…and this is a 
An interesting twist: this poll is trying to skew the Catholic church's decision to withhold social services if Washington D.C. supports same sex marriage into a moral issue…with the church taking the high ground!
The D.C. Council is considering a law forbidding discrimination against those in gay marriages. The law would apply to all groups that have contracts with the District, including Catholic Charities, one of the city's largest social services providers. The Archdiocese of Washington says that because of the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage, it would have to suspend its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.
Should the city require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?
Yes 18%
No 82%
Why should what the church considers immoral to be a relevant factor? I could consider the wearing of pants to be immoral, or even better, going to church to be immoral…but it doesn't make it so.
Comments
Posted by: Kristian Käll | November 15, 2009 11:43 AM
You seem to have reported those poll results wrong there PZ. hen I looked at it it was the other way around. 81% of the voters think that the church should be above the law.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | November 15, 2009 11:45 AM
I don't know whether you transposed the results, or if a giant assload of Catholics just voted, but the results were reversed when I voted a minute ago.
Yes, Catholics are subject to the law: 18%
No, Catholic bigotry is special and precious: 81%
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 15, 2009 11:46 AM
Oops, yes, you're right. Fixed now.
Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 15, 2009 11:47 AM
Imagine my disappointment realizing we weren't already winning this one.
19% Yes
80% No
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | November 15, 2009 11:50 AM
You know, it sure doesn't take long for the Catholics to get all pissy when someone else tries to make them conform to a moral or ethical standard they don't hold (not that I have any sympathy for them). If only they understood the reverse of that.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 11:52 AM
How do you define "moral" then? If you compel me to wear a skirt instead of pants or to attend your acceptance speech at the AHA (congratulations) instead of a church, is that moral?
The Catholic Church does not refuse to provide social services to avoid extending health insurance benefits to the partners of its gay employees. This characterization of the events is false. The Church only refuses to provide social services on behalf of the District of Columbia, in largely taxpayer financed, "faith based initiative" programs, if the District requires the Church to provide these benefits to its gay employees as a condition of Church participation in the District's programs.
The Church can and will continue providing benefits outside of state programs, and I believe it should do so regardless of the gay marriage issue. Don't you?
Posted by: mingfrommongo | November 15, 2009 11:56 AM
Would that include the laws against pedophilia?
Posted by: Quidam | November 15, 2009 11:57 AM
Oh good, that was bothering me too.
I agree with the post Hillman made on the WaPo website
The Church can be as bigoted as it wants ti be as a private organisation. But when it accepts public money to perform secular activities such as delivering social services it must abide by secular law.
What is really wrong is this:
The D.C. Council is considering a law forbidding discrimination against those in gay marriages. The law would apply to all groups that have contracts with the District, including Catholic Charities, one of the city's largest social services providers.
Why does the council contract with an organisation that has a long history of bigotry, condoning child rape and protecting the rapists?
If it were Acorn we'd soon have people screaming.
Posted by: Tim | November 15, 2009 11:59 AM
I certainly have to obey laws I don't agree with, and I PAY TAXES. Go pound sand, church.
Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 15, 2009 12:00 PM
By the way, for those of you on Facebook, if you haven't seen it, there is a page trying to organize to revoke tax exempt status from churches.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Revocation-of-tax-exempt-status-from-churches-engaging-in-political-action/165171987858
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:01 PM
The Catholic Church is not an organ of the state in my neck of the woods, thank God, and neither is any other church, so I'm not sure how the Church "makes" me or anyone else conform to any moral or ethical standard. The state in my neck of the woods makes me conform to many moral or ethical standards, some of which I don't accept, but no church makes me conform to anything.
If you live in the U.K. or Sweden or some other nation with a state church, you obviously don't live in my neck of the woods.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 15, 2009 12:02 PM
What ever happened to "hate the sin, love the sinner"? That's how the RCC treats its pedophile priests. It denounces pedophilia as a sin but actively and as a matter of official policy protects and supports the sinners. So why shouldn't the Church take the same attitude towards homosexuals?
Posted by: Artemi | November 15, 2009 12:06 PM
You must be kidding me! People and organizations should not be required by law to follow a law that they consider immoral? Does that make sense to anybody? Obviously it does, otherwise we wouldn't see the results we are seeing now.
I am starting a religion that explicitly forbids all its members to pay taxes and considers it highly immoral! All you guys can join!
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | November 15, 2009 12:08 PM
Allow me to spell it out. The Catholic Church and its congregants routinely, and as part of official doctrine, attempt to impose their version of morality on the rest of non-Catholic society. Banning abortion, banning equal marriage, shutting down "blasphemous" art exhibits, etc. But the second they're required to play by the rules, it's "Help, help. We're bein' oppressed!".
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:10 PM
Well, most of the "child rape" covered up by the Church involved gay priests and teenage boys, and most of it was as consensual as any teenage sex can be if the teenagers haven't reached the age of consent. Maybe the Church covered it up because some gnostic sources say that Jesus himself was a pederast. Maybe the Church takes these sources more seriously that it pretends.
Posted by: Karen Helouin | November 15, 2009 12:13 PM
It is the THINKING that is behind this that makes me think nothing will change in the Catholic church. Churches were never created for the betterment of the soul of man; they were created to gain power over man (not to mention their ability to steal the goods of man). Their days of being able to burn witches at will are over, and yet they think they are still relevant in some major, moral way. If I were a praying woman, I'd pray for their universal enlightenment. Alas, who would I pray to?
Posted by: rmw | November 15, 2009 12:17 PM
First-time poster, long-time lurker.
If the Catholic Church is so upset over the fact that they might have to follow the law, like any other organization that receives government funding, then perhaps they should forgo that type of funding if it does not align to their moral (and I use the word loosely) principles, and let some other organizations that has no qualms about following the law.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:19 PM
Anyone advocating some forcible standard through the state does so. You seem to want to force Catholic Charities to extend health insurance benefits to the partners of its gay employees for example.
Are you an anarchist?
No. It only says that it will withdraw from a state program if the state compels it to extend health insurance benefits to its gay employees. I don't want it administering social service programs for the District of Columbia anyway, so I don't see the problem.
There is no rule at this point. The rule is only proposed. If the Church were not party to these programs in the first place, this issue would not exist. The pro-gay marriage District government would enact this standard and be done with it. We should praise the Church for withdrawing from these programs.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 15, 2009 12:20 PM
Yes: 38%
No: 62%
Votes: 3052 (and the Google Translate trick doesn't appear to work).
Posted by: llewelly | November 15, 2009 12:22 PM
Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:10 PM:
That's a popular reporter's myth. In fact, 80% of the victims were female. Which is close to the average for child rape cases.
Posted by: Franc | November 15, 2009 12:25 PM
No one's forcing the Catholic church to perform gay marriages. All that is being asked of the Catholic Church is that it NOT discriminate against Gays and frankly that's the minimum one should ask of an organization that allegedly practices the teachings of Christ. I'd like to know why the Catholic Church thinks it's in any way acceptable to deny health benefits to spouses in a gay marriage? Providing access to health to anyone can't be a bad thing. The Catholic church is way off-base with this one and let me remind you that some religions used to preach that integration was sinful as was inter-racial marriages. DC can't cave to the objections of the Catholic Church when civil rights of individuals are involved.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | November 15, 2009 12:25 PM
Martin,
I don't get your problem. My point was that an institution that has no qualms about trying to force others to conform to their particular "standards" throws a hissy fit when the same is required of them. They're big, stinking hypocrites. That is all.
And yes, I do indeed want to force the Catholic Church to treat its employees equally under the law. There's no good reason they should be exempt from that. I can't think of anything the church has ever done that deserves to be "praised".
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:33 PM
Where has does the Catholic Church force anyone to take the eucharist? I know it doesn't happen around here.
The state is the monopoly force, not the Catholic Church or any other church around here, because state and church are constitutionally separated here, in theory.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 15, 2009 12:34 PM
Martin Brock #18 wrote:
No; by your reasoning, we ought to encourage churches to withdraw from state programs, where they receive taxpayer funds for providing secular charity services. Praising the churches would be interpreted as honoring them for standing by a 'moral commitment' which, from our standpoint, is not moral in the first place, and therefore deserves no praise when they stand by it.
The problem, though, is that the Catholic Church doesn't really want to get out of the "faith-based charity" business. On the contrary, they're trying to get a special exemption, and keep getting taxpayer funding anyway.
Consider the case of so-called "blue laws," on the books in many states until fairly recently. People are forbidden, by law, from buying liquor, going shopping, or playing cards on Sunday, simply because it is God's Holy Day. This law, passed by a religious majority, effects not only those in conservative Christian churches, but all citizens. And yet "keeping the Sabbath" is a moral or ethical standard only for Christians.
Would you agree that this would be a clear example of a Church (or religion) "making" people conform to their subjective moral or ethical standard?
If so, then issues which are backed-up only by religious argument are seeking to do the same thing. The Catholic Church may be joined with Protestant churches, but it still applies.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | November 15, 2009 12:35 PM
WTF are you talking about? Are you illiterate or did you just not bother to read anything I've written?
Posted by: Ben Abbott | November 15, 2009 12:38 PM
Poorly worded I think. Is the intent;
or Looking at there results there appears to be some confusion.In any event, at any point in our history, a significant portion of our citizens would consider the current sitting government to be immoral. Are they to be permitted to opt out of paying taxes?
All in all, it is a poor question, imo.
Posted by: Abs42 | November 15, 2009 12:40 PM
Yes 46% No 54%
Getting there!
Posted by: beccastareyes
|
November 15, 2009 12:42 PM
On the one hand, I do support civil disobedience towards laws you don't agree with. Provided you acknowledge the consequences. So, PZ, if you want to stop wearing pants, shine on you crazy diamond, but you should expect a visit from the local police if you don't keep your ass covered in public.
So, if Catholic Charities just is 'we refuse to give services to same-sex spouses of employees, so we're no longer working in a capacity that mandates it', then they're bigots* but fair enough**. But if they are 'we refuse, and we will drop hints/outright state that you should change the law so that we don't have to' they are both bigots and trying to escape the consequences which makes me even less happy.
* Look -- a consequence of their behavior is that I think that they are behaving in a bigoted manner and will call them out for it.
** And DC should totally be 'Don't let the door hit ya where the dog should've bit ya'. I don't care for bigots, and less people who play politics with basic services.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 15, 2009 12:42 PM
Voted. The catholic church can follow the law, just like everyone else. If they don't like it, let them dip into the vatican bank to fund their "charities" instead of taking taxpayer money.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:47 PM
Right. No one claims that anyone's forcing the Church to perform gay marriages.
The proposed standard presumably requires health insurance benefits for partners (in a civil union) of gay employees of Catholic Charities. The standard does not require the Church to offer similar benefits to platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings, adult children living with a parent, parents living with an adult child and other domestic partnerships.
If extending these benefits is "NOT discriminating against Gays", maybe the Church thinks the benefits would discriminate against these other partnerships.
Regardless, I'm happy for the Church to withdraw from these programs. Entangling the Church with the state this way is counterproductive for both.
Posted by: Tim | November 15, 2009 12:47 PM
Results up to 50/50 now.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 15, 2009 12:48 PM
Martin:
What, do you need the Idiot's Guide to Tax Exemption and Taxpayer Funded Subsidies?
Seems like it.
The Catholic Church is providing a social services that we taxpayers, of all faiths or lack of faith, are subsidizing. Bleating piously about the church-state separation is a moot point, since the Catholic Church needed to hold up its end of not entangling itself in government :::Snort! As if it ever could!:::: But it didn't. It came to the government, holding its ring-bedecked hand out, like any good corporate whore.
The price for dancing with the government is that tax-funded organizations are supposed to abide by some basic rules. Period. If they don't want to dance, then get the fuck off the dance floor. Give the money back, and rally their cheap-ass congregants to pay for the charity, for once in their lives. Or how about selling off some of the Pedophile Cabal's gold and real estate?
If you want to go down the road of nobody being forced to be a Catholic, then you could say that the poor who get those tax dollars filtered through the Pedophile Cabal have an option of not going, but they don't. Or that the people who work for Catholic Charities have the option of working somewhere else. They may or may not--it depends, but who are you to tell them where to work? To tell the poor where they get a meal? They're in a much different position from the Pedophile Cabal. The Church has power of its own, so don't make the RCC look like a poor pathetic little twerp getting the shit beaten out of it by a football player.
It's not.
So get off your high horse.
Posted by: Lynna | November 15, 2009 12:53 PM
Sastra put it best:
The Catholic Church wants to continue their immoral practice of discrimination, and they want your tax dollars to do so.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:55 PM
There is no law at this point. A proposed change in the law requires the Church to extend health insurance benefits to partners in a civil union with gay employees, if it extends these benefits to married spouses, but the law does not require these benefits for platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings, parents living with an adult child, adult children living with a parent or other domestic partnerships, even though these other partnerships arguably are more needy and even though extending the benefits to partners of gay employees in a civil union puts financial pressure on organizations which do not currently provide benefits to these other, needier partnerships either.
Posted by: Randall | November 15, 2009 12:57 PM
PZ said, "I could consider the wearing of pants to be immoral, or even better, going to church to be immoral…but it doesn't make it so."
The second part of that statement is a good analogy to the issue in the poll because they both relate to First Amendment separation of chuch and state.
If you believe that going to church is immoral, then the State should not be able to force you to go to church.
(I also don't think the State should force anyone to wear pants, but I'm a nudist. However, that's a policy question rather than a Constitutional law question.)
Posted by: Zach Voch | November 15, 2009 1:00 PM
This is a rather interesting position for the Church to take, given that it would be political suicide to apply it consistently.
Would they deny social services to Jews and Protestants? Surely these groups also take positions they deem to be immoral or else contrary to their doctrines. Do they deny social services to the divorced? To those who have committed adultery? To those who have had an abortion? Those using birth control?
Can you see "Church forbids Jewish adoptions" in the headlines anytime soon?
Clearly, the Church will apply political clout when they can with relatively little risk to themselves, but not in the face of overwhelming civilized resistance. This only tells us that the Church still considers homosexuals marginal enough to merit open bigotry.
At the very least, this undermines certain frequent apologetics, such as "the Church is a charitable institution", or "we hate the sin but not the sinner". In this case, dogma (restricted to political convenience) again takes priority over charity. Further, it is not clear that denying social services does anything to stop the sin, but it is certainly obvious that this move will punish the sinner.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | November 15, 2009 1:00 PM
Oh give me a fucking break. If CC wants to extend benefits to adult children, roommates, grandparents, etc. no one's stopping them.
Posted by: CSBSH | November 15, 2009 1:01 PM
#11,
"If you live in the U.K. or Sweden or some other nation with a state church,"
We don't have a state church in Sweden. Church and state parted ways about ten years ago.
Posted by: SmilingSkeptic | November 15, 2009 1:02 PM
It's at the 50%-50% threshhold right now...
Posted by: Narvi | November 15, 2009 1:04 PM
Martin, are you a troll or are you actually serious?
It's discrimination to provide benefits to some civil unions (straight marriages), but not to others (gay marriages or other civil unions), based on the sexuality of the people involved.
And they're not forcing the Catholic Church into stopping discrimination - they're trying to provide an ultimatum to all their partners: either stop discriminating or stop taking government money. And if the Church stoppped stealing, the government would stop telling them what to do.
And comparing civil unions with roommates is just wrong. We have, as a society, decided that civil unions shall have some advantages over other forms of cohabitation. Whether that's right or wrong is another matter, but as long as SOME civil unions get advantages, ALL civil unions shall havev those advantages. Otherwise, it's discrimiation.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 1:09 PM
Of course, it agreed to entangle itself in government. Who denies it?
There is no rule at this point. The law we're discussing is proposed. The Church hasn't violated any law in this case.
Sure. That's what I want.
That's just how things really are around here.
But these are your words, not mine. Surely, you understand that.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 15, 2009 1:15 PM
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because
some watery tart threw a sword at you!you wear a funny hat and claim an invisible man talks to you!1.) Blue Laws (As someone already stated) - I'm not sure on whether or not they're still on the books in some states and not in others, but at least in Maryland, the stores won't sell liquer on Sunday. They will sell beer though.
2.) Anti-abortion - trying to make it illegal for ALL women to get an abortion.
3.) Anti-contraception (and "abstinence-only" education) - trying to make it illegal to use any contraception and force schools to teach "abstinence only" instead of a full sex education class which explains the use of condoms instead of stating that condoms SPREAD AIDS.
4.) Anti-stem cell research - actively retarding the progress of science.
5.) Trying to force creationism into science class
6.) Anti-homosexual marriage - actively denying the rights of homosexuals in marriage and all privilages that are awarded thereby (hospital visitation, burial next to eachother, healthcare benefits, etc)
Are you still not sure how the church enforces its "morals" onto people not of the church? I can give you some more examples if you want...
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 15, 2009 1:16 PM
Poll seems to contain typos. I believe the more relevant question would be:
Which is your reaction when the Catholic Church tries to imply anyone should give a rat's ass what it has to say about 'morality' in the first place?
a) Seriously? Har har har... Wait... no, *seriously*? Heh heh... hey, I know, let's ask Jenny McCarthy for advice on our epidemiology coursework, too...
b) (Cough... choke) What? (Turning slighly blue...) Hee hee hee... Or... wait... Let's get Bernie Madoff to offer us some advice on business ethics...
c) (Holding sides, grimacing) HA HA HA... No no... stop, fuck, you're killing me here...
d) All of the above, pretty much at once...
Posted by: Prometheus
|
November 15, 2009 1:20 PM
#5 and #13: Excellent points from both of you. As soon as we consider the actions and statements from Church officials as the actions and statements of people working in a nonprofit and not God's elect, it become clear where the reasonable standards lay. The Catholic Church frequently speaks less like a member of society and more as an antagonistic foreign nation.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 15, 2009 1:26 PM
Artemi@13
The Libertarian Church? With its current head, St. Paul?
*ducks for cover*
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | November 15, 2009 1:27 PM
I beg to differ. What we consider to be immoral is really the only measure of whether something is immoral or not. Especially if there's a consensus, which the Catholic Church could create.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 1:33 PM
I'm actually serious, but I'm also described with "troll" a lot, so I guess you can take your pick. "Troll" is so vague and inconsistently applied that it's practically meaningless, but if the word lights your fire, so be it. You may call me a "faggot" too. I don't care.
Well, it is discrimination. I've never denied it. It's also discrimination to provide benefits to married parents but not to unmarried parents. It's discrimination to provide benefits to legitimate children but not to bastards. It's discrimination to provide benefits to a gay couple in a civil union but not to a pair of cohabiting siblings.
For that matter, it's discriminating to prefer brunettes to blonds or homosexuality to heterosexuality. We all discriminate continuously, of course.
Concerning the particular discrimination that we're discussing, that's right.
"Wrong" like I'll go to hell for saying it, or "wrong" like the grass is not blue but green?
In this case, "society" hasn't decided anything. This law is only proposed. I don't agree that civil unions generally should have these advantages over other partnerships. I don't agree that childless marriages should have the advantages either. Childless marriages do have them, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I thought it was just wrong.
So "discrimination" in general is wrong? Is discriminating against cohabiting siblings, who may not join in either marriage or civil union but may be the most devoted domestic partners in every other sense, except the genital stroking, also wrong? I'm not suggesting that two wrongs make a right here, but I'd like to know whether you think this other discrimination "wrong" at all.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
November 15, 2009 1:34 PM
I don't think anyone believes the Catholic Church should be above the law.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 1:44 PM
Should the city require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?
yes 60%
No 40%
Far to many idiots and jeebus droolers out there!
Posted by: Narvi | November 15, 2009 1:46 PM
[quote]I'm actually serious, but I'm also described with "troll" a lot, so I guess you can take your pick.[/quote]
As long as you say what you really mean, you're not a troll.
[quote]"Wrong" like I'll go to hell for saying it, or "wrong" like the grass is not blue but green?[/quote]
Wrong as in "Not in line with society's views.
[quote]In this case, "society" hasn't decided anything. This law is only proposed.[/quote]
I meant in a more general sense. Traditionally, married couples have special visitation rights in hospitals, can adopt babies and can make decisions at each others' funerals. These are rights that we, as a society, have decided that married couples should have, but unmarried couples and other cohabitations shan't.
My point is that as long as these rights exist, they should be granted regardless of sexual orientation (whether married couples SHOULD have these rights over unmarried couples is another matter, but as long as SOME marriages have them, all should have).
[quote]Is discriminating against cohabiting siblings, who may not join in either marriage or civil union but may be the most devoted domestic partners in every other sense, except the genital stroking, also wrong?[/quote]
I think it's wrong, I think married couples SHOULDN'T have special rights over unmarried ones, but as long as society says married couples should have those rights, ALL married couples should have those rights.
Posted by: Sili
|
November 15, 2009 1:50 PM
Indeed, if the RCC doesn't want to perform they job they're hired to do by the city, they'll just have to not bid on the contract when it's up for renewal. How hard can it be? If you can't conform to the requirements in bid proposal, then don't bid.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | November 15, 2009 1:51 PM
I don't think anyone believes the Catholic Church should be above the law.
The church does, obviously.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 15, 2009 1:51 PM
I apologize to anyone I rebuked who said the Catholic church was a source of evil, and I remained undecided. THIS IS F***ING BARBARIC. THEY WANT TO TAKE THE ENTIRE CITY HOSTAGE, TO PUSH THEIR F***ED UP AGENDA DOWN DC'S THROAT!! THE POPE SHOULD (WHAT MICHAEL SAVAGE SAID THAT GOT HIM FIRED FORM MSNBC)
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 15, 2009 1:53 PM
Even though the pope is not directly involved in this situation, he could stop this. But he isn't.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 15, 2009 2:00 PM
Pharyngulated! It's now 67%-33% in favor of yes.
Posted by: shane | November 15, 2009 2:01 PM
pretty sad that the catholic church hates "teh gay" so much they would rather ignore the poor and homeless than treat someone who is gay like they are human beings.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | November 15, 2009 2:02 PM
The poll question says "The Archdiocese of Washington says that because of the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage, it would have to suspend its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt" followed by "Should the city require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?"
As the poll is worded, to some it may seem to ask if the Church should be allowed to do what it threatens to do. It seems to ask if the city should require the church to continue its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than suspend those services if the anti-discrimination law is enacted. I would certainly vote "no" to that question.
But regarding the actual intent of the question, I would vote "yes" and look for a good outcome whether the church is bluffing or not, since the church will look bad either way. I'll bet others will volunteer to provide services in their place if they stop.
Dr. I. Needtob Athe, founder of Atheism
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 15, 2009 2:05 PM
I don't agree with the way the poll is phrased, but I voted Yes since there's no option for "The Church should get the fuck out of taxpayer-funded social services. Especially since it doesn't pay taxes."
Posted by: Walton | November 15, 2009 2:07 PM
The city certainly should not, and cannot, require the Catholic Church to continue providing social services if it does not wish to do so. That said, obviously, if the Catholic Church wishes to receive public funds, it needs to comply with all relevant law governing expenditure of public funds, including anti-discrimination law. If it is unwilling to do that, then it must stop providing publicly-funded services.
It goes without saying that in my view, and in that of most people here, the Catholic Church's anti-gay stance is irrational, bigoted and morally bankrupt. But in a free society, individuals can hold whatever beliefs - however irrational - they choose; and if they wish to withdraw their services in protest at the anti-discrimination law, they are within their rights to do so.
Posted by: tomh | November 15, 2009 2:10 PM
Martin Brock wrote:
Well, most of the "child rape" covered up by the Church involved gay priests and teenage boys, and most of it was as consensual as any teenage sex can be if the teenagers haven't reached the age of consent.
There is so much ignorance displayed in this one sentence, that it's difficult to absorb on one reading.
Posted by: Susan vD | November 15, 2009 2:12 PM
Martin,
Forget that this specific law has not been passed yet, and forget that the group under question is a religious group. Also forget deciding whether a law is moral or not--just assume the law does no harm (or explain why it does harm).
Can you explain why you think any group that takes taxpayer money should not have to follow a law that requires all groups that take taxpayer money to follow the taxpayers' laws?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 2:12 PM
"Society" doesn't have views in my way of thinking, but I'll let it go.
[quote] doesn't work here. You need
.Aren't you discussing your view.
Right. I wouldn't deny any of that to gay couples. No one is simply entitled to adopt children, but practically everyone should be entitled very simply to name their visitors in a hospital and who arranges their funeral.
You don't need marriage to name a power of attorney or otherwise will a representative to arrange your funeral. Single people must do this sort of thing too. I do have problems with hospitals and other organizations that stubbornly refuse to respect these declarations when they involve gay lovers, and I do support law compelling this respect.
