so little of are only indicative of a much longer and wider history of abuse. If they were all the known cases, would that make it better somehow?
2. The report makes it clear that the gross acts of abuse (rape, beatings, etc) were only the consequences of a system that was designed to 'break' and dehumanise people. Even without the gross acts, the underlying system was unacceptable by any human standard, then or now. Does Donohue disagree? (Yes, by the looks of his comments)
3. Catholic congregations and their members were the proximate cause of this evil, but the system that encouraged and perpetuated this atrocity was owned and operated by the Irish State. It was our courts that sent these children to the institutions, under laws passed and updated in our parliament by politicians we elected. We were the guardians of these children and we handed them over to monsters knowing (or more accurately, not wanting to know) that the system was utterly wrong.
There is no defence to the indictment against Ireland, the Catholic Church or the people who operated under its protection. Donohue is a liar and hypocrite.
Posted by: SantaCruzOM | May 22, 2009 9:43 AM
Such a hollow institution is the "church". As if the abuse weren't enough, now representatives of the faith add salt to the wounds of the victims by further denying and misrepresenting the validity of the events. Does their God endorse this sort of cowardice? Bill Donohue has demonstrated the strength of his moral fabric. His protectionist stance in light of this report is vile and disgusting. At what point do the faithful take ownership of their sicknesses? How much can you sweep under one rug?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | May 22, 2009 9:43 AM
These abuse cases, have been found in first world countries where there is a strong working press and reasonable law enforcement.
The Catholic Church operates missions in countries where there isn't a strong working press, and law enforcement is anything but reasonable.
The Catholic Church orchestrated a massive coverup, they set out not simply to make sure these priests and nuns got away with it, but that they were placed in positions where they could do it again, and again, and again.
4%? I wonder how many got away with it, and are still getting away with it, by getting posted to Africa?
Posted by: Sean | May 22, 2009 9:45 AM
Donohue is a poisonous sycophant. You just have to wonder what would be necessary for that disgusting human being to see the shame inherent to his beloved RCC. What a scumbag.
Posted by: fardels bear | May 22, 2009 9:47 AM
The notion that morality changes over time and therefore the abuses are somehow lessened because they are before 1970 is one that is not available to Donahue. His Church is timeless and eternal and his God is unchanging. So, by even making the argument he is contradicting his entire reason for making the argument in the first place. What a odious man.
Posted by: JBlilie | May 22, 2009 9:48 AM
This has always gone on in Catholic organizations. The only thing that's changed now is that the RCC can no longer threaten dissenters with death (and the idle threat of excommunication). So now, we hear about it. The missing link here is: Criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. In what other case would the perps get a free pass???? Oh, but they do such goo din other places. Yeah, most child abusers are "normal" people in the rest their lives: That doesn't absolve them from their culpability.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | May 22, 2009 9:48 AM
It's a terrible fact of life that every institution that deals with children will eventually have a child abuser working for it.
It's what that organization does when faced with that. Does it have a system designed to detect abuse, to allow people to report it, to investigate and punish? And *that's* where the Catholic church failed here. And not just, if I may, by omission, but by commission - they systematically did the exact opposite of what a decent organization would do.
As for moral absolutes ... I agree that morality is culturally constructed, that much depends on practicality and what's tolerated by the community, rather than some objective standard.
But there are two points to make: first of all, the whole point of Catholicism is that they *don't* believe that; second, there are things that virtually every society and situation treat as the most serious crimes, they might as well be called 'universal human values'. And 'raping children is bad' is so far on the other side of that line, the only people who could possibly think otherwise are the god deluded.
Posted by: rrt | May 22, 2009 9:50 AM
Maybe this will finally shake some sense into Donohue's followers...his reflexive defense of his church is almost pathological. Wonder if HE was ever abused? We had a semi-frequen commenter here who'd do the same...any time the Chirch did something or the Pope said something, it was always "oh, but they didn't mean THAT, it's misinterpreted, or they translated it wrong, or the newspaper was biased..."
I do have to agree with Revyloution, though. Times and moral standards or expectations change somewhat, and O think most sane people, and even most Catholics, would recognize that a thousand years ago the church wasn't exactly the same as today, and probably probe to more of this sort of thing even if only because of the cultural setting and the human "sinners" running it. Likewise, I certainly do think there's a difference between one case of abuse and hundreds.
But that isn't what happened. This WAS hundreds, at the least, and 1970 is not negligibly too far (and did Bill contextualize that? Sure, MOST were before 1970 but mightn't that be because this goes back generations and the numbers of priests have apparently been in decline more recently?). And to cover it up, to turn a knowing blind eye for generations, to profit from the abuse, to demean and belittle the travesty and it's victims, to somehow maintain throughout all this that it's really the CHURCH that's the victim here... I can't tell you how disgusted I am. I hope the Irish wake up over this. I know my respect for the catholic church is entirely gone. Optimist that I am, that's saying something.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 22, 2009 9:50 AM
#28
"This is not news to anyone who has seen the film "The Magdalene Sisters."
Indeed. If you haven't seen it you should.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydg9b0YiQQ4
I think an important point that comes across in the film is the complicity of Irish society with this abuse. Should we be surprised that Irish society (and miscreants like Donohue) are compliant with its cover-up?
Posted by: rrt | May 22, 2009 9:52 AM
Maybe this will finally shake some sense into Donohue's followers...his reflexive defense of his church is almost pathological. Wonder if HE was ever abused? We had a semi-frequen commenter here who'd do the same...any time the Chirch did something or the Pope said something, it was always "oh, but they didn't mean THAT, it's misinterpreted, or they translated it wrong, or the newspaper was biased..."
I do have to agree with Revyloution, though. Times and moral standards or expectations change somewhat, and O think most sane people, and even most Catholics, would recognize that a thousand years ago the church wasn't exactly the same as today, and probably probe to more of this sort of thing even if only because of the cultural setting and the human "sinners" running it. Likewise, I certainly do think there's a difference between one case of abuse and hundreds.
But that isn't what happened. This WAS hundreds, at the least, and 1970 is not negligibly too far (and did Bill contextualize that? Sure, MOST were before 1970 but mightn't that be because this goes back generations and the numbers of priests have apparently been in decline more recently?). And to cover it up, to turn a knowing blind eye for generations, to profit from the abuse, to demean and belittle the travesty and it's victims, to somehow maintain throughout all this that it's really the CHURCH that's the victim here... I can't tell you how disgusted I am. I hope the Irish wake up over this. I know my respect for the catholic church is entirely gone. Optimist that I am, that's saying something.
Posted by: Therion | May 22, 2009 9:52 AM
Prof Myers - brilliant post. Thank you.
Donohue's defense is typical of what has gone on in Ireland for a very long time. Denial... denial... denial.. and the blaming of the victim. I'm from Belfast and I was acutely aware of the power of the priesthood. It had to be seen to be believed.
The filthy bastards who took full advantage of their clerical power to abuse, destroyed not just the innocence... but the integrity, the wholeness of children to whom they had access.
Many of these "men of God" cultivated relationships with families in their parish with the express purpose of sexually abusing the children. As for the institutional settings, it's difficult to imagine the fear and trauma children in these gulags were exposed to at the hands of nuns and priests.
A lot of these clerics were twisted, guilt-ridden freaks who acted out their pathological urges on those in their charge.
This is a Church, the originator of which reputedly said that anyone who lays so much as a hand on a child in this manner, should put a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the depths of the sea. And yet the Church not only turned a blind eye to the plague of abusers, they covered for them and in fact facilitated them.
Donohue is a ridiculous fool who has no clue what he is talking about. He is an abject apologist for a Church that wreaked destruction in Ireland - not just at the hands of the abusers of children but through cultivating a climate guilt ridden superstition, dependency on Rome and a repressive culture inimical to every healthy instinct that tends toward freedom and integrity. They wanted most of all slaves - slaves to their superstitions, slaves to their authority, slaves to their dark deeds... and then they wanted silence and complicity.
Thanks for drawing readers attention to Donohue's absurd posturing and denial.
Posted by: tariqata | May 22, 2009 9:53 AM
I headed over here as soon as I Donohue's letter in the New York Times.
I was not alive in 1970, admittedly - but I find it hard to believe that kicking, kissing, and fondling were "not uncommon" forms of discipline in the average industrialized-world school.
Certainly, I find it hard to believe that they would have been accepted forms of discipline.
Posted by: Reynold | May 22, 2009 9:53 AM
This is really messed up, considering how the guy went nuts over a god-damned cracker.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
May 22, 2009 9:53 AM
Yes, the Irish government is still unwilling to take on a corrupt organization if that organization happens to be affiliated with the Catholic Church. Tying nationalism to the Church was a very bad idea for the Irish, and they are paying for it today. No doubt the behavior of the Christian Brothers and other criminal gangs will do a lot to get the Irish to stop identifying with the Roman Catholic Church.
Mr. Donohue is too corrupt to give his opinion any weight.
Posted by: Tom Rooney
|
May 22, 2009 9:56 AM
Lighten up people. These are just kids. Its not like anyone was kicking, raping, or emotionally abusing a cracker!
Posted by: puseaus | May 22, 2009 9:56 AM
1: "Any word yet on how crackers were treated?"
They are not crackers. I have heard rumors they are holy wafers.
I certainly hope the Catholics will use this opportunity to debate/review their own religion critically and boldly. There might be some valuable lessons in this awful story. Hopefully their children (and maybe other children) will have good reasons to be proud of them.
Posted by: TimG
|
May 22, 2009 9:56 AM
The actor Gabriel Byrne describes his experiences at school with the Christian Brothers in an interview with Terry Gross. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103651864
Posted by: damitall | May 22, 2009 9:57 AM
Does this Donohue person have any children of his own? Would he tolerate even the "milder" form of abuse reported from Ireland being visited upon his own family youngsters?
If he would, he is not fit to be a parent or guardian, or to be in contact with any children.
If he wouldn't, he is a steaming hypocrite
In his belief system, he is damned either way.
Posted by: AC | May 22, 2009 10:01 AM
It's exactly like that. Authoritarianism is humanity's oldest and most deadly disease.
Posted by: bobxxxx | May 22, 2009 10:01 AM
Catholic children would be safe from abusive priests if they used Priest Off.
Posted by: Reynold | May 22, 2009 10:01 AM
Tom Rooney @46:
You just won the internet. We should incorporate that into a t-shirt.
Maybe:
"Upset about the rape and abuse of Irish kids in Catholic schools?
Lighten up people! These are just kids. Its not like anyone was kicking, raping, or emotionally abusing a cracker!"
Posted by: Tomhuld | May 22, 2009 10:02 AM
Diegopig @ 7:
Actually I think that is not quite correct. The recent case of Eluana Englaro here in Italy made me think that the requirement for your life to be sacred is: that you do not have a functioning brain. If you are 7mm long and have 100 neurons in total, or if your brain has been damaged beyond all hope of recovery, then there is no end to the sanctity of your life. Otherwise, you can go to hell (literally or figuratively).
Posted by: MattB | May 22, 2009 10:03 AM
Ain't religion just swell?
Complete moral immunity! - just rub some beads and eat a cracker...
Posted by: Hurin | May 22, 2009 10:04 AM
Sometimes people like Donohue make me wish I could believe in hell.
Posted by: Hurin | May 22, 2009 10:07 AM
Sometimes people like Donohue make me wish I could believe in hell.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 22, 2009 10:07 AM
Nooooo. Priests can't absolve themselves.
They can only absolve each other. Biiiiig difference. <vehement nodding>
I do hope that our morality is not completely arbitrary.
In fact, there's evidence it's not…
I don't actually think so.
Posted by: sammywol
|
May 22, 2009 10:07 AM
Donahue said what?! ... Oh well I guess it isn't really that much of a surprise.
And it is going to be impossible to sue the Church within the State for reparations. Why? Because http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0522/1224247112936.html Apparently the church was able to play serious hardball on this disgusting deal because Holy Catholic Ireland STILL relies disproportionately heavily on the Church to run its schools and hospitals and the church still owns those assets. They presented the government with the alternative, selling off those institutions or their land for private development to meet the claims.
The State is at least 50% responsible for the appalling litany of crimes against children and the vulnerable over decades in Ireland. The church took care of the expensive and complicated problems that the State did not want the bother or the cost of coping with so cracking down on the Church abuses would have meant the state having to actually shoulder its responsibilities. Can't have that. Far too much bother. Much better just go to the Races or have a few more games of bloody golf.
The only positive sign is that the enraged reaction going on in the media for the moment seems to have shot a large hole in our lovely Minister's plans for a blasphemy law. Who said anger wasn't a good thing again?
