View Full Version : Religion
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[
8]
9
10
11
12
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:11 AM
Actually, as long as we're talking about other threads...I think we all decided you were "a sexist" when you said women are unfit to be in certain professions just by virtue of being women. I think we've determined that you're sexist.
I said that I wouldn't like them to be presidents or judges. Most women - I wouldn't make it a rule. I also wouldn't make it a law.
President and judge are government positions which directly affect me and which, as a citizen, I have a right to decide on. What jobs women have in the private sector is none of my concern - that is a matter between employers and women seeking work in those professions.
Yes, I am sexist. I believe there are innate differences between the sexes - very big ones. I believe in sexual discrimination. We all sexually discriminate every day and would be unhappy if we did not. We even have different names for the sexes: "men" and "women". However, I do not believe that women are inferior to men or should have fewer rights, or be forced to do or not do things based on their sex. That is a choice people should make individually and on individual merit.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:11 AM
He's said many sexist comments. He made some very nasty comments about working women in particular.
Quote them. I have asked you a number of times now to quote where I said something you accused me of saying and you haven't once quoted it.Quote my nasty comments about working women. If they are very nasty, it should be easy.
The behavior of some of the women here is not exactly proving my fears about female presidents and judges wrong. In another thread some time ago I was called a "disgusting predator" because during a discussion about whether sex at age 16 is underage for girls I said that it should be left to the individuals to decide in each case and that I didn't have a problem with it. That stripper turned what I said into actual approval of actual underage sex at any age.
In another thread that same stripper called somebody else a "stalker red-flag" because he posted a question about a stripper who came on to him in an SC and asked to see him outside the club as a friend and he agreed to see her.
Later on she denied making the first accusation and she back-pedaled on the second comment, so even she (on reflection) obviously didn't think the comments were reasonable
And currently, in yet another thread (and in this one), two other strippers are turning my comment about feminists, which is historically true according to verifiable words in their own literature, into hatred of working women and a belief that they should be forced to stay in their kitchens.
Those particular women would not make good presidents and judges.
In the thread where I made the comment about women presidents and judges, a stripper (not I) pointed out that some of the strippers who were attacking me over my comment were themselves behaving in such a way (i.e. emotionally and irrationally) as to support my point.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:12 AM
No I don't think it was written to justify evil. Whomever wrote it, probably based it on the values of the time. I don't know who wrote it, or the reason. There are some excellent things in the bible. Some of the teachings from jesus are very noble, wise, and beautiful. Some things in the old testament even are great and things I try to live by. That doesn't excuse the things in the bible that are not. I don't believe the bible to be ALL bad. Its not all good either. Picking the fluffy things out of the bible doesn't cancel out the fucked up shit.
Okay but you got away from my point there, which was: Even without religion and a "holy book", people can devise ideologies with which to lead others into committing evil acts. That is what you are basically saying happened with the Bible - someone wrote "fucked up shit" into it to excuse evil acts, or somebody else used the "fucked up shit" to excuse evil acts after the original person wrote it for whatever other "fucked up" reason.
I disagree. There are plenty of mixed messages in the bible
I know you do. I just haven't heard any good reasons.
Wow. I think we can both agree that getting stoned to death for working on a Sabbath, is far worse than getting your gas shut off for not paying the bill. We survived before we had gas and electricity, and there are still people who live without these luxuries. I sure as hell couldn't, but these harsh penalties you mentioned are not the same as those mentioned in the bible. Torturing someone in hell forever is not the same as losing your phone service.
Stoning is quicker than starving and freezing to death. Even if people don't die without food, gas and electricity - maybe their house, car and job and therefore without money - we would not call it living. My point was, though, that we still punish people harshly today for many things, many of them not even serious crimes.
Yup. Sure. I'm sure he had very good reasons. I'm sure all the bible stories are true. God wanted it, so it had to happen. People certainly do deserve to die for being born into the the wrong religion.
I know you don't believe it. We are not talking about whether or not it is true. We are talking about what the Bible says, i.e. judging it in it's own context. If the Bible is true, then the things it says God did were probably just (i.e. the people He killed were as bad as He said they were) and the religion it prescribes is the right one. If it is not true, then God never did them and therefore they were not unjust; and God may not even exist. The people the Bible claims He killed may not have existed. You can't talk about what the Bible says God did and at the same time talk about it as if it was not true.
Dangerous?? I've done nothing but argue with you over the internet. The bible sucks just as much as the koran. They are both equally ridiculous. I'm not intolerant. I never said I would do anything to stop people from worshiping. They can enjoy it all they want. I'm not going to pretend that it isn't silly, just because its a religous belief.
Yes, that is all you are doing. And all the Bible is is words on paper, and the beliefs of the people who follow it are just that - beliefs inside their heads. You have not even shown that they really are dangerous beliefs. I know many Christians do have dangerous beliefs, but they don't necessarily get those from a sound interpretation of the Bible (whatever that is). But if they are dangerous, they are only dangerous if they act on them, not if they just talk about them on the internet.
Your erroneous beliefs about Christianity in general, if erroneous (and I think they are) could lead to harmful acts too. If you think Christians - all Christians - are dangerous, then it follows that you think they are a potential threat, enemies of society. That belief could lead to restriction of religious liberties or persecution of all people of a particular religion because of the words and actions of some people of that religion.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:14 AM
Okay. I've already stated that I'm not speaking in 100% absolutes here. If I believed in fairies that may not be a problem. My hubby would probably look the other way if I told him I really thought fairies were real. He would probably continue to ignore if I spoke to fairies once in a while, prayed silently to them sometimes, and wore a fairy necklace. He would likely be very embarassed if I told people about my fairies, and would be very upset if I told the kids that the only way to eternal bliss was to have fairy love and believe. He would become alarmed if I gave away money (that could be used for much better purposes) because I believed in some fairy church, or that a fairy would somehow "bless" me later if I gave the "fairies" money. If I started to believe that the fairies had all the knowledge, that I needed to put the fairies first, and if my fairy love took away love and time that should be distributed to my family, thats another problem. If I try to enact policies based on what my fairies want, thats another problem. My delusion is not just simply dancing around in my head anymore. I'm sure my hubby could forgive me if all did was believe, but once it starts interfering with rational thought, and I use my fairies as a factor in major decisions, he would be very concerned. He would have every right to be concerned.
Fairies and God are not the same thing, so none of the above would apply. The analogy doesn't go that far and that was not the original point which you used it to illustrate.
If I believed in fairies and carried on my life without devoting much of my life to it and keep my belief in my head, its not much of a problem. Once I gravitate out of my bubble its something different. If I could see/feel/hear the fairies, and he could not, I would not call him intolerant and ignorant. I know perfectly well its hard to swallow. If he chuckled and said, "Hun, you're goofy. Why do you believe in this nonsense?" I wouldn't get all huffy. I would probably shrug and say, "Well I really see them!" I would be irrational if I really thought I had "great evidence" that he just chose to overlook. If I told him the fairies made the wind blow, he would not be impressed with such "evidence." He would actually be really gullible or ignorant if he did just accept it. He would probably just be "polite" about my new beliefs if all I did was believe and I did not devote too much time to it or teach it to the children. If I became serious, he would probably think about divorcing me or getting me some help.
I was talking about evidence which everyone can verify, not evidence only believers can see. Many people weren't believers until they did see the evidence. Again, God doesn't work like fairies.
If I try to surpress information that conflicts with my fairy evidence, that would be another problem. If I didn't want evolution taught in schools, because I believe that fairies created things, thats another problem. If mass amounts of people made radical claims of fairies and held positions of power, you would be alarmed too. You would wonder how much their fairy belief interfered with decision making. If I said that I had been talking to tinkerbell, and nobody blinked an eye, you might find that odd.
If fairies really did create the universe, evolution really would be wrong, there would probably be evidence of that fact. If so, you would be justified in opposing evolution being taught in schools and there would be no reason for alarm at fairy-worshipers being in positions of power. But since fairies really are fictitious (nobody seriously believes otherwise), having fairy-worshipers in power would be a problem. (The people in power, atheist and theist, actually are as deluded as fairy-worshipers.)
I'm very familiar with the adam and eve story. Its one of my least favorite bible stories. I hate the "lesson" of that story. Its horrible. It does provide an excellent cover for the "Why do bad things happen," question. Totally brilliant. If thats what anyone chooses to believe, then so be it. I'm not going to pretend that the story makes sense or is 'good' in any way whatsoever.
I didn't say you should believe it, just that it is the Christian explanation for why the universe in imperfect but still has design.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:15 AM
Hopper seems to be in favour of liberty for all...who aren't women or atheists or gay. First libertarian of that particular bent I've ever seen.
You're free to do as Hopper says, and you're intolerant if you think what Hopper says is wrong.
I never said that women, atheists or homosexuals should have any special laws imposed on them at all. I didn't call anyone here intolerant just for saying I am wrong. I called them intolerant for their ignorant and hateful attitudes toward religion.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:16 AM
I basically agree. It's not a cock-comparing contest. People think differently. The problem comes when people try and impose their religious beliefs on others.