I don't agree with you. Two wrongs don't make a right. Many benefits of marriage are subsidies. Extending the benefits to still more people who shouldn't have them only increases the burden on the subsidizers. I understand the wish to leave the subsidizing group and join the subsidized group, but I can't support it, not least because I'm still in the subsidizing group.
But do you think that cohabiting siblings and the other domestic partnerships discussed should be allowed to "marry" or otherwise claim the same benefits? Wouldn't it be easier to withdraw the benefits from childless couples regardless of marriage?
Posted by: rmw | November 15, 2009 2:12 PM
"I'll bet others will volunteer to provide services in their place if they stop."--Dr. I. Needtob Athe
Given the fact that charitable donations are down, due to the economy, I'm sure there are plenty of other organizations out there that will gladly not discriminate if it means they can get some more money in order to provide their services.
Posted by: puseaus | November 15, 2009 2:14 PM
Strict legislation and efficient law enforcement is a good way to ensure decent treatment and equality of people in a modern society. When the Catholic Church chooses the criminal approach of discrimination (of love), they will have to be dealt with no matter how high they hold their medieval traditions.
Posted by: Gingerbaker
|
November 15, 2009 2:16 PM
The Church also accepts public money for all intents and purposes by enjoying property tax exemptions. There is a quid pro quo for that treatment, and that is to stay out of politics.
This church should lose its tax exemption.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | November 15, 2009 2:21 PM
Wait, I'm confused. Does the CC no longer provide social services in places such as Massachusetts? 'Cos they've allowed teh gayz to marry for years now.
Posted by: Michelle R | November 15, 2009 2:22 PM
I don't think youcan force them to stop being biggots. However we can tell them how retarded and hateful they are. And make our own services to the poor that are not based on silly religion.
Posted by: Narvi | November 15, 2009 2:22 PM
Martin, could you do me a favour and actually start reading my messages?
I'm not saying it's right that married couples have privileges, I'm just saying it's MORE right that ALL married couples should have them as opposed to just straight married couples. This isn't two wrongs making a right, it's a wrong (married couples have special priveleges) and a right (equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation) being more right than just a wrong.
"But do you think that cohabiting siblings and the other domestic partnerships discussed should be allowed to "marry" or otherwise claim the same benefits? Wouldn't it be easier to withdraw the benefits from childless couples regardless of marriage?"
That's what I'm saying, which you would know if you read my comments.
Posted by: Rrr | November 15, 2009 2:28 PM
@ Michelle R:
Maybe, however, you can make them choose whether to accept subsidies (not to mention tax exemption) or to accept the price of adherence to the non-discriminatory clauses. Sects should have nothing to do with sex. That's just crackers.
I say. Let them have their way when they get to Heaven. Not before.
Posted by: Marcus B. | November 15, 2009 2:33 PM
Martin Brock,
But this isn't going to happen.
You talk again and again (in this thread and a previous one) about how you wish that things would work and you seem to think that we should act as if things actually were like you wish them to be.
A majority of people love how marriage works today. The laws aren't going to change until a majority thinks like you (I'm definitely undecided on the matter) - we will keep having marriages and unions, even if you wish that they didn't exist in the form they do today.
You can lobby for withdrawal of benefits from all childless marriages and if you are persuasive enough society might change it's collective mind on the matter, and laws may change in the future. But I'm pretty certain that you understand that this would take a long time.
In the meantime, I (and most other people here, I would think), believe that what we have should at least be equal.
If you think that marriage as it exists today is wrong, and you think that extending that to more people is two wrongs, I guess I can understand you. But I don't know why you don't think that marriage plus inequality isn't two wrongs as well.
Is it just a question of money for you? You think that inequality is less wrong than equal benefits because it costs less?
Posted by: Gingerbaker
|
November 15, 2009 2:34 PM
There is no such thing as consensual sex between an adult and a minor. What the fuck were you thinking?
Your statement is also bullshit. This was not consensual sex - it was cruel, vile, and illegal behavior by authority figures on helpless children and adolescents.
You are a fucking liar.
Posted by: Rrr | November 15, 2009 2:36 PM
Oh. Forgot to add: I cannot participate in this Meaningless PollTM because I do not understand it. "it" as in the question, that is. Conflating "One Church" and "State" again, hmm?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 15, 2009 2:38 PM
In Connecticut all retail sales of alcoholic beverages on Sunday are illegal. However bars and restaurants can sell alcohol either by the drink or by the bottle.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 15, 2009 2:43 PM
Wait, I'm confused. Does the CC no longer provide social services in places such as Massachusetts? 'Cos they've allowed teh gayz to marry for years now.
They withdrew from a contract with the Commonwealth back in '05. That particular contract was to provide adoption services for children who were living in group homes or were otherwise without legal parents and living within the DSS system. Rather than provide services to same-sex couples, as required by marriage laws and anti-discrimination statutes--and which CC had previously been allowing--the bishops forced CC, over the unanimous objection of the Board of Directors, to withdraw from a contract.
But, the Vatican has said that placing children in gay homes is doing violence to those children. If there's any organization that knows about doing violence to kids, it's the RCC....
Posted by: Mark | November 15, 2009 2:44 PM
LOL! If Catholic Services DC wants to suck on the public teat, it must look at that teat. If CSDC can't do that, it needs to revise its stance on morality.
There is no other option in this case. They are not in any position to tell a secular governmental agency what is moral or not.
Nope. Not in the real world I live in. An institution that STILL to this very second, authorizes pedophile and teenboy-loving priests to have sex with those boys is NOT in any position (chuckle) to tell anyone what is moral and what is not moral.
I laugh at their hubris.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | November 15, 2009 2:50 PM
Thanks, MAJeff! I feel like sometimes I should know more about Mass. (being a neighboring New Yorker), but we've got enough problems with getting marriage equality legalized here that I kind of tend to ignore everything else.
Posted by: Carlie | November 15, 2009 2:53 PM
Martin's a worse libertarian than Walton used to be.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 15, 2009 2:55 PM
No worries, OurDeadSelves. I think it was '05. Might have been late '04. It came on the heels of a Globe investigative report showing that something like a dozen same-sex couples had adopted from CC over the previous decade and a half or so (this is from memory, so I could be off on numbers). The Bishops went into a snit. Ever the opportunist, esp. while running for President and against the Commonwealth, Governor Willard Romney tried to get the legislature to write an exemption into law for the RCC. The lege said "bugger off" and the AG refused to support Willard or the Bigot-Bishops. So, they forced CC to withdraw from its contract.
It's always funny to hear right-wingers lie about this. "Catholic Charities was forced to stop performing adoptions!" they shriek. No, Catholic Charities decided to leave children in state custody instead of finding them good homes.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 15, 2009 3:22 PM
Why haven't you relized yet that this kind of statement just makes you look not only ignorant, but an asshole as well?
Atheists would have a LOT more respect for you and wouldn't say anything about your beliefs in an imaginary friend if you just said the following:
In addition, you could do the following as well:
There's a few things to start on, Martin. Do those things and I'll accept the premise that that church is a force for good in the world. Hell, just do the first one and I'll proclaim from the rooftops, "Hey, yeah, they still kinda suck, but they're changing for the better! Like an alcoholic at his first AA meeting it's going to take some time. The church is finally out of denial and is going to fix itself up!"
If the church did all of those things, I would actually proclaim God exists because the possibilities of all of those things happening would be so small that divine intervention was needed.
Get to it, Martin.
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 15, 2009 3:32 PM
Fuck 'em. Get the hell out of DC! Oh, and while we're at it, let's revoke your 401(c)3 status.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 3:32 PM
#56
"Posted by: shane | November 15, 2009 2:01 PM
pretty sad that the catholic church hates "teh gay" so much they would rather ignore the poor and homeless than treat someone who is gay like they are human beings."
That is the problem right there...
According to their eminences "ter gay's" are obviously not human beings...hells teeth according to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor Atheists are apparently 'not fully human'
So we can see the pattern here methinks!
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 15, 2009 3:34 PM
I will preface this by saying I'm not sure if this is because it's an extention of blue laws or the law was put in under religious influence, but in the county that I live in in Maryland, there is no such thing as a bar. It's illegal to have an establishment that sells alcohol unless it has a full menu. So, the closest thing we get to a bar here is like Ruby Tuesday, Chili's, Applebee's, or other similar places.
It was a rude awakening when I moved here and then tried to find a bar so that I could meet some people...
Posted by: Dianne | November 15, 2009 3:36 PM
The Catholic Church, like every other institution and individual, is required to follow the laws of the countries in which it operates. If it considers any of these laws to be unacceptably immoral then its members can practice civil disobedience--and take the consequences of that civil disobedience, whether they be loud tsking from officials or banning and execution of priests.
Yes, every person or group has the right to follow his/her/its own conscience or internal rules, even if they oppose the laws of the society. But anyone who does so should be prepared to accept the consequences of disobeying a law and not whine about it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 3:42 PM
It's only complicated by the fact that religion gets to operate without paying taxes. If the money they were talking about was entirely their own, and not subsidized by the taxpayers, they ought to be free to do whatever they want (or not do whatever they don't want) with it - including trying to hold their largesse as contingent against their views. After all, that's exactly what I do when I don't give money to religious organizations.
All this talk of "moral" and "immoral" is nonsense, though. The church's "morals" are bunk and are based on vigorous assertion/imaginary playmate. So, they're stupid. But just because they're idiots doesn't mean anyone who's not part of it gets a free ride by being able to say "X is moral" or "Y is immoral" based on vigorous assertion/imagined rational assessment of what's best for society.
PZ writes:
I could consider the wearing of pants to be immoral, or even better, going to church to be immoral…but it doesn't make it so.
Exactly!
Posted by: Dianne | November 15, 2009 3:43 PM
I do have problems with hospitals and other organizations that stubbornly refuse to respect these declarations when they involve gay lovers, and I do support law compelling this respect.
Including Catholic hospitals?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 3:56 PM
KemaTheAtheist writes:
(a good list of "christian values" that have effect on society at large)
Don't forget:
- Laws against "sins" that are "victimless crimes": drugs (including alcohol)
- Laws against "obscenity" that trump free speech: christian anti-sexuality in media. It was so bad that in the 40s movie theater owners were arrested for showing movies that depicted adultery.
Posted by: foxfire | November 15, 2009 3:58 PM
@ #6
Martin - For this particular issue, I happen to agree with you. The Catholic church should withdraw from taking taxpayer dollars to perform a function if they do not want to follow the associated law.
I also think the Catholic church (and any other tax exempt organization) should loose their tax exempt status if they lobby in the political process (for or against a particular candidate or pending legislation). Tax exempt status is a "gift", not a right.
Also, regarding #15:
:Would you kindly share your source for this "statistic"?
P.S. I voted yes on the poll.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:00 PM
Because the statement is true?
I don't have an imaginary friend, but some atheists, you specifically, like to leap to conclusions.
None of it has anything to do with me, because I'm not a priest or a bishop or the Pope or even a Catholic. I'm not even a Christian or conventionally religion by any description. What are you on about anyway?
Posted by: Nebula99 | November 15, 2009 4:03 PM
A couple of people on here have mentioned that the RCC is still trying to force creationism into the public schools. Is it really? I thought the RCC had accepted evolution now and wasn't doing that anymore. At least one Catholic high school near where I live teaches about evolution in the biology curriculum, and does a decent job of it (but that's a Jesuit school, and they are generally better with that sort of thing than the main church).
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 15, 2009 4:04 PM
Martin Brock (#47)
Martin Brock takes trolling very seriously and his special trolling trick is to quibble over definitions in order to start arguments or to distract people when the argument isn't going his way. Rather than admit when he's wrong, he changes the definitions of words to suit himself, making the words vague, inconsistent and meaningless. Maybe he's satirizing himself here, but if not, it's most hilariously ironic.
Posted by: Narvi | November 15, 2009 4:04 PM
@Martin:
"Because the statement is true?"
Please provide a source for that claim.
Posted by: rmw | November 15, 2009 4:09 PM
"It's only complicated by the fact that religion gets to operate without paying taxes."--Marcus Ranum
That's only partly true. Yes, churches receive tax-exempt status, but this particular issue focuses on churches as non-profit organizations. To my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), if an organization (or part of an organization) is considered to be a non-profit, they are granted tax exempt status. This applies to religious and secular organizations.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:15 PM
I'm not happy with this source, but it's the best I can do on short notice. It's a report of a study in the Washington Times and reports over 80% of cases involving boys rather than girls, but it doesn't give age statistics. You can read the source study here, but you must pay a subscription fee. Questia has a free trial, but it's one of those things where you sign up for a subscription and then must ask to have it discontinued after the free trial. You can do that if you want.
Posted by: CornetMustich
|
November 15, 2009 4:17 PM
It's time DC.
Let's not forget that marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls or mosques or temples.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
And congrats to all the couples who are coming to CT to wed from all across the country.
And to the marriage police and sexually phobic, please find something else to do with your time as life's just to short.
Find love.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:23 PM
A study of over 10,000 priest sex abuse cases over decades is linked above, but you must subscribe to a research service, at least for a free trial. I'm not selling anything here and have no relationship with this research service. It's just the best I could do with a quick google search.
For the "Jesus was a pederast according to gnostics" claim, I don't have a ready link, but it might have been Hyam Maccoby. It's not his book, The Mythmaker, which I can recommend, but it might have been an article by him online, or I could be confusing him with someone else. I'll search for it when I have the time. I haven't defended this assertion in years.
Posted by: Geoffrey | November 15, 2009 4:26 PM
Not true. There is a huge power disparity between a child - even a teenager - and a priest with the backing of an entire church behind him.
Posted by: Dianne | November 15, 2009 4:26 PM
It's a report of a study in the Washington Times and reports over 80% of cases involving boys rather than girls, but it doesn't give age statistics.
Most pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult sexual relations. Almost no openly homosexual people are pedophiles. The gender of pedophiles' victims often has more to do with opportunity than offender's preference.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 4:28 PM
rmw writes:
Yes, churches receive tax-exempt status, but this particular issue focuses on churches as non-profit organizations.
Money is so delightfully zero-sum. If there are 2 businesses, and A has to pay property taxes but B doesn't, B doesn't have to shift any income toward paying those taxes which A has to pay. Consider a case where a business is allowed to own tax-exempt real estate: it can borrow against the real estate's value to have capital for other projects. It's obvious that kind of financial maneuver can be used to redirect cash within a business and - churches (how nice!) don't have to make their returns public like other 501c organizations do.
My accountant used to say that he could use any inequity in capital systems to generate wealth. I used to think he was just cynical but I realized I was naive.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:30 PM
For the pederasty claim, try Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., "The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament", Pilgrim Press, 2003. It's not the source I recall, but it might have the source I recall. The early source is non-canonical and gnostic, probably centuries into the Common Era. I don't recall all the details.
Posted by: Nebula99 | November 15, 2009 4:40 PM
Martin @93,
The study you cited was commissioned by a bunch of Catholic bishops. I know you said it was the result of a quick search and you weren't happy with it, but see if you can come up with something better than that.
You also said,
"Well, most of the "child rape" covered up by the Church involved gay priests and teenage boys, and most of it was as consensual as any teenage sex can be if the teenagers haven't reached the age of consent."
According to Wikipedia, more than half of the victims were between the ages of 11 and 14. That is NOT old enough to call it consensual, especially when the other person is an authority figure.
Posted by: Miltdown Pan
|
November 15, 2009 4:42 PM
Homosexual blog forecasts violence against Christians.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:43 PM
By "as consensual as any teenage sex can be", I referred only to the legalities involved, but I will says this. I've heard a gay man tell stories about his teenage quests to have sex with older men. I also lived and slept with this man, so I had more than a passing acquaintance with him and have good reason to respect his veracity. He was very clear that he was not only willing but eager and even pushy about it.
I've also been propositioned, even harassed, by a teenage boy myself, and I've been a teenage boy. I never propositioned any adult for sex, but I sure as hell thought about it, and I would have done it if I had seen a ready opportunity.
So I doubt that all or even most of these cases involved teenagers who were any less willing than teenage boys having sex with other teenage boys, which is quite common.
That's not a defense of anything. It's only a frank recognition of how life really is. Sex with an underage teenager is illegal, and I support the law.
Posted by: Miltdown Pan
|
November 15, 2009 4:44 PM
Edmund White on pederasty.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:45 PM
The study commissioned by a bunch of Catholic bishops is very credible. If you want to continue researching the question, you can do that.
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
November 15, 2009 4:45 PM
By the way — why has no one yet bothered suing one of these churches for violation of the 501(c)(3) tax-exemption laws? It boggles the mind.
Seems there's a compelling argument:
"We feel that while recieving taxpayer funds in the form of tax exemption, churches should be forbidden on making commentary on policy decisions, pending legislation, or other government events. As many scientific studies have shown, attendance with a church has a high correlation with following a church's position, strongly implying the church is highly effective in communicating its position to a congregation. When such communication happens, the church is effectively lobbying to the populace. This is forbidden by the tax-exemption rules. Thus, we conclude that if a church espouses poltical views or positions, they should lose their tax-exempt status for no less than the fiscal year of the offense."
Or something like that, anyway. Really, why haven't we heard of a suit like this yet?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 15, 2009 4:49 PM
This is pretty sad behavior, Pilty. It's like disguising yourself so you can continue to pass out Chick tracts. Reasonably friendly advice: find another way to spend your time.
Posted by: rmw | November 15, 2009 4:49 PM
"...churches (how nice!) don't have to make their returns public like other 501c organizations do."--Marcus Ranum
Really? I wasn't aware of that particular fact. Do you happen to know the law that lets them skirt it?
Something similar happened in my hometown about 2 years ago. The state told the charities that were receiving state grants that in order to keep receiving that money, they could not discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring practices. A Catholic charity (perhaps the Catholic Charities, I don't recall) pitched a screaming hissy fit, basically saying "If you don't let us discriminate against teh ebil gays, then we won't run our charities anymore." The state kindly pointed out that, as a private organization, they were free to run their organization as they saw fit, but to not expect any state monies in the future.
If Catholic Charities of DC is doing the same thing ("We want special status to discriminate, since our medieval dogma compels us to do so.") then the DC government needs to tell them to get fucked.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 4:49 PM
why has no one yet bothered suing one of these churches for violation of the 501(c)(3) tax-exemption laws?
I don't think most of us have standing to do that. We'd have to show we were harmed by it, wouldn't we? (IANAL) If I understand correctly how it works, the IRS could do it, or some local government, but - heh - the deck's neatly stacked isn't it?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:50 PM
I don't deny any of it, but "pedophilia" describes a sexual attraction to prepubescent (sexually immature) children. Sex with a sexually mature but underage boy or girl is not pedophilia. "Child sexual abuse" and "statutory rape" are legal categories that go beyond pedophilia.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
worse as in "an even more delusional one", or worse as in "bad at being libertarian"?I imagine the former, since he seems to live in an universe that resembles this world not at all, in which the only instance of being squicked out by sexual advances is when men approach men (and this is both genetic and an instance of homophobia); flawed but existent and attainable in the short-to-middle term solutions should be discarded and ignored in favor of perfect but theoretical and at best attainable in the very-long term ones; being able to divorce is a bad thing; and the only people who should marry are parents.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 15, 2009 4:58 PM
oh ewwww. the only thing worse than that are dry countiesPosted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 4:59 PM
I never say anything like it. Attributing your words to me only suggests that you can't distinguish your own thoughts from others.
Posted by: rmw | November 15, 2009 5:04 PM
"why has no one yet bothered suing one of these churches for violation of the 501(c)(3) tax-exemption laws?"
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California suggested it, given the US Council of Catholic Bishops involvement in the Stupak Amendment in the healthcare bill. Of course, she's being crucified (pun completely intended) by the right wingers, who are complaining that the CC is being unfairly targeted, freedom is being violated, blahblahblah. Personally, I'm all for religious institutions not having tax exempt status--if they're going to play politics, then they need to pay like the rest of us.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 15, 2009 5:09 PM
that's actually not true. "minor" and "adult" are arbitrarily defined categories, so of course there is consensual sex between those two groups, as every 17-year-old with an 18-year-old partner will tell you.however, all sex that involves one person who has authority over the other is automatically not consensual but coerced. This is especially true when the forced party is a young minor, because we know that young teens (and children even younger than that) have not yet fully developed the ability to make responsible decisions for themselves.
thus, any sex between a priest and a parishioner is suspect; any sex between a priest and a young teen parishioner is rape.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 15, 2009 5:12 PM
except that this is one of the assumptions behind your "homophobia as I define it could be genetic" argument: that there's something special about men being repulsed by and afraid of the idea of having sex with menPosted by: mk | November 15, 2009 5:14 PM
Thank dog Martin Brock and his ilk are there to defend those poor preyed upon priests!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 5:16 PM
rmw writes:
Really? I wasn't aware of that particular fact. Do you happen to know the law that lets them skirt it?
IANAL. But. :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) has some information on the topic:
"Failure to file required returns such as Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) may result in monetary fines of up to $250,000 per year. Exempt or political organizations (excluding churches or similar religious entities) must make their returns, reports, notices, and exempt applications available for public inspection."
I love me some separation of church and state. :(
How did this happen? Simple: a lot of preachers live really really high off the hog. If you haven't had a laugh at some of those con-men in "religulous" it's fun to watch Bill Maher poke the preacher in the $9,000 suit... We used to have these clowns in Baltimore when I was a kid: they'd buy a church, pass the bucket to pay the downpayment, and then always keep the property mortgaged to the hilt while they drive around in big cars and live like kings in the parish house, making poormouth noises the whole time. Religious people are stupid but even they will eventually "WTF?" if they're being tapped for donations for a new church roof and the parish buys 2 cadillacs.
The state kindly pointed out that, as a private organization, they were free to run their organization as they saw fit, but to not expect any state monies in the future.
That still fails on the zero sum principle. By allowing them to own real estate tax free, they're giving them working capital, if the church is willing to do a few financial gyrations. And, if there's one thing most churches understand, it's financial gyrations...*
(* I could go on about that literally for a day. The Knights Templars weren't just religious warriors: they invented the "check" and served as the bankers for the crusades - they were sort of an armed and dangerous Western Union. The reason the Templars were shut down by Philip was because he wanted the gold supply in the temple. Follow the money! And Rodrigu Borgia's financial machinations as Alexander the 6th would have made the Enron guys cheer in admiration... Anyhow. end of digression.)
Posted by: akshelby | November 15, 2009 5:19 PM
My take on Martin Brock's allegation that the sex between the priests and underage boys was consensual is this:
If it was consensual, why are they now traumatized by it? Why are many of them still in therapy? Why are they suicidal? Read up on the issue and listen to the victims.
Here is a good source: http://www.snapnetwork.org/
I heard the founder of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests speak at a conference. He still gets choked up talking about it. It was not consensual.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 5:23 PM
Jadehawk, OM writes:
all sex that involves one person who has authority over the other is automatically not consensual but coerced.
Minor nit: "assumed to be not consensual, but coerced"
What if you have a minor who is excited by authority? I agree that, for the sake of keeping the laws clear, it's the best assumption to make since it places an extra onus on the person in authority. But I'm sure you can see how "all" is probably an unduly broad generalization.
It's fascinating to me how much time humans spend worrying about who's fucking who, how, and why!!! It shows us where our true priorities really lie! :D
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 15, 2009 5:28 PM
you're right, and that's the way I meant it; just didn't phrase it clear enough.Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 5:30 PM
#116
Posted by: mk | November 15, 2009 5:14 PM
"Thank dog Martin Brock and his ilk are there to defend those poor preyed upon priests!"
With defence like that methinks the priests are pretty screwed ...in a bad way from an RC perspective!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 15, 2009 5:30 PM
No bar or percentage are displayed for "not sure".
Posted by: Susan vD | November 15, 2009 5:37 PM
Silly of everyone to quibble over whether or not priests were having consensual sex. It's completely irrelevant. We all get that the Catholic church is hypocritical.
The point is do we non-Catholic taxpayers get to decide whether our tax dollars got to Catholic hypocrisy or are we required to fund it.
If we get to decide, then the Catholic church has to follow our laws.
Martin is unable to respond to this point. He is an all-or-nothing boy who would prefer to chew off his happiness if it means he can spit in someone's face.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 5:38 PM
If you think I'm a bit obsessed about the church's massive investment in tax-free real estate, I thought this little factoid might amuse some of you:
Prior to the French Revolution, the Catholic Church owned 15% of the land in France
Isn't that amazing? A lot of the enlightenment was a reaction to the church's grasping behavior. Many historians chalk it up to "French anti-clericalism" but it was more a matter of the peasants and middle class being told to keep off church property.
I'm not super-concerned about that happening in the US, but if I was planning on having kids I'd be in the process of turning my real estate into a church, right now. BTW, that's the way to "solve" this problem - if too many people jump on the scam bandwagon it'll attract attention and regulation to re-assess questions like "what is a church"?
