Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Audley Strange]

Hm? How is the Catholic church an "illegitimate authority?" First, today it's entirely voluntary. Second, in the deep past (and I don't accept the Wayback Machine fallacy) it was a government as well as a church in some places and at some times. You might not like that form of government, but that's no different than objecting to Capitalism or Socialism. People choose to be members of the church, so the church's authority over them is not "illegitimate" in the least because they consent to it.

No I don't accept your wayback machine fallacy either. You are quite right it was a government as well as a church, in most of Europe, for quite a long time. Its authority did not come from the voluntary acceptance of the faith, but by torture, murder and fear, by private armies and eradication of many groups who contradicted their version of Christianity, by indoctrination, using priests as secret police and blackmailers. Sure, much like every other government has done without the consent of the people.

Yup. That was then, this is now. It's you who is engaging the Wayback Machine. What happened a thousand years ago is beyond irrelevant.

No you misunderstood, I think your "wayback machine fallacy" is a nonsense designed as a rhetorical tool to dismiss any historical argument as irrelevant. There are a couple of reasons why it doesn't work, one to dismiss any historical argument is to dismiss history to a point which one chooses arbitrarily as not being part of your asserted "fallacy". This doesn't quite cut it, since there is a lineage of corruption, child abuse and collusion with criminal agencies and tyrants, not just a long time ago, but in living memory. It speaks to the character of the establishment, which funnily enough was embroiled in a controversy about child abuse NOW. They have previous, lots of previous, not just a thousand years ago, but consistent throughout history to this very day.

Today, the church is entirely voluntary, and members submit to its authority by their free choice, and a good many of them simply ignore the parts of Catholicism they don't agree with. They are called "Cafeteria Catholics" by those who adhere more rigidly to church doctrine. But it's still entirely voluntary, and no priest, bishop, archbishop or the Pope can (or does) force anyone to worship, obey, come to church, avoid abortion, not use condoms or any of a thousand other things the church RECOMMENDS people not do if they wish to live in harmony with what the church claims is harmony with God's will.

No Seth, you are wrong. Perhaps in some metropolitan Western Cultures, the church is entirely voluntary, but there are places, many many places where it is the only game in town. Their are cultures where Catholicism is as ingrained as their language. Sure you can choose to speak a different language, but within a specific society to do so would to be shunned or be an outcast.

Next, I suppose you will bring up children, and argue that they are being involuntarily indoctrinated and forced to do something. This may be true in some respects, but it's done by the parents, and the church does not accept children as members, or allow them to take Communion until after they are Confirmed, which means that they have learned enough about the church to make their own choice to join or not join the church. Is there pressure from the parents? Sure, but that's the right of the parents to determine in what faith, if any, their children are raised, which is far preferable to the State taking custody of children and raising them in an atmosphere of Marxist or Socialist indoctrination and propaganda. But the church does not require children to believe, it just educates them in the Catholic faith under the authority of their parents. When they are old enough, they get to choose, and if they become members, they are still always free to leave any time they wish to do so, and nobody can prevent them from doing so.

Sure the parents may well be complicit, I'd never argue otherwise. Still is it not yourself who classifies such people as part of the church? This then suggests that such indoctrination is not only effective down through generations (which again makes your wayback machine fallacy easy to dismiss) but that indeed the ENTIRETY of the catholic church is involved.

It's a private club, no different than any other private club that has rules. If you don't like the rules, join another club.

(caveat: I bring this up not to provoke, but as point) Sure, like NAMBLA. Like the KKK, like Al-Qaeda. They're just clubs now, it doesn't matter what they believe or have done in the past does it? Live and let live eh?

Now, in response to THAT statement, I expect you to argue something along the lines of "Yeah, but the Boy Scouts don't threaten you with hellfire and damnation if you quit." Very true, but entirely irrelevant. If you believe in hellfire and damnation, then the church is the place to be and adherence to its dogma is the thing to do to save your immortal soul. If you don't believe in hellfire and damnation, who gives a flying fuck what Catholics believe or say? Just walk away and leave them to their delusions.

Yeah bad luck.

And what "fraud" has the church perpetrated? I suspect you believe that it's theistic claims constitute "fraud" but you'll have a damned tough time proving that in court, since you can't provide a shred of proof that what they claim is not the truth. You might think you can, but as I have pointed out, religious beliefs are a tricky thing when it comes to determining "truth." That's why the memes are so effective. And since association is voluntary these days, you'll not have much luck I'm afraid.

And I suppose in such a case one could not swear on the bible.

Depends on whether you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.[/quote]

But if found that it was a fraud all those who swore on it could be done for perjury no?

[Seth]

Hm? How is the Catholic church an "illegitimate authority?" First, today it's entirely voluntary. Second, in the deep past (and I don't accept the Wayback Machine fallacy) it was a government as well as a church in some places and at some times. You might not like that form of government, but that's no different than objecting to Capitalism or Socialism. People choose to be members of the church, so the church's authority over them is not "illegitimate" in the least because they consent to it.

No I don't accept your wayback machine fallacy either. You are quite right it was a government as well as a church, in most of Europe, for quite a long time. Its authority did not come from the voluntary acceptance of the faith, but by torture, murder and fear, by private armies and eradication of many groups who contradicted their version of Christianity, by indoctrination, using priests as secret police and blackmailers. Sure, much like every other government has done without the consent of the people.

