27 replies to this topic

[Nathan H]

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 17:19, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 17:12, said:

Daedalus, on Sep 28, 2010 - 20:05, said:

Haha no rational person will ever trust the church again, although, to be fair, I can't see why you would trust them with your kid in the first place.

I'm sure there are plenty of rational people who will believe in the Church. Also you seem to be judging the Church based on these few cases that are presented, and not the whole of the Church.

By rational people I mean: if there is a certain percentage chance that your very young kid will be sexually abused by priests, will you let the priests have him? I wouldn't. Even if I was deeply religious and saw in the Bible my children's future salvation I still wouldn't take that risk. Think of the potential consequences...

The percentage is extremely low. Of course there is a chance they will be sexually abused; that goes with anyone. There are more lay pedophiles than those of the clergy variety, but of course, we seem to treat the lay slightly better...

Now the second half of your paragraph is distressing. You would blantly reject your children's salvation for the fear of a small risk? That, my friend, is irrational.

[Daedalus]

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:15, said:

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 17:19, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 17:12, said:

Daedalus, on Sep 28, 2010 - 20:05, said:

Haha no rational person will ever trust the church again, although, to be fair, I can't see why you would trust them with your kid in the first place.

I'm sure there are plenty of rational people who will believe in the Church. Also you seem to be judging the Church based on these few cases that are presented, and not the whole of the Church.

By rational people I mean: if there is a certain percentage chance that your very young kid will be sexually abused by priests, will you let the priests have him? I wouldn't. Even if I was deeply religious and saw in the Bible my children's future salvation I still wouldn't take that risk. Think of the potential consequences...

The percentage is extremely low. Of course there is a chance they will be sexually abused; that goes with anyone. There are more lay pedophiles than those of the clergy variety, but of course, we seem to treat the lay slightly better...

Now the second half of your paragraph is distressing. You would blantly reject your children's salvation for the fear of a small risk? That, my friend, is irrational.

First of all I'm not religious, so I would find your belief in your children's salvation to be rather more irrational than any of mine. Second of all, even within the church, you don't have to send your children to Sunday school or anything of the like to ensure they will be 'saved'. There are several alternatives for indoctrination...

[Nathan H]

So basically what you're saying is, "I don't believe in what you do, so you're irrational." ?

Edited by Nathan H, Oct 10, 2010 - 20:36.

[Daedalus]

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:31, said:

So basically you're saying is, "I don't believe in what you do, so you're irrational." ?

No. You say - my friend - that rejecting my children's salvation because of the risk of homosexual rape is irrational.
My reply is this, simplified:

• I don't believe in God, so sending your kid to Sunday school is certainly irrational to me.
  
• You can "save" your kid without risking homosexual rape, and therefore
  
• It's irrational to take that risk.

[Nathan H]

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:39, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:31, said:

So basically you're saying is, "I don't believe in what you do, so you're irrational." ?

No. You say - my friend - that rejecting my children's salvation because of the risk of homosexual rape is irrational.
My reply is this, simplified:

• I don't believe in God, so sending your kid to Sunday school is certainly irrational to me.
  
• You can "save" your kid without risking homosexual rape, and therefore
  
• It's irrational to take that risk.

How do you believe that we "save a kid?"

[Daedalus]

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:45, said:

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:39, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:31, said:

So basically you're saying is, "I don't believe in what you do, so you're irrational." ?

No. You say - my friend - that rejecting my children's salvation because of the risk of homosexual rape is irrational.
My reply is this, simplified, if you have a problem thinking in sentences:

• I don't believe in God, so sending your kid to Sunday school is certainly irrational to me.
  
• You can "save" your kid without risking homosexual rape, and therefore
  
• It's irrational to take that risk.

How do you believe that we "save a kid?"

Depends on which denomination of the Church you're part of I guess. Baptism almost certainly, but if you check I think the only other requirements are to believe in God, accept Jesus as his kid, and repent for one's sins.
I.e. no mention of sending kids to Sunday school or having much personal contact with the priest at all.

Now I don't mind what you do or don't do with your kid. I'm just stating that in my view, even if you are rational within the confines of your faith, you don't have to risk the homosexual rape of your child.