Nice to know that all of this is a lesser crime than simply not believing in Cardinal McCormack O'Connor's invisible friend.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 10:11 AM
Steve Jeffers #38: The RCC wasn't only an accessory after the event. The non-sexual types of abuse - the violence and neglect - were, as the Irish Times pointed out, a feature and not a bug. The regime was designed to be abusive. More than that, the super-authoritarian, hierarchical structure in these homes made sexual abuse much more likely than it would have been if questioning authority was encouraged (or even permissible).
They didn't just protect the batterers and rapists; they got these kids battered and raped.
Posted by: Pablo | May 22, 2009 10:12 AM
Can I believe my eyes? Donohue has just made an argument that morality is culturally relative!!!
Now, I don't disagree, but it does seriously get into the way of "God's laws are absolute" and all that.
So let's see, Bill. Abuse before 1970 is ok, because most of society would not have seen it as in issue. Great. And you know what? Most of society in 2009 don't see abortion as an issue, either. Overwhelmingly, abortion is something considered something that should be available. I guess that means that abortion is ok now, right?
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
May 22, 2009 10:13 AM
I apologize for the biological inaccuracies of the following, but...
Bill Donohue is a worthless puddle of spent Elephant fuck.
Posted by: Hypatia | May 22, 2009 10:15 AM
I am so glad that this holy asshat has taken the trouble to define rape so that the rest of us don't have to worry our pretty little heads about it.
I guess just like sex and marriage, it's only real rape if it happens in the missionary position between a man and a woman (a woman who's not married to him, which would make her his property and also preclude the possibility of rape).
Ugh!
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 10:16 AM
It is interesting how many of these evolution blogs (PZ and Jason Rosenhouse's evolutionblog come to mind) have so many posts that have nothing to do with evolution or even science. It is as if the authors really believe a discussion of child abuse in the Catholic Church, Jim Cramer and John Stewart (http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/05/cramer_still_bitter_towards_st.php#more) or of any atheist or left leaning political opinion is automatically relevant to evolutionary biology. When did this happen?
Posted by: Mark Temporis | May 22, 2009 10:17 AM
Donohue was the founder of Domino's and IFAIK runs the Catholic League with his own money (but it would be un-Christian to turn down donations, of course). That's it. The Catholic League=Donohue.
No affiliation with the RCC exists, and if they weren't so busy being embarrassments to themselves they'd realize he was an embarrassment to them.
Posted by: NC Paul | May 22, 2009 10:17 AM
And to think he got so hysterical that you desecrated only one of his holy crackers.
Posted by: SantaCruzOM | May 22, 2009 10:17 AM
Reminds me of the Whitehouse Boys - http://www.geocities.com/fsbmarianna/ - though in this case it was state-sanctioned abuse. But no matter how you cut it, evil is evil.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
May 22, 2009 10:17 AM
I grew up in 1950s Scotland and attended an averagely strict elementary school. The worst physical punishment ever meted out was "the strap", a heavy leather strap that was applied sharply to the open had of the offender (and now, thankfully, banned). Donohue is lying; it is as simple as that.
Posted by: TerilynnS | May 22, 2009 10:17 AM
PZ - thanks for posting this. I'm going to go cry for the victims then send this link to my friends who still question why and how I was able to dump faith in a deity.
Posted by: rrt | May 22, 2009 10:18 AM
Sorry for the double-post, I didn't get the usual submission failure screen...just my iPhone claiming it had lost the data network.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 10:19 AM
It is interesting how many of these evolution blogs (PZ and Jason Rosenhouse's evolutionblog come to mind) have so many posts that have nothing to do with evolution or even science. It is as if the authors really believe a discussion of child abuse in the Catholic Church, Jim Cramer and John Stewart (http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/05/cramer_still_bitter_towards_st.php#more) or of any atheist or left leaning political opinion is automatically relevant to evolutionary biology. When did this happen?
Posted by: BrianC | May 22, 2009 10:21 AM
If any good can come of this, it's that it will place a further nail in the coffin of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 10:23 AM
Sorry for my double post as well. ScienceBlogs was hanging up and I inadvertently submitted the same thing more than once. Sorry PZ!
Posted by: Larry | May 22, 2009 10:23 AM
The Modern Catholic Church:
Now with 35% fewer rapes and 41% fewer beatings. Send your kids to church today!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 22, 2009 10:24 AM
The day you lost the ability to read for understanding.
Here, look:
That's what it says right below the great big blue "Pharyngula" near the top of this page.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 10:26 AM
Herm @#63: Good point!
O wait no it isn't.
People with personal blogs can write about whatever they wish, and if you don't like it, no one is forcing you read it. This is and always was the personal blog of an individual scientis and it certainly has enough high-quality science content that Seed's invitation for PZ to move it to scienceblogs.com was entirely justified. In fact it's a great science blog; it's also a great atheism blog and a great centre-left blog.
Has telling people what they should and shouldn't use there blog for ever worked?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 10:26 AM
Herm, from the masthead
In other words, anything PZ wants to talk about. You don't like what he talks about, find another blog.
Posted by: Logicel | May 22, 2009 10:28 AM
Excellent post, Therion #42.
And if even that corrupt sack of merde did have a minor point about that the torture, slavery, and rape condoned jointly by the Irish government and the Catholic Church happened in the 'less moral' past, there has been no significant and binding change in the oppressive, primitive, backward organization that is the despicable, patriarchal Catholic Church with its tentacles still deeply strangling the Irish Government that would prevent and handle any further kinds of criminal behavior at present and in the future.
Suck an A bomb, Donohue and your fellow cowards known as Catholics.
Posted by: Reynold | May 22, 2009 10:30 AM
to Herm @ number 70:
These are also the personal blogs of the people who blog here if I remember correctly. Besides, the religious section of society is the part that is fighting most vehemenently against science and evolution so it's natural that they'd be talked about. Most of the time when the religious right is mentioned on these blogs, it's about their attitude towards science and evolution anyway.
In cases like this where science isn't involved...well, scientists also happen to care about humans, don't they? In some cases more than the "clergy" seem to.
Posted by: Louis | May 22, 2009 10:31 AM
Oh PZ, why must you persecute the Catholic Church?
It's not like they've engaged in a decades long cover up of the acts of child molesters and have/had an official fund for their relocation.
It's not like they've basically instigated a campaign of physical abuse and oppression by intimidating individuals and the state.
Oh wait.....
Louis
P.S. Why aren't more people getting upset over something really serious? Surely desecrating a cracker that's had some magic words said over it, and therefore is the body of god, is a far more serious thing. As is tolerating the existence of people who don't believe in god. These are really serious crimes for us to get annoyed about. Pfff get steamed up over fucking and beating kids, that's SO unimportant. It's not like the all got fucked and beaten. Get over it.
Posted by: Beauzeaux | May 22, 2009 10:32 AM
This is what what done to the boys:
“Punching, flogging, assault and bodily attacks, hitting with the hand, kicking, ear pulling, hair pulling, head shaving, beating on the soles of the feet, burning, scalding, stabbing, severe beatings with or without clothes, being made to kneel and stand in fixed positions for lengthy periods, made to sleep outside overnight, being forced into cold or excessively hot baths and showers, hosed down with cold water before being beaten, beaten while hanging from hooks on the wall, being set upon by dogs, being restrained in order to be beaten, physical assaults by more than one person, and having objects thrown at them.”
It sounds somewhat worse than the regime at Gitmo. By the way, about 50% of the boys were send to these institutions BEFORE the age of 5. It's not possible to be a criminal at that age. And NO ONE deserves treatment like that. (Though I might make an exception for disgusting apologists like Donohue.)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 10:33 AM
#70
Perhaps because we as thoughtful, inquisitive, compassionate human beings find it worthwhile to muse on how other individuals have developed logic models that allow them to rationalize away any accountability or fault for horrendous acts or abuses when in defense of their ill-conceived belief systems. It's hard to resist discussing the irony of a system which claims to be based upon principles of morality and compassion, yet has no trouble intentionally concealing its imperfections and blatant disregard for these very principles.
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
May 22, 2009 10:34 AM
Not all of the actions that the Catholic church took during this time addressed the issue.
Many of the actions that the Catholic church took during this time AND CONTINUING TO THIS DAY works to cover up these incidents and protect those who are guilty.
If you ask me, Catholics aren't picked on enough.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
May 22, 2009 10:35 AM
Why does this always have to be explained? Why do idiots keep failing to grasp the notion that the owner of this blog is free to write about whatever he damn well chooses? Where does it say, Herm, that this blog is exclusively about evolution?
I'm sorry, Herm, but you're a dribbling moron, a babbling idiot and a ham-salad sandwich all rolled into one. Get help. Embrace freedom. And stop trying to hijack the thread with your constipated notions of what blogging actually is.
Posted by: puseaus | May 22, 2009 10:35 AM
Herm @70 No coincidence. There is a strong connection between the subject of evolution (and the rest of science) and the subject of religious delusion. Read Richard Dawkins.
Posted by: Liam | May 22, 2009 10:36 AM
Posted by: Alyson Miers | May 22, 2009 10:37 AM
"Culture of life" just means, "We demand more babies!" It doesn't say anything about how to handle life once it arrives. Now, you take a bunch of adults of dubious education, teach them that their own sexuality is evil and wrong and must be suppressed at all costs, and then convince the general populace that these people have the authority of God behind them, and place them in positions of responsibility over large numbers of children without families? (Or who'd just been taken away from their families, same difference.) Endemic abuse shouldn't be a surprise in this context, but that doesn't make it any less destructive to the children in question.
Posted by: Kel | May 22, 2009 10:38 AM
The first rule of blogging is to pick a single topic and stick to it, no matter what is on your mind... oh wait, that's a load of crap. Blogs are an interface from an individual to the wider community, they can be whatever the person wants them to be about. It's like saying that a history teacher can't talk about physics among his friends because of his status as a religion teacher.
It's a blog, Herm. Blogs are there to put up whatever the blogger feels is blogworthy. This is Web 2.0, it's an extension of conversation. Are you next going to mandate that when PZ speaks to his friends and family that he has to talk about embryological development too? Or is it simply you don't like that PZ says bad things about Bill Donohue?
Posted by: Liam
|
May 22, 2009 10:41 AM
Ugh apologies, runaway blockquote. Fixed:
This may make even the pacifists here want to start burning down churches, but unfortunately there is a reason. As far as I understand the situation, the Irish government in their wisdom struck a deal with the church to cap it's payout to 100million old irish pounds (about €128M) and give them indemnity from being sued. The final bill will be more than €1bn and mostly borne by the irish taxpayer.
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
May 22, 2009 10:43 AM
This is more "morally right" than it may appear at first glance. Through their overwhelming support of the Catholic church through the years, the Irish taxpayer is largely responsible for these travesties. They didn't oversee what was going on, and collectively, they most certainly ignored and dismissed what complaints were raised over time.
The people of Ireland *COULD* have investigated and put a stop to this sort of thing years ago, but they didn't... just like the church didn't.
Posted by: Wedge | May 22, 2009 10:49 AM
Herm: "Oh look, it's a Blibbering Humdinger!"
No wait, we were talking about the evilness of Bill Donohue. Reading about the abuse in Ireland made me want to throw up; reading Bill Donohue makes me want to take a shower. The man has abdicated his humanity.
Posted by: strangebrew | May 22, 2009 10:53 AM
64#
"if they weren't so busy being embarrassments to themselves they'd realize he was an embarrassment to them."
Well they require all the 'friends' they can get, but with 'friends' like 'donkey breath' they deserve all the humiliation they get.
Tis a 'wild and irresponsible claim' that retarded inadequate arrogant shit heads, rarely wake up,let alone smell the coffee, so full of their own rotting moralistic stench it wafts right passed them.
But I can live with that.
It is their loss, just another drip drip of attitude that will be their undoing, if it is not already!
Posted by: Guy Caballero | May 22, 2009 10:55 AM
As though we needed further proof that Donohue is a sadistic monster...I think we should lock him and Dick Cheney in a room with a pederast priest and a Blackwater contractor...let's see what "torture" really is!
Posted by: oaksterdam | May 22, 2009 11:02 AM
#66
SantaCruzOM?
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 11:04 AM
Uh, wow...
"you're a dribbling moron, a babbling idiot and a ham-salad sandwich all rolled into one. Get help." #83
...and I thought all the abuse for evolutionary biologists was to be found on the creationist blogs? Hmmmm...
Of course PZ and anyone else (including me I thought?) can talk about anything they like. PZ's subtitle does indeed include the phrase "random biological ejaculations". Certainly this post is random and a more crass side of me would agree it is an ejaculation what it is not is biological but rather a moral, ethical, philosophical problem. I don't have any problem at all with anyone saying whatever they want, including calling me a "moron" if that is what they feel they need to do.