Yup. That was then, this is now. It's you who is engaging the Wayback Machine. What happened a thousand years ago is beyond irrelevant.

No you misunderstood, I think your "wayback machine fallacy" is a nonsense designed as a rhetorical tool to dismiss any historical argument as irrelevant.

That's because after the death of the individuals under discussion, it is irrelevant. After a thousand years it's utterly irrelevant what someone, anyone, did as applied to today.

There are a couple of reasons why it doesn't work, one to dismiss any historical argument is to dismiss history to a point which one chooses arbitrarily as not being part of your asserted "fallacy". This doesn't quite cut it, since there is a lineage of corruption, child abuse and collusion with criminal agencies and tyrants, not just a long time ago, but in living memory. It speaks to the character of the establishment, which funnily enough was embroiled in a controversy about child abuse NOW. They have previous, lots of previous, not just a thousand years ago, but consistent throughout history to this very day.

Again, that was then, this is now. All that is important in judging the value and worth of any organization with a long history is what it is doing RIGHT NOW as regards people who are alive RIGHT NOW. The rest is a fallacy because what people long dead to other people long dead is utterly irrelevant.

Using your metric, the entire United Kingdom and everyone in it should be exterminated as a scourge and blight on the planet based on the many thousands of years of British imperialism, monarchic despotism, murder, rape, pillage, warmaking, and assorted other moral and ethical wrongs committed by British monarchs and the British people over the centuries.

But to do so is to invoke the Ancestral Guilt fallacy which holds that the sins of the father must be forever visited on their sons.

I coined the term "Wayback Machine Fallacy" precisely to reject all such fallacious logic and bring the discussion into the present, which is all that matters. What some Pope or Bishop or priest did a thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago is meaningless and irrelevant in analyzing the utility and morality of the church today. Indeed, what the church did in living memory must be analyzed with due respect to what the church has done in living memory, like the last decade, to correct and rectify the problem and ensure that it does not happen again.

Only the living matter. The dead are dead and what they did and what happened to them is no more than a historical footnote intended as a cautionary tale to prevent present or future wrongs of the same kind.

Therefore, I can argue that those still alive who were wronged are due justice as are those who are alive who wronged them, but the rest is meaningless and I can look at the church today and see the great strides it has taken to prevent such abuse and to compensate those who have been provably wronged by criminals in the church and I can refuse to hold those billion people who comprise the church today who did nothing wrong responsible into eternity for the crimes of the past.

Today, the church is entirely voluntary, and members submit to its authority by their free choice, and a good many of them simply ignore the parts of Catholicism they don't agree with. They are called "Cafeteria Catholics" by those who adhere more rigidly to church doctrine. But it's still entirely voluntary, and no priest, bishop, archbishop or the Pope can (or does) force anyone to worship, obey, come to church, avoid abortion, not use condoms or any of a thousand other things the church RECOMMENDS people not do if they wish to live in harmony with what the church claims is harmony with God's will.

No Seth, you are wrong. Perhaps in some metropolitan Western Cultures, the church is entirely voluntary, but there are places, many many places where it is the only game in town. Their are cultures where Catholicism is as ingrained as their language. Sure you can choose to speak a different language, but within a specific society to do so would to be shunned or be an outcast.

Wrong. The church is entirely voluntary everywhere on earth. The church will not accept as a member anyone who has been coerced against their will. If a society is predominantly Catholic, it's neither surprising nor any sort of offense against others if the Catholics of that society choose to hold themselves apart from others who don't share their faith. They have a perfect right to shun those who don't believe as they do, and those shunned have no right to demand that Catholics associate with them. They are free to create their own associations with people of like mind and may not demand that others associate with them against their will.

That may lead to being an outcast, but so what? If you don't like it, then go find a group to live in that better reflects your beliefs.

And I want to point out that social pressure comes from the society, not from the church. The church welcomes anyone who believes, or wants to believe, with open arms and a warm heart. It even accepts those who have no theistic beliefs, like me, and welcomes them into social communion, although it does restrict formal Communion to believers.

It provides solace and charity even to non-believers in a very non-discriminatory manner. Catholic charities like shelters and soup kitchens DO NOT inquire as to one's faith and DO NOT exclude ANYONE based on their faith or lack thereof if they are in need. Nor do they (as some evangelical charities do) demand that those receiving charity listen to sermons or proselytizing as a condition of receiving charity assistance.

So, if you want to complain about social pressure, complain about the society, not the church, because the church does not advocate that its members be intolerant or discriminatory towards non-believers. That's a decision that each individual gets to make as a matter of social rights.

Next, I suppose you will bring up children, and argue that they are being involuntarily indoctrinated and forced to do something. This may be true in some respects, but it's done by the parents, and the church does not accept children as members, or allow them to take Communion until after they are Confirmed, which means that they have learned enough about the church to make their own choice to join or not join the church. Is there pressure from the parents? Sure, but that's the right of the parents to determine in what faith, if any, their children are raised, which is far preferable to the State taking custody of children and raising them in an atmosphere of Marxist or Socialist indoctrination and propaganda. But the church does not require children to believe, it just educates them in the Catholic faith under the authority of their parents. When they are old enough, they get to choose, and if they become members, they are still always free to leave any time they wish to do so, and nobody can prevent them from doing so.