Both theists and atheists have done that.
Hopper, I'd like to add that you can not call Hitler an atheist if he never claimed to be one. You have no idea what his deepest religious beliefs were.
The Wiki article on Hitler which I gave the link to, right at the start of our discussion of Hitler's religion, says that he did say he was atheist in his private conversations and writings. So we do have some idea - from what he actually said.
Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich. The leader of the Hitler Youth stated "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" from the start, but "considerations of expedience made it impossible" publicly to express this extreme position. His intention was to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.
...
Hitler once stated, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.
Could it be any plainer? No Christian would say that.
And even if you did, neither religion nor atheism caused the holocaust. The ones who are responsible for genocide are the people who committed it.
So those Bible passages about God commanding King Saul to exterminate the Amalekites aren't prescribing genocide of Africans or some other race?
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:18 AM
Of course its not unreasonable to want my hubby to show and say that he loves me. The only problem is that our loved ones are NOT FUCKING INVISIBLE. My hubby does not merely exist based on what other people have told me, and because theres some mens cologne in the bathroom. Comparing the two is illogical. I would never ask my hubby to "prove" his love for me by murdering one of his children. I would never put that sort of agony on him, or expect him to love me "more" than his child. I'm not going to hack my hubby to death if he chose not to love me anymore. Even if I was the best wife one could imagine, and he chose to leave me, he would not be "worthy" of eternal punishment because he didn't love me. I would deserve to go to prison if I harmed him for leaving me.
Belief in the existence of God isn't based only on what other people have said either. That would not even be a reason. There is substantial reason to believe in God, as I already said. It makes no difference whether of not He is visible. Paris is invisible to you and you still believe it exists - because of what other people tell you. Anyone could have put men's cologne in your bathroom. Not anyone could have created the universe and it could not have happened all by itself.
I don't get the theological idea behind God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him either, or of eternal punishment, but you can't make a close comparison between another human being - your husband - and the creator of the universe.
I can't just say to my kids, "I gave you life and a home, love me." I have to give love back. I can't expect to be worshiped just for giving birth to them, and giving them food and water. Its my responsibility to give them food and water. They didn't ask to be born. Expecting unreasonable devotion for something I am suppossed to do is unreasonable. I am also not invisible There aren't other invisble mothers who claim to have given birth to them that could confuse them either. I can't claim they devote their lives to me and love me if I did the bare minimum of parenting.
The Bible says God does "love us back". The reason your children can't worship you is because you are just another human being like them, not the creator of the universe.
Why are your children supposed to love you then? Do you think they are supposed to? I agree it's not out of gratitude or in exchange for giving them birth and providing for them. What's the reason then?
Your children are supposed to love you simply because you are their mother, which gives you the right of authority over them. They should love you for that reason even if all you do is the bare minimum in caring for them. Do you disagree that you have authority over your children? If not, then you must think it would be okay for someone else to take them off of you or for them to leave home if they wish to.
If I factored in that they couldn't see/hear/feel me, it would irrational and cruel for me to demand that they not only loved me, but loved me more than anyone else. I also don't suggest it, I demand it. I also demand that if you don't you are more fucked than you ever imagined. That would be unfair and insane. Add in that if you were taught to love the "wrong" invisible wife, even if you really thought you were right, you are still fucked. That is fucking insane.
Again you are comparing different things. But say you were invisible to your children, which you could easily achieve just by remaining in a different country to them and staying incommunicado. They could still be aware that you exist and have some way to be reasonably sure that you are their mother. They could still love you as their mother, even without having ever met you since birth.
I'm well aware of my many flaws thanks. Being an atheist doesn't excuse my flaws or anyone else's. I just happen to believe that I don't need to beg for forgiveness simply for being born. I don't need to pretend I have an imaginary friend just to make myself feel better. I would love the idea that theres 'something else,' when I die, or that theres someone looking out for me. I just can't wrap my head around it. If the bible god exists, he sucks. I wouldn't want to worship a dick like that.
I don't believe because I have this annoying need for shit to make sense.
I wasn't pointing out your flaws. I know you have them. I was saying that many atheists choose to disbelieve in God because it removes obligations of certain moral codes which religion imposes.
If you don't believe in Christianity, or God, then that's your own outlook.But so far your criticisms of it here are ill-informed and flawed. You can't honestly say it "sucks" if you haven't made a reasonable investigation of the facts. You merely don't have reason to believe it.
I don't have a solid belief in it either. What I am doing here is addressing unfair and ill-informed criticisms of Christianity and theism in general based on what I do know about it.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:22 AM
While I do I find the atheists that "complain about everything," to be silly, I understand. Its not really the same thing when a group of atheists boycotts a store, or wants christmas stuff taken out of schools. It is not on the same level of importance as the stuff xians try to push to support their veiwpoints. I don't believe any suffering will happen if a store doesn't put up a christmas tree, and my elementary school doesn't hang the reindeer pictures in the hallway. I LOVE xmas and I have absolutely no problem with my kids participating in it. I also would not care if they took all the holidays out of schools. Sure they can have a winter break, but not having xmas decor at the school, and doing the crappy holiday play is not the end of the world. Nobody is being punished by this. My kids sang jesus songs in an (optional) xmas program. Xians would not want their kids to sing songs like "Jesus is just like santa," but they would call atheists "annoying" if an atheist says they shouldn't sing religous songs. I don't think they would be keen on it if all the decorations they put up, were of less popular religions. When I ate at McDonald's the other day, xian rock was playing constantly. If I complained about it, I would be a whiny atheist asshole. If "god is a fantasy," was playing at McDonalds then xians would be getting "persecuted" and Mcdonalds would lose a ton of business. If I complain, I'm an asshole. If a xian were to complain, they would have sympathizers all over them. There is a double standard.
I don't see what Santa and reindeer have to do with Christianity, except that Santa supposedly originated as some charitable Christian saint. I don't see the relevance of the reindeer and the north pole at all. Most Christians don't care. Some of them disapprove of the Santa routine because it distracts people from remembering Whose birthday it is.
An atheist has no reason to be offended by public expressions of religion in the same way that Christians have reason to be offended by atheist expressing their opinion in public. Singing songs about Jesus should not offend atheists if they are tolerant of other people's religion - and they should be. What do they care that someone is singing about fairy-tales? They probably teach their own children nursery rhymes. But singing songs about Jesus being a myth - that is getting offensive, because it is directly and specifically criticising somebody else's religion.
However, there are many pop songs on the radio, played in shopping malls and other public spaces everywhere, every day, which do contain lyrics denying God and Christianity, and I don't see Christians holding protest rallies about them. If someone sings about how they don't believe in God, it shouldn't be a problem. Christianity is a dominant western religion and therefore a legitimate target for criticism of those who disagree. But that means public expressions of religion should also not be a problem.
Lets not kid ourselves and think that atheists are just as bad. Atheists are 13% of the population. Its impossible for them to be just as bad, because we don't have support from most of the country. Where I live, good luck finding another atheist. An atheist could only "push their viewpoint," if they tried to mandate that schools put up 'god isn't real so don't believe,' in place of holiday trees and wreaths. Saying put up nothing, because not everyone celebrates it, is not the same thing. Everyone is free to practice and decorate their homes as they wish.
If Christians have more influence than atheists, why is evolution taught in schools and not creationism? How did the idea of evolution even get accepted in the first place? Were all scientists atheists? How odd - in a Christian-dominated society. Why were the ten commandments taken down outside the Supreme Court in Alabama? Why is it illegal to pray publicly in government schools? Why is Richard Dawkins published and pushed in the media? Why don't his religious opponents have widely promoted, best-selling books in major bookstores?
Everyone not celebrating Christmas is not a reason to not put up decorations. The real reason atheists don't want them up is - because they are atheists. Nobody else would care. Do Christians in India protest about public displays of Hinduism? No - they respect the right of the Hindu majority of that country, with their historical Hindu culture, to express that religion. Why don't the "small percentage" of atheists in the U.S. have the same respect?
Christians are just as responsible for decaying morals. I happen to have pretty conservative values towards some things and I am an atheist. I don't support kids out of wedlock, but I understand why it happens. I think its best for a parent to be at home with the kids whenever possible. I'm not saying that working or single parents are bad. Not at all. I was a single parent, I had kids out of wedlock, and I still dance part time. I know its not possible for everyone to be a stay at home mom or dad. I wish I didn't have to work, and I give up things to work as little as possible. I relish my role as mother and homemaker. I wish more women would reconsider staying home with their babies and doing their best to make that happen. I don't believe in divorce when kids are involved (except if necessary, or say abuse), and I don't plan on breaking up my marriage unless necessary and I have no choice. I would try everything to make it work.
I agree with this; possibly even the first sentence in practice.
I wouldn't say people should marry someone ONLY because they got pregnant, but its something to consider if they are pregnant. I don't really care what childfree people do, as long they aren't hurting anyone. I don't care about those who divorce when they are childfree, but this should be the last resort when kids are involved.