Posted by: foxfire | November 15, 2009 5:58 PM
@ Martin regarding #93 & 95:
The John Jay Study (including result summaries, questions and associated literature regarding child sexual abuse can be found here
You may wish to review the actual study as it clearly contradicts your rather simplistic understanding of the results.
Posted by: djarm67 | November 15, 2009 6:03 PM
Poll update
Yes 75%
No 25%
DJ
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 6:12 PM
I don't have a crystal ball, but I suppose gay marriage isn't going to happen either, i.e. the institution of marriage in the U.S. as it exists now in its entirety will not be extended gay couples.
No. I say repeatedly that I don't expect my wishes to be enacted. I support many reforms that I don't expect to be enacted, just as you do.
I don't think that's true. Many people have many different problems with how marriage works today. Some gay couples want gay marriage. Some straight couples want something like covenant marriage in Louisiana. I want what I want, having given the subject a lot of thought. You want what you want, and if you investigate current law closely enough, you might find that it's not what you want after all. "Love" is a strong word for the modern institution of marriage.
Like I said in the other thread, I'm not holding my breath for that. I don't hold my breath for a progressive consumption tax, school choice and many other reforms I support, but I still support them.
I'm not a groupthinker, so I'm not concerned with the consensus opinion here. Most people in the general population oppose gay marriage, and even the watered down civil unions that some states enact usually fall when subjected to referendum, but the majority of the general population doesn't speak for me either. I'm an individual. I explain my conclusions on individual issues here.
Gay marriage is not equality. It only extends a package of statutory benefits to one more group of people at the expense of other people.
If we're only discussing domestic partnership, hospital visitation, health care power of attorney, funeral arrangements and the like, then I'm four-square in favor of full equality for everyone. Ignoring the well documented declarations of gay couples in these matters should be illegal.
I don't live in a simple world. I think that marriage as it exists today has various things wrong with it.
Gay couples only compare themselves with straight, married couples, because married couples receive benefits, sometimes benefits I wish they didn't receive. Gay couples do not compare themselves to many other domestic partners who can't marry either, and when I read civil union statutes, these other partners are explicitly excluded, so the whole thing looks to me like the same, old identity politics, with another group seeking political benefits, not any sort of consistent egalitarianism.
But if I'm wrong about you specifically, you can convince me. Do you agree that cohabiting siblings or an adult child living with a parent should be entitled to the full benefits of marriage, including the tax and insurance benefits? I'm not discussing the rights often covered by power of attorney. We already agree on that.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 15, 2009 6:17 PM
A day or 2 ago pharyngula had a thread blog about church going people acting in accordance with their conscience when Nazi’s (politicians) knocked on their door saying “are you doing something which we (Nazi politicians) forbid?” (viz. hiding Jewish people)
If the church says something a politician disagrees with - it is automatically dragged into politics.
No church can or should remain silent just because a politician says so. The very last thing we want is politicians deciding morality based on the electoral cycle.
Check the boxes which politicians DONT mind the church doing.
Feed the poor (x)
Consol the grieving (x)
Shelter the homeless (x)
Bless the soldiers (x)
Care for the sick (x)
Prick the conscience of hypocritical politicians (?)
Nothing is politically right if it is morally wrong. And stealing, murder, child abuse should be morally wrong NO MATTER whether the genetically evolved conscience of Mr Hitchens “just so happens” to find them repulsive - OR NOT
Lion (IRC)
PS - If atheists want majority rule they should accept the moral majority.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 6:25 PM
Thanks for the link. I said "over 10,000 priests". The study involves 10,667 allegations, not priests. I said most victims were teenage boys. Boys are 81% of victims, and 53% are 13 or older.
Where is the clear contradiction?
Posted by: BMS | November 15, 2009 6:26 PM
PZ,
Is it time to vote on plonking again?
I have 2 nominations if you're interested.
One is an ignorant needle-dicked bug fucker.
Posted by: Susan vD | November 15, 2009 6:30 PM
Check the boxes which politicians DON'T mind the church doing.
Not paying their fair share of taxes (x)
Being unable to prick the conscience of hypocritical people because of their own difficulty with hypocrisy (ouch)
"If atheists want majority rule they should accept the moral majority."
Atheists don't want majority rule. Where did you get that idea?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 6:30 PM
The moral majority is neither. We are still waiting for your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity Lyin' Lion. You are a real coward by not attempting to present any. One might think you have nothing, and you know it.Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 6:30 PM
Martin Brock writes:
Gay couples only compare themselves with straight, married couples, because married couples receive benefits, sometimes benefits I wish they didn't receive.
There's the rub, isn't it? Why can't the state break all the "marriage benefits" into a rational menu of choices and offer them equally? It wouldn't be hard. I could write a power of attorney regarding who could unplug me if I'm on a machine, and another regarding who can visit me in the hospital. Or, perhaps, for that, allow me to designate visitors to my care provider in advance. Allow me to allocate tax benefits across an arbitrary group. If I can give 100% of my inheritance to my wife, why can't I assign 1/10 of my inheritance each to 10 of my friends - assuming I had 10 friends? The reason people want to be married (other than the burning desire to have mothers-in-law) is these "benefits" which are not equally available, still.
Why is it that, as a single person, I can't assign my inheritance (with tax protection) to my girlfriend, or my drinking buddies? Oh - right: I'd have to marry them. Why is it that, as a single person, I can't tell my care provider that my drinking buddies need to vote 2/3 majority to unplug me? Oh - right: I'd have to marry them.
So, now we're heading toward supporting same sex marriages and extending those benefits. So now it's not just the hetero married couples that get these advantages - good for them - but unfair to the multi-way relationships, groups of drinking buddies, or just plain folks who want to remain single. If you deconstruct each of the "benefits" of marriage it can be mapped into a socially equal and fair mechanism that doesn't require the state's getting involved in questions of who can "marry" whom. Wouldn't that be more fair?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 6:37 PM
That's exactly what I advocate.
I completely agree with you. And why should it matter if you have sex with your drinking buddy?
Posted by: MikeM | November 15, 2009 6:41 PM
Looks like we have another religious quack stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from his flock, right here in Sac-Ramen-To.
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2326224.html
When will they ever learn?
Posted by: Kevin B
|
November 15, 2009 6:42 PM
Martin Brock, you've already said everything I came here to say.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything you wrote. But I like your style.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 6:47 PM
Thanks, Kevin. I was beginning to think that everyone considers me a needle-dicked bug fucker and wants me plonked.
That doesn't mean my dick is anything to crow about.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel | November 15, 2009 6:55 PM
You do?
Really?
BS
Posted by: Anon | November 15, 2009 6:55 PM
@Kevin B #136
I agree, MB is a very accomplished and talented troll. I have seen better, but very few.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 6:56 PM
But I have answered the point. I've answered it repeatedly. I want the Catholic Church to stop administering these programs for the District of Columbia, even if the law doesn't change.
You can imagine me spitting in your face if it makes you feel morally superior, but reality is out there too.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 15, 2009 6:58 PM
Lyin' Irk made the truism:
As usual, Lyin' Irk failed to go to the next step. He neglected to tell us who decides what is or isn't morally wrong. As Lyin' Irk pointed out, all of us here disagree with the AIG fundagelicals who would not lie even to save peoples' lives. Also most if not all of us have no problems with domestic partners, even ones infected with teh gay, have insurance through their partners' employer.
So tell us, Lyin' Irk, who's the arbitrator of morality? If you tell us the Catholic Church is, then we'll know you're talking out of your rectum.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 7:02 PM
I'll take my compliments from either side of the hand.
Posted by: Patrick ONeill | November 15, 2009 7:03 PM
I personally am looking forward to my new career as a Christian Scientist Pharmacist.
I will refuse to fill your prescriptions, but I WILL pray for you.
Posted by: nejishiki | November 15, 2009 7:07 PM
@Anon #139
He's not a very good troll - if he is one, but some people are just SO damn easy to rile. Oh well, let them waste their energy and feed every troll that lurches in here. Unlike the CC, Pharyngula always feeds the hungry.
Posted by: Anon | November 15, 2009 7:14 PM
nejishiki--trolling, like natural selection, is blind to our desires; he is very good at getting the "some people" to rise to the bait. That he is blatantly obvious to others is irrelevant; he has found his niche, and exploits it successfully.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 15, 2009 7:23 PM
Hi Susan vD,
When I see a tax system in which everyone agrees on its fairness I will give up posting on pharyngula.
I made the assertion about "atheists for democracy" in the form of a question because this thread commences with the inference that a democratically elected DC legislature sufficient has authority to force the church to act contrary to its own doctrine.
Any man-made law which contradicts Gods law does not need to be obeyed. At the very least, I would just ignore it. Man-made laws don’t last very long anyway. But if it mattered I might even make an effort to actually oppose it. I’m happy to render unto caesar – eg. puny little gold coins with his name on them.
But I wouldn’t even get out of bed to do something “just because Caesar said so”.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 7:24 PM
This blog is all about trolling. Myers positively revels in rudeness. Rudeness is a requirement. Some people can dish out but can't take it.
Posted by: nejishiki | November 15, 2009 7:25 PM
Anon -
My people, the internetians, have prophesied the coming of a great troll. One who will be able to troll the most serene, the apolitical, the unexciteable; one who could troll a buddha in repose. Until then, all others are pretenders.
Posted by: cafeeine
|
November 15, 2009 7:25 PM
There was apparently a counter-pharyngulation effort here
I particularly like one of the later comments:
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 15, 2009 7:27 PM
Lion writes:
Any man-made law which contradicts Gods law does not need to be obeyed.
Does the converse apply? Do all divine laws trump man-made?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 7:30 PM
So, nejishiki, is this troll prophesied to appear in 2012?
Posted by: Janet Holmes | November 15, 2009 7:34 PM
75% Yes when I voted a moment ago, so improvement is ongoing.
Posted by: WMDKitty | November 15, 2009 7:37 PM
"The Archdiocese of Washington says that because of the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage, it would have to suspend its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt."
No. They wouldn't "have to" suspend social services at all. However, they are CHOOSING to do so, at the expense of (who else?) the poor and homeless, just so they can retain their precious "morality". A "morality" that won't allow consenting adults to marry, but is just fine with priests raping altar boys. Hypocrisy, thy name is Catholicism.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 7:39 PM
Cowardly Lyin' Lion. Here you go deliberately lying again. You have presented no physical evidence for your deity. Therefore, logic and parsimony, require that you deity doesn't exist, and therefore can't have any laws. What part of you needing to be a man of honest, honor, and integrity by presenting the proper physical evidence don't you understand? And deliberately lying like that makes you look like a dishonest small minded village idjit.Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 15, 2009 7:51 PM
Provide evidence for God's law. (Hint: First requires evidence of God)
Posted by: nejishiki | November 15, 2009 7:56 PM
Janine, no man knows the hour of his coming; he shall come as a thief in the night. And, like a thief in the night, he will be strung out on heroin and steal your grandma's jewelry from the cabinet downstairs.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 7:58 PM
I say most cases (more than half) were as consensual as teenage sex can be (not at all legally), and you leap to this generalization, because you have your own point to make here.
Of course, I never say that no one was ever traumatized by sex with a priest, and I do say any sex with an underaged teenager is illegal and should be. Sex between teenagers can be traumatic as well, and I don't defend any of it.
"Pederasty" and "pedophilia" are not the same thing. I'm not defending either one, but they aren't the same thing. When I say that some priests might know gnostic accounts of Jesus as a pederast, I'm completely serious about that, but I'm not a Christian, so I'm not defending anyone with this suggestion.
Posted by: Monado | November 15, 2009 7:59 PM
If the Roman Catholic church had no objection to gay marriage, then a policy of not extending spousal benefits to common-law partners would be reasonable; but after it spent millions of dollars and megalitres of hot air trying to influence laws so that gays can't get married, it would be hypocritical of them to say that they won't extend benefits to gays in civil unions or equivalent-to-married status, when that's all it would allow them.
It's really an extension of giving spousal benefits to common-law spouses, which became more common in the 80's.
Posted by: Wistah | November 15, 2009 8:02 PM
Well, well, well....if it isn't the esteemed Martin Brock.
Having had extensive experience with Mr. Brock's argumentation in the distant past, I will say this: he's not a troll, he's well read, he's a libertarian with deep Christian roots, he harbors some rather deep-seated mysogyny stemming from a bitter divorce, he nurtures some rather medieval views on parental rights and child-rearing, and he rarely takes on an argument involving a larger point, preferring, instead, to parse an argument line by line as a method of dismantling any larger point he would rather not deal with.
Heh. Welcome Mr. Brock. Very interesting.
Posted by: eurail pass | November 15, 2009 8:09 PM
This is double faced hypocrisy to expect the Church to perform a service the city itself considers immoral. Just a little bit confusing for those involved?
Posted by: Blind Squirrel | November 15, 2009 8:10 PM
I was with you until No he isn't, not at all.BS
Posted by: not a gator | November 15, 2009 8:12 PM
Not in my country (US). There still hasn't been any exposure of the systemic rape and abuse of seminarians under Cardinal Cushing in Boston in the mid-20th century. (Even if it was "consensual", which it really wasn't given the power imbalance between a seminarian, who must absolutely obey his superiors, and the priests or bishops, it was also illegal at the time.)
Consensual (at least not prosecutable) if coercive sex between priests and young women was mostly ignored during the scandal, but for one case that hit the papers because she was very young and the priest got her 3 sheets to the wind first.
No, what resulted in prison sentences was the raping of boys and girls, some in the case of Shanley as young as 8 or 9; in the earlier case of Geogan (and I think Kelley?), 5 and 6 years old (pedophilia).
Granted, there were civil lawsuits as well, covering a much broader range of cases, resulting in over a billion in settlements. Despite that, the Catholic authorities got off pretty easy. The higher-ups who moved abusers from parish to parish faced no legal consequences (although a few of them fled to Vatican City to escape the heat). And the RCC has never been brought to heel for the exploitation of women, especially with regards to child support cases.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 8:13 PM
Thank you for that, Wistah. Damn, the Hoax gets the ax (Yeah, I know he left a few droppings earlier. PZ is busy elsewhere.) and some one equally as annoying and pointless pops in. Is there an internet law that covers this?
I do not have either of my grandmothers' jewelry, nejishiki, so I guess I am safe from the great troll.
Posted by: Wistah | November 15, 2009 8:16 PM
Well, I supposed that's a reasonable response. Brock is a fairly well documented skeptic, so he generally takes an exceedingly rational approach with most arguments--it's just that his interpretation of fact is not going to necessarily jive with yours. If you don't find him interesting, that's understandable, but that doesn't mean his appearance here, which is what I was actually commenting on, isn't interesting to those who have had experience with him before. I suspect I'm not the only atheist/skeptic posting here who has bumped up against him in the past.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 8:18 PM
They are providing a service that is open to the public and doing it with public money. They do not get to make the laws about who is serviced.
Or would you prefer that that investigate all people in their employment and all people being provide service and make sure that no one involved is involved in activity the RCC calls immoral?
Posted by: Kevin B
|
November 15, 2009 8:19 PM
Now it all makes sense.When I read Martin Brock's comments through the filter of your perception, he still makes more sense to me than most of the commenters here, even though I am not much of a libertarian, never was particularly Christian even as a child, am not a misogynist, never had a bitter divorce, and have distinctly 20th and 21st century views on child-rearing.
Clearly, not being any of those things is driving my agreement with a lot of what he says, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Susan vD | November 15, 2009 8:24 PM
"Any man-made law which contradicts Gods law does not need to be obeyed."
I will allow you to follow God's law if it doesn't affect me. But you can't make me follow God's law even if it doesn't affect you.
Cool, huh?
If you don't follow man-made law on this earth, you get to go to jail in this lifetime. Later, in the afterlife your behavior will be redeemed if you followed the right God and if there is an afterlie. But until then, you play by human rules or you suffer.
Too cool, huh?
"Man-made laws don’t last very long anyway."
You mean like Catholic geocentrism lasted? Like male domination over women lasted? Like slavery lasted?
Posted by: Blind Squirrel | November 15, 2009 8:36 PM
Wistah @164
I see that you meant his appearance here rather than the creature himself.
BS
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 15, 2009 8:38 PM
Where'd you read that?
Posted by: Wistah | November 15, 2009 8:38 PM
As one who lurks rather than comments on this site, I do feel compelled (as much as it pains me) to come to Mr. Brock's defense.
In my experience--and he and I have gone round and round in years' past on women's issues, children's advocacy, gender roles, to name a few--he always has his facts straight. He has, in the past, enraged me to the point where I'd have to leave my computer and come back a day later. He has a Spock-like tenacity that gets under the skin of more emotional participants. He is an accomplished debater and will exploit the weaknesses in your own argument before you ever get a chance to exploit his. He relishes that sort of intellectual repartee. If he views you as an intellectual lightweight, he'll reduce you to a grease spot on the rug. He rarely engages in personal attack (unless he's changed over the last 9 or 10 years) and you'll never see him resort to ad hom idiocy or cheap shots.
Make sure your argument is cogent, fact based, and sound. If you have done your homework, you will find him an engaging adversary. For the lazy and emotional thinkers who occasionally post on this site, if nothing else, he will sharpen your skills and hold you accountable. Or make your heads explode. Good luck! lol. HFS.
Posted by: Anon | November 15, 2009 8:44 PM
he's not a troll, he's well read, he's a libertarian with deep Christian roots, he harbors some rather deep-seated mysogyny stemming from a bitter divorce, he nurtures some rather medieval views on parental rights and child-rearing, and he rarely takes on an argument involving a larger point, preferring, instead, to parse an argument line by line as a method of dismantling any larger point he would rather not deal with.And the intelligent designer is not god, but merely any entity fitting a god's job description.
Brock is trolling. By your description, and independent of motivation or intelligence.
What a waste. Imagine the contributions he would otherwise be capable of. But as long as he fits the description you give, he is trolling.
At least you have confirmed it. The other option was that he was an idiot who was functionally indistinguishable from a troll.
Posted by: Wistah | November 15, 2009 8:52 PM
Well, you're free to subscribe to whatever definition of troll you wish, but I'm not sure that everyone would agree with you. Disagreement is not trolling. Nevertheless, if he decides to stay here, PZ can decide whether or not Brock fits into the same mold as those he has rightfully consigned to the dungeon. Personally, I think that notion is preposterous as those people, by and large, are batshit nuts or fulminating psychotics--and Mr. Brock is neither. If I recall correctly, he's not religious at all any longer but subscribes to a rather agnostic/atheist perspective.
Posted by: foxfire | November 15, 2009 9:14 PM
@ Martin # 129, regarding:
In #15 above you wrote:
First, where I agree with your statement:
1."child rape" being in quotes, since the issue (to me) is "sexual abuse of a minor" (as defined in the study).
2. "Most" is accurate as the majority of the abuse involved teenage boys between the ages of 11 and 14.
As for the contradictions:
1.The study results do not find that the priests were "gay".
2. The statement "as consensual as any teenage sex can be if the teenagers haven't reached the age of consent" is misleading, if not ignorant. See section 4 of the study.
In summary, my interpretation of your statement in #15 is that it is flippant and is intended to depreciate the issue.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 15, 2009 9:14 PM
Since Mr. Brock is a looneytarian and I have a strong prejudice against looneytarians, then there's an easy solution for me.
Killfile.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 9:34 PM
'Tis Himself, did you ever stop to think that your dislike of libertarians is genetic?
Wistah, I a not impressed by Martin Brock's logical argumentative style. He pulls assertions out of his ass. He distorts other people's positions. He changes definitions to suit his own ends. He will pull go after one minor detail and get away from the point of the thread.
There are plenty of people here who have serious SIWOTI syndrome. He will always have people to spar with here. But in Brock's case, it is pointless grandstanding.
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2009 9:41 PM
I don't understand why anyone is upset with this. Isn't it a good thing that the catholic church is withdrawing itself from secular programs? It seems like everyone here has been trying to get them out for some time. Now the job is done and you're raising a stink about it.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 9:43 PM
Thanks for that. I know you from SkepticForum? All the way back to YourTurn at NPR.org? I haven't really mellowed, but I've definitely drifted since the YourTurn days. Too bad they dumped it. Wish I had the archive.
I learn new things about myself all the time.
I call myself a small "l" libertarian. I also post at cafehayek.com, but if you browse there, you'll find legions of "real libertarians" lambasting my blasphemies and ... you guessed it ... calling me a "troll". I support a progressive consumption tax and title expiration (similar to estate taxes), and I oppose a gold standard, and I'm a road socialist, so I fail all sorts of purity tests among the various denominations of libertarianism too.
I don't mind "Christian roots", but I have a fundamentalist Christian mother and an agnostic father with no conventional religion. I've been an atheist essentially since I was twelve. I now call myself a naturalistic pantheist, a system that Dawkins calls "sexed up atheism", because I have no lingering hostility toward the G word and don't mind using it as Einstein did. I also read traditional theology as allegory and find much of it interesting in these terms. I was married in a Unitarian Universalist Assembly twenty five years ago. None of my three children have ever attended a church of any denomination.
Bitter divorce? Maybe. Not by most standards. Divorce with children is rarely easy, but my divorce never saw the inside of a courtroom. We wrote the terms without lawyers or an adversarial contest. I'm on very friendly terms with my children's mother. Since moving to Georgia from Alabama, I frequently stay at her (formerly our) house for days at a time. I did so three weeks ago.
It's fair to say that I'm not a gender feminist, but I have no idea why you accuse me of misogyny. Some of the few civil exchanges I've had at this blog were with women. If you can quote a single misogynistic word I've written here or anywhere else, I'd like to see it.
"Medieval" or not, I prefer discussing my specific views on parental rights and child-rearing rather than this "big picture" summary, and I might do that here someday but not today.
I admit that I'm skeptical of "large points", and I prefer to address issues as specifically as possible. I deny avoiding issues this way. What I call "flight into generalities" seems more the avoidance to me. Politicians are notorious for it. The devil is in the details, not in the platitudes.
Thanks for the welcome. It's definitely refreshing around here, but we all know what web forums are like.
Posted by: foxfire | November 15, 2009 9:45 PM
@ Martin re #127:
Interesting comment and I agree with most of what you wrote.
I disagree with
based on the recent results in Washington state. That wasn't a watered down civil union law. Which states have recently voted down, by referendum, a civil union law?Posted by: MV | November 15, 2009 10:07 PM
Just in case anyone is interested, Bill Maher has posted a new article on his position on vaccines on Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/vaccination-a-conversatio_b_358578.html
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 10:12 PM
Brian, I think you misunderstand this. The problem is not because Catholic Charities might pull out. Most of us would welcome a more secular group taking over these functions. It is the reason why they are threatening to pull out of those services, that fact that they would cut off services to needy people so they do not have to deal with LGBT couples.
Posted by: F
|
November 15, 2009 10:12 PM
@ Martin Brock:
I don't know if this has already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but the Catholic Church like to throw its political weight around to force people to behave "morally" as defined by the Church, through lobbying and motivating parishioners to vote as the Church sees fit. This is hardly limited to the Catholic flavor of Christian Churches, but it is how the Church does try to impose its morals on others. And these morals are supported solely by religious reasons.
Sure, it is the Church's prerogative to walk away rather than comply, but it exposes its hypocrisy. Being gay is somehow more sinful and unforgivable than being a pedophile, or a crack whore? It is interesting which people they choose to find so offensive that they cannot provide services to them.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 15, 2009 10:12 PM
Janine The Ineffable, OM #175
My dislike of libertarians comes from three sources:
1. They tend to be economic illiterates. For instance, too many of them yearn for the return of the gold standard without understanding the multiple reasons why the gold standard was abandoned by every government in the 1930s. Their love of laissez faire capitalism (abandoned by every industrialized country before World War I) is another example of economic illiteracy. There was a reason why von Mises couldn't get a tenured position when he came to the US, even at schools with conservative economics departments. As an economist, I am aghast at some of the economic stupidities routinely trotted out by certain libertarians.
2. The libertarian philosophy can be summed up as "I got mine, fuck you!" Yeah, that's a bumpersticker motto, but all too many libertarians think in bumpersticker cliches. Most libertarians refuse to accept that there are a whole lot of people who have to live together more or less in harmony. The social contract is not a myth, regardless of how libertarians pretend it is. There are some things that have to be done collectively. "No man is an island."
3. Libertarians make noises about how evil the government is and how noble private enterprise is. Most people get more "or else" orders from their boss at work in a week than they get from the police in ten years. But according to the libertarian propaganda it's the government that's coercive.
Libertarians do not live in the real world. If given the choice between reality and ideology they normally go with ideology. The libertarian utopia is Somalia, a feudal oligarchy where nobody wants to live, not even libertarians. But that's a plausible result of what any country could become under libertarian domination. Most people realize this, which is why libertarianism, particularly its extreme anarcho-capitalist cult, is rejected by the vast majority of people.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 10:16 PM
They were just males having sex with males?