The problem is presenting moral, ethical, philosophical, political and religious issues as if they are issues in which evolution, or any other scientific theory, no matter how valid, has some bearing. PZ can or course talk about whatever he wants. Saying I don't want him to express an opinion about this is simply a way to ignore the point I'm trying to make.
Posted by: kamaka | May 22, 2009 11:07 AM
This detail from the report is minor in the larger scheme of things, but it is telling:
In addition there were a further eight accounts of witnesses being hit with large Rosary beads and crucifixes that nuns wore at their waist.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 11:07 AM
The other (male) half of the commission report is here:
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/CICA-VOL3-07.pdf
Posted by: NickG
|
May 22, 2009 11:08 AM
Hey Bill, I was the victim of what you trivialized (albeit in the 1970s, so perhaps that makes it worse in your eyes?)
So a couple of points, Billy. First you are an ignorant shitstain of the tighty-whities of humanity.
Second, even when abuse is culturally normative, its still abuse. Infant sacrifice was culturally normative in Phoenician, Carthagian, and your fucked up Abrahamic tradition. That doesn't make it right.
Third, to your pea-sized brain emotional abuse may seem less heinous, but in fact it is the most damaging. I've twice set my own broken digits, stapled my own lacerations sans anesthetic, passed numerous kidney stone with only ibuprofen, and worked with meningitis (only viral, but it did fucking hurt.) However those all paled in comparison to the lifelong emotional crippling of simply being told you are stupid, worthless, and should not have been born delivered with beatings that only left patterned injuries for a few days. Its not the physical pain, its the internalization that maybe you *are* worthless because this adult to whom you have developed a stunted and dysfunctional attachment told you so. You desperately want the adults in your life to tell you that you are a good kid, that you are loved, and that you are safe. Instead the backhand hurled along with an insult can be more damaging.
My fingers healed with 6 weeks and a splint, the childhood abuse took years of therapy to get to the point that I would say I am 90% healed. I have a normal healthy relationship with my partner of 12 years (though you'd consider it intrinsically disordered.) I don't need anti-depressants, I don't have nightmares about it any more, I can talk about my experience it without emotional pain or shame, and I can truthfully say I am pretty happy today.
And quite honestly your callous dismissive attitude didn't bring up old pain for me. However it did really piss me the fuck off. I'm an ER physician and I deal with the results of current victims of abuse and neglect. You are a worthless Catholic Abuse minimizer who deserves derision and to have sacrilegious disregard of your fairy tales rubbed in your face.
I hadn't yet been motivated enough to obtain and desecrate a cracker, but Bill you have given me the motivation I need. I have a friend who is a lapsed Catholic who has offered to get me a consecrated cracker for $10. So this Sunday I will take said consecrated cracker and after having sex with my husband, the santorum thus generated will be drizzled on the cracker and left to ooze into it. Afterwards, it will end up in my compost heap and probably be used to help grow my friends weed (he steals all my effing compost).
If you'd like a picture, Bill drop me a line. But no, you can't have any of the weed.
Go fuck yourself,
Nick
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 11:11 AM
Confusing, huh? I asked once before.Posted by: SantaCruzOM | May 22, 2009 11:13 AM
#93
Yeah? Are you asking about my screenname?
#81 was me too, but I got too carried away and forgot to put my name on the post.
Posted by: Chris Nowak | May 22, 2009 11:14 AM
The coverup is what really compounds the matter. Even if only 1% of the members of the church actually committed the acts, a ton more were involved in covering it up. They're all monsters.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 11:16 AM
Herm@94:
Can you honestly imagine a situation where anyone would read this post and come away from it with the assumption that PZ is condemning this wickedness on the basis of applying a scientific theory. Do you really think that confusion is faintly plausible? Really?Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 11:17 AM
#87
"It's a blog, Herm."
Thanks for that.
"Blogs are there to put up whatever the blogger feels is blogworthy."
Then why give them titles referring to specific topics, such as science or evolution? If this is the case with this blog then it's simply a matter of a poorly chosen title. It should be something like "PZ Meyer's opinions: Random thoughts on every topic"
"Are you next going to mandate that when PZ speaks to his friends and family that he has to talk about embryological development too?"
First, I of course can't "mandate" anything. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency between the stated topic of the blog and this particular post. PZ however has every right to be inconsistent.
Second, this isn't a conversation with his friends and family but rather a public forum presented by a person who touts his scientific credentials, and rightly so.
"Or is it simply you don't like that PZ says bad things about Bill Donohue?"
I don't even necessarily disagree with him on the substance of his points, but maybe on the tone of their presentation.
The problem is presenting these topics in this forum (a public forum by a professional science educator specifically on a scientific topic) may mislead some of the less savvy and biologically literate public to the impression that accepting evolutionary biology demands one adopt particular moral, ethical, religious, philosophical or political views. This is not necessarily so.
Posted by: Cowcakes | May 22, 2009 11:19 AM
Bill Donohue has placed himself firmly in the same class of people as David Irving.
Personally I have difficulty in finding any differnce between this vile abuse by the Roman Catholic church and the Japanese military during the Sandakan Death March.
Oh I forgot the Japanese were at war and did it to adults. The Church was showing their love and compassion for children.
Posted by: Cowcakes | May 22, 2009 11:22 AM
Bill Donohue has placed himself firmly in the same class of people as David Irving.
Personally I have difficulty in finding any differnce between this vile abuse by the Roman Catholic church and the Japanese military during the Sandakan Death March.
Oh I forgot the Japanese were at war and did it to adults. The Church was showing their love and compassion for children.
Posted by: Liam
|
May 22, 2009 11:23 AM
@Evolving Squid #89
I think you are right that the Irish people should take some of the blame - but 90%? And the government should get to decide that the church cannot be sued?
Most young Irish taxpayers, myself included, don't support the catholic church. But we have to pay for its crimes and the crimes of naivety and silence of earlier Irish generations, when the very wealthy Vatican, a party that was aware of the abuse and took part in the cover-ups, pays very little.
I think the Christian Brothers in particular, and the Catholic Church in general should be run off the island.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 11:27 AM
Herm, your opinion is noted and rejected. You don't like what PZ posts and we respond to, go away. You will be the one to change, not this blog.
Posted by: oaksterdam | May 22, 2009 11:27 AM
Thank you Sven.
Where's your OM? I voted for you 850* times with people calling me an idiot and asshole** for doing so. And AG therapy'd my ass over it. Got all into my deeper motivations and shit. Least you could do is wear the damn thing.
*Slight exaggeration
**see *
Posted by: Nicol | May 22, 2009 11:27 AM
Interesting that he says "hardly Draconian" -- as if the fact that these children are not being shoved into Iron Maidens in some BDSM Ren Faire-gone-wrong nightmare justifies their treatment. I'd say it's WORSE than Draconian: it's the absolute worst way to treat any human being, particularly children who are still developing mentally and emotionally and have no defenses against it.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 11:29 AM
Matt #101
"Do you really think that confusion is faintly plausible? Really?"
Then why is it here? Apparently PZ thinks a discussion of child abuse in the Catholic church is a relevant subject for a science blog. I just want to know why he or anyone thinks the subject is relevant in this context?
Do you think that people expect to see anti-religious, left leaning politics on an evolution blog? I think people do expect this, but why? Evolution doesn't really demand a particular religious or political conviction.
What if you went to an evolution blog and found a post criticizing the assault weapon ban or a pro-life post? Would they seem out of place? Honestly? If evolution doesn't demand one to take one side or the other in these arguments why would this be so?
Posted by: Darrell E | May 22, 2009 11:31 AM
Herm,
The reason you are being ridiculed is that your "point" is pointless since PZ has not, in even the tiniest way, brought evolution into this discussion. Your ever so slightly superior attitude, right from the get go, makes you look like yet another mindless troll that is not nearly as clever as he / she thinks.
If you really believe that science has no bearing on any of these issues, you are an unimaginative fool.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, OM mani padme hum | May 22, 2009 11:32 AM
thanks, man
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 11:34 AM
Nerd #106
"You don't like what PZ posts and we respond to, go away."
Hmmmm, not exactly in the free speech spirit of Web 2.0 anymore? You seem to be saying that respondents critical of PZ need not post, is that it? This is all very familiar to me in exchanges I've had on the web with creationists.
Posted by: JLT | May 22, 2009 11:34 AM
A summary of the report can be found here.
Posted by: Equisetum | May 22, 2009 11:34 AM
#12:"To judge moral actions, you must judge them within the social morality that they occurred."
So, stoning a woman to death for being raped is OK, as long as it occurred 'within the social morality' of sharia law?
And try to think a little bit deeper. Remember, these are purportedly followers Jesus, who taught about that 'do unto others' thing. If it was wrong in 30 A.D., it was wrong in 970 A.D.
I think your reasoning is a bit off. (And I'm being really, really polite here.)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 11:36 AM
How well you write, PZ!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 22, 2009 11:36 AM
Tomhuld @ #53:
[too many snarky responses to pick just one]
Posted by: blueelm | May 22, 2009 11:38 AM
"The problem is presenting moral, ethical, philosophical, political and religious issues as if they are issues in which evolution, or any other scientific theory, no matter how valid, has some bearing. "
I just re-read the post and I don't see anything about evolution in it. This is a post about atheism. Now, and understanding of evolutionary biology may lead to atheism and thus play a part, but really you are just not making any sense. As has been pointed out, this blog is not only about science. It is also about atheism, and also about whatever the hell PZ wants to post. If you suffer from a compulsion to link all of PZ's posts into a single logical argument based around evolutionary biology you are quite odd.
Posted by: blueelm | May 22, 2009 11:39 AM
"The problem is presenting moral, ethical, philosophical, political and religious issues as if they are issues in which evolution, or any other scientific theory, no matter how valid, has some bearing. "
I just re-read the post and I don't see anything about evolution in it. This is a post about atheism. Now, and understanding of evolutionary biology may lead to atheism and thus play a part, but really you are just not making any sense. As has been pointed out, this blog is not only about science. It is also about atheism, and also about whatever the hell PZ wants to post. If you suffer from a compulsion to link all of PZ's posts into a single logical argument based around evolutionary biology you are quite odd.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 22, 2009 12:14 PM
The people of Ireland, unlike the bishops, didn't get written reports describing incidents of rape and other abuse and then protect and conceal serial rapists.
I agree that the State has a responsibility to protect children, which they manifestly failed to live up to, so it is right and proper that the State should be liable to the victims for reparations and that this cost should be borne by the taxpayer.
Saying “the Irish taxpayer is largely responsible”, however, shifts the blame from the priests who raped and tortured children and the Church who protected them onto the Irish population at large. There's plenty of blame to go around, and the Irish people are prepared to accept their share and the financial consequences of it, but we're not prepared to accept the perpetrator's and the Church's share too.
It is beyond scandalous that the State has honoured the “dirty deal” surreptitiously signed by former Minister for Education, Michael Woods, in 2002, just before he ran out the door, indemnifying the Church and leaving the taxpayer carrying the financial can for over 90% of reparations.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 22, 2009 12:22 PM
You seem to be saying that respondents critical of PZ need not post, is that it?
No, actually, you're more than welcome to -- if you can back things up.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 22, 2009 12:23 PM
Herm said:
I have found the source of your confusion Herm.
This is NOT a science blog. It is a blog written by a scientist. Most of us can see the difference. You cannot, and that is your misfortune not ours.
I suggest you apologise for your ignorance, and then leave.
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
May 22, 2009 12:25 PM
Agreed... that the taxpayer is funding 90% of the damages is unfair, but I don't think they should escape unscathed either. If I could wave a wand and split it, I'd probably run with 70% church, 30% taxpayer.
That 30% blame encompasses the almost assured ignoring of what complaints there were over the years, the deliberate shielding of the church by the government, the tacit acceptance of the church's methods by the populace, etc.
Of course, the people of Ireland didn't ASK for reports either. Maybe I'm the odd man out, but I think that when a society entrusts the care of children to some organization it owes those children a level of supervision over the organization to which they are entrusted.
From that perspective, the people of Ireland let those children down.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 12:26 PM
Donohue lumps these victims together as "miscreants," for whom the common and appropriate treatment at the time was "corporal punishment." Did Donohue even read the same report I did?
For one thing, the vast majority of children were admitted to these schools for the crime of having poor, sick, neglectful, or dead parents, and in some cases for the unpardonable sin of being born out of wedlock. Miscreants? I think not.
As far as a little harmless corporal punishment is concerned, here is an example of what we are actually talking about from a witness statement in the report:
This kind of treatment was rampant, and endemic. It occured for any reason, and for no reason at all. Many kids were beaten so badly they needed hospitalization - sometimes they received necessary medical care, sometimes not. But hey, on top of that, what's a little "kicking," right Bill? Or "being chilly" because you're locked outside for the night in freezing cold weather? How about a big, sloppy wet kiss - from your abuser?