Most people support single parenthood no matter what kind of dogma they subscribe to these days. It doesn't sound nice to say that having kids out of wedlock is not good. Just like it doesn't sound good to say that women should be houswives. It also doesn't sound good to tell women that they should submit to their husbands.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:23 AM
You think Martin Luther's bigotted views (assuming this is accurate) in the 16th century made the Nazis (a secular politcal group) kill Jews in the 20th century? Really? In all of the Nazi anti-semitism propaganda in the link I provided, there was only one reference to Luther's bigotted views.
Despite whatever bigotted views Luther had (he was an imperfect man, after all) there is a long history of Protestant support and kinship with Jews. The English Puritans who came to North America in the 17th century linked their fate in the New World to that of biblical Israel. By the early 19th century, the Presbyterian minister John McDonald was urging Christians to help the Jews of Old World Europe to return to Zion. Later in the 19th century, the Methodist preacher William Eugene Blackstone traveled far and wide to campaign for the same cause. Many Anglicans were similarly disposed. In Britain, Lord Balfour described himself as a "Zionist." In March 1948, despite the persistence of anti-Semitism in the United States, fully half of Protestant Americans voiced support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/7/29/main-feature/1/mainline-protestants-and-israel/r
It doesn't sound to me like Luther's bigotry is incorporated as a pillar of Protestants churches.
I'm with you that Luther's ideas weren't any basis for Hitler's. Hitler was just using reference to Luther to give his ideas more credence. Luther would not have supported Hitler if he were alive at the time.
However, Zionism is not a Jewish movement and never was. A minority of Jews advocated return to Israel in the 19th C, but the movement was begun by non-orthodox Jews and was originally only entertained among a small handful of intellectuals. Orthodox Judaism rejects Zionism to this day - they are just shouted down in the media. The majority of Zionists are Christians. There are some Zionist orthodox Jews, but even many of these oppose the mainstream, actual Zionist movement and its agenda.
The majority of Zionists are Christians - those who believe the state of Israel plays a part in the events described in their interpretation of "end times" prophecy.
Israel is also not Jewish in the religious sense. Orthodox Jews live there, but they don't run it and they didn't create it. It was created by the United Nations and has since served to maintain a politically and financially profitable war in the region ever since. The UN pushed the native inhabitants out of "Israel" and virtually forced Jewish refugees into it and put some socialist, atheist "Jews" (by descent only) in charge of it.
Do you think all the elites at the UN - the highly paid advisers, generals and statesmen - could have foreseen conflict as the outcome of that? Better, could they have foreseen any other outcome than conflict? Is there any way they could not have foreseen conflict as the only outcome? No. The only conclusion is that the UN created Israel because conflict is what they wanted. Stupidity is not a sensible explanation. Israel was created for political and financial ends.
Jews in Europe were not interested in moving to Palestine. The refugees who did populate "Israel" went there because Allied countries refused them entry when they fled Nazi occupied areas during and after the war. It was all the idea of the Rothchilds, Lord Balfour, Chaim Weisman and a few other elites and their motives were nothing to do with Judaism.
Hitler was a Zionist. He advocated a Jewish "homeland" - so he could ship them all out of Europe and segregate them in one place. In fact, many of the Jews who first moved to Israel around the time it was created were refugees from Nazi-occupied areas. Hitler was an allie of the Imams in Palestine. The non-Jewish Zionists in Europe and America may well have had the same motives.
Luther himself might have been happy to see European Jews disappear to Palestine because of his disagreements with them - not out of support for Jews.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:24 AM
There is no "machine" or any evidence of creation. Your whole evidence is "it looks created, so it was created", or "it's complex, so it was created". There is zero evidence that the universe came about by anything other than natural processes. Your argument makes about as much sense as someone who never saw a tree saying, this looks complex, it must have been built by someone, even though we know trees come into existence naturally from seeds.
Human cells are composed of molecular machines, including those which replicate DNA and RNA. Very complex machines, more complex than any made by man, and research has not even reached within sight of the bottom of this complexity.
Things in nature "look created" because they have design. Design is solid evidence of creation. Not absolute proof, but evidence - massive evidence. There is zero - zero - zero evidence that the universe came about by natural processes. Zero. And plenty of evidence dead against it.
Trees come into existence by natural processes, but who designed them to do that? Who designed the process by which trees grow from seeds, produce seeds from which other trees grow? Or do you think they just form themselves accidentally out of soil? You know they come from seeds, right? Growth of trees is a different type of natural process to that by which evolutionists claim the universe and life in it arose. One is programmed and ordered, the other is chaotic and accidental.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:24 AM
The Puritans weren't followers of Luther. Many Germans were. Hitler expressed admiration for him. Here's what Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, had to say after the Kristallnacht:
"On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest anti-Semite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews."
Many Christian leaders, along with many of all other kinds of Germans, came under the influence of the Nazi regime's ideology. There is a parallel today with the "Religious Right" supporters of the Republican Party and the liberal churches who espouse liberal ideology. It is the political and philosophical fashion. It has nothing to do with Christianity - Christians have merely come under it's influence. In Nazi Germany, Nazi ideas were just as in vogue as today's political ideas (both left and right) are for people today.
Christianity didn't influence Nazi leaders, it was the reverse: Nazi leaders influenced some Christians.
Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:25 AM
Oh, and I found something to save me the bother of refuting Hopper's spurious arguments:
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
If you stack the killings by all theists of every religion throughout all of history and all over the planet against those of atheists, yes theism will win. But I never said atheists have killed more people than theists or that all theistic religions are or were good ones. I was defending theism, not all theistic religions. A number of times I have pointed out that flawed thinking based on theism leads to wrong religions or perversions of good religions. I criticised Islam here as a wrong form of theism, so obviously I don't defend all theistic religions.
Note that Mussolini converted to Catholicism in 1927. Someone has been playing fast and loose with the facts, methinks.
Yes, but not me - take a look at the Wiki article that article references for that claim, if you haven't already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini#Religious_beliefs
I didn't read the whole article, but it doesn't say anywhere in the section on Mussolini's religious beliefs that he converted to Catholicism in 1927 or at any other time. In fact, he was already officially a Catholic (though atheist in thought), since he was baptised into the Church as a baby. Note that the article says he "came close to being excommunicated from the church" some time after he signed the concordat and treaty with the Vatican in 1929, because he denounced and suppressed Catholicism in Italy. He was Catholic by baptism, but not a model Catholic in thought and action.
ETA - http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
In a Country where 75% of the population is nominally Christian, and with many immigrants (or descendants of) from countries with other religions, you are going to have more theist criminals than atheist ones. Note that 18381 out of the total of 74731 responded "unknown/no answer", which would fit your own definition of atheist, i.e. someone who is not a theist..
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-timeline.htm (Hitler Youth oath includes reference to God)
The "God" of the Nazis was Germany, or the German race. Hitler explicitly said that on a number of occasions. Those prayers and oaths certainly don't sound like they make the Christian God the object of worship. They don't even mention Jesus. They put the Furhrer in place of Jesus. If they really thought they were Christians, they were deluded.
Kellydancer
09-02-2010, 11:33 AM
Quote them. I have asked you a number of times now to quote where I said something you accused me of saying and you haven't once quoted it.Quote my nasty comments about working women. If they are very nasty, it should be easy.
I said that I wouldn't like them to be presidents or judges. Most women - I wouldn't make it a rule. I also wouldn't make it a law.
President and judge are government positions which directly affect me and which, as a citizen, I have a right to decide on. What jobs women have in the private sector is none of my concern - that is a matter between employers and women seeking work in those professions.
Yes, I am sexist. I believe there are innate differences between the sexes - very big ones. I believe in sexual discrimination. We all sexually discriminate every day and would be unhappy if we did not. We even have different names for the sexes: "men" and "women". However, I do not believe that women are inferior to men or should have fewer rights, or be forced to do or not do things based on their sex. That is a choice people should make individually and on individual merit.
Thank you for proving my point RIGHT ON THE SAME PAGE. This is good because I am too lazy to sort through all the comments you've made, but you've said some very sexist comments. You are a chauvinist.
Btw, when you say you wouldn't like women to be judges, guess what, I don't want chauvinist pigs to be judges because that affects my life. I dealt with one of these when I went to court because I was assaulted and the judge told me I deserved it because "women are uppity". That is FAR worse than a woman being a judge. There are many quality women judges.
flickad
09-02-2010, 09:15 PM
Just quickly for now, Hopper - my definition of atheist is not someone who is not a theist and I never said it was. An atheist is someone who thinks there is no god. Someone who is not a theist could be, for instance, agnostic. Please learn to quote accurately or, alternatively, STFU.
Note that atheists are, in respect to their proportions in the general public, underrepresented in the prison population. The reverse applies to Christians.
Deciding who is or who is not fit to be a judge or president on the basis of gender and some arguments on the internet simply proves that you are sexist, no matter how much you may protest about that. You also did state earlier that some women do 'belong' in the kitchen. People belong where they wish to and are able to belong, whatever is between their legs. Thankfully, you don't get to decide these things and never will, though I do pity your female partner if you have one. You, on the other hand, probably 'belong' on another site that would be more sympathetic to your bigotry, given that most people here are women and you've probably succeeded in pissing all of them off. Perhaps the Landover Baptist forum would suit your needs, though it does carry the disadvantage of being a parody whereas your views, unfortunately, are not.