I have no hostility toward this G word either, but based on the statistics, many, even most, of these priests appear to be closeted gay men seeking concealable sexual encounters with younger gay males. I'm not defending that. I'm just saying. Most gay men look for younger partners, for that matter. Most straight men look for younger partners too, truth be told.
But these priests weren't only looking for younger partners. They were looking for concealable partners, and they found themselves in the company of, and in positions of authority over, boys who looked up to them, some of whom were bound to have homosexual tendencies. The rest is history.
I don't know how much sense the "gay gene" theory makes, but I do know that the "gay priest gene" makes no sense. Homosexual priests are not so different from other homosexual men, except in their priestly circumstances. I doubt that they're more likely to be genuine pedophiles for example.
I've already discussed this point, and I'm not making light of anything, but I do know from personal experience that teenage boys seek and readily accept sexual encounters with older men. At one time, not so long ago, the gay community discussed it openly. Miltdown Pan links Edmund White at 103.
"Prior to the 1970s, most gay writers put pederasty and homosexuality on the same level. In the 1970s and 1980s, that became less the case, and now, there are new writers who are writing sympathetically from the perspective of the boy-lover."
These are not my words. They're words of a celebrated gay author interviewed by another gay man for a gay publication for gay readers. Your taboos are not as taboo as you might imagine within the gay community. I'm not saying that the community defends sex with boys, but most gay men well remember being gay boys.
Flippant? O.K. Half the comments posted here are flippant, but my remark exists in a context that you're ignoring. I go on to say that priests could be influenced by gnostic sources describing Jesus as a pederast. I suppose that's flippant too, but I'm also serious. These guys are priests. They've studied a lot of early Christian literature. They have a deep understanding of Christian history, including the "heresies". Some have also read Edmund White.
So my "larger point" is that some of these priests decide that pederasty is acceptable, even with within some secret Christian tradition, as it was in ancient Greece, and they find teenage boys with homosexual tendencies ready to experiment sexually, and so on. What's so incredible about that?
Posted by: foxfire | November 15, 2009 10:21 PM
@ Martin # 177:
I haven't seen anything you wrote on this thread that I would consider misogynistic (being female, I would expect to have a vote on that subject). Nor do I consider you a troll. I disagree with you on certain issues and that is perhaps because of my interpretation of what you meant ( writing being a subset of all possible human communication mechanisms, such as eye contact, gestures, etc, which are all colored by cultural context, not to digress....).
Your # 147 is interesting and I haven't seen anyone comment on it yet, so I will bite. Here, for ease of discussion, is what you wrote:
1."This blog is all about trolling" No it's not. See the science related posts PZ makes.
2."Myers positively revels in rudeness." Yes. It can be annoying, from my point of view.
3."Rudeness is a requirement." No. Cleverness, yes and possibly to the detriment of content.
4."Some people can dish out but can't take it." Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that people can accept data that agrees with their opinions better than data that doesn't or do you mean that people will call you a troll because you are persistent in presenting a not generally- accepted-blog position, or something else?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 10:21 PM
'Tis Himself, it was a joke. In an other thread, Martin Brock stated the homophobia of straight men was genetic.
But I understand, being of the more anarchist bent, I resent the claim that their's is also an anarchist philosophy. I see them as wannabe petty princes desiring to hire private armies.
Posted by: Helenna | November 15, 2009 10:26 PM
I always found Canon 1095 (title 7, Chapt. 4) of the Catholic Church amusing. It lists impediments to marital consent:
Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 10:27 PM
A church is a free association in my neck of the woods. The churched want authorities to think for them. It takes a load off of their minds. No one forces them. The state forces them. That's just a matter of fact.
I don't see the hypocrisy.
The Church does not refuse these social services to gay people. That's not what we're discussing. If the Church didn't have openly gay employees, the benefits issue wouldn't exist. See above for evidence in this thread that Catholic Charities has openly gay employees.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 15, 2009 10:32 PM
Janine The Ineffable (#175)
Thanks, now I need to go dry my keyboard out.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 10:34 PM
I make this point in libertarian fora all the time, but you imagine yourself an authority on the inside of my head, so you've already decided that we disagree vehemently. The "libertarians" in my faction call the "libertarianism" you oppose here Royalism or Proprietarianism. Proprietarianism is my word for it.
Politics seems just a heap of vague, emotionally charged stereotypes to you.
Posted by: Drew | November 15, 2009 10:37 PM
@martin #183
"They were just males having sex with males?
I have no hostility toward this G word either, but based on the statistics, many, even most, of these priests appear to be closeted gay men seeking concealable sexual encounters with younger gay males. I'm not defending that. I'm just saying. Most gay men look for younger partners, for that matter. Most straight men look for younger partners too, truth be told.
But these priests weren't only looking for younger partners. They were looking for concealable partners, and they found themselves in the company of, and in positions of authority over, boys who looked up to them, some of whom were bound to have homosexual tendencies. The rest is history."
Incorrect. Psychiatrists and Psychologists will tell you that pedophilia is not about being gay (even when it happens with man on boy or woman on girl) it's about power. The statistics show that most of the pedophilia is man on boy but that's simply due to fact that boys are usually more readily available to them. Boys are also more likely to remain silent due to the stigma attached to being gay and the fear that they are gay due being victimized in this.
Further analysis of the sexual orientation of the offenders would probably show that they would follow the same pattern as the rest of the population were they to choose consenting adult partners.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 10:39 PM
That's actually the title of a recent blog post, but I'm less rude that most around here. You don't see me calling people "needle-dicked bug fuckers" and the like. That's not my style at all, but it is a very common style here, yet your criticism is directed at me. That's your prerogative, but I'm not losing sleep over it.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 15, 2009 10:41 PM
...but you imagine yourself an authority on the inside of my head...
I made no claims about the content of your head. This is merely a content free claim. Shit, in this case, I was not talking about you.
Wistah, is this more of the logical nature of Martin Brock? Once more, I am not impressed.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 10:50 PM
I never say that pedophilia is about being gay. I'm arguing the opposite point, but I just can't seem to get it across to some of you.
Pedophilia, in precise psychological usage, is a sexual attraction toward prepubescent (sexually immature) children. Pederasty is something else. I've bent over backward to make this distinction clear. I'm saying that most of these cases look more like pederasty than pedophilia, but all of the cases involving underage children are criminal. All are abuse of authority. All are inappropriate.
Posted by: foxfire | November 15, 2009 10:51 PM
@ Martin # 183
Oh good grief; why don't you just admit your wording sucked or that you don't understand the underlying reason for most of the abuse. I'm suggesting that the results of the study imply that "normal" (as in the majority of, not deviant, preference for heterosexual contact) sexual behavior of male priests in the 30-39 year old category was repressed by the restrictive conditions of their position. So they expressed their underlying biological needs differently than they would have, if they were in a less restrictive environment (as in: if male priests could marry and have condoned sexual contact with a female)
You wrote:
WHAT statistics? Gotta link?
You wrote:
Regarding: "some of whom were bound to have homosexual tendencies. The rest is history". You really do need to look at, and understand, the scientific approach to causality.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 11:03 PM
I agree with 'Tis. MB belongs in the killfile.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 11:10 PM
'Tis Himself:
You:
'Tis Himself:
You:
Me:
You:
Needless to say, that wasn't worth the effort, but there it is.
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
November 15, 2009 11:11 PM
12407 votes in
73% Yes
26% No
1% Clueless
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
November 15, 2009 11:17 PM
Don't know about some here but I'd prefer these f*cktards not get a free-ride on my tax dollars any longer.
It's time for the churches to pay taxes...lots of taxes!
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 11:37 PM
I admitted that the wording was flippant, because you suggested it. You aren't satisfied, so you now want "sucked". I won't go that far with you.
I still say that most of the priests in these cases appear to be homosexual or bisexual, men with sexual desire for other men who'd likely experience this desire if they had never become priests.
Sure. I say the same thing above. Gay men can be repressed. They can also be frightened of their own sexual desires, and they can seek refuge from it in a sexless vocation like the priesthood. I think that's why gay men are disproportionately represented in the priesthood. A lot of nuns are probably lesbians too. There's quite a bit of serious literature on the subject. Just google for "lesbian nuns" and ignore the porn sites.
I say the same thing above. They were deeply closeted and sought concealable partners.
Your statistics at your link. The profile of the victims supports the claim. 80% of them are male. Over half are teenagers. If we consider only the 34% of cases that actually involved oral sex or penetration, I'll wager that the percentage of teenagers is much higher, but I haven't looked so deeply yet. These cases look like pederasty. If we lived in ancient Greece, most of these cases would be commonplace. We don't live in ancient Greece, and the behavior is pathological in our cultural context, but I'm just saying.
That's just a little too vague for me. You can spell it out if you want.
I'm going to bed.
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 15, 2009 11:38 PM
I don't know if they need to pay tax, but they probably should have the same requirements for public reporting as other tax-free charities and non-profits do. How many thieves and other scoundrels conceal themselves in piety inside church organizations, I wonder.
Posted by: F
|
November 15, 2009 11:43 PM
As it should be. I'm not sure how this is relevant, but I'll take it as given for future consideration in reading your posts.
This has a high frequency of being true across individuals, churched or otherwise requiring instructions and leaders. I submit, however, that churches may have more social force to bring to bear on churched individuals than any state, regardless that states may have laws, police, and places of incarceration at their disposal.
Again, I find this mostly irrelevant, though I do take the fact that the state has real force at its disposal as a given, that is, the state can force compliance in insuring individuals on institutions which would rather not insure these individuals. Rather, my point was that the catholic church, and others, do bring influence to bear on the state to have their morals enforced, i.e., made law, which the state then enforces for them.
The Church has a God-Given mission to help those in need, and like to tout its services so we can all appreciate just how cool it is. To abandon doing this, or to scale back, on account of having to extend benefits to spouses of gay employees, is quite hypocritical. How can this stop the church from its greater mission? If the church should object to this on economic grounds, let it say so, then get on with it. But the Church's position is rather used as a threat as it does already have a decently efficient infrastructure in place, which would be difficult to re-create on short notice. There would certainly be interruptions and changes in service which would rather upset the voting clients, whose votes may be used to upset incumbents or change the law, not because they disagree with same-sex unions, but because they have been (possibly severely) inconvenienced. This is not the action of an institution which claims to care for the poor.
Of course, if the entrenched religion-based organizations were not a main way to redistribute tax-paid services to those in need, this would be a non-issue. But here, the Church would rather disrupt those it claims to care for. It may, in reality, be for the best, though.
My error in choice of words, and no disagreement that the Church has gay employees. I rather should have said that if it can provide said social services to any number of individuals with whose life-habits it disagrees on moral grounds, it is silly if not hypocritical to refuse to provide benefits to same-sex partners of their employees using this same operant moral framework.
That being said, I'd rather more agree with the model discussed at 133 & 134 than the model proposed by D.C. I find, however, that societies tend to take these measures one at a time, rather than in general (e.g., suffrage for various groups, rather than universal suffrage from the onset).
Posted by: not a gator | November 15, 2009 11:47 PM
Sure, Martin Brock, there's NO difference between a horny 15-year old boy who fantasizes about sex with brawny truckers or who even is crazy enough to go to the truck stop and get picked up by a trucker, and an 11-year old Catholic school student or altar server pulled out of class, touched inappropriately (and worse) and threatened with everything including the eternal pains of hell if they tell their mommy about it.
Like there's NO difference between a crazy 15 yr old girl sneaking into one of those bars where they don't check IDs and getting wasted with her pothead friends and maybe even giving a buddy a BJ out back later and a 30 yr old getting an 13 yr old girl drunk on Kool-aid mixed with Schnapps and raping her when she passes out. Yeah. Noooo difference at all. Little whore deserved it.
Posted by: Mack | November 15, 2009 11:56 PM
Martin Brock:
In response to your absurd assertion that "most of the "child rape" covered up by the Church involved gay priests and teenage boys, and most of it was as consensual as any teenage sex can be if the teenagers haven't reached the age of consent"
I call total fucking bullshit. First of all, I don't think these kids would be coming forward with abuse stories if the sex had been in any way consensual.
As to the rest of your spurious claim:
http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/NYTimes_Survey.htm
"While the majority of the priests were accused of molesting teenagers only, 43 percent were accused of molesting children 12 and younger. Experts in sexual disorders say the likeliest repeat offenders are those who abuse prepubescent children and boys."
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf
First column age, then number of children abused, and percentage of abused children it represents.
10 752 8.4%
11 895 10.0%
12 1,323 14.7%
13 1,141 12.8%
14 1,188 13.2%
15 1,042 11.6%
16 769 8.6%
17 577 6.5%
So yes, slightly over half the children were over the age of 13. But I don't think anyone with half a brain would claim that these 13 year olds were trolling the churches looking to hook up.
Posted by: Mooloo | November 15, 2009 11:57 PM
Brock isn't even remotely trolling. He IS saying some things people on this site don't like to hear.
-- that not all sexual encounters between Catholic clergy and their younger parishioners were rape, even though they might be "rape".
-- that sometimes the teenage boys were the instigators. I have known some aggressively sexual teenagers who would have loved to seduce a priest. Just for the buzz.
The moral panic about "paedophiles" has reached a point where most people cannot make a clear distinction between actual paedophiles and people who happen to cross an arbitrary legal boundary.
This site is particularly bad for pretending that the Catholic Church is the worst organisation the world has ever seen for sexual abuse, because it suits the general political agenda. (Investigation of youth criminal services might leave you with different ideas.) Basically, you don't need no steenking facts, you know that it is true in your hearts.
No-one, least of all Martin, is saying that the sexual contact of priests with children is right or legal. Clearly it is neither. But the moral panic about it has made it a cheap and easy target, where actual facts are irrelevant.
Posted by: not a gator | November 15, 2009 11:59 PM
So this is what I don't get: if a teenager is old enough to consent, doesn't that imply they're old enough to tell the difference between consensual sex and rape?
Martin Brock has a logical problem when he dismisses the claims of victims but says that they were capable of consent.
I guess Mr. Brock thinks if a teenager is horny that must mean they're a sick little whore and deserve whatever happens to them. Very Roman Polanski. After all, that little whore he raped wasn't even a virgin, so how could it have been rape? Even though she kept saying "No, no," and begged to go home.
This chilling window into the RCC mind brought to you by an only slightly twisted Ex-Catholic. Now with 30% less guilt!
@111 re: dry counties
Northern Virginia is like this too. I didn't really notice until someone mentioned it to me and you could have knocked me over with a feather. I grew up in Eastern Mass. and pubs/bars are just part of Irish/English culture. (The traditional Irish pub actually is a family place with lots of heavy, salty food, but still.) However, the state will yank a liquor license at the drop of a hat and there used to be a lot of dry towns, so it was culture shock to come to MD/DC/VA and see beer in 7-11's and wine at the grocery store, etc. They were also less strict about drunk driving. I got the impression that the area was just looser--until I found out about the no bars thing. (Of course, they had bars in DC, not to mention go-go boys, which is probably why I never noticed.)
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 16, 2009 12:14 AM
Yes, the church should be required to obey the law. Even if they have some kind of weird moral objection to the fact that the law forces them to turn known pedophiles over to the proper authorities, that doesn't give them the right to just ignore it without consequences. We have laws for a reason.
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 16, 2009 12:30 AM
Welcome, Bill Donohue (Mooloo).
Sorry, but the church hasn't been a "force for good in the world" for a very long time (if ever). Even if we could forgive them for the misdeeds they've admitted to (and I don't believe anyone really has the authority to forgive them for centuries of pogroms against Jews including the hateful blood libel doctrine, burning 'heretics' alive, or centuries of suppression of knowledge). Even if we were to ignore the fact they've shown moral courage no better, and sometimes worse than the rest of the population at-large. Even if we ignore those who want to downplay or blame-the-victim on this current outrage against the church. Even if we ignore all that, we still have the church meddling in the creation of laws world-wide in an attempt to encode their own rules into laws that affect everyone. From abortion and birth control, to homosexuality, to education and even to divorce. It never seems to occur to these people that they could follow their own rules without the rules being enforced by law.
So, yes, there is plenty to be unhappy about when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church. One would think that an organization that is supposedly led by God would have more moral fibre than the rest of civilization, but for some reason the opposite seems to be case.
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 16, 2009 12:40 AM
Oops. Messed up my link to the article talking about the Roman Catholic Church's lobbying to prevent legalization of divorce in Ireland in 1995. The law allowing divorce was passed only by an incredibly narrow margin.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 12:45 AM
@118
Unfortunately, while this tack may be persuasive for you, it's not logically a very good argument. This is because the reaction by others and the cultural context can result in a lot of the resultant mental trauma.
Take the victims of abuse psychotherapy who were convinced they were abused sexually by their fathers, complete with false "recovered" memories.
There's an autobiographical book "The last time I wore a dress" where the author was raped in the juvy state psych hospital and nobody believed her and it was extremely traumatic, but when she was a lot younger she had some sexual encounters with an older man and had another adult found out there would have been a shitstorm but as it was it was their little secret. The difference was in that situation she felt like she could say yes or no. She didn't feel threatened or coerced, but was able to satisfy her curiosity. Children do have a sexuality, but in the US we seem to think having a sexuality = consent to be raped. Hence the pious refrains of "this innocent child" blah blah and pretending teenagers don't want to have sex. (Again: wanting to have sex != deserve to get raped.)
I saw an interesting case on Cold Case Files where this violent serial rapist finally got caught and they interviewed some victims. He was totally insane and used to rape very young teenage girls but created this delusion that they had the hots for him. Anyway, the Catholic woman, who was raped at age 13 while waiting for the school bus, was, ten years later, still suffering horribly, whereas the last victim, the one who got him put in jail at last (I think he was then linked to the earlier victims by DNA), while clearly traumatized by the rape, was a survivor instead of a perpetual victim.
The Catholic woman could not get over the fact that she had lost her virginity, and in that way. She was unable to enter into normal adult relationships and seemed semi-catatonic, living in a cocoon where she tried to regress to that innocent childhood state she felt had been stolen from her. Catholicism did that to her. Catholic dogma is very cruel to female rape victims, stemming from an old Roman notion that a "pure" woman would rather die than be made "impure". Granted, the other woman also was empowered by the fact she got that creep behind bars, but when she talked she also was able to separated herself and the perp with clear boundaries. What he did was wrong and she was not going to let him do that to someone else. The Catholic woman had no boundaries ... his actions 'broke' her and she couldn't be fixed.
/rant
So anyway, there is better evidence to work with than the emotions of the victims. One thing to do is to look at the documents from the time at which the assaults occurred. We generally accept that an accusation of assault made immediately after it occurs is more credible than one made later (this may or may not be true, but it's common wisdom) ... Parents often went to the Church first rather than the authorities (to a Catholic, the Church is a higher authority than "temporal" or secular* authority), and the Church would shuttle the priest along and pay the family off in return for silence. Often the parents felt coerced but didn't feel they could fight the church. The agreements to keep silent made these families feel isolated and no-one in the laity knew how wide-spread the abuse was.
*-actually, that is another derogatory church term
The church hired psychologists to examine the problem priests. This generated scads of damning paperwork in the Boston archdiocese alone. (This is why Bernard "tha' Crooked Cardinal" Law knew that the Archdiocese was in severe shit if any of their many scandals came to light, so he had the legislature pass a law under false pretenses that protected him from later prosecution.) Some of the priests even made frank admissions of guilt on internal documents, acknowledging that their behavior was both criminal and immoral. (Others, like Paul "NAMBLA" Shanley, invented elaborate rationalizations for their behavior.) If the church had encouraged them to take responsibility, I believe some of them might have done so. Instead, the church told them to shut up to protect the church.
In some of the cases there is little evidence that the assault occurred but in other cases there were piles of evidence (which is why the Mass. AG wanted Bernie Law so bad, but he had covered himself--see above).
As others have said, I'm having a hard time seeing any sort of consensual sex between a priest and an altar server because of the power imbalance. People like Brock really want to have it both ways, but the truth is that the RCC is a highly authoritarian, top-down organization (actually totalitarian, in the most basic sense), and children are very susceptible to authoritarian messages like "obey or your parents, the Church, and God Himself will punish you, you little shit!" The sense of fear and respect for priests drilled into little kids cannot be overestimated. If you're talking about a 9-year-old boy in that environment (and some of the victims were younger than that!), who hasn't gone through the Great Adolescent Brain Growth Spurt, unless he has super-paranoid parents who taught him to scream bloody murder if touched "wrong" this kid doesn't even have the tools to resist, never mind the faculties to give proper consent. And here we come to the experience of the victims. The priest is God's Representative On Earth, and he hurts you, and you are conditioned to think that YOU are the one who did something wrong ... yet you're powerless. Ego and self-worth destroying stuff, there.
I have a friend who was molested by an uncle. It was unpleasant and she's still angry about it, but it didn't completely mess her up emotionally. Some of the people in SNAP are messed up for life. It wasn't just the inappropriate behavior/assault--it was what it meant in the context. Hence the magnitude of the outrage. And then the calls--like Brock--that it's a lot of over-reaction. No, it's not overreaction. It's like when cops run a protection racket or beat up an innocent man. It's a violation on top of a violation.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 16, 2009 1:00 AM
I am appalled at the notion being presented by some (Brock, Mooloo0 that somehow the priest/child "rape" is sometimes not really rape, and that the Catholic Church is somehow being lambasted unfairly. The issue with priests raping and otherwise abusing children is not a "gay" issue per se, nor about the distinction between pederasty and pedophilia, but about abuse of power. Abuse of power happens all the time - the greater power an institution has, the greater it's ability to abuse becomes. The Catholic Church wields great power, and abuses it mightily. The abuse hasn't stopped, and continues to be covered up.
If a child behaves inappropriately, that does not relieve the obligation of an adult from acting in a legally responsible manner.
Further, the priests involved are/were authority figures, trusted with the welfare of the children. Even an adult member of a congregation would reasonably be expected to follow the instructions of a priest - how much more does this apply to a child?
If a priest behaves illegally, he, not the child, should be held accountable, no?
If a bishop protects a priest, he also should be held accountable, no?
If a cardinal writes policy to protect the bishops and priests, he should also be held accountable, no?
If that cardinal becomes pope, then the phrase "the fish begins to stink from the head" seems to be very applicable.
It's not just religious powerful entities that need to be accountable.
The Australian Government has just apologised for the abuse of children deported from England to Australia, who were abused by state and church based institutions. There is outrage in Britain because of this: not at the Australian Government, or the churches involved, but at the British Government for not also taking responsibility.
The church claims to be the guiding light of the world, the bride of Christ, a force for good in the world.
The abuse of power by the church, amply demonstrated throughout the ages, is certainly not acceptable. It is not necessary to be anti-religion to be opposed to abuse of power, but it helps to be not beholden to the abusers.
And by the way, withholding benefits from legally married couples is illegal discrimination. The hissy fit, threatening to withdraw services from the poor, is once again an abuse of power.
Blaming the children, who are by definition innocent (no matter what aspersions you may cast) is completely wrongheaded.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 1:02 AM
@157
How idiotic do you want to get, Martin?
We're talking about the 4% of priests (from your study) who had abuse allegations, not the 25% or 50% or 75% who were having consensual sex.
Therefore (slowly, Martin, I don't want you to get lost here), the "cases" we're talking about refer to individual allegations of assault. We are not talking about an unknowable set of all priest-parishioner sexual acts and trying to guess how many of them were coerced.
If your hypothetical horny Catholic teen scored with a priest and felt good about it, why would he tell on him?
The funny thing is, you always hear about grown men picking up priests in bars, you hear grown men bragging about how they bagged a trucker when they were 15, but I have yet to hear grown men crowing about how they got diddled by a priest in Catholic school and how awesome that was ... almost like it didn't happen. Huh.
Martin Brock does not grok the difference between consensual sex and rape.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 16, 2009 1:05 AM
mooloo @ #204:
Please. The catholic church has demonstrated, time after time, that they will go to any length to protect the paedophiles and rapists they call priests.
Moral panic my ass. I had sex before I was 18, and yes, it was consensual. A family member raped me, more than once, when I was underage. That most definitely wasn't consensual. Most adults (myself included) are perfectly capable of knowing where to draw the line. That line is not in favour of the catholic church.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 1:12 AM
Yeppers, Martin Brock. In comment 196, you proved conclusively that I was talking about you in that one line. And with that, you proved that I claimed that I know the inside of your head.
Just so you you, you were right when you said that it was not worth the time. The is main because I agree it was not worth the time. Shit, you are not worth the time.