And the abuse Donohue minimizes as mild and harmless went on in addition to this rampant, unspeakably horrific physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. (35% of the male witnesses reported experiencing physical, emotional and sexual abuse AND neglect.)
I read recently that the opposition to gay marriage in New York state has been surprisingly disorganized, in part because the clergy and those who lobby on their behalf have been focusing almost exclusively on fighting efforts to extend the statute of limitations for child molesters. PZ hit the nail right on the head yesterday: "Can we stop equating religion and morality now?"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 12:27 PM
Herm, I'm simply saying continued carping on your part will get you nowhere. The blog has been around a long time and the regulars here likes it the way it is. Notice you aren't generating much in the way of support for your complaints. That should be telling you something. You have had your say, so now what will you do if nothing changes? The logical choices are either quit carping and just go along with the way things are, or find a more hospitable blog.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 12:29 PM
It's not only a science blog; it never has been just a science blog; there's no reason why it should be only a science blog and no one would read it and think it was only a science blog. It is a science blog and also a blog about other stuff, something that it it is perfectly reasonable should exist. Firstly free speech is something one has on one's own blog not on other people's, but as it happens PZ allows near enough free speech for all sorts of idiots.Secondly, variations on the theme of "you are free to fuck off" aren't attempts to stifle you; they are the actual answer to your concerns. The fact that you are free to fuck is the reason why the fact that you don't like PZ mixing his science with politics and god-bashing has no impact on how he should run his blog. Plenty of other people do like it, and if you don't you are free to fuck off. Seed will even refund twice the entry fee.
There are millions of websites that each of us don't much care for, and this is not a problem. Should we find ourselves at them we are free to fuck off. Now that's the great freedom of the web.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 22, 2009 12:32 PM
The problem is presenting these topics in this forum (a public forum by a professional science educator specifically on a scientific topic) may mislead some of the less savvy and biologically literate public to the impression that accepting evolutionary biology demands one adopt particular moral, ethical, religious, philosophical or political views. - Herm
Well, I guess it might if they were as stupid as you... but that would apply to a pretty insignificant proportion of the population.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 12:35 PM
OK I dropped an "off" that should have been after one of those "free to fuck"s. The effect was faintly silly. You know what I meant :)
Posted by: Mark | May 22, 2009 12:38 PM
Symptomatic of the degenerate nature of the Catholic Church is the American apologist who wasn't in any way sympathetic to the nature of the crimes.
The Catholic Church is now nearly 1700 years old. It is not 2000 years old. It wasn't even an organization until the Council of Nicea. Since that time, the Catholic Church has not only reveled in the squalor of the Middle Ages, it generated exquisite tortures for 400 years during its Jewish and witch purges. Starting in the 20th century, their degeneracy was exposed with the coddling of its pedophile priests and others who squashed their core sexual nature.
It is time in the 21st century to put an end to the mythos that the church somehow has a lock on truth. They have proven that they do NOT have any sort of truth. Indeed, the Renaissance and the rise of the knowledge generated by science has proven over and over that the church is nothing more than the vestige of our tribal ignorant past as a species.
The church is a fossil. It belongs in the dustbin of history.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 12:43 PM
Matt #121
"This is NOT a science blog."
I was apparently mislead by the URL scienceblogs.com, my mistake.
Nerd #124
"The logical choices are either quit carping and just go along with the way things are, or find a more hospitable blog."
Well, I tend to learn a little more when in disagreement than when preaching to the choir. But, maybe it would seem that the choir is all that is welcome here?
Darrel #110
"PZ has not, in even the tiniest way, brought evolution into this discussion."
Of course that is exactly my point and the source of my confusion seeing this in the context of what I thought was a science blog. It seems the consensus I'm getting here is really in agreement with my post, namely that this post however interesting has nothing to do with evolution, correct? Now the question is is PZ's Pharyngula at scienceblogs a science and specifically an evolution blog? I thought it was but I guess it really isn't.
I still wonder if any of you would find it odd to see a pro-life post on an evolution blog? If so why?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 22, 2009 12:52 PM
You must have a hard time finding answers for yourself as the masthead of this very page states
But why do you care? You seem to be focused on some whine fest and not on the subject.
Next I suspect you'll go to Ed's blog "Dispatches from the Culture wars" and whine and cry about there being little science there even though it too is a member of scienceblogs.
Do you have a point beyond little nit picking bullshit we've heard and explained a million times before... not to mention that you could have figured out yourself with just a wee bit of reading?
Posted by: Iris | May 22, 2009 12:52 PM
123 was me. Not sure whether it was my bad, or Scienceblogs' (or iphone's)?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 22, 2009 12:58 PM
Prof. Myers, don't bother your pretty little Norwegian head. This is an internal matter amongst us Irish.
* picks up shillelagh *
Posted by: dean | May 22, 2009 12:59 PM
Herm translated: if more of you visited my blog, a REAL science blog, I wouldn't be so whiny here.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 12:59 PM
Chimp #130
"random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal"
Yep I got that. The posts are certainly random, I get that PZ is a "Godless liberal", and my crass side would characterize many of PZ's posts as "ejaculations", I'm just asking where is the biology?
I still would like to know if any of you would be surprised to see a pro-life post on a blog about evolution? If so why?
Posted by: St. Tabby Lavalamp | May 22, 2009 1:02 PM
Alyson Miers (#86) wrote:
I disagree. It also means that when you are going to die anyway and the pain is excruciating, so sad for you but tough shit because your quantity of life is more important than your quality of life.
It just so happens that the right to die on reasonable terms doesn't get as much press as freedom of reproductive choice.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 1:02 PM
I happen to think that (the other) Matt's choice of words is rather careless here, but it's clear enough what he means. It's a blog partially about science but not only. If you really were mislead by the title of the website hosting this blog into thinking that every blog here would necessarily only ever deal with science, then that is indeed your mistake. It was foolish mistake, one that few people would be so stupid to make.I don't think you made that mistake; you do after all seem smart enough to type in sentences. I think all you have is "I don't like it".
No, not only a science blog; neither is Orac's blog or Dr Isis' (a conservative and catholic respectively, note since you seem to see a godless, leftist conspiracy). There is no reason why they should be. Actually the only readable blogs I can think of here that are ALWAYS on-topic about science are by journalists. All the blogs I've mentioned with enough content of specific interest to scientists and science enthusiasts that only so one stupid (or disingenuous) would deny it made sense to have them grouped in a science-oriented community.Posted by: raven | May 22, 2009 1:04 PM
It says right at the top of the blog: Pharyngula: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal. Myers describes himself as a godless liberal. If you could read and think, you would have known that.
It is interesting how many religious kooks are evil, stupid, and lie a lot. On second thought It isn't. It is just routine and boring. OK, Herm you've outed yourself as a stupid, evil, boring, religious kook. You're done now.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 22, 2009 1:08 PM
Mark Temporis @ # 64: Donohue was the founder of Domino's ...
Actually, no: Domino's was the product of one Tom Monaghan, who has since devoted himself to fomenting Ava Maria University, the Florida development-town of Ava Maria, and the Ava Maria List political action committee (give him a little credit for doughy consistency slathered with melty goo).
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 22, 2009 1:13 PM
Lazy little fucker ain't you ?
Try reading more. Even as far back as Wednesday, if your stunted intellect can handle that. If you bother to do that, and I doubt you will, you would find a post by PZ about Ida.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 22, 2009 1:18 PM
As an Irish commenter who escaped that banana republic as soon as I could I have to disagree with Emmet. The blame for this does largely lie with the population at large who have long shown an unquestioning reverence to the church and a corresponding disregard for basic human rights.
The right to divorce only barely passed when put to a public referendum in the mid 1990s. Abortion is still illegal under any circumstance and contraception, even condoms were illegal until relatively recently. The country is about to introduce a law making criticism of religion illegal with a fine of 100,000 euros for those who transgress. Do you seriously think that this is a sign of a modern nation that cares for the basic rights of its citizens?
Anyone who grew up in Ireland before the 1980s knew what was going on. Nothing in this report is the slightest bit shocking.
In my christian brothers primary school physical beatings and emotional abuse were everyday occurrences in the 1970s. Sexual abuse undoubtedly occurred also (even though we were less than ten we all instantly knew why the police turned up for Mr Fitzsimons and why he never returned). I never got the impression that the christian brothers themselves were sexually abusing boys in MY school but the young brothers, even to our untrained eyes, were clearly emotionally damaged individuals. I even had a priest in secondary school warn me in no uncertain terms never to join the christian brothers as HE felt it was a dangerous and abusive system to enter.
The majority of Irish people couldn't care less about the fate of the children abused in these institutions if it wasn't for the fact that it might cost them an extra cent on their tax bill.
Well let it cost them.
Posted by: raven | May 22, 2009 1:19 PM
My friend went to some sort of Catholic school on the east coast a long while ago. One of kids was a lost push out boy from the streets who soon became the steady lay of a priest. This kid eventually was killed by a subway train, almost certainly after he jumped in front of it.
The priest is now in prison for serial pedophile activities.
This is the sort of monster that Donohue is defending. More examples of xian morality.
Posted by: Paul | May 22, 2009 1:22 PM
Herm: if I may ask, what does New Years' Day have to do with monofilia?
Oh, you made that post because you felt like it? It's acceptable to talk about non-science topics on a science related blog? Then why the complaining? Just because PZ does so on a more regular basis does not matter, and since over time he still has more science articles posted than you do you really just sound like a jerk complaining in this manner.
If you want to read only the science posts here, do so. Nobody's stopping you from skipping any atheism or culture war style posts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just link whoring, but I can't really see any other intended endgame with the way you engaged this thread.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | May 22, 2009 1:28 PM
O RLY? "Further, in the classic study by Spitz (1965), he found a mortality rate of over 70 percent among orphanage children in the first year of life which suggests that the need for social and emotional sustenance is important not only for children's mental health, but also their physical health. In a review of 73 studies by Glaser and Eisenberg (1956), the failure to thrive syndrome (i.e., general depression, refusal to eat, retardation of growth, and often death) was common among children in many orphanages in the first half of the twentieth century."You don't have to beat and rape kids in order to stunt them for life or even kill them -- systematic neglect and indifference will do the job just fine. Some "culture of life" there. It's appalling that Donahue is even trying to defend this.
Posted by: Connor | May 22, 2009 1:29 PM
Herm: "I don't even necessarily disagree with him on the substance of his points, but maybe on the tone of their presentation."
You don't like the tone? Do you think he's being a bit harsh? You don't 'necessarily' disagree with the substance of his points? Way to qualify your agreement. So which of his points do you disqualify? Your name is really Bill isn't it.
Try addressing the subject of the post. I'm guessing you won't as despite several posts so far you haven't. Child abuse just isn't that important eh?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 22, 2009 1:32 PM
Herm
No you aren't... you're just walking in with shit on your shoes just to make the place stink. It would take you about 30 seconds of looking on this blog to "find the biology". That you can make that statement means you are either lazy or illiterate or both.
No. I wouldn't be surprised to see ANY subject of the blogger's liking on HIS FUCKING BLOG, you ignorant asshat.
Now either contribute something of value to the subject at hand or fuck right off. We get your point, we just don't give a shit.
Posted by: Anri | May 22, 2009 1:32 PM
Herm sez:
"Do you think that people expect to see anti-religious, left leaning politics on an evolution blog? I think people do expect this, but why? Evolution doesn't really demand a particular religious or political conviction."
No, it doesn't. But they both share a reality-based approach to life. That's not a coincidence.
This post is about people denying something horrible due to gut feelings (those priests are such nice people - they'd never let something terrible happen) and/or dogma (priests are morally superior to most people). It is also about these things being trumped by evidence.
The process of evidence trumping gut feelings, intuition and dogma has a name:
Science.
To answer your further question, I would be mildly surprised at a pro-life post from such a source, and very interested in reading it to check out its argument. Can you point us to one?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 1:35 PM
Paul #142
You're right. Wishing my readers happy new years doesn't have anything to do with evolution. I thought it was just a polite gesture for those reading the blog. I this weird thing about being nice, not sure why?
This post and many others were carried over from the move from my cincyevolution blog when I made the move to the squarespace host I was able to copy my blogger content. I anyone were to complain I would have to admit it is out of place in the context of the blog. I'm trying to focus the monofilia site on science which is what the posts I've done since the switch are about. The old cincyevolution blog is now more about random goings on at the museum.
My broader point no one seems to want to discuss. Again, would you think it odd to find a pro-life post with no mention of science or evolutionary biology on a blog about evolution? If so why?
