I hate environmentalists

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:34:45 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:04 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

First you will have to understand that God is Pro Choice
..does not like the pedophiles and child
abusers called Priests.

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in the general
population.

Not as far as I can see. Ask anyone who has been to a Catholic school,
Children's home or Magdalene "Laundry"

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind of
abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests,

That is incorrect. There were priests involved as well.

Not that I've read about, and I've read Smith's book.

and
the abuse was not sexual.

Some was.

The abuse was the separation of the mothers from the children, and the
working conditions and forced confinement of the "fallen women".

Why do you put quotes around "Laundry"? They were laundries.

Because they were places of abuse and torture... closer to
concentration camps than a safe haven.

They were the laundries, though. They were not fake laundries.

Also they only closed about a decade ago.

The last one.

The question is why hundreds
of Nuns and priests did not face criminal charges. Had it been a non
religious institution most of the staff would still be in jail.

This was in Ireland, and only in Ireland; a church state. They were
as likely to prosecute Nuns as you English were to prosecute the
people who ran your work houses and orphanages where similar
conditions prevailed.

The Magdalene Laundries are a terrible blot on Ireland's history, but
nothing to do with the subject of sexual abuse by the clergy.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:34:45 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:04 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

First you will have to understand that God is Pro Choice
..does not like the pedophiles and child
abusers called Priests.

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in the general
population.

Not as far as I can see. Ask anyone who has been to a Catholic school,
Children's home or Magdalene "Laundry"

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind of
abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests,

That is incorrect. There were priests involved as well.

Not that I've read about, and I've read Smith's book.

Who's book? The information I saw included Priests.

BTW The abuse was not just sexual I also know people who attended
Catholic schools. All of them report the same sorts of abuse despite it
being years apart at different institutions across the country. It
matches with reports from other places.


and
the abuse was not sexual.
Some was.
The abuse was the separation of the mothers from the children, and the
working conditions and forced confinement of the "fallen women".

There was also severe physical and metal abuse. Not to mention
humiliation and sexual abuse. Some by Priests. It has been documented.

Why do you put quotes around "Laundry"? They were laundries.

Because they were places of abuse and torture... closer to
concentration camps than a safe haven.
They were the laundries, though. They were not fake laundries.

So that makes slave labour and imprisonment OK then? That is
equivocation and evasion of the fact that it was severe abuse on
several fronts.

Also they only closed about a decade ago.
The last one.

And when was the one before that shut... the fact that they were still
running in the 1990's is an abomination

You seem to be an apologist for a lot of abuse against these women. How
many nuns and priests were jailed for the long term abuse and in some
cases torture of these women?

The question is why hundreds
of Nuns and priests did not face criminal charges. Had it been a non
religious institution most of the staff would still be in jail.

This was in Ireland, and only in Ireland; a church state. They were
as likely to prosecute Nuns as you English were to prosecute the
people who ran your work houses and orphanages where similar
conditions prevailed.

You have got to be joking... Are you a member of the Catholic
establishment? You are starting to sound like it.

Those work houses stopped decades ago

The Magdalene Laundries are a terrible blot on Ireland's history, but
nothing to do with the subject of sexual abuse by the clergy.

A hell of a lot of physical and mental abuse and yes some sexual abuse.
As we know the REPORTED cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests seems
to be at least twice that of the general population.

However I note the web site mentioned previously discounts a lot of it
because the [homosexual] assaults were against 16-17 year olds. Again
splitting hairs.

I have yet to find anyone who went to a catholic boarding school who did
not suffer physical abuse which in many cases had obvious sexual
overtones.

Personally I would not trust any Catholic priest with a child of mine at
any time,
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Alan LeHun" wrote in message

In article 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in the
general population.

I doubt that very much. Maybe the detection rate (from outside of the
catholic church) of child abuse is much the same, but the general
populace do not have the protection of the very large and powerful
organization that is the church to protect them

On what grounds other than media hysteria does anyone have to suppose that
priests are or would be more prone to child abuse than the rest of the
population?