The next time you fucking make a claim about what I said, fucking make sure it is what I said and that it was about you. Trust me on this, this blog existed before you dropped in and not everything said here is about you.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 1:21 AM
@183
That sounds great. Except for the fact that priests are infamous in the gay community for sexing it up with gay men "in the life" and with each other. And the most flack they got for this was they would be abruptly reassigned* if they were brazen enough to "shack up" (living in sin!). Screwing with a different man every Saturday night--A-OK! (Jesus tested, Bishop approved.)
*-this happened quite recently to a heterosexual couple, forget the details.
So ... no. The only "concealable" aspect that ever came out in the trials was the pedo Geoghan's claim that he preferred girls but switched to boys because the mothers would become "hysterical" when he diddled a girl. (He was murdered--or shall we say, executed--after a few months in prison.)
It's funny that someone above thread would rave about Martin Brock being Spock-like. Pure speculation with no evidence to back it up is not Spock-like. There is evidence that abusing priests groomed their victims, threatened them, and used social ties with the victim's family to obtain access to their victims. There's no evidence whatsoever for Martin Brock's theory that priests had sex with children because of "concealability". The Church simply did not punish--in fact, actively helped cover up--sexual indiscretions by priests. Fail!
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 1:23 AM
1.
Where's the CONSENT, shitface? "ready to experiment sexually" !== rape me, rape me
2.
If the boy was enjoying it so frigging much, WHY DID HE TELL HIS MOMMY?!?
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | November 16, 2009 1:29 AM
Objection! The defendant is asking a loaded question!
Posted by: Cerberus
|
November 16, 2009 1:32 AM
Sigh.
"The priests were just gay looking for pederast lovers like gay people do". It seems this is the new talking point from the Catholic Church and has been spreading like wildfire among its apologists for dealing with the ongoing refusal to do anything about the child rape and abuse scandals.
And the sick thing is I wonder if they're going to get away with it. The media focused pretty much on the same-sex abuses despite girls being abused as often and even those who have been outspoken have focused on the rape of boys to make their points. Combine that with the general dislike for homosexuality in our culture and the weird pervasive belief that gay men are all pedophiles that creep into the edges of every single gay rights debate in this country and it looks like they have an open window to try and turn a child rape and coverup problem into a "we were infiltrated by faggots" problem.
And the Catholic Church seems to be running with it. They've started "investigating" and cracking down on the nuns for "homosexuality" and it certainly seemed to be a part of their underground messaging in Maine. We've seen the apologists practically echoing this nonsense (the trolls on this thread, Bill Donohue, various bishops).
I'm feeling a special practically unique level of rage at the sheer gumption, evil, and slimy duplicitousness that is the criminal organization known as the Catholic Church.
I weep that I will not ever live in a world where they do not command great and undeserving power.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 1:43 AM
I'm feeling a special practically unique level of rage at the sheer gumption, evil, and slimy duplicitousness that is the criminal organization known as the Catholic Church.
I weep that I will not ever live in a world where they do not command great and undeserving power.
The RCC is already running out of intellectuals or intelligent clergy.The whole sorry-cant-fuck-for-the-rest-of-your-life thing and the guilt trips are just not very attractive in the 21st century.
In a time where movies like "Religulous" or "The invention of lying" (wait for that one to hit !!) reach mainstream audiences the RCC and their fundie brethren are fast running out of sheep.
It's going to happen in our lifetime.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 1:52 AM
grrrrrr, blockquote fail in my 218 and all that.....
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 1:54 AM
Martin Brock just can't stop lying. The study does not support his assertions. He is dissecting the accounts from the 4% of priests who were accused of sexual abuse and making up/lying/lazy thinking/pulling shit out of his ass about the other 96% and their allegedly wonderfully orgasmic mutually consenting soulful orgies with bicurious teenage boys.
Remember, data used for the survey comes from an exhaustive sheaf of abuse allegations. It does not come from a survey of priests and their sexual practices, onto which the interpretation of the researchers is overlaid. Every data point is an abuse claim by the alleged victim although some of these claims are undoubtedly false. (In fact, some of these false claims may be complete fantasies and no sexual contact ever occurred.)
He cannot get it through his thick skull that there is a difference between consenting to illegal sex (victimless crime) and being raped or sexually assaulted. THE FORMER CASE IS NOT REPRESENTED IN THE STUDY. THEREFORE, THE STUDY CANNOT SUPPORT CLAIMS ABOUT CONSENSUAL SEX.
In fact, Brock seems to imply that the difference between gay mean who talk about their frisky teenage exploits and sexual abuse victims who have chosen to speak out is that the former group is sexually liberated and the later is not.
If someone is mugged, do we talk about how they were "generous" and "open to donating to street people"? I mean, what the fuck does that have to do with being mugged? Likewise, what the fuck does being a teenager (ie, being sexually curious--the two go together) have to do with being sexually exploited and assaulted by an authority figure?
Pederasty was a part of Hellenistic culture, but it was not universally accepted. I don't have a cite, but I remember reading about some documents pertaining to a Greek widow trying to block a "patron" from having access to her teenage son. (Platon was a homosexual and his window onto Greek culture is highly distorted. For one thing, his take on the Iliad--the Bible of Greek culture--is not supported one iota by the text. I've read both.)
It's kind of ironic that Persians are portrayed as evil, disgusting barbarians in American movies because the Persians completely repudiated Greek morals, believing in tolerance, women's rights, and the abolition of slavery. The Greeks were unwelcome invaders in the ancient world, still reviled for their iniquities to this day.
Posted by: Pandionna | November 16, 2009 2:01 AM
It's not even a logical stand according to their own point of view: Divorce is against Church doctrine, too, yet they extend benefits to the spouses of Catholic divorcees who remarried outside the Church. This is just bigotry. That's all.
Posted by: creatin | November 16, 2009 2:17 AM
According to me, its all about people's choice and our religion is totally different from that issue.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 2:23 AM
@204
Brock isn't even remotely trolling. He IS saying some things people on this site don't like to hear.
No, he's being illogical and getting called on his bullshit. There's a difference.
-- that not all sexual encounters between Catholic clergy and their younger parishioners were rape, even though they might be "rape".
Ah, the "rape" rape argument. When Roman Polanski drugged and forcibly raped that 13-yr old, it wasn't rape rape.
So far there has been NO data advanced as to how many priests engaged in consensual sex with minors. NONE. ALL we are working with are ABUSE claims which originate with the victim. We aren't even looking at admissions by priests (or any data originating from priests at all, other than their vital stats & church CV). Some of the accused admitted to far more victims than ever came forward. But Brock's arguments break to flinders without this.
In absence of data, we do not have the freedom to simply make shit up. Martin Brock believes that just as many consensual encounters occurred as non-consensual. Sadly, he has zero evidence for this claim.
-- that sometimes the teenage boys were the instigators. I have known some aggressively sexual teenagers who would have loved to seduce a priest. Just for the buzz.
But where's the evidence that they did so? You have no studies, no controlled data ... in fact, you don't even have anecdotes that pass beyond fantasy. "I think it's plausible" is not a data point.
I have seen many accounts (by men and women) of seeking out sex with adults as teenagers (& succeeding), but I cannot recall ONE with a priest. I have seen many accounts of adults boffing priests consensually. We have reports in the papers all the time about teachers getting cashiered for having sex with students and we all very well know that in many cases the student is the aggressor. But where are the teens seducing priests? Seriously, where?
The moral panic about "paedophiles" has reached a point where most people cannot make a clear distinction between actual paedophiles and people who happen to cross an arbitrary legal boundary.
Most people in the US chose goddidit over evolution, so what's your point? You sound like someone who likes to fudge the difference between and 18yr old and 17 yr old going at it and a 30 yr old and 13 yr old going at it. Even if the latter is consensual, the 13 yr old kid is not old enough to be responsible for themselves. Furthermore, the state has an interest in reducing STD spread and teen pregnancy, and both risks increase when a 15 yr old has sex with a 30 yr old as opposed to a fellow 15 yr old.
Contrary to what you may believe, there are some people who are informed about these issues--including judges involved in the family court, probably more informed than they would ever care to be--who end up having a direct impact on how these laws are written and interpreted.
This site is particularly bad for pretending that the Catholic Church is the worst organisation the world has ever seen for sexual abuse, because it suits the general political agenda.
Ooo, we insulted your churchy-wurchy, somebody get you a cookie.
No-one, least of all Martin, is saying that the sexual contact of priests with children is right or legal.
Least of all? Yes, he is certainly least in NOT saying it is right or legal. Martin repeatedly tries to minimize the issue by focusing on "teenagers" (about 2/5 were 11 and under, making them pre-pubescent, while another big chunk were under 14, before The Big Brain Growth Spurt, but Martin wants you to picture the 15 or 16 year old sexual adventurer of gay lore, even though this picture is not supported by data). He talks about the abuse--remember, these are abuse allegations, that is, according to the victim, not a catalogue of acts interpreted by others--as being "technically" illegal. He keeps drawing attention to the fact that the victims are sexually curious ... like all teenagers ... as if this will somehow explain, minimize, or mitigate the abuse. He harkens back to the good ol' days of Ancient Greece, where men could rape boys and enjoy social approbation. (He also romanticizes it, rather than addressing the realities of this practice and without betraying any understanding of its meaning in an anthropological context.) He complains that the issue is being overblown, as if those who complain about the abuse are uptight prudes (beautiful case of projection, there).
Wow, did you know that in Ancient Rome you could rape your male and female slaves? It's only our Puritan USAmerican morals that make us think that kidnapping, false imprisonment, and rape are bad. Heck, we're whipping up hysteria by convincing people that they're "victims". Why, I heard Sally Hemmings was a hot piece who seduced Jefferson. Everyone knows young black women fantasize about doing rich old white guys. Who's the real victim here?
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 2:27 AM
@echidna
Thank you for making a powerful moral argument. It's probably lost on Brock, et al, but it certainly needs to be said.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 2:36 AM
not a gator asks for eveidence for this claim @ 223, fair enough.
That's not the point tho, is it?
If a 14yo teen "instigates" things to seduce me, I should be a responsible adult and tell her/him to back off, not abuse my position of power to take advantage, whether the teen wants to do it for the "buzz" or whatever.
What sort of sick argument is this?
Say what? You are not happy about the fact that the law forbids you to fuck kids? Tough luck champ, try Cambodia.
Sicko.
Posted by: foxfire | November 16, 2009 2:39 AM
Martin @ #199
I'm quite satisfied that you admitted flippant and therefore withdraw "sucked".
Based on what evidence? The study doesn't support that conclusion. To Aristotle, physical objects appeared to have natural and unnatural motion. It took Galileo and later Newton to develop a better approach than just relying on how things appear to operate.
I'm wondering what qualifies as "serious literature" in your mind. I'm guessing it's not any kind of peer review journal where the results of scientific research are published, given that you (seriously?) suggested I goggle "lesbian nuns".
With respect to causality; Your statement about the statistics
is a very good example. You rush to conclude something without considering other causes, and without considering the need to test your hypothesis.No problem. I think this thread will still be here tomorrow.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 2:41 AM
Cerberus, the data Martin Brock presented had 4/5 of the allegations involving minor males, the rest minor females. This may explain the media skew in part, although I think some of it was horror at teh ghey secks (Those poor, innocent boys!) ... Why? Because the abuse and coercion of women and girls was consistently downplayed.
I believe there was a priest who got a teenage girl pregnant and forced her to have an abortion. Not a lot of outrage... at least, not what you would expect. Though maybe after the Geoghan case and the Shanley accusations it was like "het sex? whew, that's almost normal". Sort of the way people yawn off heterosexual Republican sex scandals, even if laws were broken. "Wait, you mean he's not a pedo-furry? Are you sure he's a Republican?"
Priests abusing, raping, sexually harrassing, and coercing women is one of those dirty secrets that's older than your grandmother and STILL doesn't seem to get much play, maybe because RCC's are so conditioned to denigrate women and maybe because USAmericans have a strong stereotype that all priests are gay. The book _Losing My Religion_ is introduced with a story about a priest walking away from all child support obligations because of his "vow of poverty" even though he lived in comfort and had the best lawyer the church could buy. Priests raping nuns, priests drugging and raping teenage girls, that shit is still going on. The fact that some priests are in mutually consensual relationships with women, the fact that some men have left the priesthood to pursue mutually satisfying relationships with women does not, contra Brock, mitigate or eliminate the very real abuse that goes on.
Posted by: foxfire | November 16, 2009 2:46 AM
@ # 223: YAY not a gator!
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:09 AM
If a 14yo teen "instigates" things to seduce me, I should be a responsible adult and tell her/him to back off, not abuse my position of power to take advantage, whether the teen wants to do it for the "buzz" or whatever.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't find this completely convincing because it is contingent to some extent on culture. Therefore I stick to facts. It's a fact that in our society it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 14 yr old. (Oops, actually I think it is legal to
purchasemarry a 14 yo in some states.) It is a fact that, given the consequences, the responsible, law-abiding adult complies with this law. It is also a fact that minors who are sexually active with adults, as compared to minors who are sexually active with other minors, are far more likely to become pregnant or contract an STD. The reasons why may be complicated. However, without knowing why, just knowing that it is so, there is a compelling state interest in maintaining and enforcing stat rape laws. There is little to no compelling interest in enforcing stat rape with "victim" is less than 2 years apart from "perp", and state laws are slowing chipping away at this. (Though often unfairly, as in the case of "Romeo and Juliet" laws that do not cover same-sex couples.)Even if one disagrees that sex with the 14 yr old is morally wrong, one can see that the stigma and consequences to the younger party (if not the possible consequences to one's self, if caught!) are such that pursuing such a course of action is morally reprehensible, so I do agree that to "tell her/him to back off, not abuse my position of power to take advantage" is the correct course of action.
Actually, as some have alluded to, there is some evidence that sex with young teenagers should be considered morally wrong because their brain development is not advanced to the point that they can truly be said to consent. (Using the "consent" model favored by many secular humanists. However, some people use a utilitarian or "harm" model, and there the evidence is not so clear. That's why I don't like this argument because you aren't going to get consensus.)
My personal impression of adults who seek out young teens is that they're either bipolar (can't set appropriate boundaries) or slimeballs (adults won't put up with their shit, so they go after easily impressed young'uns).
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:19 AM
So, teens and adults ... where's the harm?
Age-bridging among young, urban, heterosexual males with asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis
1. Jacky M Jennings1,
2. Robert F Luo2,
3. Laura V Lloyd3,
4. Charlotte Gaydos4,
5. Jonathan M Ellen1,
6. Cornelis A Rietmeijer
Results: The prevalence of age bridging was 21% in Baltimore and 26% in Denver. In both cities, in bivariate analysis, age-bridgers and their partners engaged in significantly more risky sexual behaviours. In adjusted multivariable analysis after controlling for number of sexual partners, age bridging was associated with having a sexual partner in the past 2 months, who, at time of last sexual intercourse, was drinking.
Ah. There's the harm.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 3:29 AM
While this makes a good point for promiscuous young people, I doubt it is applicable to the real(as far as i see it) "age-bridgers", where the age difference is 10 or 20+ years, as in priest and altarboy,or nun and altarboy, say.
I dont think STD's are the real issue with those.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:29 AM
More:
STDs
How do sexual networks affect HIV/STD prevention?
Pregnancy
In fact, a recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that adult men fathered two-thirds of the infants born to school-aged mothers in California in 1993. On average, these men were 4.2 years older than the senior-high mothers and 6.7 years older than the junior-high mothers.[1]
Likewise, a review of California's 1990 vital statistics found that men older than high school age sired 77 percent of all births to high school-aged girls (ages 16-18) and 51 percent of births to junior high school-aged girls (15 and younger). Men over age 25 fathered twice as many teenage births as did boys under age 18, and men over age 20 fathered five times more births to junior high school-aged girls than did junior high school-aged boys.[2]
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not limited to the state of California. A recent study by the Population Reference Bureau found that about two-thirds of births to teenage girls nationwide are fathered by adult men age 20 or older.[3] Additionally, the Alan Guttmacher Institute's 1994 report, "Sex and America's Teenagers," found that six of 10 girls who had sex before age 15 were coerced by males an average of six years their senior.[4] The Urban Institute cites a study showing that "three quarters of females who had sexual intercourse before age 14 reported having had sex involuntarily."[5]
(Sorry about this source being linked to the execrable Family Research Council, but the actual article is based on hard data from multiple sources.)
Shorter: I have data, Martin has assertions.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:33 AM
Actually, skip the article, it's tendentious. Here are the cites:
ENDNOTES
1. Mike Males and Kenneth S.Y. Chew, "The Ages of Fathers in California Adolescent Births, 1993," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, No. 4, April 1996, pp. 565-568.
2. Mike Males, "Poverty, Rape, Adult/Teen Sex: Why 'Pregnancy Prevention' Programs Don't Work," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1994, pp. 407-410.
3. Carol J. De Vita, "The United States at Mid-Decade," Population Bulletin, vol. 50, no. 4 (Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, Inc., March 1996).
4. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Sex and America's Teenagers," 1994.
5. The Washington Times Editorial Board, "The Fathers of Teen Mothers," The Washington Times, April 9, 1996.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:41 AM
Speaking to what other posters said about coercion and power imbalances, here's some more real research:
Boyfriend pressure makes black teen girls more likely to want pregnancy
The AGI Study
Googling around I also ran across some depressing news about teen sex rates up, contraception use down (& all its sequellae--teen births UP) after the Decade of Abstinence-Only Education. More authoritarianism FAIL.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:52 AM
Rorschach, I think the take-away is that there's more going on with age-bridging than just giving an opportunistic germ more ways to spread. I think my subsequent posts (which deal with heterosexual behavior) speak to that more directly.
What I'm trying to say is that there is HARD evidence of the coercion and negative consequences endemic in relationships between a minor and an adult, not even getting into the authority figure aspect. This is a direct rebuke to Brock et al's assertion that the public revulsion is simply culturally-induced hysteria.
Many here are making a moral argument. That's fine, but atheists and RCC's don't agree on morals, so I am appealing to practical arguments where they don't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 4:01 AM
-- that sometimes the teenage boys were the instigators. I have known some aggressively sexual teenagers who would have loved to seduce a priest. Just for the buzz.
Ah yes, the "I have personal evidence, so that makes my case" ploy. The fact that Brick knew a couple of teen boys who were promiscuous just overwhelms the thousands of abuse accusations. Of course all those hyper sexual 12 year olds were hunting down priests and forcing those poor innocent priests into fondling them. Why didn't we see this before?
In the 1980s and 1990s, the average age of abuse victims was 13.2, then 13.87.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 4:34 AM
@236
Mack, read more closely. He doesn't say they were promiscuous. He doesn't say they actualized their desires at all. He only asserted that they fantasized about sexual conquests.
Hello? So 12 year old boys fantasize about sexual conquests? OMFG, 12 yo gay and bisexual boys do it too? Who'da thunk it?
(Wow, I wonder if 12 yo girls also fantasize about sexual conquests? Nah...)
His argument is so weak it's not even sauce.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 4:38 AM
I agree.And those stats were interesting.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 4:55 AM
#238
"I agree.And those stats were interesting'
I think what is interesting is that many surveys/inquiries were set up and run by the Roman Catholic administration...shock, horror... they were not to blame after all, twas all the fault of 'teh gheys'
In fact there is apparently higher levels of abuse in protestant based delusions...
"The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common."
Get a grip.
RCC is doing what it always does...confuse and manipulate the issues...it is what they do!
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 5:00 AM
Remind me how many
catholic clergyorganised pedophiles are out there? A million maybe? More than that? Makes me feel better to know only 1 in 30 fucks the kids in their congregation. NOT.Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 5:37 AM
Aw, people are picking on the catholic church for their little sexual abuse problems.
Dear catholic church, yes pedophilia exists, which is deplorable. Our problem with you is that you, instead of having the priests arrested, paid/bullied the families of these children into silence. I'm sure you brought up the whole "well, you don't want it to come out that your son had any sort of sexual contact with another man, do you?" The community might lump him in with teh dreaded gheys, because you usually do a good fairly job of blaming the victim. Then, instead of, oh, I don't know, reporting this to the police, separating a predator from potential victims, castrating him, you said, here, take a class on why it's bad to fondle the alter boys, then we're going to send you to a whole new town, where they don't know that your sexual interests run to children. It's fine, they'll find out soon enough.
The lesson here is, if you don't want people to think poorly of your little cult, maybe you shouldn't cover up child rape, or blame it on a completely blameless segment of the population like homosexuals. That tends to leave a rather foul taste in people's mouths. In fact, it tastes a lot like a communion wafer, thin, dusty, stale and likely to cause "non believers" to choke.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 6:04 AM
-Should the city require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?-
Regardless of what Brock thinks, and lets face it his thinking isn't much on topic, I don't think an organisation that deliberately aided and abetted perophiles should get to say what is moral.
It is clearly in NO position to judge.
Posted by: ekcol | November 16, 2009 6:37 AM
#38,
Not only that, but Sweden has fully fledged gay marriage, not just civil partnerships, and the Church of Sweden will even *perform* gay weddings.
Go Sweden.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 16, 2009 7:12 AM
Ive noticed that Martin Brock will use a thousand words, as to the validity of the entymology of certain words other commentators use, but as to the actual points of the argument itself, use very few, and when he does get to the gist of the point, he's a DICK !
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 7:29 AM
I'm not a groupthinker - Martin Brock
Whenever anyone says that, it's a good bet that they're a double-plus-good glibertarian duckspeaker!
Posted by: mk | November 16, 2009 7:39 AM
True... but what else would you expect from someone so willing to defend the indefensible?
Posted by: Offle | November 16, 2009 7:43 AM
"Why should what the church considers immoral to be a relevant factor? I could consider the wearing of pants to be immoral, or even better, going to church to be immoral…but it doesn't make it so."
Yes, but you would be entirely within your rights to not take a job that required you to wear pants or go to church.
It's not exactly rocket science.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 8:35 AM
Oh, if only blogging paid a good salary eh PZ.
If the church wasn't interfering in peoples lives, it wouldn't be a religion. It would be a knitting group that complained about kids these days and inappropriate TV ads to people that don't care.
Posted by: a catholic | November 16, 2009 8:42 AM
I voted no, because I think it is a violation of the religious freedom to demand the Church to act against her own principle.
If the Church doesn't get public money from the government, she will still feed the poor.
We won't be blackmails by this.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 8:47 AM
The UK does not have an established church either, despite Brock's claims.
England does, but Wales disestablished ten years ago at the time of devolution, and Northern Ireland and Scotland have never had established religions.
I guess we can add ignorance about the political and religious make up of the UK to the long list of things Brock knows nothing about.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 8:50 AM
Blackmailed ?
How is requiring the Catholic Church to obey the law on discrimination blackmail ?
Posted by: Snoof | November 16, 2009 8:55 AM
_Only_? I have no idea how high the incidence rate of child sexual abuse in the general population is, but 5% seems _incredibly_ high. Imagine the outcry if it turned out one in twenty teachers was involved in child sex abuse.Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 8:57 AM
Principles based on bigotry are not something to be proud of...but as long as they stop taking govenrment money they can do what they like.
That is not something you should probably put money on.Posted by: maddogdelta | November 16, 2009 9:00 AM
@a catholic #249
I think you hit a nail on the head....but you don't know why.
First, "The Catholic Church" doesn't feed the poor. Check out annual fund drives in your local diocese. You will have regular collections, special collections for that missionary who is coming through, special collections to build a new roof, special collections to buy Father a new Caddillac, special collections to wish the bishop a happy birthday, etc...
Then you have the annual Catholic Charities fund drive.
Wait...what? If "Mother Church" was spending so much damned money helping the poor, why don't they just feed the poor already? Why do they need a special organization to feed the poor?
Because, while Catholic Charities is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Catholic Church, it is still a separate organizational entity. With it's own employees, own accounting, own fundraising, etc. Catholic Charities is far less discriminotory than the catholic church, because if they started telling starving protestant children to go starve, the feds would be all over them like stink on sh*t. So, they walk a much tighter line as far as their charitable work goes.
What I am unfamiliar with is the history of Catholic Charities. Did it used to be much more sectarian, and only get so liberal when they started working with governments? Or was it pretty generous all along? The wiki entry is pretty thin on this.
However, like any other subsidiary, if the folks in the higher level organization want stick their noses in, they can. This is why the Bishops are getting their skirts tangled over teh ghey issues. I'm guessing that they have to butt in because they know that the Catholic Charities organizations will happily go along with the legal requirements. After all, as a separate organization, it will try to expand its reach by taking on government contracts, and do what's neccessary to do it.
But the bishops can't have people treated justly and morally. That would go against church teaching.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 16, 2009 9:01 AM
The "survey" is misleadingly-worded. The actual heart of the debate concerns the Catholic Church contractually accepting public moneys without being bound by the requirements of the contract.