The bible does command genocide of the nation of Amalek. Who that nation is or was we don't know. My example was to do with what you would say if the nation was interpreted to be an existing one, say Africa. I did not state that it actually was Africa because obviously I don't know that.
Words have meanings. To insist that word be used to express those particular meanings is not playing word games - it is using those words to express what they actually mean. Twisting the definitions as is your habit is the word game, not keeping a word or term to its proper usage. I'm calling you out on your one-man band of Newspeak, is all.
Oh, and fascism and national socialism are, in fact, quite separate. Just for your edification.
flickad
09-02-2010, 09:26 PM
I never said that women, atheists or homosexuals should have any special laws imposed on them at all. I didn't call anyone here intolerant just for saying I am wrong. I called them intolerant for their ignorant and hateful attitudes toward religion.
Your attitudes are far more ignorant and hateful, and to use your own line, no-one here has called for a ban on religious worship.
eagle2
09-02-2010, 10:54 PM
The behavior of some of the women here is not exactly proving my fears about female presidents and judges wrong.
Your behavior here is making men, Christians, and libertarians look like fools.
Kellydancer
09-02-2010, 10:59 PM
Your behavior here is making men, Christians, and libertarians look like fools.
I wish I could say he was rare with his attitude but I've met a few "Christian" men who thought being a Christian meant being a chauvinist pig. Friends of mine attended a church like that and the racism and sexism at the church really frightened me. I'd never date a guy with attitudes that think women make poor judges and his other views. I seriously doubt he's really a Libertarian either.
Elvia
09-02-2010, 11:33 PM
However, I do not believe that women are inferior to men or should have fewer rights, or be forced to do or not do things based on their sex. That is a choice people should make individually and on individual merit.
No, you just think they should be denied certain opportunities simply for being born women. Great, I'm glad we cleared that up, that's much better ::)
Yes, I am sexist.
Please never complain about anyone calling you sexist again.
hot4ablackchick
09-07-2010, 02:08 PM
Fairies and God are not the same thing, so none of the above would apply. The analogy doesn't go that far and that was not the original point which you used it to illustrate.
Right. My Fairies are way cooler
I was talking about evidence which everyone can verify, not evidence only believers can see. Many people weren't believers until they did see the evidence. Again, God doesn't work like fairies.
I can supply the same evidence for my fairies. A devout muslim, and a devout catholic could both supply with me "evidence" for the existence of their gods. Both can't be right, but both are sure they are. They could both supply me with "evidence" and "personal experiences" with their god. A mormon could tell me that they were "right." Believers absolutely see what they want to believe.
If fairies really did create the universe, evolution really would be wrong, there would probably be evidence of that fact. If so, you would be justified in opposing evolution being taught in schools and there would be no reason for alarm at fairy-worshipers being in positions of power. But since fairies really are fictitious (nobody seriously believes otherwise), having fairy-worshipers in power would be a problem. (The people in power, atheist and theist, actually are as deluded as fairy-worshipers.)
I wouldn't be justified. You're right. If enough people believe in it, then it must be true. If most people don't take it seriously, its false.
I didn't say you should believe it, just that it is the Christian explanation for why the universe in imperfect but still has design.
Sigh.........
hot4ablackchick
09-07-2010, 02:38 PM
An atheist has no reason to be offended by public expressions of religion in the same way that Christians have reason to be offended by atheist expressing their opinion in public. Singing songs about Jesus should not offend atheists if they are tolerant of other people's religion - and they should be. What do they care that someone is singing about fairy-tales? They probably teach their own children nursery rhymes. But singing songs about Jesus being a myth - that is getting offensive, because it is directly and specifically criticising somebody else's religion.
I don't care. I'm not offended by xian rock playing or holiday decor. I understand why some atheists find it bothersome because there IS a double standard. Xians are persecuted and atheists are annoying if they complain about anything
However, there are many pop songs on the radio, played in shopping malls and other public spaces everywhere, every day, which do contain lyrics denying God and Christianity, and I don't see Christians holding protest rallies about them. If someone sings about how they don't believe in God, it shouldn't be a problem. Christianity is a dominant western religion and therefore a legitimate target for criticism of those who disagree. But that means public expressions of religion should also not be a problem.
I have never heard an anti religous song being played in a mall, or at mcdonalds. It seems common for businesses to keep it on the xian rock station around my parts. Which is fine, its not offensive to me. I was pointing out that anti religion songs being played constantly would not have the same pull. Nobody would call a xian an asshole because they asked mcdonalds NOT to play god is a jerk. An atheist looks "whiny" if he requests the same.
If Christians have more influence than atheists, why is evolution taught in schools and not creationism? How did the idea of evolution even get accepted in the first place? Were all scientists atheists? How odd - in a Christian-dominated society. Why were the ten commandments taken down outside the Supreme Court in Alabama? Why is it illegal to pray publicly in government schools? Why is Richard Dawkins published and pushed in the media? Why don't his religious opponents have widely promoted, best-selling books in major bookstores?
There are plenty of theists who accept evolution. There are atheists who reject evolution. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is not just "atheists" who reject the ten commandments. Anyone who isn't fond of the bible, who isn't xian, and/or believes in separation of church of state, would likely reject the ten commandments being put up. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). That is all. There is nothing else to it. I lurk on an atheist forum and there are plenty on there who reject evolution. They just don't insert magical jesus to answer life's questions. Yeah, atheists are gaining speed. Dawkins had a popular book. Big whoop. But look around. I see churches, xian stores, crosses, etc. This is very much a xian dominated society.
Everyone not celebrating Christmas is not a reason to not put up decorations. The real reason atheists don't want them up is - because they are atheists. Nobody else would care. Do Christians in India protest about public displays of Hinduism? No - they respect the right of the Hindu majority of that country, with their historical Hindu culture, to express that religion. Why don't the "small percentage" of atheists in the U.S. have the same respect?
I'm not going to out and fight xmas decor. I'm not going to stomp the baby jesus figurines. I decorate my house to the nine on xmas. I put up all sorts of decor. Its not that important to me if schools lose the "right" to do so. If another person chose to, I'll support it, but Ive got better things to do with me time.
I agree with this; possibly even the first sentence in practice.
Wow.........
hot4ablackchick
09-07-2010, 03:06 PM
Belief in the existence of God isn't based only on what other people have said either. That would not even be a reason. There is substantial reason to believe in God, as I already said. It makes no difference whether of not He is visible. Paris is invisible to you and you still believe it exists - because of what other people tell you. Anyone could have put men's cologne in your bathroom. Not anyone could have created the universe and it could not have happened all by itself.
I could go to Paris. I could verify its existence quite easily. Not the same thing. I cannot "verify" god until I am dead, unless I have a delusion, er uh, I mean unless he were to reveal himself to me. You are simply asserting, "We are obviously designed because we look designed and there is no other explanation of 'how we got here,' therefore xians are rational and their beleif makes sense! Inserting magic to answer complicated and possibly unknowable questions is awesome!!!"
I don't get the theological idea behind God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him either, or of eternal punishment, but you can't make a close comparison between another human being - your husband - and the creator of the universe.
Oh I know! Being creator of the universe also give you license to be a tremendous cock sucker. We are a pathetic bunch us mortals. We deserve whatever god doles out. We were born filthy. Thank goodness god forgives us because we all sooooo worthy of the hellfire. I only hope he makes an exception for me and my blasphemous ways! I am gonna beg for forgiveness. Really. I just want to escape the moral codes, thats why I'm an atheist. I just love sinning!
The Bible says God does "love us back". The reason your children can't worship you is because you are just another human being like them, not the creator of the universe.
Why are your children supposed to love you then? Do you think they are supposed to? I agree it's not out of gratitude or in exchange for giving them birth and providing for them. What's the reason then?
Your children are supposed to love you simply because you are their mother, which gives you the right of authority over them. They should love you for that reason even if all you do is the bare minimum in caring for them. Do you disagree that you have authority over your children? If not, then you must think it would be okay for someone else to take them off of you or for them to leave home if they wish to.
Again you are comparing different things. But say you were invisible to your children, which you could easily achieve just by remaining in a different country to them and staying incommunicado. They could still be aware that you exist and have some way to be reasonably sure that you are their mother. They could still love you as their mother, even without having ever met you since birth.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: That is so deluded I can't even address it. You just sank to a whole new level of insanity.
I wasn't pointing out your flaws. I know you have them. I was saying that many atheists choose to disbelieve in God because it removes obligations of certain moral codes which religion imposes.
Right. Xians have done such a good job living up to the moral codes. They don't cherry pick whats good, and disregard the crap they don't like that inconviences them. Right. Most xians live like the Duggars. I am an athiests so I can do some murderin' if I feel like it and treat people like complete shit because there is nobody to "punish me later."