Why would priests decide that having sex with women is something they
shouldn't do.
What gave them the impression that they shouldn't have sex with women.
Vicars can have wives.
If priests can't have sex with women and can';t have sex with men what's
left
animals and children.
There are male-male rapes and more 'gay' sex in male prisons, this isn;t
necessarily
because they are gay, but a power thing also.
Religion is a powerful weapon and can be used for good or 'evil' and it's
been used
by many claiming that their way is right especailly in war. Young children
are quite easy
to control expecially if you have theior confidence in you even more so if
their parents
have even mor econfidence in the teacher/priest/vicar/scout leader.
Abusing that trust is quite easy especially with young children, it's
especially easy when you
can say God wants you to do X or Y, which is why some jobs/careers are more
closely
checked for such things.

I have seen studies that suggest children are in greater danger
from teachers than priests, but education departments are not such
convenient whipping boys as the church.
True the risk is probably greater, but easier to irradiate and detect.
I know school teachers and carers and they all have checks done on them but
I've
never heard of a priest or vicar having to have these checks done before
they are given the
job.


It is wrong whoever does it but please don't mindlessly
perpetuate the myth that priests are somehow more prone to abusing
children because the evidence simply isn't there.

It's not that priests are more prone to abusing children, more that
young men, struggling with their sexuality or with desires which they
know society does not accept, are more likely to try and find solace
in the priesthood.

The priesthood has always been a safe closet for those who don't wish
to draw attention to the fact that they have no sexual attraction to
women.

Until B16 unleashed the dobermans that was largely true. However, you are
implying that there is a link between homosexuality and child abuse.

The problem there is that you dont; have to be homosexual to abuse a child.
It happens in the army too, even in some religions some Muslims believe
that if two males are having sex only the 'receiver' of the penis is
homosexual,
the giver is no more homosexual than someone having a 'wank in a tissue'

As the Australian Institute of Family Studies study "Update on Child
Sexual Abuse"
(http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issu...5/issues5.html) says, "...
the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and the
assumption that paedophiles have come from the gay community is not backed
up by evidence."

I fully agree with that.

In message gs9obp$pqc$1@qmul, whisky-dave whisky-
writes

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Alan LeHun" wrote in message

In article 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in the
general population.

I doubt that very much. Maybe the detection rate (from outside of the
catholic church) of child abuse is much the same, but the general
populace do not have the protection of the very large and powerful
organization that is the church to protect them

On what grounds other than media hysteria does anyone have to suppose that
priests are or would be more prone to child abuse than the rest of the
population?

Why would priests decide that having sex with women is something they
shouldn't do.
What gave them the impression that they shouldn't have sex with women.
Vicars can have wives.

Actually after the End Of The World As We Know It and The Abomination In
the Sight Of God that are (so called) female Vicars several married CofE
Clergy became Catholic Priests and still stayed married... An
interesting conundrum. There being no pressure from the majority of
Catholic Priests for the rest of them to marry speaks volumes :-)
Though a Cathiolic friend of mine said most were happy with the best of
both worlds.. Being single and shagging their housekeepers.

If priests can't have sex with women and can';t have sex with men what's
left
animals and children.
There are male-male rapes and more 'gay' sex in male prisons, this isn;t
necessarily
because they are gay, but a power thing also.

I think that is one of the leading factors.. The Power. The Stanford
experiment showed this. Though as has been pointed out here already a
job with power over choirboys is a pedophiles dream job

Religion is a powerful weapon and can be used for good or 'evil' and it's
been used
by many claiming that their way is right especailly in war. Young children
are quite easy
to control expecially if you have theior confidence in you even more so if
their parents
have even mor econfidence in the teacher/priest/vicar/scout leader.
Abusing that trust is quite easy especially with young children, it's
especially easy when you
can say God wants you to do X or Y, which is why some jobs/careers are more
closely
checked for such things.

They are now but how many are already in the system and being protected
by their Bishops. It has appeared that many have been shielded by the
church.