The new law would affect only those social services groups that accept public money that is earmarked for the "faith-based" initiatives. So really, this is merely a contractual question. It's the Catholic Church that is turning it into a big drama, like a spurned high-school girlfriend (or boyfriend, or what-have-you). The church is perfectly within its rights to refuse the public money and continue on with their barbaric 1960s prejudices in private. Nobody is demanding they do something they might consider immoral.
What people are demanding is that they behave by society's standards (which is slowly accepting same-sex relationships as normal) if they are to partake of society's rewards (such as tax money).
Now, considering they have very little experience with taxes, I understand their confusion. It's merely ignorance expressed as outrage. Perhaps we should insist they start paying taxes, simply so they can gain a little knowledge of what "taxes" are all about, and save them from appearing so foolish in the future.
It'd be a nice dose of tough love.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 9:09 AM
#249
Posted by: a catholic | November 16, 2009 8:42 AM
"I voted no, because I think it is a violation of the religious freedom to demand the Church to act against her own principle."
But is it not then a violation of human rights that some folks will be discriminated against and not tolerated by an organisation that takes public money to perform a social service...where is the freedom you so pompously bleat about for homosexuals...clue... according to your cult they do not have it.
That is unacceptable fullstop!
"If the Church doesn't get public money from the government, she will still feed the poor."
Not without consent from the authority of the city SHE won't...and certainly not if they continue in their bigoted homophobia...simple like so!
It is...or will be....illegal under the law...no exceptions.
"We won't be blackmails by this."
Yet your death cult blackmails sexual abuse victims and anyone else they are trying to coerce into doing their will with no moral problem whatsoever...hmm!
Actually it is to be firmly hoped that the city council will not be blackmailed into breaking the law of the land in which they live work and serve.
Not impressive from the death cultist, justify the stance...otherwise homophobia is no defence...and that is simple like so as well.
The world is watching...the RCC are doing themselves no favours...SHE is looking like an ugly quarrelsome bitter old hag at the moment.
Posted by: Kerry | November 16, 2009 9:12 AM
Hello. Will someone here please explain, ("Warning! Warning! Trick question!!), to the extent they are capable, using logic and reason, (i.e., abjuring cant and invective) why pedophilia is wrong. (Helpful note: rather like being asked to prove the truth of a geometric theorem, say, 'side-angle-side', replying that it is true because it is a theorem does not prove the theorem. An eighth grade geometry teacher disallowed our using that reply.)Please pick up your keyboards and begin. Thank you. P.S. Speculation regarding any personal information, attitudes etc. about me cannot logically be extrapolated beyond the phrase, "Wood guy". Those honest with themselves will admit as such to same.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 9:21 AM
I love that figure of "only" 1.5%-5%. If I were a Church mouthpiece, I'd be embarrassed to say even 1.5% out loud. It's probably a symptom of their removal from reality that they think that range sounds non-horrifying to outsider ears.
Though, admittedly, that number might not be quite so scary if the Church authorities smacked down child-raping priests like the criminals they are, rather than shuffling them around and giving them access to new victims who don't know about the previous allegations.
And the RCC is free to drop out of the DC social services contract and serve the poor and needy on their own terms, with their own money.
Posted by: Richard's Son | November 16, 2009 9:25 AM
Fr Zuhlsdorf has identified another poll to pump; you might want to bookmark his Polls tag to keep track of these:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/11/poll-alert-bp-tobin-and-rep-p-kennedy/
http://wdtprs.com/blog/category/sessiuncula/polls/
Posted by: middlekk | November 16, 2009 9:42 AM
The question should be "should the Catholic Church follow the law or should it give up the FUNDING it gets from the government"?
Nobody says you can't take a "moral stand", even if that "stand" is frankly idiotic and anti-American. But don't expect us to FUND your ignorance and bigotry.
Without the government FUNDING portion of the equation, this would be a trivial argument. The fact that the church receives GOVERNMENT FUNDING makes it a matter of FUCKING LAW.
Render unto Caesar, then pray in your closet.
Do these people even READ their bibles?
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 9:42 AM
Alyson & others...
Aren't you supposed to be telling us how this has nothing really to do with the Catholic Church, human behavior is very complex, we can't know what's motivating this & other matters, how this says nothing about the doctrines of Catholicism and so on? Isn't that your usual modus operandi?
Posted by: Tulse | November 16, 2009 9:53 AM
Because having sex with someone without their consent is wrong, and minors are presumed to not be able to give consent (and this is not limited to sex, which is why guardians are responsible for medical decisions, financial decisions, etc.).
Really, this isn't difficult.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 16, 2009 9:54 AM
It depends on your ethical axioms on which argument (if any) can be presented against pedophilia. Some ethical systems would permit it; others would not. I'll argue from the standpoint of rational hedonism, which provides the axiomatic framework for my own morality.
The assumptions of rational hedonism are pretty simple. Life is transient. Therefore, subjective enjoyment of life should be maximized. Note it is not the individual enjoyment, but the sum total of all enjoyment. You might argue that this is impossible to measure, and indeed you may be correct in a practical sense. But there is some point at which we can maximize enjoyment of life, and there are ways of approximating the affects of certain actions.
As a side note: this also assumes that we should also account for the enjoyment of those in the future, as well as our own personal enjoyment today. This leads to such concepts as prudent management of natural resources, the accounting of our effects on the environment, and so on.
This is the purpose of society: to maximize the enjoyment of the individuals within society, while accounting for the continued existence of society. Morality is the social contract by which we participate in society, and partake of the benefits of society. The criteria for the elements of the moral contract should be dictated by those simple goals (though in practice, it's difficult to reach consensus on how best to achieve those goals).
I would argue that our own society is built along these ideals.
Actions are "wrong" only when they violate the social contract. In the case of rational hedonism, this includes negatively affecting the happiness of others (assuming no other mitigating circumstances -- not every action is going to make everyone equally happy).
Although it might be difficult to measure the sum total of happiness, we can at least measure the affect of individual actions on the happiness of a single person. In almost every conceivable case, unprovoked violence negatively affects the enjoyment of life.
This is very true in the case of pedophilia. The violence of pedophilia is, by definition, inflicted upon someone young enough to not have experienced much of life; the enjoyment of almost their entire life has been negatively affected by the unprovoked violence of a single individual.
There are several other factors, as well, such as the infringement of liberty (which is a fundamental foundation for the enjoyment of life in our current society), the breaking of the social contract, and so on. However, I believe the negative affect of the quality of life of the victim is a sufficient argument against pedophilia.
Or, to put it emotionally, the bastard who commits pedophilia fucks up the life of the victim. Nobody has the right to do that, especially against a victim so absolutely unable to defend itself (which is why the cowardly fuckers attack the innocent and helpless in the first place).
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 10:05 AM
-why pedophilia is wrong-
Its wrong because we as a society say that it is wrong.
Here are your goal posts. You may start running.
please, please please, don't .
Posted by: teresa | November 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Matt Penfold:
"Blackmailed ?
How is requiring the Catholic Church to obey the law on discrimination blackmail?"
I am heterosexual, and so I prefer the traditional marriage, well, shall I obey the law on discrimination and marry a woman (as I am a woman myself) instead of a man?
Basing on the principle of the separation of State and Church, the State isn't in the position to oder the Church to legitimate same sex marriage. It is the law of five states in the U.S., but the five state have no power to oder the whole Catholic Church with over 1 billion members to legitimate same sex marriage through amendment of Her Canon Law.
The local Church in the U.S. is subordinated to the whole Church led by the Vatican, to accept same sex marriage means to change the Canon Law of the whole Catholic Church. And it can't be done and won't be done.
To threaten to withdraw the subsidies is to press the Diocese to do something against both its conviction and obligation.
Posted by: Stu | November 16, 2009 10:15 AM
"Why should what the church considers immoral to be a relevant factor? I could consider the wearing of pants to be immoral, or even better, going to church to be immoral…but it doesn't make it so."
By that standard, you would obviously support government mandates that everyone attend church since we can't truly establish what is and isn't immoral. Such a mentality undercuts the principle of the conscientious objector in a variety of issues from warfare, vaccinations, religion, etc. In the end, it hurts everybody from the devout religious to the atheist.
What is really at issue is to what extent the government wants to exert pressure on those that is does business with. While certainly within it's right to do so, is that smartest course of action? Do we believe that public universities, given their reliance on government funds, should be subject to the political beliefs of the government or is their some higher principle, such as "free thought" that takes precedence? At the end of the day, maybe more will reflect upon this issue and see that the true ogre among us is a government with the monetary resources avaiable to subject us all to it's whims. So very American.
Posted by: someone who has an anwer | November 16, 2009 10:20 AM
Strange Drew said:
If the Church doesn't get public money from the government, she will still feed the poor."
Not without consent from the authority of the city SHE won't...and certainly not if they continue in their bigoted homophobia...simple like so!
___
Alright, if same sex marriage is far more important than the poor, so let it be, give the public money to the same sex pairs to slander the Church, and forbid the Church to feed the poor. If it is the so called Human right, so let the poor have no right to be fed by Church, let the poor only be fed by the same marriage pairs, if they ever have such a charity organization. Thanks!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 10:22 AM
You fail utterly at reading the blog post, and all the comments. Press start to try again. Thank-you for playing.
Separation of church and state cuts both ways. You don't get to take public money for services that discriminate against members of the public.
Posted by: Anon | November 16, 2009 10:24 AM
@ teresa, #265:
Wait... what?
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 10:24 AM
*points and laughs at Cimourdain*
Meanwhile, teresa says:
In a country with separation of church and state, there's no reason why the church should get any subsidies in the first place. Especially since it doesn't even pay taxes. If the church is unwilling to abide by secular laws, it can do without public subsidies.
Posted by: something more | November 16, 2009 10:26 AM
And tell the Orthodox Rabbis about this Law or the Muslims, it shall be applied to everybody, not only the Catholics.
Don't have enough gut?
Posted by: middlekk | November 16, 2009 10:27 AM
@Kerry #257.
You can talk about evolutionary pressures, and the biological cost to raise children to the point of adulthood. And how the use of a child for sexual purposes in advance of sexual maturity might be viewed (biologically speaking) as "cheating". Humans have a very strong anti-cheating instinct.
However, pedophilia is "wrong" because society says it is - and it's no more complex than that.
Societal norms regarding what pedophilia IS have changed a LOT over the years, however.
In ancient Greece, is was common practice for an adult man to take a young boy "under his wing", so to speak. The man would be a mentor and tutor for the boy. And one of the things the boy would be schooled in would be the art of - um - 'manly pleasures'.
In ancient Greece and Rome, young girls from wealthy families were separated from men until puberty - then they were married. So, the average age of marriage would have been around age 11 or 12 or so. However, slavery was extremely common, and very young female and male slaves were bought for sexual purposes. This was considered normal and "moral". In fact, sex with prostitutes was also considered moral and "didn't count" as adultery.
The Christian community likes to claim that Mohamed was a "bad person" because he married a 9-year-old girl. But as recently as the year 1900 in NEW YORK STATE, the age of consent was 10. Yes, sex with a 9-year-old - HORRID!!! But 10? Well, that's just fine and dandy.
These days, we have separated sexual maturity from "societal" maturity. Girls are no longer merely property and vessels to be used for reproductive purposes. Boys don't REALLY become "men" at age 13. And so the age at which we consider sex with younger people "wrong" has changed as well. Which, of course, is a great odds with our biology. Which is why so many men go to chat rooms and talk with sheriff's deputies posting as 14-year-olds.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Well, this makes about as much sense as anti-marriage-equality screeds ever do.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 10:29 AM
-If it is the so called Human right, so let the poor have no right to be fed by Church, let the poor only be fed by the same marriage pairs, if they ever have such a charity organization-
I love christian thinking. Its so refreshingly unrealistic and always...cruel...for some reason. Telling. Very telling.
Posted by: JarrodB | November 16, 2009 10:32 AM
To 273 and 274, are you even surprised? "Believe in my hateful, ridiculous delusions or you will be made to suffer" is basically what xtian mentality boils down to.
Posted by: JarrodB | November 16, 2009 10:32 AM
To 273 and 274, are you even surprised? "Believe in my hateful, ridiculous delusions or you will be made to suffer" is basically what xtian mentality boils down to.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 10:33 AM
This may be the most idiotic thing said in the world today.
And that's saying a lot with Sarah Palin ramping up the dumbfuckery campaign.
Posted by: middlekk | November 16, 2009 10:37 AM
BTW: What the hell does pedophilia have to go with gay rights?
Posted by: answer to richard eis | November 16, 2009 10:37 AM
Why are you surprised? I am trying to learn from you. You told me same sex marriage is more important, and someone above told me that the Authority will forbid the Church from practicing charitable serves, so anybody who can logically think concludes that the Church is not allowed to help the poor, only the same sex pairs are entitled to it because the Christians are too evil for such task. Only people like you are allowed to be a good person and perform good deed because Christians don't have human rights according to you.
So I am only learning from you wonderful logic.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 10:38 AM
Fatwa envy is soooooo boring...
You're new here, aren't you?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 10:43 AM
First of all, pick a screen name and stick to it please, it gets difficult to maintain a stream of conversation with someone who keeps changing their name.
Secondly... please behold the pure stupidity, lack of reading comprehension and twisted, nonsensical conclusion building that is the above quote. Truly I am in awe...
Rev. BDC... are we sure this isn't Palin? This sounds an awful lot like her Couric interview responses...
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 10:44 AM
Oh, dear, Jarrod, be prepared for a tsunami of accusations of bigotry and prejudice, about how we can't generalize...
*crickets chirping*
Thought so.
Anyway, I agree with the general points made here. When the Church is spending its own money, it can do so however it likes. When it's private money taken from the taxpayer, different story.
This is exactly why having these subsidies is a bad idea. However, the religious will point out - and they're right - that many other ideological organizations receive subsidies, so why not them? The whole bloody mess should be scrapped. Any organization with a political aim should be automatically disbarred from public funding.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 10:44 AM
Brevity is all I can afford today, and many of you are happy to know it.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a sexually immature (pre-puberty) child. These children are not physically, intellectually or emotionally ready for sex, and prepubescent children instinctively find sex frightening and repulsive for biological reasons. In the case of these children, few people other than pedophiles themselves, who are pathological, have trouble understanding this standard. Even most pedophiles probably understand it at some level.
Sexual maturity obviously varies from person to person, but a variable age standard is impractical, and the law must draw a line somewhere, so the line is drawn later rather earlier. Sixteen is years beyond sexual maturity for most people, particularly since the age of puberty dropped substantially in the 20th century, but modern human life is also far more complex than the life of other animals, so physical maturity and a subjective sense of willingness are not the only considerations.
That wasn't even very brief ...
Posted by: JarrodB | November 16, 2009 10:45 AM
#279, I'm confused by what you're saying. I think you failed to grasp the facts. You seem to think if gays can marry, the church will lose its right to help the poor or something ridiculous. In fact, the church itself is stating they will deny help to the poor unless gays are denied rights. See the difference between what you're thinking and reality?
Posted by: to: celtic_revolution | November 16, 2009 10:46 AM
I tried to stick to my old screen name, but the blog owner seemed to have barred me from posting dissenting ideas.
Posted by: middlekk | November 16, 2009 10:48 AM
If the Catholics or the Raelians or the Scientologists want to get together and open a soup kitchen, nobody is going to stop them - as long as the kitchen can pass the Health Department inspections, that is.
They can even limit who gets to be fed. As long as they use THEIR OWN FUCKING MONEY.
But the MINUTE they start accepting government funding, THEN it's a different ball game.
We're talking about the church withholding services that are being paid for WITH GOVERNMENT MONEY. And it boils down to STEALING from the government for the purpose of DISCRIMINATING against people who you don't like.
That's the issue. Stop conflating it with any other.
Posted by: kopd | November 16, 2009 10:48 AM
It's not about forbidding the Catholic Church from helping the poor, it's about whether the Church should have to obey the law if they are going to continue receiving government money from taxpayers. The objection here is that the church would threaten to stop helping the poor altogether if they are not allowed to be bigots while accepting government handouts, and do so while claiming the moral high ground with a straight face. It's just another example in the long chain of examples of religion demanding special treatment.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 10:48 AM
Nameless godbotting bigot continues:
*points and laughs*
It's like someone figured out how to bottle stupid, and then concentrated it down to its solid form!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 10:51 AM
You are misreading a fairly evolved post. The post was about how the church doesn't get to decide what to do with public money if it is going to discriminate against members of the public. It certainly doesn't get to blackmail the city while crying persecution for doing so.
I am afraid you will have to point me to the post where I said that same-sex marriage was more important. Please include post numbers and names or include a quote. AS that was never my intention nor is it the point of the blog-post i'm at a loss in this case.
Oh, and welcome to Pharyngula.
Posted by: to Jarrob B. &284 | November 16, 2009 10:54 AM
The Christian Church can't allow same sex marriage without giving up the Bible.
If the g.a.y.s (is it still allowed to used this name?) want to marry, they should persuade the majority of the voters to vote for its legitimation (secular law). And they can if the local authority allows it. And they get the same rights they demand. But what do they want from the Church? Marriage is a sacrament in the Church, and the sacrament is something like a "private possession" of the Church, and the sacraments are ministered by priests, they can deny the access to their private possession and its giving can't be forced by law.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 10:56 AM
Ummm... how can you read a thread full of dissenting viewpoints and make that statement? Only an intellectually dishonest person would make such a stupid claim. The only reasons for getting banned here are listed on the "Dungeon" page, and dissenting viewpoints are nowhere on the list...
Banning or refusing someone to post for dissenting viewpoints is something that pretty much only happens on religious websites.
BUT... since you are now an admitted morpher, and morphing is on the list of bannable offenses..........
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 10:57 AM
The Church isn't saying this. It's only threatening to drop out of "faith based initiative" programs funded by D.C. That's progress on any terms, and it's not a refusal to help the poor. Both D.C. and Catholic programs will continue without this partnership.
Posted by: kopd | November 16, 2009 10:59 AM
JarrodB:
Thank you for post #284. I had forgotten about the original issue before the government's response and this poll - the church threatening to stop proving a service to the poor if the state doesn't deny rights to a certain minority the church doesn't like. That's the blackmail in this issue, if there is any. The RCC is always finding new ways (or reinventing old ways) of making me glad I am not associated with them.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 11:01 AM
Except in the places where it has been. OH but they probably aren't True Chrsitians(tm) anymore.
Its not "allowing" it, it merely says that the church can't deny rights just because it doesn't approve. It doesn't have to like it. It can condemn all day long. It just can't use government money to push such an agenda. Love the sinner, hate the sin anyone?Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 16, 2009 11:01 AM
Worse, the stupid is so concentrated, ignorance and misinformation are under such great pressure, they merge into the super-dense, highly stable form of stupidity known as "willful ignorance."
Entire ontologies have been decimated by this super-dense form of idiocy.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 11:03 AM
To stop pouring millions of dollars into
ad spotstelevised lies to hinder the "legitimation" of marriage equality, would be a nice start.Posted by: JarrodB | November 16, 2009 11:03 AM
Thank you, KopD. But, Martin, you're right. The church dropping out of the faith-based programs (which shouldn't exist in the first place) and declining government funding is the ideal situation. I doubt it's more than a bluff, but it would be ideal.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 11:05 AM
teresa,
Yes, you must obey the law, and the law, in addition to making marriage equal for people regardless of sexual orientation, now requires heterosexual homophobes to marry a person of the same sex at least once. *rolls eyes*Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 11:05 AM
I note without surprise that loony Cimourdain's paranoia makes him unable to distinguish a formally constituted and extremely rich and hierarchical organisation (the Roman Catholic Church), from a belief system - or more accurately, a collection of disparate and often mutually hostile belief systems with a common origin and some common beliefs (Islam).
Posted by: raven | November 16, 2009 11:07 AM
The RCC has every right to promote hate, discrimination, and demonize whoever they want. Why they would want to is a mystery though. This was the sect that always said, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." And we have every right to call them a dying, hate cult.
This is wrong. They won't. The RCC doesn't have the money it once had. Only about 20% of the members go to mass anymore. They also don't have the motivation or will. The church has fossilized in place and few have noticed and cared. All that is left is for archaeologists to dig it up someday and wonder what it was for.
That public money can go to another church or secular organization very easily.
Who is blackmailing who here? The church is the one doing the blackmailing.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 11:10 AM
#267
"Alright, if same sex marriage is far more important than the poor"
Ahh! so one is more important then the other according to you and law can go take a flying F***
Even though no one is claiming such disparity of any such classification of what is more important then a bronze age myth...which is almost everything methinks!.
Fail...that is not a basis in rational argument!
"so let it be"
Sounding like a spoiled brat there kidda...or a bad rendition of the Beatles!
"give the public money to the same sex pairs to slander the Church"
Sour grapes and very juvenile...the church does not need to be slandered cos most claims are fact and not slander and are indeed the truth...go figure.
"and forbid the Church to feed the poor"
nobody is forbidding them...they decided they did not want to be grown up...they decided that and no one forbade them capiche!
"If it is the so called Human right"
Yes human Rights...it is a concept far beyond the ignorance of Catholicism!
"so let the poor have no right to be fed by Church"
That was a decision made by the church...try and clue up jackass and stop trying to twist the point!
"let the poor only be fed by the same marriage pairs"
WTF are you on about...stop trying to play poor martyred misunderstood religious retard and admit the death cult got itself into a dilemma of its own making.
"if they ever have such a charity organization. Thanks!"
Yeah err...how old are you kid?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:17 AM
I was going to reply to Teresa, but I see her arguments (and I use the word very loosely indeed) have already been torn limb from limb, devoured and spat out.
They are now ex-arguments and have ceased to be.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 11:25 AM
-They are now ex-arguments and have ceased to be.-
When your argument is "Teh Ebil Gheys are going to make me marry a woman" it is rather insulting that we have to even deal with that.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Yeah, Magic Johnson-level looseness in this case.
Posted by: to Richard Eis (Posting 294) | November 16, 2009 11:30 AM
you wrote "Love the sinner, hate the sin anyone?".
----
Quite right! And it is exactly what people here misunderstand about the charitable activities of the Church.
The Church help the POOR, disregarding whether homosexual, heterosexual, alcoholic, drug addicted, unmarried teen mothers, prostitutes or not. If someone is poor, he gets help at the Church organizations. And we Catholics donates for the poor in Africa, and for all poor people there, and disregarding what they are doing or have done. We help prostitutes, homosexuals medically and give them food and clothes. And only for these activities we get subsidies from the Government, because this kind of activities is indeed a contribution to the public order and so can be assisted with public money.
But we don't get public money for our religious activities. And marriage is a religious activity! And why shall the government oversees a religious activity if it is peaceful? Or will you assume that at the Catholic wedding someone is there with bombs?
So it is false to used the subsidies as a mean to press the Church to give up her religious freedom.
And as I said before, o.k. if we don't get public money, we will use the donations of us Catholics to help the poor, to give them clothes and food without thinking who they are.
But we can only give sacraments to people who can have access to them according the Canon Law. And one should note that not only practicing homosexuals are barred from sacraments, but also common sinners (with mortal sin) who haven't done their confession.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:31 AM
Insulting on two levels. First the not very hidden homophobia is insulting, but also the fact it is such a bad argument is insulting. Surely the regulars here deserve better than that.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 16, 2009 11:33 AM
Kerry @ 257
"Will someone here please explain, ("Warning! Warning! Trick question!!), to the extent they are capable, using logic and reason, (i.e., abjuring cant and invective) why pedophilia is wrong"
Ok I'll take the troll bait. It's not difficult:
1. Children's brains are not fully formed and they are incapable of meaningful consent to any sexual act
3. Sexual acts performed on children cause physical, emotional and psychological harm.
4. Children are defenseless against adults
5. Therefore an adult gratifying his/her sexual urges with a child is doing harm to another human being.
This may be unconvincing if one is a paedophile or have no issue with "harming another human being", without consent, for one's own sexual gratification. For the rest of us, this isn't remotely difficult.
Why do you ask Kerry?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:35 AM
Oh, and I just want to add we had a similar argument over whether the RCC should be subject to anti-discrimination legislation here in the UK.
The Government had passed a law requiring that anyone providing services to the public not discriminate on the ground of sexuality. There is already such legislation prohibiting discrimination of religious, racial or gender grounds. The RCC tried the same argument, but the Government held firm saying the law was to be applied equally.
In the the case of the UK law it applies to public, private and third sectors.
Posted by: to Matt Penford: I thought you were already torn by anger? | November 16, 2009 11:36 AM
And why are you responding?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:38 AM
Who the fuck are you ?
Posted by: Vicki | November 16, 2009 11:39 AM
Also, if the church's argument is that they want to treat cohabiting siblings, or platonic roommates, as well as same-sex couples, there is nothing in the law or D.C. policy to stop them.