If you don't believe in Christianity, or God, then that's your own outlook.But so far your criticisms of it here are ill-informed and flawed. You can't honestly say it "sucks" if you haven't made a reasonable investigation of the facts. You merely don't have reason to believe it.
Right. I've never read the bible and I was never a xian ::)
I don't have a solid belief in it either. What I am doing here is addressing unfair and ill-informed criticisms of Christianity and theism in general based on what I do know about it.
Sure you don't
Kellydancer
09-07-2010, 03:40 PM
I can supply the same evidence for my fairies. A devout muslim, and a devout catholic could both supply with me "evidence" for the existence of their gods. Both can't be right, but both are sure they are. They could both supply me with "evidence" and "personal experiences" with their god. A mormon could tell me that they were "right." Believers absolutely see what they want to believe
This is the one thing that I question about religion, that is to say how different religions look at things. Every religion has a different view on something and that makes me question because how could one religion believe something and another couldn't?
People (not here) often accuse the Catholic Church of being prudish, out of touch etc and to some extent all religions are, but not as bad as they could be. For instance, yes the Catholic Church is pro life, but this swings across to any life or death case, such as abortion and death penalty. They are against abortion, which I have personal issues with, but they also have various organizations that help these women so I am fine with that. They are also big on helping the poor and this is the one issue I wish all churches would be involved with. Too many churches are all about raising money strictly for them.
Why bring up all of that? Because many religions and churches today aren't serving their original intent and don't appear to be very Christianlike. An exboyfriend attended a church that hated minorities and women and thought white males were natural rulers. They judged people because they lived different than them. To me, these churches aren't true Christians.
jack0177057
09-07-2010, 04:41 PM
^ Here is what is ironic - religious faith is probably at its best and purest when it is being persecuted. If becoming Christian means that you will be persecuted and might be put to death for your beliefs, then (a) you must be a serious believer to risk your life in this way, and (b) there can be no ulterior motive, because nothing "good" can come with being Christian, other living your faith.
The problem is that the opposite is true today. There are far too many benefits and rewards in our society for being or pretending to be religious. Anybody can start a new Christian church and become extremely wealthy almost overnight. Politically, being or pretending to be a Christian will open many doors. Obama got his political jump start from a powerful black Christian church in Chicago, and there are very powerful churches in DC that can make or break a political career. Even the most liberal and anti-religious politicians in the US go to church for photo ops and profess to be Christians.
So, Machievelism wins the day. Many people use the church as a tool to advance their personal agendas - whether their goal is money, power or politics. There is corruption everywhere. The Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church because they thought its power was too centralized and this led to immense corruption. But, the opposite is true also. In the decentralized Protestant tradition, any Larry, Curly or Moe can open a new church and collect donations with unsupervised management of church money. The televangelists have no qualms about paying themselves exorbitant salaries, living in multi-million dollar homes and collecting personal toys like exotic foreign cars, planes, etc.
Aside from corruption and ulterior motives - another big problem is that the anti-religion people/media sensationalize the corruption of the churches and give 0% coverage to the good works of the churches. Faith-based programs are more successful than the government at treating addictions, improving communities, feeding and providing shelter to the poor, educating the poor, placing unwanted children with adoptive parents, childcare, etc., etc., etc., but nobody wants to hear any of that. People only want to hear sensational stories about church corruption, scandal and hypocricy.
Kellydancer
09-07-2010, 08:52 PM
^ Here is what is ironic - religious faith is probably at its best and purest when it is being persecuted. If becoming Christian means that you will be persecuted and might be put to death for your beliefs, then (a) you must be a serious believer to risk your life in this way, and (b) there can be no ulterior motive, because nothing "good" can come with being Christian, other living your faith.
The problem is that the opposite is true today. There are far too many benefits and rewards in our society for being or pretending to be religious. Anybody can start a new Christian church and become extremely wealthy almost overnight. Politically, being or pretending to be a Christian will open many doors. Obama got his political jump start from a powerful black Christian church in Chicago, and there are very powerful churches in DC that can make or break a political career. Even the most liberal and anti-religious politicians in the US go to church for photo ops and profess to be Christians.
So, Machievelism wins the day. Many people use the church as a tool to advance their personal agendas - whether their goal is money, power or politics. There is corruption everywhere. The Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church because they thought its power was too centralized and this led to immense corruption. But, the opposite is true also. In the decentralized Protestant tradition, any Larry, Curly or Moe can open a new church and collect donations with unsupervised management of church money. The televangelists have no qualms about paying themselves exorbitant salaries, living in multi-million dollar homes and collecting personal toys like exotic foreign cars, planes, etc.
I think there needs to be stricter guidelines to who can start a church. I used to live across the street from a church that actually had a mall inside their doors. There was another church where the "minister" owned a mansion and several cars. He was brainwashing people to donate their paychecks and he was using it for this purpose. I know they were going to go after him, but so far hasn't. Then there is Louis Farrakhan who has bought several Mercedes under the guise of needing them for Nation of Islam people. There's another minister here who is corrupt and got his people from his church into a local government agency. So much corruption.
Aside from corruption and ulterior motives - another big problem is that the anti-religion people/media sensationalize the corruption of the churches and give 0% coverage to the good works of the churches. Faith-based programs are more successful than the government at treating addictions, improving communities, feeding and providing shelter to the poor, educating the poor, placing unwanted children with adoptive parents, childcare, etc., etc., etc., but nobody wants to hear any of that. People only want to hear sensational stories about church corruption, scandal and hypocricy.
True. I'm always hearing stories about the Catholic Church in particular and how "evil" they are with all the molesting priests. Yes, that is a problem, but things like that happen in all religions and to all kinds of people. They never talk about how the church runs all these charities. I actually wasn't aware of all of them until I started attending church and found out they run several adoption organizations and help unwed mothers by collecting diapers and bottles. I use the Catholic Church as an example but many other churches are the same way. I am pro choice, but think of pro life people who help in a much better way than I do the anti choice protesters. I had a wonderful teacher years ago (mentioned him earlier in another thread) who was prolife but he took in unwed mothers and him and his wife helped them out. I think that was wonderful and this to me truly is a Christian. But of course the media never talks about people like him.
KS_Stevia
09-08-2010, 12:51 AM
I said that I wouldn't like them to be presidents or judges. Most women - I wouldn't make it a rule. I also wouldn't make it a law.
President and judge are government positions which directly affect me and which, as a citizen, I have a right to decide on. What jobs women have in the private sector is none of my concern - that is a matter between employers and women seeking work in those professions.
.
Perhaps I've missed some of this convo, but there have been several female world leaders and judges that are intelligent, logical women. You know who they are. I'm not going to name them because its not needed. So, despite at least a small percentage of successfully female judges and presidents, you would stop it all today and simply ban them all because they are female? Makes no sense.....
Re: theism....it makes less sense to me than chaos and atheism. So be it, ultimately there is faith, or lack of faith. Big
jack0177057
09-10-2010, 12:27 PM
^ I think the world would be a better place if females ruled the world in thigh-high boots and latex uniforms.
24590
tempest666
09-13-2010, 02:01 AM
Exit from organized religion
On July 29, 2010, Rice publicly renounced her dedication to her Roman Catholic faith, while remaining committed to Christ, on her Facebook page:
"For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else." [17]
A few hours later she added the following:
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.” [17]
She reaffirmed her faith in Christ with stance of non-adherence to organized Christianity an hour or so later:
"My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become." [18]
Subsequently, in an interview, Rice further clarified her statements:
My commitment to Christ remains at the heart and center of my life. Transformation in Him is radical and ongoing. That I feel now that I am called to be an outsider for Him, to step away from the words, "Christian" and "Christianity" is something that my conscience demands of me. I feel that my faith in Him demands this of me. I know of no other way to express how I must remove myself from those things which seek to separate me from Him. [19]
In an August 7, 2010 interview with the Los Angeles Times, she elaborated on her view regarding being a member of a Christian church: "I feel much more morally comfortable walking away from organized religion. I respect that there are all kinds of denominations and all kinds of churches, but it's the entire controversy, the entire conversation that I need to walk away from right now."[20] In response to the question, "[H]ow do you follow Christ without a church?" Rice replied: "I think the basic ritual is simply prayer. It's talking to God, putting things in the hands of God, trusting that you're living in God's world and praying for God's guidance. And being absolutely faithful to the core principles of Jesus' teachings.[20]
Just found this out.......hmmmmm maybe I'll start reading her books again....
Kellydancer
09-13-2010, 10:53 AM
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.” [17]
If she's talking about the Catholic Church, they aren't anti Democrat. Many Catholics have been Democrats, including the Kennedys and many of my senators from Illinois. Sure they are anti abortion, but they are pro life across the board, including death penalty. I personally support abortion but I don't think I would ever have an abortion myself because I would feel I was killing my child. Sounds like a confusing thought, but not really. It boils down to I believe women should have the right to choose, but I wouldn't have an abortion except in certain cases (rape and my health and probably disability). I strongly disapprove of women using abortion as a form of birth control because that is very immoral. The Catholic Church actually believes in universal healthcare and while they aren't as woman friendly as they could be, most religions aren't. At least girls can now be altar servers and can be involved in various groups. I actually believe that it's possible that women will eventually be priests because there is a strong movement with that and many people are admitting it probably will eventually happen.