Sure the parents may well be complicit, I'd never argue otherwise. Still is it not yourself who classifies such people as part of the church? This then suggests that such indoctrination is not only effective down through generations (which again makes your wayback machine fallacy easy to dismiss) but that indeed the ENTIRETY of the catholic church is involved.

What's wrong with parents being "complicit" in raising their children in the church? It's their right as parents to do so. And its the right of the children to voluntarily decide not to become members of the church or to leave the church whenever they wish.

(caveat: I bring this up not to provoke, but as point) Sure, like NAMBLA. Like the KKK, like Al-Qaeda. They're just clubs now, it doesn't matter what they believe or have done in the past does it? Live and let live eh?

No, not "live and let live" in all cases. I think one can distinguish between peaceable clubs and non-peaceable ones. And I'm only concerned with what the KKK, NAMBLA and Al Quaeda do today, not what they may have done a hundred or a thousand years ago, which is meaningless when evaluating what sort of a threat they pose right now.

And what "fraud" has the church perpetrated? I suspect you believe that it's theistic claims constitute "fraud" but you'll have a damned tough time proving that in court, since you can't provide a shred of proof that what they claim is not the truth. You might think you can, but as I have pointed out, religious beliefs are a tricky thing when it comes to determining "truth." That's why the memes are so effective. And since association is voluntary these days, you'll not have much luck I'm afraid.

And I suppose in such a case one could not swear on the bible.

Depends on whether you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

But if found that it was a fraud all those who swore on it could be done for perjury no?

No, because perjury is knowingly and deliberately telling an untruth while under oath. One cannot be convicted of perjury merely for being mistaken in one's beliefs or understandings.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, you'd have to prove intent to mislead.

[Audley Strange]

Again, that was then, this is now. All that is important in judging the value and worth of any organization with a long history is what it is doing RIGHT NOW as regards people who are alive RIGHT NOW. The rest is a fallacy because what people long dead to other people long dead is utterly irrelevant.

No it wasn't then is was then AND now Seth. We are not discussing the distant past we are discussing a consistency that has travelled down from the past TO now. It is relevant since as I said it speaks to the character of the church.

Using your metric, the entire United Kingdom and everyone in it should be exterminated as a scourge and blight on the planet based on the many thousands of years of British imperialism, monarchic despotism, murder, rape, pillage, warmaking, and assorted other moral and ethical wrongs committed by British monarchs and the British people over the centuries.

An exaggeration as to the result, but I think there is an argument to be made that that is exactly how we should be perceived as a nation, we are obsessed with our violent history, it is part of our culture to berate Germans NOW for what happened in the 1940's, the Scots berate the English for what happened 600 years ago, and many of the Irish recognise exactly your issue with the U.K. There is a case to be had.

But to do so is to invoke the Ancestral Guilt fallacy which holds that the sins of the father must be forever visited on their sons.

If the sons perpetrate the same sins? Sure why not.

I coined the term "Wayback Machine Fallacy" precisely to reject all such fallacious logic and bring the discussion into the present, which is all that matters. What some Pope or Bishop or priest did a thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago is meaningless and irrelevant in analyzing the utility and morality of the church today. Indeed, what the church did in living memory must be analyzed with due respect to what the church has done in living memory, like the last decade, to correct and rectify the problem and ensure that it does not happen again.

Only the living matter. The dead are dead and what they did and what happened to them is no more than a historical footnote intended as a cautionary tale to prevent present or future wrongs of the same kind.

Yeah I understand what you did. I've got a fallacy too "The Seth makes up Fallacies Fallacy", which is to disregard your creation of fallacies that are not only not fallacies but don't really speak to the issue at hand. You are dividing the Church now from the Church then. There is a tradition and lineage, to discount that is to discount methodology and motive of the organisation. It isn't a bleeding edge Tech company it is a slow anachronistic dinosaur, it's behaviour now evinced as being as corrupt as it's behaviour then.

If you wish to discount that, then you should have no problem with me saying that those that died on 9/11 should just be forgotten about yeah? There deaths are irrelevant here and now. Not everyone in Al Qaeda has blown up people. Not everyone in the KKk has treed a black man.

Therefore, I can argue that those still alive who were wronged are due justice as are those who are alive who wronged them, but the rest is meaningless and I can look at the church today and see the great strides it has taken to prevent such abuse and to compensate those who have been provably wronged by criminals in the church and I can refuse to hold those billion people who comprise the church today who did nothing wrong responsible into eternity for the crimes of the past.

Except that the crimes continue.

Wrong. The church is entirely voluntary everywhere on earth. The church will not accept as a member anyone who has been coerced against their will.

So it claims, the reality is that coercion need not be physical threat and that not everyone has the education to even understand they have a choice.

If a society is predominantly Catholic, it's neither surprising nor any sort of offense against others if the Catholics of that society choose to hold themselves apart from others who don't share their faith. They have a perfect right to shun those who don't believe as they do, and those shunned have no right to demand that Catholics associate with them. They are free to create their own associations with people of like mind and may not demand that others associate with them against their will.