That's what the bishop of San Francisco did, several years ago. The city decided that in order to get city funding for certain services, organizations had to give benefits to same-sex domestic partners. Rather than choose between officially recognizing those relationships and getting out of the social service business, the archdiocese started giving those benefits to anyone sharing a household with an employee. Children, minor or otherwise; husband, wife, or other partner; roommate; sibling; great-aunt; whoever. There is nothing in Christian teaching that says they cannot be more generous than the law requires.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 11:40 AM
Wow, someone really hasn't been paying attention. Did you note the topic of the original post? Does the phrase "civil marriage" mean anything to you?
Posted by: Matt Penfold: I note with amusement that | November 16, 2009 11:41 AM
it is coming insulting if some people say i dislike broccoli.
If same sex marriage is only a matter of taste, everybody is entitled to say that I like or dislike it. But why do you say people who like it are good, and people dislike it are bad?
It shows you are valuing the same sex marriage as a matter of morality. But so it is not neutral. So we can like whether say, if it is a matter of morality, let the states issue a law which prefers same sex marriage, and it suits your sentiment now better. Isn't it?
Posted by: to Alison Mayer: don't shout guy. If I meant a Church wedding | November 16, 2009 11:44 AM
in that context. Or you are deliberately picking at me.
Why get angry if someone doesn't share your point? Can we argue rationally? I think atheists are all admirers of rationality?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:44 AM
Matt Penfold: I note with amusement that, Matt Penford: I thought you were already torn by anger?
I have no idea who the fuck you are, but unless you stick to one name you can fuck off.
I would add such a tactic can get you banned.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 11:45 AM
To Mysteryman #305
Marriage is also a civil based union with very specific rights attached to it. You ned to remember that.
This is not about the sacredness of marriage. This is about removing a service to the poor because some of the people they work with want rights that they are entitled to under your secular law.
Posted by: to Richard Eis: you're a guy with humor and quality! | November 16, 2009 11:57 AM
I am not a mystery man, but I find it is quite mysterious that I can post nothing if I used my former email and screen name!
But as to marriage: the marriage in the Church is not a civil marriage. The Church can only minister a Church wedding if the pair is already married civilly. And then if the pair choose to marry in the Church, they are asking for a sacrament. And the Church has the right to deny it to them, for example if I get divorced and want to marry again, I can do it civilly, like Sarkozy, but he can't marry again in the Church.
Matt Penfold: you can use "fuck" as often as you like, I won't stay long here. I am just led to this site incidentally, and it amuse me to see how civil and liberal and educated atheist gentlemen argue.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 11:57 AM
There's no one here named Alison Mayer, no one is shouting at you, and you have yet to try arguing rationally.
Better trolls, please! This one can't even copy and paste!
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 12:03 PM
#318
"Better trolls, please! This one can't even copy and paste"
Can't even remember their own moniker!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 12:05 PM
Not it would seem even the fact that they are banned.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 12:05 PM
This troll does not make any sense. It claims that it's moniker and e-mail address are banned yet it also claims that it's presence is incidental. Methinks it is just upset that it has to use deception in order to place it's droppings here.
Posted by: Martha | November 16, 2009 12:16 PM
Thanks guys. The results were pretty alarming before Team Pharyngula stepped in.
Posted by: strangest brewn | November 16, 2009 12:19 PM
#321
"Methinks it is just upset that it has to use deception in order to place it's droppings here."
Nah...anything with xian leanings has no problem with deception, in fact it helps if a member of death cult catolik.
I think chummy has the glimmerings of revelation that defending the indefensible is an onerous task, so mental focus is a little short on longevity.
Argument is pointless cos it is not sustainable in a catolik sense...and admitting defeat is not the xian way!
Tis just rage and impotent righteousness coupled with a seductive mental image of the 'fader' with that wonderful whippy cane...or Sister Nun with those rough hands slapping the bejeebus outta ya heart!
Good times apparently!
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 12:21 PM
Alyson, I notice that, unchallenged - because it can't be - my point stands. There's a certain significant fraction of bigmouths here who talk a good fight when there's not actually a real fight - but turn green at the sign of real opposition.
Dumb ol' Church. They should get their Inquisition-mojo on and start slotting a few people. Alyson's tune would change faster than you can blink.
Moving on, Matt, can I ask you about this law?
Does this mean anyone in receipt of public funds or is it a blanket ruling on all who could be considered providing services to the public, be they charities, businesses etc.?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 12:25 PM
It applies to anyone providing any kind of service to the public, regardless of how that service is funded.
A hotel cannot refuse to rent a room to a gay couple, and adoption agencies cannot refuse to consider same sex couple as candidates to adopt.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 12:29 PM
Maine earlier this month. Maine was actually the first state to hold a referendum after its legislature enacted a law, but 31 states have held referendums, and none have supported gay marriage. Other states, like Oregon, adopted civil union or domestic partnership laws after a referendum rejected gay marriage by judicial decree. These laws haven't been tested by another referendum.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 12:31 PM
Thanks for the clarification. In which case, the law's disgraceful: you cannot dictate to individuals how they may use their own property. I know I'm going to get shrieked at by the usual suspects, but just wait until that kind of law is turned against you.
Posted by: Sarah | November 16, 2009 12:31 PM
This is a terribly worded poll. Based solely on the wording of the poll, completely ignoring the obvious grey areas, I would have to vote "no".
It's a bit of an ethical quagmire. If the church feels that a law is immoral and they wish to withdraw their services the city should not be able to force them to continue. However, if the services they provide are crucial to the survival and well being of people they should be forced to continue the services until such time as a secular (or other) group can take the reins to provide the service.
If there are alternative groups already in place to provide any crucial services then the church should be able to step down. However, they should no longer have the use of tax payer's money and should probably refund any taxpayer money given to them during their hissy fit.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 12:36 PM
It didn't help that the poll was so obviously worded to portray the Church as the victim.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 12:36 PM
Ah yes, I knew you would be the bigot's champion.
What would be disgraceful would be for people to be allowed to deny services to people for no sound reason. Clearly concept of fairness and justice are not important to you, but they are to me.
There is no reason to consider being allowed to act on bigoted views a right.
I dare say would also have supported those landlords who put up signs in the 50s and 60s here in the UK that said "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 12:38 PM
I wonder which dungeon dweller this is
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 12:41 PM
Matt, if I defend, say, the right of a neo-Nazi to say what he wants, does that make me a neo-Nazi? The same principle applies.
To answer your question:
I would support their right to have such a sign. I would also never set foot in such an establishment, encourage the staff to quit (as I, myself, have done when I couldn't tolerate the antisemitic attitudes of certain employers, even when I was near broke), write letters and articles, and try to hound such a business into bankruptcy.
You place all your faith in the State's gun being always on your side. Wait until it isn't. Wait until there's someone who decides, say, the reverse, and makes it illegal for hotels to house gays. You'll see the difference then. But not before. It's just like the gung-ho for censorship crowd - you think it'll always be on your side, right up to the day it isn't.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 12:47 PM
I knew you would also support racism and xenophobia.
You really are an unpleasant individual.
As we have noted on another thread, you also are dishonest.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Matt, if anyone here is being dishonest, it's you. I point out that I would specifically take part in a campaign against racist businesses, that I have done so (by the way, what have you ever done in your fat, pampered existence), and you take this as evidence of bigotry.
We know the real issue, don't we? I decline to genuflect before your concrete idol.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 16, 2009 12:53 PM
@305
First, marriage is only a religious activity to some people. I see it first as a social contract between (as it was originally (and originally it included same-sex couples) before Christians hijacked it in the 200-300s AD) and second as a religious one. And, it's only religious for those that want it that way. I have a few friends who did nothing more than go to a JOP and sign a piece of paper.
Second, no one is trying to force CHURCHES to allow gay marriage. We're trying to get the GOVERNMENT to allow gay marriages under SECULAR LAW. It is RELIGION that is keeping the GOVERNMENT from allowing gay marriage.
To reiterate, the government and people for the equal rights of homosexuals aren't trying to control the church. If you want to keep being bigots and not have gay wedding services that is YOUR right. What is NOT your right, and what you've obviously misunderstood, is that you can deny equal rights under SECULAR LAW.
(P.S. Sorry for all the CAPS. I just wanted to be sure I was being clear.)
We don't give a shit about your church. We care about the morals you try to impose on everyone else (see my post @42 and 79)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 12:55 PM
You are on record as supporting the right of business to discriminate on the ground of both race and sexuality.
That makes you racist and homophobic.
If you object to being called those, then stop supporting racist and homophobic policies. Until then, take your complaint and fuck off.
I hate people like you who whilst claiming not be racist or homophobic none the less refuse to do anything to make society more just. You are the problem, not the solution. In allowing the racists and homophobes free reign you become as bad as them. Worse in fact, since at least those who put up signs saying "No Blacks" are not hiding their unsavoury views. You are a coward who cannot even come out and admit you hold the same unsavoury views.
Posted by: to: KematheAtheist: | November 16, 2009 1:02 PM
I just wanted to quit but see your post: it is one with points and so I would answer to it before I leave this site:
1) I meant the Church wedding, which IS a religious ceremony, also for atheists, they won't marry in the Church, because it is a religious ceremony.
2) Yes, I didn't read the Article in WP carefully enough. It is about granting medical funds to gay couple, which I don't find so problematical. But the second demand of the government is to demand from the Church to give children for adoption of homosexual pairs, which I find unacceptable. Of course you will disagree, but children have the right to grow up under the care of a mother and father.
3) if there are enough Catholics in the population, they have a right to express their opinions through vote. And why deny them the right if they can get enough supporters? They are using legitimate methods like anyone else, if homosexuals can put adds in TV and organize CSD, why must people deny the same right to Catholics. Or are you undermensch, bigots, as you call, don't have the same civil and human rights?
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 1:02 PM
Matt,
And you like to rape babies. And steal cars. And practice cannibalism. Hey, if the plain meaning of language goes out the window, two can play at that game.
I'm through arguing with you. You're clearly so ridden with dishonesty that you can't even tell the difference any more.
I'll just note one thing in passing: you couldn't produce one example of anything you've ever done. Go figure. It's always the same with little maggots like you.
Posted by: to: Kema the Atheist: | November 16, 2009 1:04 PM
I just wanted to quit but see your post: it is one with points and so I would answer to it before I leave this site:
1) I meant the Church wedding, which IS a religious ceremony, also for atheists, they won't marry in the Church, because it is a religious ceremony.
2) Yes, I didn't read the Article in WP carefully enough. It is about granting medical funds to gay couple, which I don't find so problematical. But the second demand of the government is to demand from the Church to give children for adoption of homosexual pairs, which I find unacceptable. Of course you will disagree, but children have the right to grow up under the care of a mother and father.
3) if there are enough Catholics in the population, they have a right to express their opinions through vote. And why deny them the right if they can get enough supporters? They are using legitimate methods like anyone else, if homosexuals can put adds in TV and organize CSD, why must people deny the same right to Catholics. Or are we undermensch, bigots, as you call us, don't have the same civil and human rights?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:05 PM
Something tells me it will not be long before you are banned from this blog.
You are racist scum.
Posted by: Rick R | November 16, 2009 1:10 PM
"You place all your faith in the State's gun being always on your side. Wait until it isn't. Wait until there's someone who decides, say, the reverse, and makes it illegal for hotels to house gays gays to marry.
You mean like when your civil rights are put up for popular vote? The way it's been for my entire fucking adult life?
Trust me, I have never had to wait for someone to say "you're a second class citizen". It's not fiction. It happens every fucking day, to real people, real families.
As near as I can tell from parsing your diatribes, you seem to be conflating free speech with the right to discriminate in the public sphere. You make an EXCELLENT argument for why we need anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
To protect minorities from people as clueless as you are.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 1:11 PM
But...isn't that what we are complaining that the church is doing? I'm confused, which side are you on? Or is it only allowed WHEN the church does it?
If you have been banned (and its hard to get banned on pharyngula) then I suggest you either choose another moniker or ask PZ nicely and promise not to troll again.
Your post is about handing out sacrements. But that is not the issue. The issue is the civil rights of individuals to not be discriminated against by a public organisation. If the law recognises a marriage/civil union then the church cannot discriminate against that AND take money from the government. That is our only real issue.
Oh, we never argue. We only "debate". ;)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:12 PM
I suppose Cimourdain would not be able to object if someone was to inflict serious violence upon him. After all surely it would be violating the attackers civil rights to have laws against such violence. Much better just to tell the attacker you do not approve of his or her actions. If your jaw is still working of course.
Posted by: Rick R | November 16, 2009 1:12 PM
Arrrrrrrrgh! Fucking HTML tags....
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 1:17 PM
Richard,
Yes. The Church is accepting government moneys, and then refusing to abide by government law. That's completely disgraceful, and I've said so above. Here's what I wrote:
Sorry if that was unclear. The parallel I'd draw is with the issue of freedom of speech. A racist or a fascist or a communist has the right to state his views without fear of reprisal. He does not have the right to public subsidy for those views. Nor, for that matter, can he legitimately demand that any private individual be forced to propagate these views.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 1:21 PM
to Richard Eis:
well, if you call me so, I will try to stick to this screen name. Perhaps it functions.
Yes, as I said so, I didn't read the article in the Washington Post carefully enough. I just got a hot head as I thought the government will intervene into religious activities, but it is not the case. I just wrote to KematheAtheist about my position.
The diocese must pay the partner of its homosexual employee in the project, if it is still funded by the district Washington D.C. I agree. And the Church quits the contract, I agree, not that I find a homosexual partner less worthy than a heterosexual one, but out of the reason, that the government demands that the diocese give children for homosexual pairs to adopt. I am against it. I think children have the right to grow up in a normal family.
So the diocese decided to quit the contract. But it will still do charitable services to people who need them, with or without the government.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:22 PM
You though think the fascist or communist should not only have the right to voice their views but also to act on them. You believe not only should one be allowed to articulate homophobic or racist views for example, but one should be allowed to act in a racist or homophobic manner, by denying housing, employment and other services to blacks and gays.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 1:23 PM
Matt, even your limited intelligence should understand this: I'm through arguing with a dishonest maggot like you.
Posted by: tomh | November 16, 2009 1:26 PM
In which case, the law's disgraceful: you cannot dictate to individuals how they may use their own property
Are there no zoning laws in the UK? In the US one is very restricted in what can be done with private property.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:30 PM
Well no. I have showed you are a liar, a quote-miner, a racist and a homophobe.
Probably best you stop before you are made to look silly.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:34 PM
There are planning restrictions. How restrictive they are depends on the historical use of the property, national and local Government development plans, any restrictions that might have been made at the time original permission was given to build the property and whether other viable options exist for the property.
Cimourdain will no doubt be opposed to such restrictions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 1:36 PM
Too late, all liberturds look silly when they start spouting their morally bankrupt philosophy. And we can't take them seriously due to their silliness.Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 1:37 PM
I'm so glad we have you here to define what makes a normal family.
Posted by: Richard eis | November 16, 2009 1:40 PM
Sorry Cimourdain, but your free speech thing is a little odd and you have left both me and Matt slightly confused.
If you own a public business then you cannot discriminate against anyone requesting your services. So no, the No Blacks sign is not allowed.
When you set up a business you have certain rules you must follow under "consumer rights". This is not about "free speech" which you appear to be mixing up.
I'm sure someone else can explain it better though, i'm no business guru.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 1:40 PM
Alyson Miers:
I am not defining: children grew up during the past 2000 years with a mother and father.
If it isn't normal, then all our ancestors were not normal.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 16, 2009 1:47 PM
Huh. That's funny. There are many laws that restrict what you can and can't do with your private property. You can't discharge firearms within city limits, for instance, except at specified locations. You can't drive your car on the sidewalk, even if you don't run over people or damage other property. In fact, you can't drive a car at all unless you are properly licensed, even if you own the car outright.
Further, you can't burn many items within city limits, including (but not limited to) tires, oil, trees, and houses. (At least, that's what the nice police officers keep telling me.) Also, you can't dispose of items such as oil or mercury simply by pouring it onto the ground.
Actually, there are many things you are not allowed to do with your own property.
You sound very much like a libertarian. They always have such cute ideas!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 1:47 PM
That's flat-out wrong, mystery-man. And besides, why limit it to the last 2000 years? Are you some kind of delugional fool?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 1:52 PM
What happened before your magical 2000 year ago mark?
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 1:54 PM
Why wrong? Have you ever see a duckling with two female ducks? I see ducklings with their mother who breeds them.
And if children were not produced through the sexual act between man and woman, how did the human race propagate. And family, even in society where homosexuality was not banned, say ancient Greek and East Asia, is not only a private relationship, but had an economical aspect: it was a household to produce heirs, so it must be between a man and a woman. In East Asian homosexual men were accepted, but they had a wife! Note that!
And of course, not only confined to the past 2000 years, but confined, as soon as man existed, man and woman came together to produce children, not homosexuals.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:56 PM
If you also allow that neo-nazi to dimiss Jewish people from their jobs, evict them from their homes and sieze their property before killing them yes, it does make you a neo-nazi.
Free speech about beliefs is one thing. Acting on them is another, and you have indicated you not only support free-speech but also the right to freedom of action.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 16, 2009 1:56 PM
Well, before that, Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves, which is way cooler than being raised by a father and mother. Plus that doesn't count all the kids that are sent off to Christian academy these days, and raised by pedophiles. Nor does it count all the societies in which children are raised by the entire village.
That also doesn't count the children raised by all the single mothers who were widowed during any of the various wars which often claim young fathers.
Ah, hell, really it doesn't even count reality. But whatever.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 1:57 PM
Children grow up with whoever is around to raise them. There is no "right" to grow up with a certain shape of family in the sense that the government or any other authority can enforce it. If Daddy runs off and leaves Mommy to raise the kids alone, then the kids are going to live with a single mother for the foreseeable future, and, absent obvious abuse or neglect, no one has the right to take the kids away from Mommy and put them in a "normal" nuclear family. Some children are raised by grandparents, or aunts or uncles. Some people become de facto parents to their younger siblings or cousins. Natural parents cannot be forced to take responsibility for the children they create, and when they do stick around, they don't always do a bang-up job by their kids. Parents die, they get incarcerated, they bail out, or they just treat their kids so wretchedly the state has to step in. Hence, we have children in the foster system, in need of new families to love and care for them.
I hardly think the kid growing up with two mommies or two daddies is any worse off than the kid moving from one foster family to another every 8 months. Sometimes what you call "normal" is neither feasible nor in the child's interests.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:04 PM
Alyson miers:
But we must hope the best for the children, we can't compare the worst cases!
The social workers haven't done a great job removing the children from foster family to foster family.
But how do they say if heterosexual children are given into a homosexual household? Children imitate, so although we assume sexuality preference is biological, but as I read the Feminist Write Simone de Beauvoir, gender is also socially affected. So whether children grow up in a heterosexual or a homosexual relationship, has an influence on the sexual behavior of the
children. Is it fair for the children?
And as I note: lesbians pairs adopt normally girls, and gay pairs boy. I have seen photos, and it seems to be the rule.
Is it only an coincidence?
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 16, 2009 2:05 PM
@337 - the person who will end up in the dungeon unless they stop changing their name
Again, we don't give a shit about the "religious" part. I'm doing it because I want to assure the right to see my wife in the hospital, be buried with her, all of of those kinds of rights.
And, actually, I'm an atheist and I will be married in a catholic church 362 days from now. I'm going to have fun lying to as many clergy members as I can so they'll marry a catholic to an atheist without permission from a Bishop.
So would you ban single parents from having an adoption? Take kids away from single parents?
And, I'm not assuming this which is why I'm asking as a question, do you really think leaving kids in foster care is preferable a gay couple adopting them?
Are you familiar with the statistics for kids stuck in the foster care system?
For example, did you know that they're more likely to abuse drugs, have disorders like depression and detachment disorder, and they're more likely to commit suicide?
Did you know that kids raised by homosexual couples were NOT more likely to exhibit homosexual behavior than those raised by heterosexual couples?
Did you also know that kids raised by homosexual couples are on average more tolerent of race, sexual orientation, and other groups?
Yes, they're free to express their opinions through vote, but what they vote on must be constitutional. The laws catholics want put into place force their religion on others. The government may not put in place any law that promotes or establishes one religion over another and that makes such laws unconstitutional, and therefore should not be voted on and put in place. (i.e. laws to ban homosexual marriage are unconstitutional)
You are free to continue your bigotry in your church and not perform weddings for homosexuals. That's your right to not recognize a marriage under your religion. However, that is not your right under secular law; homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. We're not forcing you to do anything or denying a right practice your religion. Your rights stay exactly the same... actually, you would GAIN a right...
It would be your right to marry someone of the same gender if YOU choose to. Even if you're heterosexual, nothing could stop you from getting married to a homosexual or another heterosexual of the same gender.
In that sense, this is a right for EVERYONE, not just homosexuals. It is the right to marry and spend your life with ANYONE you choose, regardless of gender. You're not being forced to use that right, but you would have it available if you wanted to.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 2:09 PM
Mystery-man is confused.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 16, 2009 2:12 PM
So, to the new anti-gay freak: what is detrimental for children growing up in homes headed by same-sex couples? In answering this, please refer to empirical research showing the actual harms, particularly outcome-based harms, that affect children in these homes.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 16, 2009 2:15 PM
And as I note: lesbians pairs adopt normally girls, and gay pairs boy. I have seen photos, and it seems to be the rule.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Go read some actual empirical studies. Indeed, start with this new publication by the APA:
Goldberg, Abbe E. 2009. Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle. American Psychological Association.
Then move on to the meta-study by Stacey and Biblarz in the 2002 American Sociological Review.
In other words, read some fucking data.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 2:18 PM
You were that kid who was in the back row eating paste weren't you?
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:18 PM
KematheAtheist:
I don't care what you do, if it makes you feel better so lie to the priest. It is a question of your conscience, if you can stand it. And I think your future wife is a devote catholic? I hope you both happiness.
Children should stay with biological parent(s), if they have none, then with responsible relative. If there is not one who is caring, than well run childrens' homes. There is always an alternative.
Yes, I think to leave children in an institution is better for homosexual pairs. And you can insult me because of this, but I am entitled to my opinion.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 2:19 PM
Richard, as usual, Mencken said it best:
Actually, I'm only leaving you confused - Matt, is stewing in his own lies.
The reason I drew the parallel with freedom of speech is because I thought those parallels would be more known to you.
We're not talking about public businesses - the police, the army, and the like. We're talking about private businesses. Not only can you discriminate, I can show you that you agree. Imagine you own a small bar or similar, and you refuse to allow skinheads in. Would you say that's wrong? No, it's your perfect right - and it is, in the exact, literal sense, discrimination.
That's why I took such care to mention the numerous ways such businesses could be made to pay. The government's gun isn't one of them.
Look, I get where you're coming from. No one likes to defend the rights of jerks, but it is necessary, for the reason that Mencken trenchantly states above.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 2:22 PM
Of course you are. And we're entitled to point out what a stupid, childish and uninformed opinion it is.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 2:25 PM
Hoping for the "best" means precisely jack-all to a lot of kids who are already in non-ideal situations. Some kids are in need of families, and when two willing, prepared adults are actively seeking to become parents to a child that someone else has already let down, making that child wait for a "normal" family to come along isn't just bigoted, it is irresponsible.
1) The parents' sexual orientation has no effect on the children's sexuality.
2) And if it did, the result of same-sex couples adopting children would be: there would be a few more LGBT people growing up in a society. You apparently think that's an objective tragedy, but I don't.
Dare I ask how this is the least bit significant to the discussion at hand?
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:32 PM
Alyson Miers:
Good heavens, if children could speak for themselves! But I read that children in primary school are not happy because there are too many females teachers there. So I can assume that children normally want a mother and a father, if there is such an adoptive family, it will have the preference.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 16, 2009 2:33 PM
First, if your implication is that homosexual couples adopt their own gender so they can abuse them sexually, then you're flat out wrong. Heterosexual couples are significantly more likely to sexually abuse thier children.
Second, it would be just as easy for a lesbian to go to a sperm bank and get pregnant, and a bit harder, but still possible, for a male to find a surrogate mother.
Side note: I just had an idea for a website for bisexual couples so they could meet and "donate" (i.e. have sex for procreation) and bypass sperm/egg banks all together... anyone think there's enough money in that? Or has someone already had this thought and there's already a website? I'm at work, I can't go look for myself.)
Third, I hope your realize that "and as I note: lesbians pairs adopt normally girls, and gay pairs boy. I have seen photos, and it seems to be the rule" is a personally observation and isn't necissarily the trend... You need more data.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 2:35 PM
How's that paste treatin' ya?