I have seen studies that suggest children are in greater danger
from teachers than priests, but education departments are not such
convenient whipping boys as the church.
True the risk is probably greater, but easier to irradiate and detect.
I know school teachers and carers and they all have checks done on them but
I've
never heard of a priest or vicar having to have these checks done before
they are given the
job.

It is political the Church desperately need priests. My Catholic friend
says they now have to share a priest between several churches and he
has come from Africa. There is some irony there.

As the Australian Institute of Family Studies study "Update on Child
Sexual Abuse"
(http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issu...5/issues5.html) says, "...
the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and the
assumption that paedophiles have come from the gay community is not backed
up by evidence."

I fully agree with that.

I agree there. Most homosexuals are no more interested in children than
heterosexuals. As stated above much of it is to do with power...
another reason why pedophiles would be attracted to the priesthood and
priests have more of a tendency to abuse children.

Some Teachers used to but now it is far more open, with far more checks
and a lot less power involved these days.

The evidence does show that the Catholic priests do tend to abuse more
than the other brands of Christianity as there is more power and control
involved. The CofE vicars have never had the same level of control over
their flock as the RC


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:
In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:04 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

First you will have to understand that God is Pro Choice
..does not like the pedophiles and child
abusers called Priests.

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in
the general population.

Not as far as I can see. Ask anyone who has been to a Catholic
school, Children's home or Magdalene "Laundry"

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind
of abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests,

That is incorrect. There were priests involved as well.

and
the abuse was not sexual.

Some was.

Why do you put quotes around "Laundry"? They were laundries.

Because they were places of abuse and torture... closer to
concentration camps than a safe haven.


Also they only closed about a decade ago. The question is why
hundreds of Nuns and priests did not face criminal charges. Had it
been a non religious institution most of the staff would still be in
jail.

Maybe you need to take this up with the Crown.

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message gs77vl$nif$1@qmul, whisky-dave whisky-
writes

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:gVoFl.23568$PH1.17804@edtnps82...


sniped

That's the logical interpretation, Ray, but the doctrine of Divine
Inspiration doesn't see it that way. According to most religious
zealots
I've dealt with, God "inspired" the original authors to write what they
did; hence, what they wrote is divine and without error.

I don;t mind that belief, but I'd like to see what the original aithors
wrote,
rather than what those that copied the texts were told to write.
Very little of the original words exist today, what5does isn;t written
in
English
and as I donl;t speak any other languages I have to trust the
interpreters,
not somehing I'm happy with but have to put up with.

Start with the First Council of Nicaea and work up from there. NOT the
sanitised Wikipeadia version it appears that there was horse trading on
which books are in the bible and which are not.

I wouldn;t use wiki as the evidence but it's usuful when it cites it's
links.
Pity the Bible or rather the KJV anyway didn't do the same.

The black Madonna etc the aligning of Christian Festivals on top of
European religious festivals (Christmas and Easter in particular).

Must admit, it was clever move.


Now people can argue all they line but I have seen 1st Millennium
Churches with Bible stories carved into them (very elaborate) however
many of these stories and indeed the books they come from are no longer
in the Bible...

Also when the Dead Sea scrolls were translated the scientists in charge
discovered that the religious translators were putting a slant on the
translations eg the well known Virtuous Woman (ie a "Lady" as opposed to
a right tart got translated as "A virgin" which is not what it meant but
did fit the Churches view.

I heard from an arabic trnaslator the Mary was describe as a young women
and that was about all that was said.
I have also heard that translators the 53 odd Scholars in the 1600s that
'translated' the KJV version 1or perhaps the beta version ;-) were told the
story
must be interesting so it may be read and under stood by the people...
i.e the people of the country at the time.


Incidentally the Virgin Mary is a mentioned in the Koran far more than
he Bible. And it is mentioned on the Koran that God gave the scriptures
but the Jews and Christians perverted them...
So he Sent Mohammed... Now
Mohammed arrived just after the half dozen councils to "adjust" the
Bible to match the word of the Church ^H^H^H^H^H^ God.