[Nathan H]

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:55, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:45, said:

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:39, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:31, said:

So basically you're saying is, "I don't believe in what you do, so you're irrational." ?

No. You say - my friend - that rejecting my children's salvation because of the risk of homosexual rape is irrational.
My reply is this, simplified, if you have a problem thinking in sentences:

• I don't believe in God, so sending your kid to Sunday school is certainly irrational to me.
  
• You can "save" your kid without risking homosexual rape, and therefore
  
• It's irrational to take that risk.

How do you believe that we "save a kid?"

Depends on which denomination of the Church you're part of I guess. Baptism almost certainly, but if you check I think the only other requirements are to believe in God, accept Jesus as his kid, and repent for one's sins.
I.e. no mention of sending kids to Sunday school or having much personal contact with the priest at all.

Now I don't mind what you do or don't do with your kid. I'm just stating that in my view, even if you are rational within the confines of your faith, you don't have to risk the homosexual rape of your child.

Well, since these bishops were Catholic, we will talk about salvation from the Catholic POV. Sunday Mass is an obligation. Mandatory. If you intentionally miss it then you are commiting a mortal sin; and, if you do not confess this sin (to a priest), than you are not going to Heaven. You see, priests have many functions in the Church. The Church cannot surive without them, and members of the Church cannot attain salvation without them. On a side note, in all my life I have never witnessed a priest as a Cathechism teacher (AKA sunday school), I have only seen laity as teachers.

[Daedalus]

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 21:07, said:

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:55, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:45, said:

Daedalus, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:39, said:

Nathan H, on Oct 10, 2010 - 20:31, said:

So basically you're saying is, "I don't believe in what you do, so you're irrational." ?

No. You say - my friend - that rejecting my children's salvation because of the risk of homosexual rape is irrational.
My reply is this, simplified, if you have a problem thinking in sentences:

• I don't believe in God, so sending your kid to Sunday school is certainly irrational to me.
  
• You can "save" your kid without risking homosexual rape, and therefore
  
• It's irrational to take that risk.

How do you believe that we "save a kid?"

Depends on which denomination of the Church you're part of I guess. Baptism almost certainly, but if you check I think the only other requirements are to believe in God, accept Jesus as his kid, and repent for one's sins.
I.e. no mention of sending kids to Sunday school or having much personal contact with the priest at all.

Now I don't mind what you do or don't do with your kid. I'm just stating that in my view, even if you are rational within the confines of your faith, you don't have to risk the homosexual rape of your child.

Well, since these bishops were Catholic, we will talk about salvation from the Catholic POV. Sunday Mass is an obligation. Mandatory. If you intentionally miss it then you are commiting a mortal sin; and, if you do not confess this sin (to a priest), than you are not going to Heaven. You see, priests have many functions in the Church. The Church cannot surive without them, and members of the Church cannot attain salvation without them. On a side note, in all my life I have never witnessed a priest as a Cathechism teacher (AKA sunday school), I have only seen laity as teachers.

Check this link out. You may be curious as to how the Bishops in question actually gained access to young boys alone. I can't be bothered to read it all but here are some pertinent quotes:

• "Bishop Gregory Aymond [...] kept Catholic schoolteacher Brian Matherne on the job despite an allegation that he'd molested a student years earlier"
  
• "Rev. John P. Connor [...] had previously admitted in court to molesting a 14-year-old boy from a Catholic school"
  
• "Bishop Raymond Boland [...] accused in a racketeering lawsuit in April of protecting Bishop Anthony O'Connell, who recently resigned as head of the Diocese of Palm Beach, Fla., after admitting he had abused a seminary student years ago"

Notice a pattern? These Bishops were not actually pedophiles... they were protecting people under them. In most cases, it had to do with some sort of Church-affiliated school. The issue is that members high up in the Church, instead of acting immediately to prevent further issues (as would happen in many secular schools), allowed pedophilia to continue, while making superficial efforts (such as recommending psychological evaluation or moving people from one place to another) to stop them.
My argument is, with this sort of complacency, trusting the church with your kids is not right.