That may lead to being an outcast, but so what? If you don't like it, then go find a group to live in that better reflects your beliefs.

An outcast in the West is not the same as an outcast in other cultures. In essense it can be "Believe what we tell you or starve " not completely voluntary.

And I want to point out that social pressure comes from the society, not from the church. The church welcomes anyone who believes, or wants to believe, with open arms and a warm heart. It even accepts those who have no theistic beliefs, like me, and welcomes them into social communion, although it does restrict formal Communion to believers.

It provides solace and charity even to non-believers in a very non-discriminatory manner. Catholic charities like shelters and soup kitchens DO NOT inquire as to one's faith and DO NOT exclude ANYONE based on their faith or lack thereof if they are in need. Nor do they (as some evangelical charities do) demand that those receiving charity listen to sermons or proselytizing as a condition of receiving charity assistance.

So, if you want to complain about social pressure, complain about the society, not the church, because the church does not advocate that its members be intolerant or discriminatory towards non-believers. That's a decision that each individual gets to make as a matter of social rights.

"Here's a stick and a gun and YOU do it, but wait til I'm out of the room." Lenny Bruce.

What's wrong with parents being "complicit" in raising their children in the church? It's their right as parents to do so. And its the right of the children to voluntarily decide not to become members of the church or to leave the church whenever they wish.

A diversion, we are talking about child abuse, are you happy that parents should be defined as complicit in a clandestine paedophile ring?

No, not "live and let live" in all cases. I think one can distinguish between peaceable clubs and non-peaceable ones. And I'm only concerned with what the KKK, NAMBLA and Al Quaeda do today, not what they may have done a hundred or a thousand years ago, which is meaningless when evaluating what sort of a threat they pose right now.

Peaceable clubs do not obfuscate investigations into child abuse. Still you wrote this about an hour ago, in that time Al-Qaeda have committed no atrocities, should any discussion about such take that into consideration and dismiss their actions prior to that arbitrarily because of the temporal distance?

No, because perjury is knowingly and deliberately telling an untruth while under oath. One cannot be convicted of perjury merely for being mistaken in one's beliefs or understandings.

A fair point.

[Seth]

Major tag fuckups, so I'll trim...

Again, that was then, this is now. All that is important in judging the value and worth of any organization with a long history is what it is doing RIGHT NOW as regards people who are alive RIGHT NOW. The rest is a fallacy because what people long dead to other people long dead is utterly irrelevant.

No it wasn't then is was then AND now Seth. We are not discussing the distant past we are discussing a consistency that has travelled down from the past TO now. It is relevant since as I said it speaks to the character of the church.

What do you mean by "now" Audley? Do you mean 1520 "now," 1960 "now" or 2011 "now?" It matters what you mean by "now," you see, because the church has made substantial and important changes in doctrine and policy precisely because of the scandal and is determined not to allow any such thing to happen again. And in the last decade, since the changes were introduced, there have been very, very few accusations of molestation by priests, and they have been rapidly and effectively dealt with by reporting them to police, which upon probable cause has resulted in the arrest and prosecution of the accused, and by defrocking and ejecting those priests convicted criminally from the church. To the best of my knowledge, the number of Catholic priests accuse of sexual abuse in the last 10 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. So no, it's not relevant because what the church did a thousand years ago does not speak to its character TODAY.

Using your metric, the entire United Kingdom and everyone in it should be exterminated as a scourge and blight on the planet based on the many thousands of years of British imperialism, monarchic despotism, murder, rape, pillage, warmaking, and assorted other moral and ethical wrongs committed by British monarchs and the British people over the centuries.

An exaggeration as to the result, but I think there is an argument to be made that that is exactly how we should be perceived as a nation, we are obsessed with our violent history, it is part of our culture to berate Germans NOW for what happened in the 1940's, the Scots berate the English for what happened 600 years ago, and many of the Irish recognise exactly your issue with the U.K. There is a case to be had.

No, there is only the Ancestral Guilt fallacy to be had, along with the endless perpetuation of strife, war, hatred and conflict based on what some fuckwits did to some other fuckwits a thousand years ago. The Balkans are a classic example of where the Ancestral Guilt fallacy gets society.

I reject utterly that fallacy and all that goes along with it, and I choose to live in the present and judge people, organizations and cultures based on how they behave now, and by "now" I mean as it affects those alive today and perhaps those to come in the future. That's the only way forward for peace, harmony and tolerance on this planet. The Ancestral Guilt fallacy is a scourge on civilization and the direct cause of most of the death, destruction and conflict in the world today, and so it needs to be rejected by everyone of good will and reason.

But to do so is to invoke the Ancestral Guilt fallacy which holds that the sins of the father must be forever visited on their sons.

If the sons perpetrate the same sins? Sure why not.

Because even if they do, they are responsible for THEIR OWN sins, not those of their fathers.

I coined the term "Wayback Machine Fallacy" precisely to reject all such fallacious logic and bring the discussion into the present, which is all that matters. What some Pope or Bishop or priest did a thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago is meaningless and irrelevant in analyzing the utility and morality of the church today. Indeed, what the church did in living memory must be analyzed with due respect to what the church has done in living memory, like the last decade, to correct and rectify the problem and ensure that it does not happen again.