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 1:38 PM
On the off chance that Herm was being honest when he implied he couldn't find the biology:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/science/
Posted by: Newfie
|
May 22, 2009 1:40 PM
Herm, you are a pompous asshole. Please feel free to fuck off and take your complaints elsewhere.
If PZ posts a story that isn't interesting to me, I don't read it. And I don't come into the thread and complain about what he has chosen to post on his blog.
If you can't see how much of a fucking asshole you are being, I suggest you do some science involving a butter knife and an electrical outlet. No gloves. Please post your results... after enough trials to build an acceptable model... 100 is a nice number, it will make the math easier for your pea brain.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 1:42 PM
Matt #139
Wow, you guys are serious around here huh? If I had a thinner skin my feelings may be hurt!
I'm responding to this post because I'm asking about the relevance of this particular post not other posts, like PZ's prior post on Ida, which I haven't read but plan to and I'm sure it's perfectly fine.
Now, I'm curious. Would anyone here think it odd to find a pro-life post on an evolution blog? If so why?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 1:44 PM
No Herm, you still aren't getting it because you are being deliberately stupid. The blog is about anything PZ wants to write about. So says his contract with Seed Media. Evolution and evo/devo is presented here, but also politics, religion, and just plain humorous stuff. If you don't like it, find a more hospitable blog. After all, it isn't like there aren't hundreds of thousands or millions of other blogs out there. It's called freedom of choice. It looks like you need another choice. Oh yes, your continued posts here are adding to PZ's pocket. Choose wisely cricket.Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 22, 2009 1:44 PM
Herm
You really don't understand irony, do you? Otherwise you'd see the irony in coming to a "science" blog, complaining that the post has nothing to do with science, then trying to force a conversation that has nothing to do with the post.
You want to have that discussion, bring it up on your own blog.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 1:47 PM
Here's the thing, Herm. You don't seem to be grasping this. Blogs belong to people, not themes. If I was reading the blog of a person who blogged a lot about evolution and who was also pro-fetus-ueber-alles, then no, it wouldn't surprise me. Are you trying to make some sort of, I don't know, point?Posted by: -nm | May 22, 2009 1:48 PM
It is a strategic necessity for Donahue and clowns like him to downplay the the sexual abuse of females. This allows them to portray the abuse as a homosexual problem, giving them an easy scapegoat.
I for one hope that Donahue continues to do what he's always done. I just hope there's someone there at every step to call him on his B.S.
This is a recent interview with a survivor, Christine Buckley, from CBC radio. I think the emotion in this woman's voice comes across pretty clear.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/asithappens_20090520_15910.mp3
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 22, 2009 1:48 PM
Continuing to pretend that no-one's answered you (#145) doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 1:48 PM
Well actually people are right to not discuss your "broader point" since it has nothing to do with the ussue of the post and is a rude threadjack (by someone with there own blog where he can make threads about what he wishes).But since your so insistent I'll answer you. I would find it slightly surprising, since most arguments for the criminalization of abortion are based on things which seem ludicrous to most people with a scientific view of the world. It would be quite within the blogger's rights to post such thing, though. What's your point?
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 22, 2009 1:48 PM
No, of course not — the 2600 page report was beamed down by aliens, and the cover story of it being the product of a 10-year statutory inquiry set up in response to a public outcry is a total fabrication.
What part of #119 would allow you to believe that you're the “odd man out” in this respect? On the contrary, you are stating the public position of every politician in Ireland, agreed by the vast majority of the population.
Posted by: Darrell E | May 22, 2009 1:49 PM
Are you intentionally lying or are you just shifting the goal posts?
You may have reading comprehension or short term memory problems. Or were you hoping that the average reader here does?
This part is just really fucked up. Don't delude yourself into thinking that there are some subtle realities here that everyone else needs your help to identify. Nobody here is falling for it. They are laughing, or possibly snorting and rolling their eyes. Even though you have changed your "point," or made it so poorly as makes no difference, no one has expressed agreement with you and your rhetorical skills are not up to the task of twisting things around and making anybody suddenly realize, "WOW! that guy was right all along, I wish I had thought of that!"
"If so why?" Shit, you are killing me here! How clever! The old "leaving it for the student to figure out" gambit. Seriously, you don't have the presence to pull that off. In your case it engenders hilarity, not respect. As to your question, what difference does it make if it seems odd, or even if it were in fact odd? Who gives a shit. It is a blog. You, the reader, are responsible for whatever beliefs, ideas, etc., that occur in your mind as a result of reading a blog, not the blog author.
Posted by: vjack | May 22, 2009 1:50 PM
I sure don't envy Donahue after this. He's trying to defend something which is no longer defensible. It is time for the Catholic Church to fall.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 22, 2009 1:52 PM
Herm, the problem is that you're overlooking the part of the label that says "godless liberal". If that doesn't make it clear to you that religious matters, and matters concerning how our society is run, are fair game for Dr. Myers' posts, then I don't know how it could be made any clearer.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 22, 2009 1:53 PM
Herm,
IT'S NOT AN EVOLUTION BLOG. IT'S PZ'S BLOG AND HE BLOGS ABOUT WHATEVER HE FUCKING WELL LIKES. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU PRIZE MORON?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 22, 2009 1:58 PM
You asked where the biology was. I told you. The fact it was so easy to find makes you look stupid for not finding it is your problem, not mine.
It is not our problem if you are too stupid to find stuff for yourself.
Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | May 22, 2009 2:00 PM
By Donohue's own criteria, the transient discomforts experienced by his imaginary deity weren't all that bad, either: a little brisk exuberant trashing with a rope, followed by a poke in the side with a sharp stick, some momentary deprivation of refreshments, culminating in a somewhat degrading stress position for a few hours.
And yet the Christers have been whining about it ever since! Pussies! Suck it up, and get over it, you fucking babies!
Posted by: JustaTech | May 22, 2009 2:01 PM
A pox upon them all!
To all those who sexually abused these children, a pox upon your instruments of abuse.
To those who beat: my your joints cripple you.
To those who withheld heat, light, water, food, clothing, so shall you be deprived.
To those who moved the abusers from school to school: abandonment on a desert isle, and all ships shall sail on by.
To all those who heard, but did nothing: you shall not be heard.
And unto all: In your mind these torments will be, such that none acknowledge your pain and suffering, and tell you that this is punishment you have brought upon yourselves. In the prison of your mind shall you remain all of your days!
So are thou cursed!
Posted by: -nm | May 22, 2009 2:02 PM
It is a strategic necessity for Donahue and clowns like him to downplay the the sexual abuse of females. This allows them to portray the abuse as a homosexual problem, giving them an easy scapegoat.
I for one hope that Donahue continues to do what he's always done. I just hope there's someone there at every step to call him on his B.S.
This is a recent interview with a survivor, Christine Buckley, from CBC radio. I think the emotion in this woman's voice comes across pretty clear.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/asithappens_20090520_15910.mp3
Posted by: Mark Gauer | May 22, 2009 2:06 PM
Donohue, may you rot in hell!!
Posted by: Nocturne | May 22, 2009 2:07 PM
Short version: concern troll is concerned
Longer version: It seems Herm is actually on our side when comes to evolution/creationism. I've skimmed his blog. Seems to be some decent blogging going on there. Good for you. Now, stop mistaking someone else's blog for yours. Your concern over ideas that make you uncomfortable is noted.
Posted by: Mark Gauer | May 22, 2009 2:10 PM
Donohue, may you rot in hell!!
Posted by: george.w | May 22, 2009 2:21 PM
Recovering from major surgery this month, someone loaned me a set of WKRP From Cincinnati DVD's and I watched one yesterday. In the episode "Preacher Dan", one scene goes like this:
The absolute inassailable credibility of the clergy is such a cultural standard it can be used in a joke with no explanation. It's just one element of virtually unlimited priestly power. Hopefully that is beginning to break down.
Posted by: Dave Cortesi | May 22, 2009 2:29 PM
PZ, you should send readers to the Executive Summary of the Report itself, rather than to any second-hand analysis. You do link to the Child Abuse Commission's site and to one specific chapter, but the Executive Summary is a very readable survey of the horrors of the boys' and girls' schools, and it is very clear and damning of the indifference and stone-walling of specific Orders.
However, I think you and others are too casual and blaming this on catholicism or catholic doctrine. Yes, being able to wrap up in the mantle of holy specialness is an aid to covering up and denying these evils -- but the fundamental problem is a closed organization that prioritizes the protection of its own self-image above the good of the people it claims to serve. That is not different from a military coverup of a warcrime, or a police coverup of police violence. These Orders (the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy, and other ironically-named groups) were sick, self-serving, closed groups that violated a public trust. Being putatively "holy" just made it easier for them; not different.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 22, 2009 2:31 PM
Herm, I would be startled to see a pro-life post, by the blog's owner/operator, if the blogger in question had declared his "godless liberalism". If the blogger were known to be religious (especially Catholic) and/or conservative, then no, I wouldn't be surprised. Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that the most vocal critics of the choice side are the religious and conservative?Again, read the label.
As for the appropriateness of a discussion of the pro-life/choice debate on a science blog, the same religious and conservative base that is anti-choice is also the most loudly anti-science-in-general. And the actions of the anti-science "party" are of great interest to those of us who are in favor of science.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 22, 2009 2:33 PM
Hypothesis: As Herm has spent over three hours (starting at 1016 in post #63) whining about how there should only be science posts here, as he only wants to read science posts, assume Herm is not lying through his teeth and actually wants to read a science post.
Experiment: Provide Herm with a link to a science post, for instance the Darwinius masillae thread, and see if he shuts up and reads it. If Herm is, in fact, interested in reading science posts, as he claims, then he will take the opportunity to read one when offered.
Result: Herm admits in post #150 that he was aware of that entry, and has not bothered to read it, despite having three hours to do so. Meanwhile it has been pointed out in post #142, that Herm's own blog does not meet the exacting standards he is attempting to impose on the unwashed masses of Pharyngula. He choose, in post #147, to spend more time in this thread he claims to object to, trying to deflect attention from this hypocrisy, rather than using that time to either improve his own blog, read the science posts on this blog, or find another blog more in line with his interests. At no point did Herm manage to read any of the science posts he claims to want to read.
Conclusion: Herm does not really want to read science posts, as he passed up the opportunity to do so when linked to one (in fact, he was linked to a rather extensive list in post $148, and has given no indication of even looking at it). Herm apparently is more interested in whining about how not all blog content is up to his standards than actually reading the content he claims to be interested in.
Revised Hypothesis: As Herm has shown no interest in actually reading science posts, after spending three hours whining about the lack of them, Herm is not here to read, only to whine.
This new hypothesis is consistent with all evidence so far observed.
Posted by: Louis | May 22, 2009 2:38 PM
Hi Herm,
Define "evolution blog" for me please.
If your answer is something like "a blog specifically and exclusively about evolutionary biology" then my answer is "yes I would be surprised to find a pro-life post". Just as I would be surprised to find a pro-choice post, or a post about banana fritter recipes or a post about cheese wizz covered lesbians playing cellos.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if I found a post about counter creationism or the demonstrated religious motives behind much of anti-evolution.
But then this is not a blog that is "specifically and exclusively" about evolutionary biology. This is the personal blog of PZ Myers, an evolutionary and developmental biologist. He might choose to post about evolutionary biology (and often does), he might choose to post about cheese wizz covered lesbians playing cellos (and never has to the best of my knowledge, although bacon and lesbians do crop up once in a while).
But I see your motive. As you stated upthread, and after reading your blog, you are what PZ might call an "accomodationist", personally I'd go further, I'd describe you as "apparently unfamiliar with history and basic philosophy". Apologies if that offends you, it's not meant to, it was a criticism validly levelled at me once upon a time. I chose to try to correct it (whether or not I've been successful is a different matter). Pick up a copy of Ron Numbers' book "The Creationists" if you haven't already. It makes it abundantly clear, in very kind terms, that creationism (and IDC) is not the merely reactionary movement you think it is. Or to be more precise it is not reactionary in the way you think it is.
Rather than complain about this on people's blogs you could perhaps familiarise yourself with the very real epistemological conflict between processes of faith and reason (and hence their most common sociological manifestations: religion and science), one which cannot easily be handwaved away as most "accommodationists" are keen to do.
Note that this says nothing about the sociology of science or whether people who have specific faiths can be good scientists or not (this just in: they can!). Recognition of a very real philosophical conflict is in no way an advocacy of sociological/political conflict, nor is it contradicted by the observable fact that individual human beings have a complex set of both rational and irrational ideas and ideologies derived from a variety of sources.