True or not that wouldn't suprise me.

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:dVLFl.22382$Db2.13015@edtnps83...


Yeah, they don't have much impact on the young, at all...

The first book I was ever given at school to keep, rather than borrow and
forget to return was a Bible it was such a sweet little thing in brown and
gold
lettering and nicely bound for a pocket book. Pity they didn;t give us
proper
books as learning to read with 1 book between 3 wasn't easy.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:06:27 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind of
abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests,

That is incorrect. There were priests involved as well.

Not that I've read about, and I've read Smith's book.

Who's book? The information I saw included Priests.

James M. Smith is the author of the book that brought the Magdalene
Laundries to the public's attention. It's a well-researched
non-fiction book. You may have seen a movie or television program.

The Magdalene Laundries provided laundry service in and for convents.
Convents are for Nuns. Priests may have been involved in sending
women to the laundries, but not in the running of them.

BTW The abuse was not just sexual I also know people who attended
Catholic schools. All of them report the same sorts of abuse despite it
being years apart at different institutions across the country.

Is "the country" Ireland?

and
the abuse was not sexual.
Some was.
The abuse was the separation of the mothers from the children, and the
working conditions and forced confinement of the "fallen women".

There was also severe physical and metal abuse. Not to mention
humiliation and sexual abuse. Some by Priests. It has been documented.

Why do you put quotes around "Laundry"? They were laundries.

Because they were places of abuse and torture... closer to
concentration camps than a safe haven.
They were the laundries, though. They were not fake laundries.

So that makes slave labour and imprisonment OK then? That is
equivocation and evasion of the fact that it was severe abuse on
several fronts.

Also they only closed about a decade ago.
The last one.

And when was the one before that shut... the fact that they were still
running in the 1990's is an abomination

You seem to be an apologist for a lot of abuse against these women. How
many nuns and priests were jailed for the long term abuse and in some
cases torture of these women?

Not an apologist. I just like facts reported, and not unfounded,
broad-brush accusations based on watching a movie.

The question is why hundreds
of Nuns and priests did not face criminal charges. Had it been a non
religious institution most of the staff would still be in jail.

This was in Ireland, and only in Ireland; a church state. They were
as likely to prosecute Nuns as you English were to prosecute the
people who ran your work houses and orphanages where similar
conditions prevailed.

You have got to be joking... Are you a member of the Catholic
establishment? You are starting to sound like it.

I was brought up Catholic in a Catholic family, and so was my wife.
My wife and I, and our children, attended Catholic schools. None of
us have ever personally experienced sexual abuse in school, or known
of people who have. I'm quite aware that there was sexual abuse by
some priests, but you seem to think that all Catholic boys or girls
are victims of it. That's not true.

(I'm an atheist now, and have been since my early 20s. I sent my
children to Catholic schools because of the educational advantages.)

Those work houses stopped decades ago

Are you an apologist for British workhouses? How about British public
schools?

The Magdalene Laundries are a terrible blot on Ireland's history, but
nothing to do with the subject of sexual abuse by the clergy.

A hell of a lot of physical and mental abuse and yes some sexual abuse.
As we know the REPORTED cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests seems
to be at least twice that of the general population.

That's the kind of statement that annoys me. That plucking of figures
from thin air. If you knew anything about sexual abuse of children,
you'd know that the real problem is that few children report it.

I have yet to find anyone who went to a catholic boarding school who did
not suffer physical abuse which in many cases had obvious sexual
overtones.

What an idiotic statement. You represent yourself as someone who
knows enough people who have attended Catholic boarding schools and
can make a statement like that based on some sort of research. In
fact, you probably don't know more than one or two people who attended
a Catholic boarding school. If that. You equate abuse to sexual
abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a
far different thing than sexual abuse.

How about the English public schools? Just about all of the students
who attended them were abused in some form or the other, but they
weren't all buggered by staff.