Only the living matter. The dead are dead and what they did and what happened to them is no more than a historical footnote intended as a cautionary tale to prevent present or future wrongs of the same kind.

Yeah I understand what you did. I've got a fallacy too "The Seth makes up Fallacies Fallacy", which is to disregard your creation of fallacies that are not only not fallacies but don't really speak to the issue at hand. You are dividing the Church now from the Church then.

Yup.

There is a tradition and lineage, to discount that is to discount methodology and motive of the organisation.

No, it's to reject HISTORIC methodology and motive, just as science rejects discredited historic scientific methodology like "aeatherism" and geocentrism. You would not argue that science must be bound forever to its own discredited past would you?

It isn't a bleeding edge Tech company it is a slow anachronistic dinosaur, it's behaviour now evinced as being as corrupt as it's behaviour then.

Irrelevant. If it's corrupt today, then punish the corruption of today. The corruption of the past is irrelevant if the people involved are dead. They cannot be held to account, except perhaps by their God, so it's pointless futility and unreason to harp on what Pope Leo X did in 1520 when analyzing what the current Pope actually does today.

If you wish to discount that, then you should have no problem with me saying that those that died on 9/11 should just be forgotten about yeah? There deaths are irrelevant here and now. Not everyone in Al Qaeda has blown up people. Not everyone in the KKk has treed a black man.

Yup, they are dead. Their opinions don't matter anymore and their deaths are not the justification for our war on Al Quaeda. Our justification for that war is that Al Quaeda shows every intention of doing the same sort of thing in the future, if they aren't wiped out. Punishing a member of Al Quaeda for acts he performed is different than claiming that something Al Quaeda did a thousand years ago justifies making war on them today. Al Quaeda is still alive and functioning as a terrorist organization with the avowed and published intent of killing Americans.

The Catholic church has no such intentions, nor does it have intentions to molest children. In fact it has done a great deal to ensure that no child is ever molested by a priest or anyone else associated with the church in the future.

Big difference. Huge.

Therefore, I can argue that those still alive who were wronged are due justice as are those who are alive who wronged them, but the rest is meaningless and I can look at the church today and see the great strides it has taken to prevent such abuse and to compensate those who have been provably wronged by criminals in the church and I can refuse to hold those billion people who comprise the church today who did nothing wrong responsible into eternity for the crimes of the past.

Except that the crimes continue.

Do they? Can you point to specific instances of child molestation in the last 10 years (as opposed to 40 years ago) that have gone uninvestigated or unpunished?

Are you simply denying all the efforts of the church to root out such corruption and prevent it in the future? Or are you simply ignorant of them?

Wrong. The church is entirely voluntary everywhere on earth. The church will not accept as a member anyone who has been coerced against their will.

So it claims, the reality is that coercion need not be physical threat and that not everyone has the education to even understand they have a choice.

And few organizations on earth offer a better education to the poor and uneducated than the Catholic church, oftentimes for free or low cost. You are aware that many of the finest colleges and universities on the planet are Catholic, right?

What's your evidence that the church "coerces" anyone these days?

If a society is predominantly Catholic, it's neither surprising nor any sort of offense against others if the Catholics of that society choose to hold themselves apart from others who don't share their faith. They have a perfect right to shun those who don't believe as they do, and those shunned have no right to demand that Catholics associate with them. They are free to create their own associations with people of like mind and may not demand that others associate with them against their will.

That may lead to being an outcast, but so what? If you don't like it, then go find a group to live in that better reflects your beliefs.

An outcast in the West is not the same as an outcast in other cultures. In essense it can be "Believe what we tell you or starve " not completely voluntary.

That's a condemnation of the culture, not of the church, which would never condone or support such oppression and would in fact freely offer to feed, shelter and clothe those so oppressed. What is done in the name of Catholicism is not always consistent with Catholic doctrine or practice, and as such is an abuse of the church and does not reflect upon the church itself, but upon those who would falsely claim to be Catholic while using that falsity to oppress others.

And I want to point out that social pressure comes from the society, not from the church. The church welcomes anyone who believes, or wants to believe, with open arms and a warm heart. It even accepts those who have no theistic beliefs, like me, and welcomes them into social communion, although it does restrict formal Communion to believers.

It provides solace and charity even to non-believers in a very non-discriminatory manner. Catholic charities like shelters and soup kitchens DO NOT inquire as to one's faith and DO NOT exclude ANYONE based on their faith or lack thereof if they are in need. Nor do they (as some evangelical charities do) demand that those receiving charity listen to sermons or proselytizing as a condition of receiving charity assistance.

So, if you want to complain about social pressure, complain about the society, not the church, because the church does not advocate that its members be intolerant or discriminatory towards non-believers. That's a decision that each individual gets to make as a matter of social rights.

"Here's a stick and a gun and YOU do it, but wait til I'm out of the room." Lenny Bruce.

Where's your evidence that the church does this?