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 2:39 PM
And while we at it, 2+2=18.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:40 PM
Of course we need more data. But data can be manipulated.
It depends upon who sponsored the research.
We need more neutral research institutes. But who will pay? So it brings again the ideological fight in...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 2:41 PM
Poor mystery-man. Reality has a liberal bias. Waaaaahh!
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:44 PM
I heard the interview and children said thus.
But children can be ignored according to you?
Posted by: robinsrule | November 16, 2009 2:45 PM
LOL, just another Holy Warrior armed with a rubber chicken.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:47 PM
aratina cage:
poor aratina: liberalism means people can have different opinions without biting each other, and it means they have the same rights, not that catholics can be pushed and punched around at liberty only because they have different opinions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 2:48 PM
MM, show us hard evidence, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, where opinion is irrelevant compared to facts. And you have nothing but opinion.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 2:49 PM
If you need a shoulder to cry on, mystery-man, find someone else's, not mine.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 2:52 PM
You go from this:
to this:
This is not a logical connection. But since you think children should live in institutions rather than have gay or lesbian parents, I guess you're not really interested in what's good for kids.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:53 PM
aratina:
I don't have to cry. I am just arguing for our rights. But the whole debate here shows that Catholics are not treated like equals.
Posted by: tomh | November 16, 2009 2:55 PM
Matt Penfold wrote:
There are planning restrictions. How restrictive they are depends ...
It sounds like we might be more regulated than you. Of course, all religious organizations are exempt from virtually all land use and zoning regulations and fees.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 2:56 PM
Alyson Miers:
I am interested in what is good for kids. But I am confirmed that a well run institution is a better place than a homosexual couple. Whether it is so, the experience will show.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 3:00 PM
And I'm just laughing at you, mother "teresa" #385. The Catholic Church is an authoritarian institution of hate and greed, and like the bully that it is, it whines and cries when it gets slapped on the wrist, oblivious to the damage it does to people.
Posted by: JarrodB | November 16, 2009 3:03 PM
MM, How are catholics not treated like equals exactly? What is denied them? The only answer I won't accept is "They aren't allowed to deny a minority the same rights as everyone else."
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 16, 2009 3:04 PM
I honestly could careless. I'm just trying to make it easier on us so we don't have to deal with the extra paperwork of getting permission from some old guy in a funny hat.
She's devout in that she firmly believes in God. She's not a devout catholic in that we've live together, sleep in the same bed, and have had sex before marriage, we use the pill and condoms, she advocates for homosexual marriage, doesn't care in the least that I'm an atheist, she refers to the Bible as metaphorical and doesn't consider it a historical document (and she has a degree in History so that should telly ou something), she advocates against Creationism being taught in schools and believes in evolution and the Big Bang... And, as a bonus, her parents care less that I'm an atheist than my own parents do.
Did you miss that part I mentioned about foster care kids being more likely to be depressed and have attachment disorders? Become drug abusers and more likely to commit suicide?
Do you not know that the foster care system is already incredibly overwhelmed and "well run childrens' homes" is not even close to universal among the system? Do you really think all relatives would be happy to just take in another child or have the means to?
You're basing your alternative on an ideal situation. Please, before you go and advocate this as "an alternative," go look at the statistics so you can base it on reality.
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. I can tell you for a fact that your "alternative" isn't much of one in most cases. I can tell you for a fact that there's no way an institution is better than a couple who actively made a decision to adopt. And, I can tell you for a fact that your opinion is a pathetic excuse based solely on your bigotry and homophobia.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 3:05 PM
then laugh at me.
I am a convert who was raised in an atheistic society, I am well acquainted with this kind of bully.
"Church is an authoritarian institution of hate and greed, and like the bully that it is, it whines and cries when it gets slapped on the wrist, oblivious to the damage it does to people."
and how familiar it sounds to me! Everything you said I learned it from communistic text books, as a teenager.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 3:09 PM
Um humm. I believe that about as much as I believe that OJ was innocent.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 3:10 PM
Your opinion your convictions are yours and you have the right to stand for it. But you can enforced it upon me by forcing me into thinking that they are the only truths.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 3:11 PM
MM, still nothing but blather. Absolutely no evidence being presented to back your case. You are just an idjit with inane opinions. And since you are a banned troll, you opinion is worthless here. Time to run away with your tail between your legs like a good little troll.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 3:14 PM
Sorry. Of course I meant you can't enforce your convictions upon me by forcing me into believing that they represent the whole and only truth.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 3:15 PM
Communist text books. LOL. Grasping for straws, eh, mystery-man. Trying to move the spotlight off of your gilded hate machine?
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 3:19 PM
aratina:
it is the real tragic that you don't want to believe you are arguing in the same way.
It doesn't matter, go and ask a friend from Russia or Hungary, if he's over 40, you will know that I am telling the truth.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 3:21 PM
aratina:
further more: hate machine, a nice word, you are running it very well all the time.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 3:22 PM
Like I said, mother "teresa" #397, go shed tears about this tragedy on someone else's shoulder. I have no sympathy for you bigots.
Posted by: mysterious man | November 16, 2009 3:26 PM
aratina:
I don't need your sympathy.
Your behavior shows hate, hate, hate, hate and only hate.
And it is the best demonstration.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 3:34 PM
I'm still waiting for mystery-man to come up with an argument he backs with something other than "I read it somewhere".
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 16, 2009 3:34 PM
So, mystery troll, you think the catholic cult is being persecuted because they are not allowed to persecute others in violation of the law?
So if someone came to your house to break all your windows and rob and kill you, you'd let them, you wouldn't make any attempt to call the police, you'd even provide them with weapons, because NOT allowing them to persecute you qualifies as persecution in your delusional fantasies? Or is it only your cult that you want to be allowed to break the law with total impunity?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 16, 2009 3:35 PM
Not at all. Here we love the sinner, but hate the sin. So far, your sins are bigotry and absolute fucking stupidity.
If you're tired of feeling the 'hate', then nothing could be simpler: all you have to do is stop being a bigot and a fucking moron.
Think you can handle that? It's a lot easier than celibacy.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 16, 2009 3:36 PM
This blog is not a public institution, you are not required in any way to participate, and as such, we are not obligated to uphold anyone's definition of liberalism.
Sincere advice from a former English teacher in a post-Communist country: you are using the word "confirmed" incorrectly. The word you want here is "convinced."
(Inappropriately convinced, might I add.)
Someone call the waaaaahmbulance.
Growing up in a Communist society would explain the dysfunctional relationship you have with logic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 3:37 PM
Poor MM, he is just changing the subject constantly to avoid seeing how badly he lost the argument without any evidence on his side. MM, that is the problem with religious belief. It is done without real rationality and evidence, but rather old unsubstantiated prejudices. Your best bet would be to just stop posting, as you are getting more irrational with every post.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 16, 2009 3:37 PM
As opposed to yours where you wouldn't even let homosexuals adopt? ROFL.
I had hope you might come around just a little, but now I'm sure you've shut your mind into a tiny little box and threw away the key.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:40 PM
@257
Yes, this is a trick question because pedophilia per se is not wrong. It just is.
Now, we can discuss why child molestation is (or is not?) wrong, but that's a separate issue.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 16, 2009 3:42 PM
Righhhht... I show hate×5 because I laugh in the face of an arrogant member of a hate group. *yawn* Mother "teresa"/mystery-man is such a sensitive, boring, blathering troll that I cannot bear another minute of watching it squirm.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 3:54 PM
Yet the median age of first marriage for women in the US at that time was well above 20 years. Who's quote-mining now?
I'm sorry, but even by the standards of the time, Mohamed's marriage to Fatima was considered outrageous.
His actions were NOT unusual for a cult leader, however. Like that pastor who just got caught transporting baby ewes across state lines.
Murder and rape aren't unusual for cult leaders. It's just human nature. How can it be wrong? Everything natural is good.
As for comparing the past to the present, I think you will find that the increased reverence for childhood and protection of children in the modern world has something to do with natural economy. (That "biology" you're ranting about.) When half of all children die in infancy, it's hard to get attached. When you've pinned your genetic future on one or two spawn, you become very protective of them. Just sayin'.
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 4:04 PM
@290
Like a dog returning to its own vomit, here I go:
Sorry, G.A.Y.S. is copyrighted, but gays is still available free of charge.
Ah... yes.
This crap is so blindingly ignorant I begin to understand why the founders were afraid of what they termed "mob rule".
You notice that there is no mention here of legislators or judges, who write and interpret laws. No notion of justice, no consciousness of Constitutional principles either, further bringing home why experts (legislators and lawyers) are needed. I almost want to throw in the towel and follow Platon and Leo Strauss (the champions of rule by elites, as long as we're the elites), but then I remember that they're prats. Right.
To bad I can't use blink and marquee here. NON SEQUITUR!
Posted by: not a gator | November 16, 2009 4:08 PM
@strangest brew
Yeah, wasn't that the best part ... they were slandered by their own actions. It doesn't get any better than that.
Speaking of strange brews, can anyone tell me if it's true that they make cabbage beer in Asia? I mean, you ferment cabbage to make sauerkraut (yum) and kim chee (er ... well at least it's spicy), so it is technically possible, right?
Posted by: shatfat
|
November 16, 2009 4:22 PM
Cimourdain:
Thanks for the clarification. In which case, the law's disgraceful: you cannot dictate to individuals how they may use their own property. I know I'm going to get shrieked at by the usual suspects, but just wait until that kind of law is turned against you.
I'm going to use my property as an slave auction cum abattoir. And before you jealous buggers say a word, I'm going to remind you I have a right to liberty and property.
Posted by: shatfat
|
November 16, 2009 4:25 PM
Matt,
Cimourdain is the classic "social dominator" (Chapter 5, for those following at home).
Posted by: shatfat
|
November 16, 2009 4:28 PM
Hahahahahah--!!! Oh, this is too rich. Let me know when he gets to the bit about one man + one woman marriage being "Biblical".
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 4:50 PM
That is your opinion, unfortunately if you are going to bring it up on a public forum I would suggest you check that your opinion is based on fact, not on the wishes of your local church.
If you put your voice to something without checking your facts then you will simply hurt people through your laziness and bigotry. That is not a way to live your life.
Photographs are often staged for effect. Do not read too much into it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 16, 2009 5:24 PM
Except when they didn't. In feudal Europe it was common for children of the aristocracy to be fostered to other nobles. Somewhat later but also in Europe children in towns and cities were usually apprenticed at the age of ten, living with their master. If the master had a lot of apprentices, then these children lived in dormitories.
From about 1825 until after World War II, it was usual for middle and upper class British children to be sent to boarding schools. They would have little or no contact with their parents for months at a time.
Sorry, MM, but history does not support your claim.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 16, 2009 5:31 PM
Since there appear to be utter fools who don't even understand the basics of rights. You do not have the right to use force against another human being, whether against their person or their property.
I cannot believe that there are such fools as to not understand this, but apparently there are.
Posted by: foxfire
|
November 16, 2009 6:03 PM
@ Martin #326
Martin, the question is about civil union laws, not gay marriage laws. Oregon enacted a civil union law and the homophobes can't get enough signatures to initiate a referendum to overturn it. Washington state just kept their new "marriage-in-all-but-name" civil union law - the referendum to overturn it was voted out earlier this month.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 6:05 PM
The only utter fool here is you, thinking that we are interested in anything a liberturd like you has to say. We aren't. You are just wasting your time, and feeding PZ's pocketbook.Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 7:57 PM
I almost missed it, but mysterious bigot just attempted to hijack Simone de Beauvoir to justify not having homosexual couples having children?
Clarification: Beauvoir did argue that gender norms were predicated on societal behavior and attitudes. But that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality. So growing up in a household with LGTB parents might effect the child's perception of gender norms, but not the child's sexuality.
Let me repeat that Gender is not the same as Sexuality.
What's really good about this is that, lacking any real evidence, mysterious morpher attempted to cherry pick from the philosophy of a polyamorous bisexual feminist.
Also, as to your assertion in post #359, I haven't seen a duckling with two females ducks, but I have seen this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three
Read the children's book. It seems to be about your speed.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 16, 2009 8:54 PM
Really? By what reasoning? (Not that I disagree with you entirely, but I distrust absolute statements.)
Further, with respect to the Catholic Church, what gives groups the right to have "property?" Property is by nature an individual right, or a communal right. By what logic should a group within society have the right of possession? (This is only half-facetious. Guess which half.)
Your absolute assumption of the rights of ownership and property are somewhat questionable.
Further, there's the additional complication of the responsibilities and obligations of individuals within society, to society. This is the bit that most libertarians gloss over, assuming they account for it at all. This is the natural obligations and debts owed to society for the stability, structure, and benefits of participating in society. After all, it is society itself that grants rights of ownership. Otherwise, "ownership" would be decided by strength of arms and the rule of anarchy.
Why is it that libertarians always seem to ignore this? Are they truly naive enough to believe they actually "earned" their property all on their little lonesome? Do they honestly believe their accomplishments occur in a void?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 16, 2009 8:58 PM
And you can insult me because of this, but I am entitled to my opinion.
But what is the basis of your opinion. You seem to think, MM, that you have some basis for it...but what's the data.
And, if you've got a critique of the existing data, is it based on methodological considerations? Have you actually studied the studies, critiqued their methods? Have you read a single one of them?
Or, are you being a willfully ignorant fuckwit?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 9:09 PM
We have a winner, a tankard of fresh grog.Maybe the Rev. would know, but Sinbad?
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 17, 2009 6:29 AM
To take the last bit first, may I then suggest you direct that distrust at Alyson, KG, Matt and the rest of the knuckledraggers who keep directing extremely absolute statements in my direction.
To state the reasoning simply, human survival - the survival of each individual - depends on our reason. Our brains. That's the only real tool we have for survival - we simply cannot compete with other species in terms of strength, endurance etc.
When you initiate the use of force against another human being, you place them in a double bind - he can either obey reason and face your penalty, or disobey reason and face reality's penalty. This is why all systems based on force - such as Communism, fascism, Islam, and so on - create nothing but destruction.
To initiate the use of force is to fundamentally violate a person's basic right, his right to his own life.
As regards group possession, the principle is that of a corporation. Assuming everyone has joined freely - I'm excluding state or criminally run cartels and so on - they have chosen to place their power of franchise at the disposal of those placed in charge of the legalized fiction of a person, namely the corporation or charity or Church or whatever. It's entirely just (I'm leaving out whether certain specific groups should morally be supported).
Now property is the product of individual human labour, which means, the labour of the human brain (I'm excluding that "property" that is acquired by force, as in the case of criminal gangs, or that which is acquired by State favours). The principle underlying property rights is the recognition that you have the right to the product of your own labour - meaning the right to determine your life's course - meaning the basic right to your own life.
Depends what you mean by a "void". If you mean that human property is created by each individual with no effect from other human beings, that would only be true for a man lost in the wilderness. If you truly want to see the benefits of human civilization, or, to be more precise, our free (or semi-free, anyway) Industrial civilization, take a look at an empty stretch of wilderness and imagine how little you could do in your life, what kind of existence would be possible to you, if you had to take it alone (the reason I attach a qualifier is this: a man would be much better off alone on a desert island than living under a society run by Stalin or Hitler). Yet in a human society, the product of your labour is multiplied by the effort of the minds around you.
Yet this does not mean that property is communal. It isn't formed or earned by some amorphous group, but large numbers of individuals interacting freely. That is, I exchange the product of my labour for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the education I am still pursuing.
Human society isn't the source of rights, it exists, properly, as its guarantor. That's a key distinction.
The one case where you do have a point is the case of war. War threatens to destroy the entire social system that safeguards the rights of all, and that's where certain, specific proscriptions are legitimate (for the same reason and in the same manner that a soldier answers to a stricter and more authoritarian law than a civilian). To give an example, it isn't legitimate to sell goods to, or provide aid to, the enemy. The British properly prosecuted Lord Haw Haw for treason.
Now I know some fool is going to ask "Does that mean you'd oppose the resistance in the Second World War?", so let me preempt that. The society the resistance was working against was one in which all concepts of rights hand long since been dropped. Meaning the principles I explained in the previous paragraph would have no effect and hence no relevance. This is about what's legitimate in a free or semi-free society.
What we have today is a perfect moral inversion of this principle: a society that considers it legitimate to extend sanction use force against peacetime civilians, but not against wartime enemies. To take the most obvious example, in Britain there are these cretinous laws, such as the one under discussion, but it's like pulling teeth to get the government to do anything against the Wahhabi mosques and madrassas that are sprouting like mushrooms across the country.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 17, 2009 9:10 AM
The xenophobic loon still thinks the thread is all about him and his puffed-up ego. I'd point and laugh if I weren't so bored.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 17, 2009 9:21 AM
Alyson, I'm trying to talk PZ into a couple of rounds of Survivor Pharyngula for Squidmas. The Xenophobic Loony tunes looks like a good candidate.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 17, 2009 9:39 AM
Not a fan of survivor.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 17, 2009 9:41 AM
Alyson, your confessed inability to formulate anything that approximates a rational argument, coupled with your ability to play world class Islamosuckup is all the tribute I need. If you ever want to better yourself, my response to a direct and serious question demonstrates how you respond rationally.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 17, 2009 9:55 AM
When your ego is that big already, I guess it'll feed on just about anything.
But anyway, I'm all for a fresh round of Survivor up in here. We need to clear out the kipple and make room for better trolls!
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
November 17, 2009 10:08 AM
If you mean that human property is created by each individual with no effect from other human beings, that would only be true for a man lost in the wilderness. - Cimourdain the moron
No, it wouldn't be true even then, because your knowledge (explicit and tacit, declarative and procedural) is the product of hundreds of thousands of years of labour by others now dead, combined with what the non-human world provides. You, as an individual, are a product of an existing society. Your whole "argument" therefore collapses before it even reaches the starting line. Since it's just an elaborate justification for selfishness anyway, you'd be better of just saying "I'm all right, Jack!" and leaving it at that.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 17, 2009 10:18 AM
Ah yes, it is immoral to want to profit by what you have earned, but moral to profit from the blood of others. That's your character in a shriveled nutshell.
I'd bother to explain further, but you are clearly so far gone into dishonesty that it would be pointless.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
November 17, 2009 10:31 AM
Ah yes, it is immoral to want to profit by what you have earned, but moral to profit from the blood of others.
I have, of course, never said or implied either of these things, liar. I see you have no substantive response to my criticism of your "argument".
Posted by: hmm | November 18, 2009 3:46 AM
Waiting for a response to this:
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 18, 2009 5:20 AM
That's funny, I'm still awaiting anything that approximates a rational response to my post. You'll find the answers to that quotation in #424
Posted by: hmm | November 18, 2009 6:59 AM
I might try to answer your post after you answer #433. #433 was my first post in this discussion, by the way, so I am not obliged to follow up on anything else. I posted that first post of mine in this discussion specifically because I want to see your response to the other person's comment, which I quoted.
Posted by: hmm | November 18, 2009 7:05 AM
Ok, I notice that you did try to address that point in #424, but I don't think you succeeded.
For example, this sounds like superstition:
"Human society isn't the source of rights"
Rights are not God-given or given by nature. They are arbitrary. Unless, of course, you are religious, in which case this debate is pointless.
Assuming that you are not supersitious:
Your never addressed how your actions will affect others, and how you participate in society, which is what your rights stem from.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 18, 2009 9:14 AM
Really, hmm? Why don't you tell that to the others here? After all, if rights are arbitrary, what's wrong with racism or bigotry? What's wrong with anything, then? Enslave an entire population, exterminate it, institute theocracy, fascism, Nazism, Communism - what of it? If rights are arbitrary, by what standard could you condemn such things? If a society decides to do these things - well, why not? If society grants these rights, then can't a society take them away? Can't Nazi Germany decide to revoke the rights of all its jewish citizens? Can't the Hutus decide similarly in Rwanda? After, all, why not, if rights are arbitrary?
If rights are arbitrary. Your position. Not mine.
As to the rest of this post, I have explained, in #424, how proper rights are the necessary consequence of each individual's right to their own life. If you deny this right, I take it you won't mind if you are murdered this evening.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 18, 2009 10:48 AM
Martin Brock #15 wrote,
Not according to preliminary results of an ongoing study of the Catholic Church child molestation scandals.Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
November 18, 2009 12:20 PM
Cimourdain says, "That is, I exchange the product of my labour for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the education I am still pursuing."
And the intellectual infrastructure that is our legacy, and the protection of police, fire and defense agencies, and public health....
Gee, that civilization thing is expensive, huh?
And sometimes, it means ponying up for things that don't directly benefit you, because others are contributing to your welfare. As Jim Hightower says, "We all do better when we ALL do better."
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 18, 2009 12:40 PM
a_ray,
I should like to know what implications you've drawn from your statement. I think I can guess, but I'd rather hear it stated explicitly.
I need no primer, thank you very much, on the magnificent legacy of the great minds to which we are heir. It is one reason I chose my profession. It is also why I routinely contribute to causes that help sustain this civilization against its enemies, and have done so even under dire financial straits.
At this point, I'll just note that this thread and this blog, sadly, is peopled with those who repay our civilizational legacy by acting as freelance, unpaid PR men and women for the enemies of it, who whitewash the hideous nature of civilization's enemies, and who are opposed to those of us - even me, in my small way - who try to do something about it. Your ire, Sir, should rightly be directed to them.
The rest of your post can be dealt with simply: The law, the army and the courts represent the legitimate role of the State, which means, to protect its citizens from those who would initiate the use of physical force against them. I've not written a single thing that contradicts that.
Nor, for that matter, does your post have much connection with the theme under discussion. I see no logical route from what you've posted to the question of whether it is legitimate for the government to force citizens to dispose of their property according to the State's whims.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 19, 2009 6:27 AM
Posted by: hmm | November 19, 2009 9:32 AM
@Cimourdain
Before I answer the question, please tell me what you think makes these things wrong. Is it God? Do you believe in God? I can't see you having addressed the fact that you do not exist in a void. Furthermore, please explain where your rights came from, exactly. God?Nature? If so, how?
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 19, 2009 10:44 AM
I fear that the plain meaning of language is being lost here. I said, in post #437:
If that's unclear, proper rights - i.e. the proper freedom of action within human society - derive from the recognition that man, individual humans, must be free from the initiation of force to live, which depends on the recognition that man is a rational animal, i.e. that our brains are our mechanism of survival. If I have to restate this one more time, I will feel that I have been wasting my time.
Now, I'd like an answer to my question. Do you truly accept the doctrine that you put forward, in all its implications? Let's have a straight answer.
Posted by: hmm | November 20, 2009 8:38 AM
You just confirmed that rights are arbitrary. Indeed, there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong. It is only right or wrong within the context of the society it exists in.
Something that is wrong for you could be right for someone else. Would you rape a child if that was the only way to prevent someone from raping and torturing your loved ones to death?
Is raping a child bad if it saves humanity from immediate destruction?
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 20, 2009 10:36 AM
hmm,
I've repeated myself, clearly several times. I explained, precisely, why proper rights are essential to human survival - to the survival of individuals - on this earth. You still wont answer whether you actually embrace that doctrine you say you do.
You're free to invent any hell-world you want, ones where such acts are the precondition for existence. However, life on this earth demands a morality based on this earth, on reality, on reason.
You can play this ridiculous game all you want. It's easy, for example, to imagine a world where racism was moral and rational. You'd just need to picture one where groups of different descent had fixed, unalterable moral differences. In other words a world like Tolkien's Middle Earth or whatever.
Our past, especially in the twentieth century, is full of utter monsters who turned this earth into hell in the name of some imaginary world. Forgive me if I am not walking down that road.
Posted by: hmm | November 20, 2009 10:59 AM
You are like a religious zealot when you start accusing people of wanting the kind of evil world you are describing.
It's just a pathetic attempt at trying to change the subject.
You are merely avoiding the questions I asked because they prove that objective morality does not exist.
Is raping a child bad if it saves humanity from immediate destruction?
Proper rights are not at all essential to human survival. Reproduction is essential to human survival. That we happen to have rights is great, but they are merely arbitrary constructions, and a product of our society.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 20, 2009 11:09 AM
You mean the way Mary was raped to bear Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior? Christians would (or should) answer, "No."Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 20, 2009 1:48 PM
Okay, enough is enough. I have explained it several times. You haven't even formed the constituent of an argument against it. Your "argument", such as it is, is nothing more than a series of assertions, with not even the pretense of an argument behind it.
Sorry, but I'm done wasting my time here. If you want to think that there's nothing but arbitrary choice between a free society and one of slave camps and starvation, your problem.
Posted by: hmm | November 21, 2009 8:09 PM
YOU are the one with the assertions.
If you think freedom is essential to survival, tell that to ants or bees. What is essential is reproduction. Also, humanity survived for thousands of years under oppressive conditions.
Yeah, run away when you run out of silly religious assertions.