While many Christian religions aren't woman friendly, let us not forget that it's not just a Christian thing. Islam is a far more anti woman religion than Christianity.
Elvia
09-13-2010, 10:09 PM
^^^ I'm not convinced the Catholic Church is "pro-life" across the board. Remember what happened in Brazil last year? A woman brought her 9 year old daughter into the doctor when she complained of stomach pains. It turned out she was pregnant with twins, and her stepfather had been raping her. She was only a child, and a small one at that. The doctor said it was unlikely she would survive the pregnancy, so they performed an abortion ( which is legal in Brazil in cases of rape or when it is necessary for the mother's health, so it fits on both counts). How did the Catholic church respond? By ex-communicating the doctor, the mother, and the nurses her were involved in the abortion, all the while screaming about those fetuses that were denied life. Where was the concern for the 9 year old girl who likely would have died had the abortion not happened? I guess her life wasn't so sacred.
Kellydancer
09-13-2010, 10:53 PM
^^^ I'm not convinced the Catholic Church is "pro-life" across the board. Remember what happened in Brazil last year? A woman brought her 9 year old daughter into the doctor when she complained of stomach pains. It turned out she was pregnant with twins, and her stepfather had been raping her. She was only a child, and a small one at that. The doctor said it was unlikely she would survive the pregnancy, so they performed an abortion ( which is legal in Brazil in cases of rape or when it is necessary for the mother's health, so it fits on both counts). How did the Catholic church respond? By ex-communicating the doctor, the mother, and the nurses her were involved in the abortion, all the while screaming about those fetuses that were denied life. Where was the concern for the 9 year old girl who likely would have died had the abortion not happened? I guess her life wasn't so sacred.
I had forgotten about that case, and that was horrendous. That was a case the Catholic Church should have butted out of. I wonder if part of it is Brazil's culture? I'm just guessing on that part. That sickened me because the step dad should have been excommunicated, not anyone else. I know if my daughter was to get pregnant at that age I would have taken her to have an abortion.
eagle2
09-13-2010, 11:53 PM
The Catholic Church is not pro-life by any means. The most recent example would be the church's protecting and covering up for priests who were sexually abusing children. Priests sexual abuse has lead to 13 suicides in Belgium.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100910/ap_on_re_eu/church_abuse_belgium
In addition, the Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem cell research, which could potentially save many lives, even though the stem cells would be destroyed anyway. Also, throughout history, the Catholic Church has been one of the most murderous organizations ever, with the Crusades, Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake, and countless other atrocities.
It's sad that Jack and Hopper seem to admire this organization so much.
Kellydancer
09-14-2010, 12:20 AM
The Catholic Church is not pro-life by any means. The most recent example would be the church's protecting and covering up for priests who were sexually abusing children. Priests sexual abuse has lead to 13 suicides in Belgium.
In addition, the Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem cell research, which could potentially save many lives, even though the stem cells would be destroyed anyway. Also, throughout history, the Catholic Church has been one of the most murderous organizations ever, with the Crusades, Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake, and countless other atrocities.
It's sad that Jack and Hopper seem to admire this organization so much.
There are many things I dislike about the Catholic Church, but to be honest these problems are in all religions, not just Catholic. We just happen to hear about it more with regards to Catholics. I've always said that if they allowed priests to marry (many years ago priests and even popes could be married) and allowed women priests we wouldn't see all these sexual abuse cases that are happening. I support stem cell research completely and think it's ridiculous when they fight this.
Dirty Ernie
09-14-2010, 07:57 AM
but to be honest these problems are in all religions, not just Catholic. We just happen to hear about it more with regards to Catholics.
This is simply not the case. The Church and it's higher-ups, men one would assume posessed of greater piety and morality, engaged in an institutional cover-up to systematically foist these monsters upon other unsuspecting dioceses through transfers with full knowledge of their atrocities against innocent children in order to protect the Church's reputation and wealth. There is not a singular greater, non-scientific argument for the lack of God's existence than the lack of any divine retribution upon such an establishment. God had no problem turning Lot's wife ino a pillar of salt for merely gazing upon the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet He sits silently by while lives are destroyed in His name in the most immoral of ways.
Biblical Fail
jack0177057
09-14-2010, 08:27 AM
The sex scandals of the Catholic Church have made the Catholic Church the scapegoat and distracted people from the real problem. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in adults characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent. Its is EVERYWHERE. If you look up online at the registered sex offenders database, you probably have several of them living in your zip code.
The medical community needs to figure out a way to kill all the sexual desire of these sick people. If the mecidal community can't do it, then, we need to treat these people like dangerous predatory animals and keep them locked up forever.
I agree that the Catholic Church should have reported these people to the authorities and I am not saying we shouldn't be angry at the Catholic Church, but I am saying this - all the attention placed on the Catholic Church, has distracted us from looking at sex abuse problems EVERYWHERE else.
While 1.7 per cent of Catholic priests have been guilty of paedophile, 10 per cent of Protestant clergy has been found guilty of the same crime. 12 per cent of 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual relations with a parishioner, 38 per cent accepted to have had inappropriate sexual contact, 41.8 per cent of women clergy reported unwanted sexual behaviour, 17 per cent of lay women have been sexually harassed (study by United Methodist Church, USA)
http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/903104/-/a2vhmjz/-/index.html
See also:
http://www.reformation.com/CSA/methodistabuse.html
But, before you anti-religious folks start believing that organized religion is the problem, look at your public schools, your neighbors, your police, and even your family... Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.
According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
We don't trust priests anymore, but the police are the "good guys", right?
NEW PATTERNS OF POLICE ABUSE
Police sexual abuse of women includes a disturbing pattern of police officer exploitation of teenage girls. The majority of these cases, moreover, involve girls who are enrolled in police department-sponsored Explorers programs designed to give teens an understanding of police work.
...
This report found 72 cases of police officer sexual abuse of teenage girls (and some boys),...
1). Forty-three percent of the 72 cases involved police officers and girls or boys in police Explorer programs (31 total)...
The number of both police officers and victims exceeds the number of 189 cases in the combined 2002 and 2003 reports.
http://www.unomaha.edu/criminaljustice/PDF/dwf2003final.pdf
Basically, anywhere that children are entrusted to adults -- you are likely to find pedophiles.
Also, we should be critical of the media that hyper-sexualizes young teenagers - music videos, Halloween costumes (dressing little girls like little street hookers), fashion, etc.
Kellydancer
09-14-2010, 12:15 PM
This is simply not the case. The Church and it's higher-ups, men one would assume posessed of greater piety and morality, engaged in an institutional cover-up to systematically foist these monsters upon other unsuspecting dioceses through transfers with full knowledge of their atrocities against innocent children in order to protect the Church's reputation and wealth. There is not a singular greater, non-scientific argument for the lack of God's existence than the lack of any divine retribution upon such an establishment. God had no problem turning Lot's wife ino a pillar of salt for merely gazing upon the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet He sits silently by while lives are destroyed in His name in the most immoral of ways.
Biblical Fail
The Southern Baptists are far more anti woman than the Catholic Church. Molesting is a problem everywhere, but the anti Catholic media hates Catholics so we never hear about other religions.
Kellydancer
09-14-2010, 12:18 PM
The sex scandals of the Catholic Church have made the Catholic Church the scapegoat and distracted people from the real problem. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in adults characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent. Its is EVERYWHERE. If you look up online at the registered sex offenders database, you probably have several of them living in your zip code.
The medical community needs to figure out a way to kill all the sexual desire of these sick people. If the mecidal community can't do it, then, we need to treat these people like dangerous predatory animals and keep them locked up forever.
I agree that the Catholic Church should have reported these people to the authorities and I am not saying we shouldn't be angry at the Catholic Church, but I am saying this - all the attention placed on the Catholic Church, has distracted us from looking at sex abuse problems EVERYWHERE else.
While 1.7 per cent of Catholic priests have been guilty of paedophile, 10 per cent of Protestant clergy has been found guilty of the same crime. 12 per cent of 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual relations with a parishioner, 38 per cent accepted to have had inappropriate sexual contact, 41.8 per cent of women clergy reported unwanted sexual behaviour, 17 per cent of lay women have been sexually harassed (study by United Methodist Church, USA)
See also:
But, before you anti-religious folks start believing that organized religion is the problem, look at your public schools, your neighbors, your police, and even your family... Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.
We don't trust priests anymore, but the police are the "good guys", right?
NEW PATTERNS OF POLICE ABUSE
Police sexual abuse of women includes a disturbing pattern of police officer exploitation of teenage girls. The majority of these cases, moreover, involve girls who are enrolled in police department-sponsored Explorers programs designed to give teens an understanding of police work.
...
This report found 72 cases of police officer sexual abuse of teenage girls (and some boys),...