Personally I would not trust any Catholic priest with a child of mine at
any time,

Most sexual child abuse is by friends of the family and relatives.
Your child is just as much in danger from a neighbor or an uncle.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:18:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Chris H wrote:
In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:04 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

First you will have to understand that God is Pro Choice
..does not like the pedophiles and child
abusers called Priests.

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in
the general population.

Not as far as I can see. Ask anyone who has been to a Catholic
school, Children's home or Magdalene "Laundry"

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind
of abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests,

That is incorrect. There were priests involved as well.

and
the abuse was not sexual.

Some was.

Why do you put quotes around "Laundry"? They were laundries.

Because they were places of abuse and torture... closer to
concentration camps than a safe haven.


Also they only closed about a decade ago. The question is why
hundreds of Nuns and priests did not face criminal charges. Had it
been a non religious institution most of the staff would still be in
jail.

Maybe you need to take this up with the Crown.

"The Crown" doesn't have any authority in the Republic of Ireland. It
would be the Dáil Éireann or the An Taoiseach that he'd have to take
it up with.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:06:27 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind of
abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests,

That is incorrect. There were priests involved as well.

Not that I've read about, and I've read Smith's book.

Who's book? The information I saw included Priests.

James M. Smith is the author of the book that brought the Magdalene
Laundries to the public's attention. It's a well-researched
non-fiction book. You may have seen a movie or television program.

The Magdalene Laundries provided laundry service in and for convents.
Convents are for Nuns. Priests may have been involved in sending
women to the laundries, but not in the running of them.

There were Priests who visited these workhouses regualry.

BTW The abuse was not just sexual I also know people who attended
Catholic schools. All of them report the same sorts of abuse despite it
being years apart at different institutions across the country.

Is "the country" Ireland?

No. UK, Canada, Australia

You have got to be joking... Are you a member of the Catholic
establishment? You are starting to sound like it.

I was brought up Catholic in a Catholic family, and so was my wife.
My wife and I, and our children, attended Catholic schools. None of
us have ever personally experienced sexual abuse in school, or known
of people who have.

These were boarding schools not day schools

I'm quite aware that there was sexual abuse by
some priests, but you seem to think that all Catholic boys or girls
are victims of it. That's not true.

I can only speak as I find.

(I'm an atheist now, and have been since my early 20s. I sent my
children to Catholic schools because of the educational advantages.)

I can understand that.

Those work houses stopped decades ago
Are you an apologist for British workhouses?

No my great grandmother died in one I believe.

How about British public
schools?

From all reports I have heard there is not the same problem. A
completely different atmosphere. The religion tends to be CofE which
does not have the same levels of control and power.


The Magdalene Laundries are a terrible blot on Ireland's history, but
nothing to do with the subject of sexual abuse by the clergy.

A hell of a lot of physical and mental abuse and yes some sexual abuse.
As we know the REPORTED cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests seems
to be at least twice that of the general population.

That's the kind of statement that annoys me. That plucking of figures
from thin air.

The thin air of the figures from the web site cited further up the
thread. General population 1-2% Priests 2-6%

If you knew anything about sexual abuse of children,
you'd know that the real problem is that few children report it.

I agree. The power of the priests to instil fear is very high

I have yet to find anyone who went to a catholic boarding school who did
not suffer physical abuse which in many cases had obvious sexual
overtones.

What an idiotic statement. You represent yourself as someone who
knows enough people who have attended Catholic boarding schools and
can make a statement like that based on some sort of research. In
fact, you probably don't know more than one or two people who attended
a Catholic boarding school.

About a dozen.

If that. You equate abuse to sexual
abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a
far different thing than sexual abuse.

Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual

How about the English public schools? Just about all of the students
who attended them were abused in some form or the other, but they
weren't all buggered by staff.

Not at all. By each other more often.

Personally I would not trust any Catholic priest with a child of mine at
any time,

Most sexual child abuse is by friends of the family and relatives.
Your child is just as much in danger from a neighbor or an uncle.

Or a priest who is a "friend" of the family with the power of God.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/