Next, I suppose you will bring up children, and argue that they are being involuntarily indoctrinated and forced to do something. This may be true in some respects, but it's done by the parents, and the church does not accept children as members, or allow them to take Communion until after they are Confirmed, which means that they have learned enough about the church to make their own choice to join or not join the church. Is there pressure from the parents? Sure, but that's the right of the parents to determine in what faith, if any, their children are raised, which is far preferable to the State taking custody of children and raising them in an atmosphere of Marxist or Socialist indoctrination and propaganda. But the church does not require children to believe, it just educates them in the Catholic faith under the authority of their parents. When they are old enough, they get to choose, and if they become members, they are still always free to leave any time they wish to do so, and nobody can prevent them from doing so.

Sure the parents may well be complicit, I'd never argue otherwise. Still is it not yourself who classifies such people as part of the church? This then suggests that such indoctrination is not only effective down through generations (which again makes your wayback machine fallacy easy to dismiss) but that indeed the ENTIRETY of the catholic church is involved.

What's wrong with parents being "complicit" in raising their children in the church? It's their right as parents to do so. And its the right of the children to voluntarily decide not to become members of the church or to leave the church whenever they wish.

A diversion, we are talking about child abuse, are you happy that parents should be defined as complicit in a clandestine paedophile ring?

Since the Catholic church is not a "clandestine paedophile ring," your question is a non sequitur and a red herring.

No, not "live and let live" in all cases. I think one can distinguish between peaceable clubs and non-peaceable ones. And I'm only concerned with what the KKK, NAMBLA and Al Quaeda do today, not what they may have done a hundred or a thousand years ago, which is meaningless when evaluating what sort of a threat they pose right now.

Peaceable clubs do not obfuscate investigations into child abuse.

Nor does the Catholic church. Certain criminal elements WITHIN the church may do so, but they do so in violation of church canons and law, and they are subject to excommunication and expulsion from the church for doing so.

Still you wrote this about an hour ago, in that time Al-Qaeda have committed no atrocities, should any discussion about such take that into consideration and dismiss their actions prior to that arbitrarily because of the temporal distance?

What is the official policy and intent of Al Quaeda towards those alive now and to come in the future? Likewise, what is the official policy and intent of the Catholic church towards those alive now and to come in the future?

[Audley Strange]

You make some good points, some convincing ones and others seem a bit off. I'll respond in more depth later, I've got some work I need to get on with.

[Coito ergo sum]

amused, for once that's not funny.

God dammit! How many times still until the festering ulcer that is the catlicker church gets cleaned out and cauterized for good? People should be leaving the fold in troves...

And yet they don't, probably because the number of pedophile priests in the Netherlands is about the same in proportion to everybody else in the Netherlands,

Seems to me to be pretty damn good evidence in favor of the proposition that the religion doesn't make them better people, and isn't a source of good moral behavior. If the proportion of such criminals is not less among the CLERGY of solemn religion pledged to do good and be good, then what the fuck is religion around for?

If the best the PRIESTHOOD can do is measure up to the standard of society at large, then they are in no position to be trying to teach anyone how to behave. We're obviously all just as qualified to figure it out ourselves, and we're doing no worse a job at it.

I've never trusted priests, and I never will. That is as far back as I can remember, thinking about it - mid 1980s, at least. Priests. Worthless dregs of society. Liars, pretending to know that which they cannot know, and selling it to the public as "Truth." Beggars, suckling on the private teat by demanding tithes under pain of an imaginary retribution from old women and credulous believers, and suckling at the government teat with income tax breaks, property tax exemptions, and special services from local governments (who pays for that cop that is always directing traffic outside of churches on Sundays...not the fucking church, I can tell you that). I'd give my money to the panhandler on the street before I give it to a fucking priest.

Children are naïve -- they trust everyone. School is bad enough, but, if you put a child anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're asking for trouble.
-- Frank Zappa

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem with the priesthood is that the divine guidance they claim to have does not exist.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a private club and you're not invited to join. If you don't want the religion, start another club of your own. What makes you think you have any right to judge the Boy Scouts and their policies or expect them to admit people whose beliefs are antithetical to the club's founding principles?

If they exclude on religious grounds, is that not the result of a judgement? Who judged first here?

They did, as is their right. One of the principles of constitutional liberty and freedom of association is the freedom to DIS-associate from someone, or some group whom you find to be morally or ethically corrupt or whom you simply do not wish to associate with, for any reason or no reason at all.

Just as nobody requires you to associate with Catholics or pedophiles, the Boy Scouts have every right to refuse to associate with persons, including children, who represent political or religious views that are in opposition to their own.

It's a private club that has religious belief requirements. Get over it. Start your own Atheist boy's club if you like.

It seems like the opprobrium being heaped on the Boy Scouts is based in jealousy and nothing more. They have the largest, oldest, and best boys adventure club on earth, and tens of millions of boys have enjoyed participating in Scouting for more than a hundred years, but it's not a club that's open to Atheists, which makes them angry that they are being discriminated against. Well, tough shit. Atheists don't have a right not to be discriminated against when it comes to membership in private organizations like the Boy Scouts. Sucks to be an Atheist's child I guess, and perhaps Atheists should get off their lazy asses and form their own club rather than demanding membership in a club that they're not welcome in.

Doesn't mean anyone's a hypocrite for saying it's rather shitty of them.

Why is it "shitty" of them? Just because they exclude non-Christians and Atheists? This fails on the fallacious presumption that everybody is equally entitled to enjoy the benefits of a privately-built and privately-funded faith-based organization and that it's "shitty" to exclude those who do not meet the qualification requirements. That's a socialist conceit that just doesn't wash.