1). Forty-three percent of the 72 cases involved police officers and girls or boys in police Explorer programs (31 total)...
The number of both police officers and victims exceeds the number of 189 cases in the combined 2002 and 2003 reports.
Basically, anywhere that children are entrusted to adults -- you are likely to find pedophiles.
Also, we should be critical of the media that hyper-sexualizes young teenagers - music videos, Halloween costumes (dressing little girls like little street hookers), fashion, etc.
I agree with everything you said. Everyone is quick to bash the Catholics but what about other religions? I've met far more sexist Baptists than I have Catholics.
tempest666
09-14-2010, 12:49 PM
Just to clarify, this is Anne Rice. I forgot I didn't post the whole thing so sorry if you were scratching your heads wondering WTF!
eagle2
09-14-2010, 07:59 PM
The sex scandals of the Catholic Church have made the Catholic Church the scapegoat and distracted people from the real problem. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in adults characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent. Its is EVERYWHERE. If you look up online at the registered sex offenders database, you probably have several of them living in your zip code.
The medical community needs to figure out a way to kill all the sexual desire of these sick people. If the mecidal community can't do it, then, we need to treat these people like dangerous predatory animals and keep them locked up forever.
I agree that the Catholic Church should have reported these people to the authorities and I am not saying we shouldn't be angry at the Catholic Church, but I am saying this - all the attention placed on the Catholic Church, has distracted us from looking at sex abuse problems EVERYWHERE else.
While 1.7 per cent of Catholic priests have been guilty of paedophile, 10 per cent of Protestant clergy has been found guilty of the same crime. 12 per cent of 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual relations with a parishioner, 38 per cent accepted to have had inappropriate sexual contact, 41.8 per cent of women clergy reported unwanted sexual behaviour, 17 per cent of lay women have been sexually harassed (study by United Methodist Church, USA)
http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/903104/-/a2vhmjz/-/index.html
See also:
http://www.reformation.com/CSA/methodistabuse.html
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
"Of all the world's religions, however, the Catholic Church has been hardest hit by scandals involving adults having sex with children. In the US, churches have paid more than $2bn (£1.25bn) in compensation to victims. In Ireland, reports into clerical sexual abuse have rocked both the Catholic hierarchy and the state. A nine-year government study, the Ryan Report, published in May 2009, revealed that beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children. The investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades "terrorised thousands of boys and girls, while government inspectors failed to stop the abuse.[5]"
In Belgium, there wasn't a single church that escaped sex abuse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7994705/No-Belgian-church-escaped-sex-abuse-finds-investigation.html
In Ireland, sex abuse was endemic in Catholic Institutions:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5356720/Sex-abuse-endemic-in-Catholic-institutions.html
But, before you anti-religious folks start believing that organized religion is the problem, look at your public schools, your neighbors, your police, and even your family... Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.
Organized religion is the problem in this case. The issue wasn't just that a number of priests were sexually abusing children. The issue is also the extent to which the Catholic Church went to protect those priests and cover up the crimes.
According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
We don't trust priests anymore, but the police are the "good guys", right?
NEW PATTERNS OF POLICE ABUSE
Police sexual abuse of women includes a disturbing pattern of police officer exploitation of teenage girls. The majority of these cases, moreover, involve girls who are enrolled in police department-sponsored Explorers programs designed to give teens an understanding of police work.
...
This report found 72 cases of police officer sexual abuse of teenage girls (and some boys),...
1). Forty-three percent of the 72 cases involved police officers and girls or boys in police Explorer programs (31 total)...
The number of both police officers and victims exceeds the number of 189 cases in the combined 2002 and 2003 reports.
http://www.unomaha.edu/criminaljustice/PDF/dwf2003final.pdf
Basically, anywhere that children are entrusted to adults -- you are likely to find pedophiles.
The issue isn't just the pedophile priests, but the extent to which the Catholic Church hierarchy went to cover up these crimes. I don't know of any other organization that went to comparable lengths to protect members who were committing such crimes.
Also, we should be critical of the media that hyper-sexualizes young teenagers - music videos, Halloween costumes (dressing little girls like little street hookers), fashion, etc.
That's nonsense. In the Catholic Church's case, most of the victims were boys, not little girls "dressed like street hookers". This problem has been going on for decades. It didn't just start when the media started showing sexy ladies in music videos. This is a standard conservative tactic. Blame everything on the media.
If you consider viewing anything sexual so bad, why do you go to strip clubs?
eagle2
09-14-2010, 08:03 PM
I agree with everything you said. Everyone is quick to bash the Catholics but what about other religions? I've met far more sexist Baptists than I have Catholics.
I've found that many Catholics, such as yourself, are much less likely to strictly follow their church's teachings than in some of the more conservative denominations. A lot of the Catholics I know are fairly liberal.
Kellydancer
09-14-2010, 10:58 PM
I've found that many Catholics, such as yourself, are much less likely to strictly follow their church's teachings than in some of the more conservative denominations. A lot of the Catholics I know are fairly liberal.
Very true. I know many devout Catholics and many of them are politically liberal, even Democrats. I will readily admit I disagree with many of their views and don't feel because I disagree I'll go to hell. I have friends who were fundamentalist Baptists and they are very strict. People often think Catholics are very rightwing and they aren't. Oh sure they are when it comes to abortion and gay rights (two issues I disagree with the church on basically), but many issues they are somewhat liberal. For instance the church's view is the death penalty is wrong, definitely a liberal view. They also support healthcare and education, also liberal topics. They run charities to help the poor, also a liberal thought.
Then there are the other issues that aren't conservative at all. Catholics drink and listen to secular music and they have no problems with Halloween. Sound silly to bring these up, but many churches disapprove of all of these. My friends in the fundie groups are told these things are evil. They were also told women shouldn't have careers except to be housewives. Sure, the Catholics aren't equal when it comes to women and the priesthood, but I've never heard anyone in a Catholic church bring up women as housewives. In fact when I was in a teen group years ago most of the group mothers had jobs, one was a scientist. I actually think women will eventually become priests because girls are now allowed to serve as altar girls.
Elvia
09-14-2010, 11:08 PM
I agree that child sex abuse is a problem everywhere. The reason the Catholic Church gets so much heat for it is because it is probably the greatest coverup of child sex abuse in history, or at least recent history. It's not just that there were priests molesting children, it's the fact that the Catholic Church made a habit of looking the other way and protecting these predators, and that such a conspiracy seems to have gone all the way to the top. Not to mention the fact that it went on for so long, and likely would have continued had victims not started speaking up together and demanding justice.
People are angry at the Catholic Church because it gets away with these things, in a time when we're all supposed to know better. Take the Magdalene Asylums in Ireland for example. It was basically a slave labor system that the Catholic Church kept up for the better part of a century. They enslaved people, profited from it, and have never been brought to justice for it. And they will likely never have to pay a cent of the money they made off it to those they forced to make that money for them. And it's not like this is ancient history- these institutions existed well into the 1990's.
Kellydancer
09-14-2010, 11:23 PM
I hate that the church gets away with the molesting and will scream at my tv when I heard about it. In fact the Cardinal here has switched priests because of that (full disclosure, I do not like the current cardinal but the last one was a good person who tried to bring people together). The sad fact is anyone in power gets away with horrendous things. There is a cop here who might get acquitted of killing his one wife, though his last wife is "missing" and he probably killed her too.
Elvia
09-14-2010, 11:33 PM
^^^ I feel bad for Catholics such as yourself, because it puts you in an awkward position.
Though I practice Judaism (though less actively than I used to, I admit) , I must admit I don't know how to feel about some of the things going on in Israel. In this regard I am fortunate that Judaism doesn't have the same system from above that Catholocism does. Provided I pick my temple carefully, I can rest assured that when I give money, it pretty much stays within the Temple or goes to causes I agree with. I could be wrong, but it seems that individual Catholics have no such control over where their money goes when they give to their church. You can't vote with your dollars so to speak, and withhold money from going to certain projects or activities you disagree with. It's unfortunate, and makes it difficult to insist that changes be made.
jack0177057
09-15-2010, 08:06 AM
Organized religion is the problem in this case. The issue wasn't just that a number of priests were sexually abusing children. The issue is also the extent to which the Catholic Church went to protect those priests and cover up the crimes.
I agree that was wrong. But, where there is crime, specially sexual crime, there will be cover up. The uncle that rapes his nephew or niece will attemp to cover up and so will the police (for abuse involving police officers). If you think any anyone will be quick to confess a child sex abuse problem, you're crazy.
Blame everything on the media.
Yeah, I guess I'm just exaggerating. The media is not to blame for the sexualition of little girls.
24646
24647
24648
The girl in the pics above is Miley Cirrus, an underage teen actress/pop star who has a show for little kids on the Disney Channel. Most of her fans are pre-teens and early teens.
24649
Those silly people at the American Psychological Association who issued an alarming report about the injury caused by the sexualization of girls in the media are also wrong.
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf
If you consider viewing anything sexual so bad, why do you go to strip clubs?