Like it or not, the ideas contained in various fields of science (including evolutionary biology), and certainly the scientific method itself, and even more certainly the process of reason from which it is derived, are all utterly corrosive to SPECIFIC faiths, and especially to the fideist claim of faith as a "mechanism of acquiring knowledge". This is an epistemological issue that was dealt with very effectively by Hume and Russell (amongst many others).
To reiterate: this says nothing about how individual scientists (or other people) maintain a specific faith (or otherwise) or whether they should or could. The "reactions of the faithful" that you tout on your blog aren't as innocuous and innocent as you claim. Nor are your straw men representations of Dawkins et al based as they are on over simplistic quote mines. What knowledge religions have generated is derived from their occasional use of reason. Science is merely the most refined practise of the process of reason. Reason is used in all walks of human intellectual life, even theology has its passages based in reason, allowing that it starts from an unreasoned series of unevidenced premises and is basically a confection of apologetics and intellectual disguises designed specifically to cover up that lack of evidence. There is reason in the arts. I don't think it's too much to say that all knowledge, as provisional as it is, is derived from some reason based process (note here I explicitly do not merely mean "consciously reasoned"). Faith, and its partner revelation, are quite demonstrably epistemologically useless. They garner no knowledge. To claim otherwise is pretty much wishful thinking.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to encourage the irrationality and anti-reason aspects of (religious) people by pretending that their faith based claims are valid or uncontradicted by the evidence. That wouldn't be an "accommodationist" strategy, it's a capitulation and an error. There is also room for a plurality of tactics in discouraging this. Harshness works for some, meekness for others. Recognition of this simple observable fact will help you.
Cheers
Louis
Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | May 22, 2009 2:42 PM
I'm starting to think Alcibiades was onto something, with that whole mutilation of the Herms thing of his.
Posted by: Newfie
|
May 22, 2009 2:43 PM
Hey! This a Religion thread. Knock off the science. :P
Posted by: REBoho
|
May 22, 2009 2:45 PM
Donohue: Point of parliamentary procedure!
Irish Catholic Church: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!
Donohue: Take it easy, I'm pre-sophistry.
Pope: I thought you were pre-theology.
Donohue: What's the difference?
[Addressing the room]
Donohue: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our underage school children - we did.
[winks at press]
Donohue: But you can't hold a whole church responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole of religion? And if the whole of religion is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our beliefs in general? I put it to you, PZ - isn't this an indictment of God? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the God and the Catholic Church. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Catholics out of the press conference, all humming a recessional]
Posted by: Connor | May 22, 2009 2:49 PM
"pro-life"
Given the subject under discussion that has to be the sickest joke yet. And who mentioned it first? Last chance Herm, stop thread-rotting or I have to assume you think child abuse just isn't as important as your demands for answers to nonsensical questions.
Posted by: Brian Faux | May 22, 2009 3:16 PM
I remember seeing a TV documentary about WW2 where a German soldier very movingly described how he`d seen eight children killed by the Nazis and he said something like "I don`t know anything about millions of victims but these 8 alone are sufficient to damn them all". Abuse is not a numbers game.
Posted by: MikeyM | May 22, 2009 3:22 PM
Early in his press release, Donohue states, "More than 30,000 children, most of them delinquents, passed through one or more of Ireland’s Catholic-run institutions from the 1920s through the 1980s."
By "delinquents," he means the children of adulterous or unwed mothers, under age 5. The worst of the worst, apparently.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 3:22 PM
Except that the military and the police are organizations that are actually FOR something--serving the social functions of defense and crime response.
The church and its orders serve no function and provide no social good. They are simply viruses, doing damage to society while merely perpetuating themselves.
Posted by: Leon | May 22, 2009 3:26 PM
Hear hear, PZ! I bet if the report detailed acts of blasphemy instead of cruelty, Donohue wouldn't be trying to excuse it on the grounds that "only 12% of these instances included desecrating communion wafers" or that "only 4% of the staff has been shown to have committed acts of blasphemy".
Posted by: Iris | May 22, 2009 3:31 PM
OGD @ #163 for the win.
Posted by: Herm | May 22, 2009 3:32 PM
Louis #173
Thanks for the great post and for the time you put into it.
Louis:
"If your answer is something like "a blog specifically and exclusively about evolutionary biology" then my answer is "yes I would be surprised to find a pro-life post". Just as I would be surprised to find a pro-choice post, or a post about banana fritter recipes or a post about cheese wizz covered lesbians playing cellos."
Creative, I like it. I think the question is if one would be surprised finding a pro-life post on an evolution blog why is no one surprised to find a child abuse/Catholic Church post?
Two answers.
One, this isn't a science/evolution blog but one that may or may not contain a few science postings. That may be so but given terms like biological, evolution, development in the title, the fact the author is a biologist (which I realize biologists can talk about other things) and the fact that the blog is hosted at scienceblogs.com it's little a little disorientating but this answer seems to be the one everyone here is defending. OK.
Two, it is a science/evolution blog but it is not particularly surprising to have a child abuse and the Catholic church post in such a forum because it is expected that "evolutionists", and scientists in general are cut from the same left-wing, Godless liberal cloth of PZ Meyers. It would be however a surprise to find a pro-choice, pro-guns, low taxes rant on an evolution blog simply because it breaks the stereotype everyone expects of an evolutionary biologist.
That was my only point. I apologize if that was out of line in any way.
Now, the "accommodation" claim is an arguably different matter. True, I do find myself more on the side of a Michael Ruse than a Jerry Coyne or PZ Meyers. Also you are certainly right there is much I have left to learn about the philosophical underpinnings of the evolution/creation debate. I have Numbers history of the creationism on my book shelf and need to finish it! But what I've read of it is excellent. I hear he has another book out on the history of intelligent design. But, I think the accommodation argument is a bit of a separate issue here as my point is not only about religion but politics as well, but I do see where you are coming from.
As to those mentioning how I have spent inordinate amounts of time on this. You are certainly correct on that point.
I will mention this interesting bit from Michael Ruse's new book on Darwinism.
"The fact of the matter is that by and large no one was that much interested in a fully developed, causal theory of evolution. Why? Primarily because (whatever had been the hope of Darwin himself) most people did not want to use evolution as a straight scientific theory. They were far more interested in exploiting its potential as a kind of alternative to religion - what one might even go so far as to call a secular religion. They wanted to have something that they could use to combat the dominant Christianity of the day..."
That was in reference to the spread of Darwinian Natural Selection over a century ago but seems to be perfectly applicable today as well.
PZ must be proud to have the following he has established here at scienceblogs! I have to say I'm really a little shocked at the lengths people go to defend him (referring to the swearing, name calling, etc.). Oh well, it is the internet after all!
Thanks again Louis for the post I can't say I completely disagree with all of it.
Posted by: AdamK | May 22, 2009 3:32 PM
Link please.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 22, 2009 3:41 PM
Just one question to moron Donohue:
"Where was your fucking god when all this was going on?'
Posted by: KC | May 22, 2009 3:41 PM
What do you think is happening right now to our throwaway children, hidden away in secular or religious institutions all across this country? No one cares a ratz ass for them. We pay people minimum wage to take care of them, offer little to no training, and then cross our fingers. I worked for three years at a child care agency (essentially an orphanage, though we refrained from calling it that). I did not see anything like the abuse referenced in the Irish report (though we did suspect several volunteers of being pedophiles--hard to prove). Most of the people were decent (some were assholes who had no business being near a child) but we were overwhelmed by our responsibilities; many weren't trained, and little real therapy was going on to salvage these kids. We kept the lid on--barely. That is all. And I suspect it's still the same. What happened over the years in Ireland is beyond comprehension, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that we take much better care of the kids right here, right now.
Posted by: Kevin | May 22, 2009 3:41 PM
I was born a Catholic, raised as a catholic, baptized as a catholic, and confirmed as a catholic---but like any sentient being with a functioning moral compass, I grew to recognize the moral corruption that defines the catholic church.
Apparently, priests who dry hump young boys or use them as masturbation fantasies don't don't qualify as sexual abusers and therefore the abuse statistics are misleading. Only a true catholic loyalist would consider that a justifiable defense.
Posted by: frogHe ought to be howling in fury at the way the church has betrayed Christian principles | May 22, 2009 3:42 PM
He ought to be howling in fury at the way the church has betrayed Christian principles
And which Christian principles are those? You mean the ones that say that the body is evil and sinful, so what one does to the body is the slightest of crimes compared with the awful crime of attracting eternal damnation by showing lack of faith, like abusing a cookie?
Rape may not be an actually required act by Christians -- but an honest appraisal (as shown by statements like those under critique here) shows that it is really very minor compared to the crime of undermining faith which tempts an eternity of suffering. That's why Donohue and many folks in high positions of the Catholic church, both official and unofficial, are so much more upset with the report than with the underlying crimes.
The latter just ruins lives -- the former risks losing souls.
Christian morality -- my electronic ass. Christianity is moral insofar as it's distance from traditional Christianity increases.
Posted by: KC | May 22, 2009 3:43 PM
What do you think is happening right now to our throwaway children, hidden away in secular or religious institutions all across this country? No one cares a ratz ass for them. We pay people minimum wage to take care of them, offer little to no training, and then cross our fingers. I worked for three years at a child care agency (essentially an orphanage, though we refrained from calling it that). I did not see anything like the abuse referenced in the Irish report (though we did suspect several volunteers of being pedophiles--hard to prove). Most of the people were decent (some were assholes who had no business being near a child) but we were overwhelmed by our responsibilities; many weren't trained, and little real therapy was going on to salvage these kids. We kept the lid on--barely. That is all. And I suspect it's still the same. What happened over the years in Ireland is beyond comprehension, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that we take much better care of the kids right here, right now.
Posted by: Braiden | May 22, 2009 3:51 PM
I think another dungeon entry is in order.
Posted by: KC | May 22, 2009 3:57 PM
What do you think is happening right now to our throwaway children, hidden away in secular or religious institutions all across this country? No one cares a ratz ass for them. We pay people minimum wage to take care of them, offer little to no training, and then cross our fingers. I worked for three years at a child care agency (essentially an orphanage, though we refrained from calling it that). I did not see anything like the abuse referenced in the Irish report (though we did suspect several volunteers of being pedophiles--hard to prove). Most of the people were decent (some were assholes who had no business being near a child) but we were overwhelmed by our responsibilities; many weren't trained, and little real therapy was going on to salvage these kids. We kept the lid on--barely. That is all. And I suspect it's still the same. What happened over the years in Ireland is beyond comprehension, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that we take much better care of the kids right here, right now.
Posted by: frog | May 22, 2009 4:13 PM
Mark #128: Indeed, the Renaissance and the rise of the knowledge generated by science has proven over and over that the church is nothing more than the vestige of our tribal ignorant past as a species
Incorrect. It's a vestige of our imperial, authoritarian past and present -- tribal societies are limited to torturing family members and lost strangers. That's why the criminality of Christianity, Islam and to a less extent Judaism is so far ranging, in comparison to New Guinea head-hunting say.
Don't blame our tribal past. Blame our Roman past -- the driving commonality of the universalist religions.
Posted by: Nocturne | May 22, 2009 4:18 PM
Herm, you are not the first hapless concern troll to wander in here and ask "where's the science?". The response you are getting is a result of many, many of your type foolishly thinking you're making some grand point by asking it in a non-science thread. Maybe the next time you talk about a Taiwanese new year celebration on your blog, someone can wander in and bleat about how your blog was supposed to be about evolution. Let that happen a few dozen times and maybe you'll understand why people here are just a little tired of bullshit like yours.
And if some swearing bothers you, used in properly-measured responses to said bullshit... respectfully grow the fuck up.
Posted by: frog | May 22, 2009 4:19 PM
Holbach: "Where was your fucking god when all this was going on?'
Right there in the room frigging hisself. Who do you think this Yahweh character is? Just read their damn holy books -- he thinks killing children with bears is a whole lotta fun. Just raping them shows he's gettin' civilized.
Posted by: mark | May 22, 2009 4:22 PM
Jeesh. That actually made me nauseous reading the downplaying of child abuse.
Posted by: Seldon | May 22, 2009 4:26 PM
What do people expect when they suppress sexuality. This report won't result in the fall of the Catholic church, but maybe we can push for at least getting rid of the stupid celibacy stuff. If we can't quite do away with organized religion we can at least try and make it less harmful.
Poor kids.
=================
and Herm, please try and understand that hijacking a thread by asking the same annoying and completely unrelated question in every post is rude in the extreme. Once in a while an off-topic post is permissable if it is an important point and otherwise you are unable to mention it. However, it is highly annoying for someone interested in the discussion to have to scroll through umpteen posts that are completely unrelated and more or less amount to whining about the topic.