Oh, I don't know. If a private club didn't allow blacks in, I would say that MY OPINION is that it's pretty shitty of them. And, I think it would be. It's not "socialism" because I claim the right to voice my opinion. We're all in possession of the right to think and say our opinions about what other people do.

And yes, it's entirely hypocritical of Atheists to demand entry to religious organizations. It's beyond hypocritical. And just like being an Atheist, and particularly a militant religious Atheist, and choosing to work for a religious organization is hypocrisy of the highest order, demanding that a religious organization change its rules to accommodate Atheists is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, as is excoriating them for simply choosing with whom they will associate, and with whom they will not associate.

Oh, I think it's hypocritical to claim a legal entitlement to entry to religious organizations. However, it's not hypocritical to hold the opinion that such organizations should hold themselves open to the public fairly.

However, if a religious organization runs a food market or something, then they can't discriminate in hiring there. Just like if an atheist runs a food market, he can't refuse to hire people based on religion, race, color, national origin, etc.

If Atheists don't like being excluded and marginalized, then perhaps they should quit being such militant arrogant pricks about their atheism. (not that I mean you, of course, I'm speaking generally)

Everyone has a right to exclude and marginalize, within the civil rights laws, of course. The same goes for the religious. If you don't to have people complain about your actions, stop being such arrogant pricks and trying to theocratize every fucking local government around the country.

Robert Heinlein once wrote that if the natives rub blue mud in their bellybuttons, the polite thing to do is to rub blue mud in your own bellybutton, lest the natives become upset and have you for dinner.

If you don't want to rub blue mud in your bellybutton, then go somewhere else.

How about you, or they, go somewhere else? I claim the right to not have to rub blue mud in my bellybutton, even if I'm the only one not doing it. The blue mud people can go fuck themselves.

Look - the blue mud people don't need to include me in their games and invite me to their parties, but I, likewise, don't have to "go somewhere else."

We have "individual" rights, my friend. This notion of "group rights" that you're peddling is pernicious nonsense. "They" can do what they want. But, so can "I" and that includes voicing my opinion that "they" (the group) suck ass. "I" have the right to not rub blue mud in my belly button. I have the right to think and breathe and live and exercise my liberty and pursue happiness and own property. Not "we" and not on condition that I join the blue mud group.

My opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any majority, anywhere. Anyone who doesn't like it can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.
---Christopher Hitchens

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem with the priesthood is that the divine guidance they claim to have does not exist.

...and, I think most of them know it full well, but continue to peddle their lies...

...and, the ones who truly believe it are delusional...

Which is worse?

[Seth]

amused, for once that's not funny.

God dammit! How many times still until the festering ulcer that is the catlicker church gets cleaned out and cauterized for good? People should be leaving the fold in troves...

And yet they don't, probably because the number of pedophile priests in the Netherlands is about the same in proportion to everybody else in the Netherlands,

Seems to me to be pretty damn good evidence in favor of the proposition that the religion doesn't make them better people, and isn't a source of good moral behavior. If the proportion of such criminals is not less among the CLERGY of solemn religion pledged to do good and be good, then what the fuck is religion around for?

Many things. The failings of a few does not impeach the entire church.

If the best the PRIESTHOOD can do is measure up to the standard of society at large, then they are in no position to be trying to teach anyone how to behave. We're obviously all just as qualified to figure it out ourselves, and we're doing no worse a job at it.

Again, the failings of a few does not impeach the entire church. Nor is everyone necessarily qualified to be a priest, which has to do with religious practice as well as moral training and support.

I've never trusted priests, and I never will. That is as far back as I can remember, thinking about it - mid 1980s, at least.

That would seem to speak to your prejudices more than the honesty of priests.

Priests. Worthless dregs of society. Liars, pretending to know that which they cannot know, and selling it to the public as "Truth." Beggars, suckling on the private teat by demanding tithes under pain of an imaginary retribution from old women and credulous believers, and suckling at the government teat with income tax breaks, property tax exemptions,

Your opinion is noted. Some one billion people have a different opinion, and their opinion outweighs yours I'm afraid.

and special services from local governments (who pays for that cop that is always directing traffic outside of churches on Sundays...not the fucking church, I can tell you that).

Actually, churches pay various taxes, although they don't pay income or property taxes. As for the cop, take that up with your city council or the chief of police. I've never seen a cop directing traffic at any church ever, except perhaps for special events like the Papal Mass, where traffic control is a necessary and reasonable function the police serve for ANY large gathering of people.

I'd give my money to the panhandler on the street before I give it to a fucking priest.

And you're allowed to do so. Isn't that nice? Other people, however, something like a billion of them, choose to voluntarily give to the church. Do you have a problem with how they spend THEIR money?

[Coito ergo sum]

amused, for once that's not funny.

God dammit! How many times still until the festering ulcer that is the catlicker church gets cleaned out and cauterized for good? People should be leaving the fold in troves...

And yet they don't, probably because the number of pedophile priests in the Netherlands is about the same in proportion to everybody else in the Netherlands,

Seems to me to be pretty damn good evidence in favor of the proposition that the religion doesn't make them better people, and isn't a source of good moral behavior. If the proportion of such criminals is not less among the CLERGY of solemn religion pledged to do good and be good, then what the fuck is religion around for?