I love sexy outfits worn by ADULT women and erotic dancing by ADULT women.
eagle2
09-15-2010, 09:03 AM
I agree that was wrong. But, where there is crime, specially sexual crime, there will be cover up. The uncle that rapes his nephew or niece will attemp to cover up and so will the police (for abuse involving police officers). If you think any anyone will be quick to confess a child sex abuse problem, you're crazy.
As usual, you're distorting the issue. The issue isn't that the individual priests were covering up their own crimes. The issue was that the entire church was. I doubt there are many cases where an entire police department covered up for, and protected a policeman raping young boys.
Yeah, I guess I'm just exaggerating. The media is not to blame for the sexualition of little girls.
24646
24647
24648
The girl in the pics above is Miley Cirrus, an underage teen actress/pop star who has a show for little kids on the Disney Channel. Most of her fans are pre-teens and early teens.
Again you're completely distorting the issue. The issue is priests raping young boys. Please explain how Miley Cirrus' outfits were causing priests to rape young boys.
Kellydancer
09-15-2010, 11:24 AM
^^^ I feel bad for Catholics such as yourself, because it puts you in an awkward position.
Though I practice Judaism (though less actively than I used to, I admit) , I must admit I don't know how to feel about some of the things going on in Israel. In this regard I am fortunate that Judaism doesn't have the same system from above that Catholocism does. Provided I pick my temple carefully, I can rest assured that when I give money, it pretty much stays within the Temple or goes to causes I agree with. I could be wrong, but it seems that individual Catholics have no such control over where their money goes when they give to their church. You can't vote with your dollars so to speak, and withhold money from going to certain projects or activities you disagree with. It's unfortunate, and makes it difficult to insist that changes be made.
This is a problem I deal with. I just started attending a Catholic church again and though I haven't given anything so far (completely broke)I will eventually be giving them some money and no idea where money goes. I know some of it goes to upkeep the church and pay salaries, which I have no problem with. However, some of it probably goes to their pro life group. I am mixed on that because I have no problem giving money to buy items a new parent might need (bottles, diapers, etc), but don't want it to go to overturn abortion rights.
jack0177057
09-15-2010, 11:38 AM
As usual, you're distorting the issue. The issue isn't that the individual priests were covering up their own crimes. The issue was that the entire church was. I doubt there are many cases where an entire police department covered up for, and protected a policeman raping young boys.
The entire church - everyone? I am a part of the church (Sunday worshipper) - I covered it up, too?
The "fraternity" of police officers cover up for each other's errors, omissions and crimes 99.99%. This has been proven time and time again in the courts.
Again you're completely distorting the issue. The issue is priest raping young boys. Please explain how Miley Cirrus' outfits were causing priests to rape young boys.
No, that's YOUR issue. That's how you and every other anti-Catholic wants to frame the issue for your own agenda.
The REAL ISSUE is that pedophilia is rampant. It is EVERYWHERE - schools, churches, youth sports, youth organizations, police, prisons, family, friends, etc. - I thought I made that point clear with examples,... but, you just want to talk about priests and boys - like you have some kind of fetish.
We all need to waken up to this alarming truth (pedophilia) and do something about it - either put enormous pressure on the medical community to create drugs that kill the sicko's sexual drive, or lock them all up for good.
The sexualization of girls (and boys) by the media contributes to the problem. I cannot say that it CAUSES the problem, but it definitely CONTRIBUTES to the problem.
Read the American Psychological Association's report, if you really care about this issue. (But, you probably don't.)
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs...eport-full.pdf (http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf)
flickad
09-16-2010, 05:28 AM
Jack - I do agree with you, at least to some degree (at least in your first post - in your later ones you seem to be minimising the problem with respect to the Church and its harbouring of child molesters in positions of trust). Molestation of children has been a problem with respect to leaders of other religions and in the general community, as you say. The problem with respect to the Catholic Church are cover ups and lack of sanctions within the Church. The cover ups were not perpetuated by ordinary church-goers (as you disingenuously tried to suggest that eagle2 may have meant when he referred to 'the Church') but by the higher echelons of power in the Church. However, we have also seen this in the Jewish religion and the Mormon church where child sexual abuse has occurred, so it is unfair to scapegoat the Catholic faith only.
That said, the Church should be held responsible for harbouring paedophiles (where they have refused to deal with this issue by alerting the relevant authorities and removing those responsible from their positions within the Church), as should other religious and secular institutions that have done the same.
Eagle2 - The Catholic Church is not unique in this. Paedophile rabbis, for instance, have been protected by the institutions of their faith in much the same way as Catholic priests. This has received less media attention but is nonetheless the same. See, for instance: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/03/lesbian-scandal.html. There have been many other cases where the result has been similar (ie a hush up), and the FLDS community is also notorious for child marriage and other forms of child sexual abuse.
I will say that you are right that religious institutions appear to be more likely to protect perpetrators than secular ones, but this is not universally the case. Corrupt police, for instance, were harboured and protected by the force for at least a decade or two in my state, albeit with respect to drug trafficking (and in some cases murder) rather than child abuse. Several high profile court cases and a new police commissioner were the only things that made it all come out in the wash in recent years. See, for example: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/19/1160851066568.html?page=fullpage. That said, when push came to shove, Victoria Police did deal with this problem (though not, as I said, for decades and until a solution was thrust upon them) whereas, to date, the named religious institutions have not. However, they have not been the subject of targeted investigations and so have not been forced to clean up their act as Victoria Police has. Corruption will exist as long as it is allowed to. It will only be eradicated when tolerance of it ceases and perpetrators are brought to justice.
flickad
09-16-2010, 05:57 AM
I've found that many Catholics, such as yourself, are much less likely to strictly follow their church's teachings than in some of the more conservative denominations. A lot of the Catholics I know are fairly liberal.
Depends where you go. The usual rule seems to be that persecution creates radicalisation. In places where Catholics have suffered persecution on the grounds of their faith, like Ireland (at the hands of the English), you'll find absolutely staunch Catholics. In places like France and Italy, where Catholics have not suffered persecution, the attitude towards the faith is far more liberal.
In places like your country and mine, Catholics do seem to be more liberal than non-Anglican Protestants, possibly because it's a much older faith and more people were born into it (as well as not having a history of being systematically persecuted in these places, though they have been victims of bigotry in decades past). It's a truism that converts make the staunchest followers of a faith, and many evangelicals are converts, in addition to being members of a faith that veers fairly heavily on the side of being socially conservative.
jack0177057
09-16-2010, 09:03 AM
That said, the Church should be held responsible for harbouring paedophiles (where they have refused to deal with this issue by alerting the relevant authorities and removing those responsible from their positions within the Church), as should other religious and secular institutions that have done the same.
I agree with this. My point is not that the Catholic Church should be excused. Us Catholics parishioners are as appalled and outraged as non-Catholics, if not more so. Anyone in the Catholic Church who committed a crime, whether child abuse, harboring child abusers, or failing to report child abuse, should be put in jail.
But, instead of learning this from the scandal - PEDOPHILES ARE EVERYWHERE, EVEN IN THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PEOPLE/INSTITUTIONS WILL COVER UP THE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS SO SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING AND NO ONE WANTS TO ADMIT THE UGLY TRUTH, the Catholic-bashing crowd only rants - CATHOLIC PRIESTS LIKE TO MOLEST LITTLE BOYS AND THE BIG BAD CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL PROTECT ITS PRIESTS! This is a bigotted statement and it does not serve to shed light on the broader problem.
Also, I don't know what evidence there is that the ENTIRE upper echelon of the Catholic Church was involved in a massive cover-up. You've got to remember that, at least in the US and most civilized places, you're innocent, until proven guilty. If an allegation is made about priest A, but there is not sufficient evidence to prove it - what would you do? If priest A is alleged to have committed an act of molestation, and the Church alerts the parish about this, the priest could file a multi-million dollar suit for defamation. If the Church cannot prove that the priest, in fact, committed the act, it could be liable. Also, if the allegation is false, it could destroy the life of an innocent person.
As far as the leaders of the Church, they must receive thousands of allegations of priests abusing children, having sex with nuns, having sex with parishioners, having sex with prostitutes, having homosexual sex, stealing from the church, etc., etc., etc. The Church is world-wide and it is impossible for the Vatican in Rome, to know which allegations are true and which are false. Not to mention that some of the alleged abusers were extremely charismatic people that had a lot of defenders and a few enemies.
Many families go through something like this internally. In my family there was an allegation involving an older cousin and a younger cousin. Half of my family believed the younger cousin (alleged victim), the other half believed the older cousin (alleged perpetrator). It caused a fissure in the family and one-half of the family never spoke to the other half again. No one outside the family knows about this - Is this a cover up? (Do we have a moral duty to tell everyone that this cousin allegedly committed an act of sexual molestation?)
Consider this also - in law enforcement, if an accused child molester is not convicted, he may petition the courts to expunge his arrest records and seal his court records. Is this a legalized cover-up? What if the reason he was not convicted was because the child was too terrified to testify or the child's parents did not want to child to relive the experience by testifying about it? - It doesn't matter. Why isn't Eagle raising hell about this?