Ok, I admit I secretly enjoyed reading other people exposing your vapidity
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 22, 2009 4:27 PM
Further observation of the subject confirms the revised hypothesis advanced in post #172. The evidence shows that Herm is nothing more than an insipid wanking concern troll. His persistent delusion that he has the authority to tell the owner of this blog what subjects he is permitted to write about would be worthy of further study were it not such a tedious waste of time.
Posted by: maddyhatter
|
May 22, 2009 4:33 PM
I was so repulsed and angered by the Irish Report I want the entire church in Ireland to be dismantled and prosecuted like organized crime. Why, how, can they get away with this and call _us_ evil??
Posted by: Louis | May 22, 2009 4:33 PM
Herm @ #183
You're, of course, entitled to your discomfort at PZ's non-science posts. The reasons for your discomfort are erroneous, but that doesn't remove your right to be discomforted. Everyone's entitled to be wrong.
There is a very simple solution by the way, click the science only tag in the keyword tag, and all you will see of Pharyngula is lovely, lovely science.
Oh and as for Ruse's point about evolutionary biology being touted as some kind of secular religion....he's, well, erm, how do I say this, wrong. By the way, so was anyone who advocated that it be used as such. They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as anyone claiming/advocating that meteorology be used as such, for example. (Meteorology, think gods throwing thunderbolts). It is, like creationism itself, a category error (at least).
Lastly, since you seem determined to persist in your false dichotomy: scientists and the general work of science are part of the greater society around them. Scienceblogs pulled PZ (and hence Pharyngula) on board KNOWING what his blogging habits were. Like or loathe PZ's comments on the world around him, the majority of his posts are at least tenuously linked to advocating an evidence based approach to life (or at least criticising those who seem determined to fight to their last breath against evidence based approaches). Occasionally he intersperses personal and comedy things. This isn't a problem. Why? Because when PZ is speaking away from his topics of expertise, he isn't speaking AS a scientist. PZ explicitly doesn't pretend that his expertise in a specific field of science gives him expertise in any other field, he doesn't rely on some spurious argument from authority (which I'm guessing is tacitly part of your objections) when speaking on matters non-scientific.
Basically your objection, whilst you're perfectly entitled to it, is nonsensical. PZ has never claimed his blog is 100% science all the time nor that his words should be taken with special import because he is a scientist. Your confusion doesn't constitute evidence or a rational argument. Sorry.
Cheers
Louis
Posted by: Paul | May 22, 2009 4:35 PM
Herm: Myers. Our host's name is Myers. Read his bio if it helps. It's not hard.
Posted by: Louis | May 22, 2009 4:41 PM
@ Paul #200:
In the old days of Talk Origins, misspelling PZ's name was de rigeur. Obviously this was because chaps like Herm did it unwittingly so very, very often.
My personal fave was "Nmijhurdgz".
;-)
Louis
Posted by: Stu
|
May 22, 2009 4:42 PM
I will mention this interesting bit from Michael Ruse's new book on Darwinism.
There is no such thing, which gives you away.
By the way, noone here "defends PZ" for defending PZ. The personality cults are by and large on your side of the isle, thank you very much.
Posted by: Janus Grayden | May 22, 2009 4:43 PM
What happened to the belief that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing? How many of those priests that didn't participate in raping and beating children knew what was going on? Why didn't they tell anyone, ANYONE, that serial rape of children was going on? How is nobody bothering to mention what happened until now a good thing? The fact that it's only coming out now is absolutely criminal.
Every single one of those monsters is implicit, legally and ethically, to the worst crimes possible. Protecting the Catholic Church's reputation by downplaying the disgusting, vile things that were happening to children is exactly how it happened in the first place.
Bill Donohue is worse than the people who aided and abetted those serial child rapists; he's practically excusing the behavior as a whole.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 22, 2009 4:45 PM
Louis #173
That's bacon covered lesbians. Please keep up with the in-jokes.
Yesterday was Mr. T's birthday. In belated commemoration of this joyous event, I'll say this about Herm: "I pities the fool."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 22, 2009 4:57 PM
Apology not accepted! You keep harping on "this is a science blog but there's no science in this thread." You've had it explained numerous times that this is not just a science blog. Your response is "I know, but why isn't there any science in this thread?"
I don't think you're stupid (although you used the non-word "disorientating") or ignorant (the correct word is "disoriented"), so I have no choice but to conclude that you're trolling. As a result, I sincerely ask that you fuck off.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 22, 2009 5:01 PM
Are you incapable of following the navigation links provided on this blog?
Posted by: Xenithrys | May 22, 2009 5:06 PM
Donohue can't have it both ways; if the bible provides a moral compass now, it sure as hell provided a moral compass way back in 1970, or even 1950. The facts here, and as pointed out last week with the Pentagon briefings to the US President, suggest that religious people can easily be manipulated because their beliefs predispose them to accepting irrationality.
Posted by: shane | May 22, 2009 5:13 PM
Between Donahue and Cheney, I am so heartsick I feel like cutting myself off from all media - me, a news junkie and blog addict. I just can't bear it.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | May 22, 2009 5:24 PM
"Yep I got that. The posts are certainly random, I get that PZ is a "Godless liberal", and my crass side would characterize many of PZ's posts as "ejaculations", I'm just asking where is the biology?"
The biology is in the many biology-related posts PZ makes... which for some reason all of you pathetic whiny assholes NEVER seem to read - or at least we have to presume that's the case, since your type never comments on THOSE posts. You only comment on the non-biology-related posts. Why is that?
Ok, no need to answer, we know why that is.
It's because you and your type are not even slightly interested in biology posts. You wouldn't care if PZ posted 98% of the time about bowling... you don't show up to complain whe he posts about the latest movie he saw.
You want this blog restricted to biology not because you WANT biology, but because biology, bowling and movie reviews are all in the category of "things I can safely ignore."
You simply want to shut down all discussion of anything that ruffles your feathers, anything that offends your warped dark-ages sensibilities.
And that, of course, provides the answer as to why these posts are here, and why they are necessary.
You and your religion are a dog shitting on the carpet. This post is shoving your nose in it. Don't like it, tough.
Posted by: glorybe1929 | May 22, 2009 5:34 PM
The Roman Catholic Church is DONE, CAPUT,OVER , GONE, NO MORE.... anyone, after hearing all this BS, would know that the sheep have been slaughtered by the RCC. We are no more either. So PREACH TO EACH OTHER Crumbags. That is too good a word for the likes of your filthy minds and bodies that have sacrificed our LORD JESUS CHRIST TO YOUR EVIL WAYS. You will rot in Hell and any one who stays is aiding and abbetting you.
Posted by: glorybe1929 | May 22, 2009 5:40 PM
The fact that you have run many multiple comments by the same user is not at all right for you to deny mine on that basis. You are being prejudicial to me as I don't agree with your idea of a nice comment I am an 80 yr. old blogger and have known this church since I was knee hi to a grasshopper. It is blaphemous of you to deny my comment.
1929 is the year I was born...Go ahead and post my comment!
Posted by: Stu
|
May 22, 2009 5:50 PM
The fact that you have run many multiple comments by the same user is not at all right for you to deny mine on that basis.
Unintentionally hilarious. Made my afternoon. Here we have someone who can't read error messages and then complains to a script.
It is blaphemous of you to deny my comment.
And, apparently, someone who thinks he's God. I think. It's hard to make out.
Posted by: Fiisi | May 22, 2009 5:51 PM
Apparently Herm has never heard of Harry Harlow. The RCC is a wire mother.
Posted by: kamaka | May 22, 2009 6:02 PM
Aww, c'mon, Stu, give the guy a break. At least he can (sort of) use a computer.
Well, OK, it's funny...
Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | May 22, 2009 6:11 PM
We don't set much store in 'blaphemy' in these here parts. I reckon most of us 'blapheme' several times a day, just to keep in shape.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 22, 2009 6:18 PM
Experts from Reuters say kissing someone who doesn't want to be kissed is not harassment. I wonder if their counsel was that imbecile female judge in Australia who ruled in favor of a rapist because he was drunk and was not responsible for his behavior.
In other news, the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions really aren't the horrors that revisionists make them out to be. In fact, there are fewer instances in history in which such a majority of the population were able to feel the love of Christ. I'm proud of the Irish priests upholding such sacred traditions and teaching the kiddies how to do some loving Christ-style.
Posted by: kamaka | May 22, 2009 6:20 PM
glorybe1929 @ 210
So you're pissed off, eh? Good, you should be.
May I respectfully submit, good sir, that the vast majority of commenters here are sorely pissed off at ALL religionists for the murder and mayhem they have created and condoned in this world.
Let me recommend a book for you, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. You can buy it on the cheap at Amazon.
Read it before you give another dime to any church.
PS It's not surprising you had a problem posting, the site is being difficult today.
Posted by: tmaxPA | May 22, 2009 6:24 PM
Nothing could possibly be more unfair than accusing a religionist of doing what they are known to have done. How grossly intolerant of us.
Posted by: zigackly
|
May 22, 2009 7:01 PM
Herm: keep writing about New Year's Day and Darwin's birthday, and who knows? Maybe one day your scienceblogs.com/monofilia/ dream will come true.
Seriously, man, you're obsessing about something silly.
Looking at this from a different angle: I could read, say, a chef's blog, but if all I wanted was a bunch of recipes there are no end of websites and books I could look at.
Part of what would set one chef's blog apart from another would be his or her character, their personality - and if that personality occasionally manifests itself in posts about what was on TV last night, problems with some officious non-entity, or the way the Catholic church has abused generation after generation of innocents, so be it. I'll still get recipes, but I'll get more too.
If I don't like a post, I'll skip it. If I don't like a large number of posts, I'll eventually find a different blog to read.
Posted by: Shadow
|
May 22, 2009 7:07 PM
Herm:
Definition of the term 'pro-life' would determine whether I would be surprised about seeing a post about it here.
PZ has posted about the parents' refusal of treatment for their child's disease (diabetes, cancer, on religious grounds). I would consider PZ's stance 'pro-life' in that regard.
PZ had posted of the girl who had been raped and was in danger of excommunication from the Catholic Church because she had the twin fetuses aborted (her mother, and those who helped her WERE excommunicated). PZ's stance was again what I would consider 'pro-life.'
If you define the 'pro-life' term as the fundies do - anti abortion in all cases -- then yes, I would be surprised to see anything like that here. A caveat being I COULD see PZ holding up the viewpoint for the ridicule it so richly deserves.
Only can post Science related material? Not favoring that so much (unless we start looking at the social interaction of the commenters).
Interesting material? I find it so, as I've read many posts that I can either agree or disagree with. I've always had something to ponder after I've read the post and comments.
Not that PZ (or anyone here) need to even care whether or not I agree with the stated opinions. As was posted above -- it is his blog to post what he finds interesting in the world (of science or in general) today.
Posted by: Fiisi | May 22, 2009 7:42 PM
Child Abuse Causes Lifelong Changes To DNA Expression And Brain
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/139938.php
Posted by: frog | May 22, 2009 8:04 PM
@Fiisi:
But of course. Otherwise, how could you remember it?
Eating lots of ice-cream on summer vacations as a pre-teen also changes DNA expression and the brain.
Posted by: Thank Your | May 22, 2009 8:07 PM
Thank you for such a thoughtful commentary. Sadly, it is needed to fight against the Catholic Propaganda machine.
Sincerely;
A Former Roman Catholic
Posted by: wrpd | May 22, 2009 10:24 PM
In Chicago, in 1956, when I was seven, my mother was hospitalized for the third or fourth time for depression. My two sisters were sent to my aunt's summer home on a lake in Northern Illinois--a great place to spend a summer. The following Saturday my father loaded my two younger brothers and me into our car and drove us to a place that was called St Joseph's Home for the Friendless. It had huge iron fences and gates. My father told us to get out of the car. He stayed inside. He said, "Your're going to stay here for a while." He then turned to the nun in charge and said, "If they give you any trouble, beat them." He then left without saying anything else to us.
The first thing they did was to make us take off our own clothes and put on clothes from their cabinets. There was no physical abuse that I was aware of but there was clearly emotional abuse. We all deserved to be there. Most of the kids were from broken families and therefore were complicit in their parents' guilt. Most of staff were emotionally cold, but I had been used to that from my own parents.
For the first week I spent a lot of time trying to figure out an escape plan. After I had it all thought out, including a way to climb over the barbed wire fences, I realized there was no place for me to go. Then depression really took hold. It was the rule in the family that the eldest child present was responsible for the behavior of the younger ones. I felt terribly guilty. I couldn't imagine what I had done to get all three of us punished like this.
We had absolutely no contact with anyone outside. A few months later my parents came to pick us up. I told the people at the home that I didn't want to leave. I finally agreed to get dressed and leave with my parents.