Many things. The failings of a few does not impeach the entire church.

It's not the failings of a few which I'm concerned about. It's the fact, which you said was the case, that child rapists in the priesthood is about the same proportion as everyone else in the society. If that's the case, then we can conclude that the religion didn't make them better people. And, since the group we're talking about are the PRIESTS, and not just rank and file churchgoers, it says a lot that they, with their in-depth study of the religion, and their daily practice of it, and their vows and all that, aren't any better than the rest of society.

Fat lot of good all that seminary schooling did for them. Fat lot of good all the praying and penance and pondering over sin did for them. Fat lot of good the Bible readings did for them and the 10 commandments and all that. It did nothing. As a group, they're no better than the general public.

If the best the PRIESTHOOD can do is measure up to the standard of society at large, then they are in no position to be trying to teach anyone how to behave. We're obviously all just as qualified to figure it out ourselves, and we're doing no worse a job at it.

Again, the failings of a few does not impeach the entire church. Nor is everyone necessarily qualified to be a priest, which has to do with religious practice as well as moral training and support.

You're missing it. You stated that the prevalence of child rapists among the priesthood is no less than among the general public. I'm not impeaching the church as a whole, or the general public as a whole. I'm stating that obviously, if the religion can't keep PRIESTS from committing these HORRIBLE sins, and the prevalence of these sins is the same among the priesthood as it is among the general public, then the religion isn't doing jack shit to improve anyone's behavior. At all. QED, man.

I've never trusted priests, and I never will. That is as far back as I can remember, thinking about it - mid 1980s, at least.

That would seem to speak to your prejudices more than the honesty of priests.

No, it's because priests plainly don't have access to any information I also don't have access to, and yet they claim to have knowledge about things which they can not possibly have knowledge about. They either know they don't have that knowledge and are lying, or they really believe that they know that which they cannot know. Those are the only two options, and neither one speaks well of the trustworthiness of priests.

THAT is why I don't trust them. It's not out of PREjudice. It's out of judice. I judge them based on their actions and their words. I wouldn't let a priest have unsupervised access to my child for anything. Not a chance. I'll not have them pretend that they know what happens after death, or that they know what some god wants people do or say or think or feel or eat or wear or whatever. They don't know that. And, the fact that they claim to know it, but can't, makes them untrustworthy.

Priests. Worthless dregs of society. Liars, pretending to know that which they cannot know, and selling it to the public as "Truth." Beggars, suckling on the private teat by demanding tithes under pain of an imaginary retribution from old women and credulous believers, and suckling at the government teat with income tax breaks, property tax exemptions,

Your opinion is noted. Some one billion people have a different opinion, and their opinion outweighs yours I'm afraid.

The number of people holding an opinion has nothing to do with the rightness of that opinion.

You have a habit of calling things "fallacies" which are not. Here's one that is: fallacy ad populum. You just committed it.

and special services from local governments (who pays for that cop that is always directing traffic outside of churches on Sundays...not the fucking church, I can tell you that).

Actually, churches pay various taxes, although they don't pay income or property taxes. As for the cop, take that up with your city council or the chief of police. I've never seen a cop directing traffic at any church ever, except perhaps for special events like the Papal Mass, where traffic control is a necessary and reasonable function the police serve for ANY large gathering of people.

Come to Florida. It happens every Sunday at many churches. You'll see a city paid officer with a cruiser, or sometimes even more than one, and they're directing traffic. No funeral. No special event. No large gathering of people - just church.

I'd give my money to the panhandler on the street before I give it to a fucking priest.

And you're allowed to do so. Isn't that nice? Other people, however, something like a billion of them, choose to voluntarily give to the church. Do you have a problem with how they spend THEIR money?[/quote]

If the fucking churches had their way, they'd get first dibs under penalty of law. Believe that.

Yes, I have a problem with how they spend their money. Just like I have a problem with a little old lady sending her retirement money to some shyster selling shinola on the television at night, yes I have a problem with an organization that peddles lies and false hope and pretensions at knowledge they can't have.

Oh, of course, the people can give away all their money to whoever and whatever they want. But, I am entitled to my opinion about it. And, I think the priesthood takes advantage of a gullible public. The reference to their congregations as "flocks" and "sheep" are very apt. Sheep get fleeced, and that's what the priesthood does. Well, the lucky one's just get fleeced. Sometimes the shepherds fuck their sheep (Exhibit A: Holland). It's all mutton to the church.

[Svartalf]

The problem with the priesthood is that the divine guidance they claim to have does not exist.

Of course it doesn't, they don't ask me for it, so can't find it anywhere else.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem with the priesthood is that the divine guidance they claim to have does not exist.

...and, I think most of them know it full well, but continue to peddle their lies...

...and, the ones who truly believe it are delusional...

Which is worse?

At least some of them are now admitting they're atheists. Stuck in a job they hate because they don't have anywhere else to go. I wonder what would happen if we offered a retraining program and guaranteed jobs?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem with the priesthood is that the divine guidance they claim to have does not exist.

Of course it doesn't, they don't ask me for it, so can't find it anywhere else.

Good Lord, if I had only known.