My sisters and I didn't talk about it until the mid-90s. They both were disgusted about our treatment but they had never heard the whole story. A few years later I was able to talk about it with my brothers. My younger brother was three when we were incarcerated. I was amazed about the details he remembered. (My father had lied and told the nuns he was five, so he was treated like a 5-year-old.)
For the rest of my childhood I was always afraid that I would do something and my father would send me back.
I am sixty now and I still feel the anger I felt at the time. To say this happened before 1970 in no way lessens my pain.
Posted by: Ben Mcgann | May 22, 2009 10:32 PM
http://www.christymoore.com/lyrics_tabs_detail.php?id=119
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 23, 2009 12:37 AM
OK, so we've established that Herm is both a hypocrite, and a moron. As well a concern troll.
You forgot to point out that he's boring.
Posted by: Lee | May 23, 2009 1:18 AM
97, @NickG
Thank you, and a-fucking-men
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 23, 2009 1:21 AM
Herm:
Maybe that's because that URL is a whole lot better than "scienceandotherstuffblogs.com"?
You know full well that the blogs here are scienceblogs, but that doesn't restrict them to blog solely about science.
There is plenty of biology on this blog, as others have pointed out, but maybe you're asking why every post by PZ isn't to do with biology?
The reason lies in the fact that these are "biological ejaculations" not "ejaculations about biology". PZ is a biological organism, no? So any opinions he gives will be "biological opinions".
You know full well not to take PZ's masthead literally, else you would be arguing why none of PZ's blog posts have covered you in his semen. There is no literal use of "ejaculations" that I know of that means what PZ is using it to mean. So the masthead is a metaphor. And you know this full well.
(I'm going to assume when you say "pro-life", you mean they're against abortion etc)
I wouldn't find it odd if I came across such a blog, but I would quickly realize that that blog was the personal blog of its author, and therefore is for any topics that they want to blog about. If I really found all the pro-life posts so off-putting that it made the evolution posts less enjoyable, then I would leave the blog. I wouldn't sit there and complain that the blogger is using his/her right to free speech to write about whatever they want, I would go and find a better blog. I could complain if I wanted to, but the blogger has no obligation to listen to what I want to say. It is their blog. A point you don't seem to be able to grasp.
Unlike a lot of television shows, films, books etc, blogs aren't under any obligation to be driven by the audience, they are driven by their authors. There's no profit motive for a blog, so the blogger has no need to cater to the readers.
So if you don't like what PZ is blogging about, tell me: why should PZ care? What's stopping you finding another blog with topics more agreeable to you? Surely you realize that PZ is not going to blog about whatever you say he should blog about, so your complaints are just have a waste of your time.
It's PZ's blog. He can write about whatever he wants. So far, that's what he's been doing, and as long as that continues, then I shall keep coming back, because what interests PZ, seems to interest me.
Posted by: astrounit | May 23, 2009 3:37 AM
What bugs the heck out of me is that arseholes like Donohue who so quickly scurry behind a putative and vaguely outlined statistical facade conveniently forget that the Church, by it's alleged preeminence in the practice and teaching of moral and ethical virtues, ought to be so much BETTER at instilling them into adherents than the rest of the population is in observing them without their help...
Except, guess what? They're not.
They are SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE at it.
Statistically.
Too bad plenty of people (and a growing number of them) pay attention and won't forget.
By their rank and devious omissions of the issues in their comments, the Archbishop of Westminster and Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor are further examples of this outrageously disengenuous sleight-of-hand and misdirection.
They're not very good magicians, are they? Not very good at lying their way out of this one.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 23, 2009 4:26 AM
Better trolls please !!!!
Or are all the people that are left to defend the RCC in public intellectual retards of the like of Herm and glorybe?
It would be sad if it wasnt so laughable and pathetic.
Has Donahue's reaction gotten any media coverage? Not that anyone cares much about that obscure Catholic league anyway.
I wish it would be pointed out more how totally,utterly,completely,this story puts the final nail in the coffin of "religion is what makes us moral and better humans" BS.
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | May 23, 2009 5:00 AM
Remember that South Park episode where Bill Donohue becomes Pope?
Pope Benedict: All right, that does it, Bill. I'm pretty sure that killing Jesus is not very Christian.
Bill: You are soft! Weak!
Posted by: Herm | May 23, 2009 8:52 AM
fenderplayer96 #219
Yeah, I don't think I have the time to keep any semblance of a research program going and blog enough to get Seedmedia's attention. My dreams have to do with the next NSF award rather than being on scienceblogs.com!
I see everyone's point. PZ is a personality. This is not really a science blog. He can talk about whatever he wants, which I don't dispute. I get all those points.
All I was wanting to discuss was the idea that many seem to associate being an evolutionary biologist with particular social, religious (or rather areligious), and political viewpoints. Criticism of the Catholic church (which I don't necessarily disagree with) doesn't seem out of place in the context of a science blog (I know, I know, many do not think this is a science blog despite the URL scienceblogs.com) by an evolutionary biologist (I know, I know PZ can talk about whatever he wants, I get it). But it would to many seem out of place to find an anti-abortion post on a science blog (maybe at scienceblogs) by an evolutionary biologist.
I get it that virtually everyone here is completely uninterested (if not a little angry at the prospect) in exploring A) the biases and stereotypes the public may have about evolutionary biologists and B) how a handful of prominent voices in evolutionary biology perpetuate those stereotypes. I apologize for wasting your guys time and to fenderplayer96, louis and a few others thanks for disagreeing with me and refraining from the name calling. Maybe civility isn't totally dead?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 23, 2009 9:05 AM
Herm, if you want to talk to evolutionary biologists, e-mail them directly. This blog run by PZ, but you may have noticed he is not real active at posting. He lets the minions have a go at things. And here, the posters range the gamut from students to PhD's, from scientists to just someone just interested in science. We even have a few not interested in science, but only religion/science interface, or politics. Since PZ is politically a liberal, he believes in a woman's right to choose, and most of us minions also believe in it. All part of the godless liberal in the masthead. You have a too narrow view of things.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 9:22 AM
this is all in your head. Don't take a sample size of 1 in the future.Posted by: Lee Picton | May 23, 2009 9:25 AM
Herm, please go away.
Posted by: go777 | May 23, 2009 9:32 AM
Man, I wish I was still surprised by this, but because of the church's previous Responses to stuff like this it has come to be expected. The church should admit the abuse and purge the people responsible, but unfortuantly that's never going to happen.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 23, 2009 9:35 AM
Not at all. The issue of abortion involves a scientific question: is an embryo a person? And the answer is empirically no.
It doesn't much matter whether you're an anti-choice troll who wants to silence advocacy for the rights of women, or a pedantic ass who prefers to control all debate regardless of topic. You have the same effect either way.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 23, 2009 9:36 AM
Last chance Herm, stop thread-rotting or I have to assume you think child abuse just isn't as important as your demands for answers to nonsensical questions. - Connor
Connor, I think you (and others) are "misunderestimating" Herm: the entire point of his posts here is to disrupt discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's systematic child abuse. That explains why he repeats the same question time after time even when it has been answered repeatedly. That's why he won't go away. He's not an ordinary troll, but a shill for the RCC. Since its record is indefensible, diversion, distraction and disruption are the only possible tactics.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 9:53 AM
Peter Singer would beg to differ. Not that I'm saying he's right or wrong, but he frames the issue of abortion in a completely different manner that seems to suit the question well.Posted by: strange gods before me | May 23, 2009 9:56 AM
Just excellent, Jafafa Hots, very well said. I'm envious.
It was just a metaphor, but in case there are any readers who think this is an effective dog training technique, I want to mention http://www.petlvr.com/blog/2009/05/dont-rub-his-nose-in-it/ and http://www.dogtrainingbasics.com/PottyTraining.htm
Christians, on the other hand, are expected to have enough understanding of cause-and-effect to know that putting money in the collection plate equals child abuse. Yell at them as much as necessary. And let's tax their churches like we tax liquor.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2009 10:05 AM
Knockgoats: Connor, I think you (and others) are "misunderestimating" Herm...
Erm, hence my accusing him of thread-rot. No misundertanding here.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 23, 2009 10:07 AM
From what I know of Singer, he does not contradict me.
Example, http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm "Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious." Peter Singer, 1995.
Notice I avoid the "is it human" argument entirely and go directly to "is it a person".
Posted by: Stanton
|
May 23, 2009 11:07 AM
So, in other words, Herms feels that it is of far more importance to dictate what PZ Myers can and can not post in his own blog, and what the commenters on PZ Myers' own blog can and can not discuss than it is to condemn and discuss the Irish Government's and Roman Catholic Church's roles in abusing and defiling entire generations of children.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2009 8:48 PM
"Being chilly?" "Being chilly?" This is Northern Ireland we're talking about, right? People DIE from that kind of "chilly."
That's like talking about sleep deprivation torture as being "losing a few hours of sleep."
Posted by: nomuse | May 23, 2009 8:56 PM
"Being chilly?" "Being chilly?" This is Northern Ireland we're talking about, right? People DIE from that kind of "chilly."
That's like talking about sleep deprivation torture as being "losing a few hours of sleep."
Posted by: g | May 24, 2009 2:51 PM
According to Donahue, the abuse was OK because the children were "miscreants."
I read the report dealing with how the children came to be in the homes, and it appears that most of them were there because they were illegitimate or that their parents were too poor to care for them. And many went into the homes at very young ages - 5 or 6 or even younger. What I read didn't really even mention anything about children being in the homes for crimes or misbehavior.
Not that it matters - no child should be mistreated like this. But it speaks to Donahue's intellectual and moral dishonesty that he characterises the victims as "bad."
Posted by: g | May 24, 2009 2:57 PM
According to Donahue, the abuse was OK because the children were "miscreants."
I read the report dealing with how the children came to be in the homes, and it appears that most of them were there because they were illegitimate or that their parents were too poor to care for them. And many went into the homes at very young ages - 5 or 6 or even younger. What I read didn't really even mention anything about children being in the homes for crimes or misbehavior.
Not that it matters - no child should be mistreated like this. But it speaks to Donahue's intellectual and moral dishonesty that he characterises the victims as "bad."
Posted by: Bill Dopeahue | May 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Sven DiMilo you apologist for pedophiles! Bill Donahue is on the phone. He would like to meet you for dinner. The two of you can engage in a fantasy discussion how great the Church is.
You both smoke crack!
Posted by: Bill Dopeahue | May 29, 2009 5:03 PM
Sven DiMilo you apologist for pedophiles! Bill Donahue is on the phone. He would like to meet you for dinner. The two of you can engage in a fantasy discussion how great the Church is.
You both smoke crack!
Posted by: Jeannie | June 4, 2009 12:04 PM
People like Bill Donohue often justify child rape/abuse because these poor, pathetic priests, who physically, sexually and emotionally abuse children often can do just about anything they so desire, because they subliminate their sexual desires just so their congregations can receive Communion. Of course, the Church teaches that even though a priest may be "in mortal sin," that the consecration of the hosts are valid, anyway! I have a really strong feeling that maybe the Holy Spirit would disagree with centuries of Pope's, who have taught this rubbish!
Posted by: billhoner
|
August 26, 2010 4:19 PM
Physical Abuse At Catholic Schools closer to Home at Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School (Brooklyn New York) in the Fifties
Bill Honer, Class of 59
Ireland hardly the only country where Catholic school abuses occurred. Bishop Loughlin offered an excellent academic education during the fifties. However, the price in my case was too high due to the exposure to an atmosphere of occasional violence that I have never witnessed before or after in life. At the age of 14, I recall a fellow student savagely assaulted by a Christian brother whose name I do not recall. This is not to suggest that this was a daily occurrence, but I personally witnessed another violent attack by another Christian Brother during my junior year.
The student in the first incident appeared to be Hispanic; he either left voluntarily or was expelled after his freshman year. I never saw him again. The incident had a sufficient impact upon me that, after 50 years, I can still recall his name. The Christian Brother was a man, but at that moment he behaved more like an animal as he savagely hit him in the head several times with tremendous force. If there were any justice during that era, he would have been arrested and charged with assault.
My sister and I had no problems at St. Matthias grammar school. I do recall that when my sister came home crying from her second-grade class, my father sweetly said that we had to return to school. He was a large and imposing man. I remember he suggested to the nun he might be inclined to wrap her around the flagpole in the schoolyard if my sister returned home in tears in the future. That little visit ended problems at the grammar school. My sister once observed that our father had “intimidated the intimidators.” Had I been the victim of one of the brutal attacks that I occasionally witnessed at Bishop Loughlin, I fear the Christian Brother involved would likely have required hospitalization after my father had finished with him. These were infrequent occurrences, but they happened and should have not been allowed. Bill Honer, Costa Rica Class of 1959