Headlines!

Whomit,

This is one of the few posts that have ever bothered me.  I hope that you aren't serious.  Should I assume that you don't have children?  Children were getting molested.  It will screw many of them up for life.   The Church knew about it and let it continue. 

The Church should pay.  All participants and all who covered up should be shot.

New lows for the boards. Whomit, this post has to be your idea of a joke, please tell me it is.

It's tongue in cheek but it's serious as well! These people are only screwed up for life if they let themselves be, and there are thousands and thousands of things that happen in a life that can screw it up, not least of which being forced by your parents to be an altar boy (BTW my two daughters were Altar servers, and they learned quickly that the director of altar servers preferred there to be altar BOYS v girls.)

Sex among men and boys is not globally unusual nor historically so, and the more "religious" the community, the less rare it is. This country has to grow up and face the reality of reality, and then we can try and should absolutely strive to change it. Picking on Catholic Priests is scape-goating and it was an orchestrated event, timed to discredit the Catholics right at the time when they do their big "Come Home to Church" push that they do each Easter Time (this was several years ago now). I remember saying to my priest that this was a case of "friends" betraying us (I never liked it when the Catholics threw in their lot with the Fundies).

Once the green "blood" was in the water then people who had no real problems all of a sudden remembered that they were abused by such and such a priest, and it has ruined their lives. Were some? Were many? I believe so. But I don't believe that it is worth $1MM+ per case.

Meanwhile, no comment on the practice of Female Genital Mutilation? Interesting.

There's no good segue into this so I'll just be crass...

Did it strike anybody’s funny bone that a battery manufacturer is buying the maker of "Feminine products"?

"The Church should pay.  All participants and all who covered up should be shot."

Spoken like a true "Christian".

These people are only screwed up for life if they let themselves be,

I hope that this is completely tounge in cheek.  I couldn't imagine someone being molested and not having it screw them up for life to some degree.

Sex among men and boys ...

It's not sex.  It's rape.  

Picking on Catholic Priests is scape-goating

What's wrong with you??!! Priests aren't being scape goated.   How does a pedophile get scape goated?

But I don't believe that it is worth $1MM+ per case.

How much is it worth to be the victim of a pedophile in a position of power?  Does this mean that if your neighbor was a rich pedophile, you'd let them have their way with your son for some dollar figure below $1,000,000?

"The Church should pay.  All participants and all who covered up should be shot."

Spoken like a true "Christian".

Pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.   Covering up Pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.

your tongue isnt in your cheek. Its in your ass. This is the most warped thing I have ever seen on any board, let alone one that supposedly caters to professionals. (although we've probably all disproved that theory by now.) You must have been a nazi in your former life. or a child molester.

[quote=anonymous]

These people are only screwed up for life if they let themselves be,

I hope that this is completely tounge in cheek.  I couldn't imagine someone being molested and not having it screw them up for life to some degree.

IMHO it's the huge fuss about it that causes most of the damage. Not necessairly the events themselves. How much damage any sexual "abuse" is going to cause is will be somewhat dependant on the framework in which it takes place. (E.g strength of family relationships, self-perception, personality, context etc).

IMHO Whomit is right, these huge cash settlements are attracting alot of people out of the woodwork. Probably many people who would not have responded to just an offer of say free psychotherapy.

Amazing the harms that money can cure. A truely catholic (universal) remedy.

[quote=pratoman]

your tongue isnt in your cheek. Its in your ass.
This is the most warped thing I have ever seen on any board, let alone
one that supposedly caters to professionals. (although we’ve probably
all disproved that theory by now.) You must have been a nazi in your former life. or a child molester.

"I couldn't imagine someone being molested and not having it screw them up for life to some degree."

The degree is dependent on other factors, not least of which is the amount of shame they are forced to have due to a society which views sex as dirty in the first place. Sex is what it is, everything else is what is made of it. Sex with one's spouse is not the same as sex with the same person before they were your spouse, why? Because the circumstances around the act have changed, the taboo has been lifted, the edges of newness and apprehension have been dulled by time. But the act itself is still basically the same.

We're so homophobic in this country and so sexophobic in general that little boys who were (in some/many cases) curious participants in something that has been going on for thousands of years are then forced to internalize the shame of what they have done (not to say that there wasn't something done to them). If there weren't the "Scarlet Letter" there wouldn't be the shame. They can't speak of it because it is too dirty

Please, don't get me wrong, I don't think that the priests are innocent in this, I feel that the Church must realize the many issues that celibate priesthood causes. But then the same thing is also said about countries that put out girls who do not prove their virginity on the wedding night by producing a bloody sheet! Not only is this stupid for the girl but it forces boys into "alternate arrangements". That's just a reality that is a fact around the world, this is where we should strive to evolve beyond (and this "crisis" proves that we have not done so).

As to this being a depraved discussion and one not befitting a board of professionals, it is absolutely my job to look at the market differently from the crowd and determine where the opportunities lie. This is not a skill that one turns on and off, it is a habit one acquires from a lifetime of detached cynicism/skepticism

Meanwhile, whenever there are $660MM involved, it's going to turn a professional broker's head.

Oh, and as to the "person of authority" having done this, I'd also say "Good!" it teaches the fellow to distrust authority from a young age, that's a good thing.

Along these line are the plethora of "Teacher humps student" stories that hit the news with boring regularity these days. It's given a "Man Bites Dog" feel when it is the female teacher jumping the young bone. When I was in high school (best 7 years of my life) there was a old man teacher who married a student (there was also a guy teacher who cruised after school but most of us were icked out just enough by him not to get into the car, even though we didn't know quite what was going on) hey, it happens.

Interestingly, in this saga, the husband gunned down the boyfriend. Was a time, as I seem to recall, that if a man came home and found his wife in bed, he had the duty to kill the man! Wasn't a jury in the world would convict! It's one of the things that kept down the numbers of cheatin wives!

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying... Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's lawyer doesn't go for the "Pre-emptive Strike" defense! "Your honor, my client has seen reports of the Long Island Lolita Amy Fischer, shooting Mary Jo Buttafucco, of Lorena Bobbit slicing off her husbands body and takin his dick for a ride, of Jean Smart who killed her husband, of the other teacher who hired her boyfriend Beavis, and his buddy Butthead to kill her husband and several other like cases. My client was afeared for his life when he decided the best thing to do was to kill this potential murderer before he had amassed the weapons of solo-destruction that he was sure he was in the process of doing!"

"Sex"  "Homophobic" "Sexophobic"

This isn't about sex and homophobia.  These are kids.  Kids can't consent.  It's called rape. 

If this was about sex, the scandal would be about priests sleeping with prostitutes and adult parishoners.  Instead we're talking pedophilia...and you're trying to minimize it.

Yes, money will bring some claimants out of the woodwork.   To a large degree, there simply was no reason for many of these claimants to come out about it otherwise.

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=pratoman]

your tongue isnt in your cheek. Its in your ass. This is the most warped thing I have ever seen on any board, let alone one that supposedly caters to professionals. (although we've probably all disproved that theory by now.) You must have been a nazi in your former life. or a child molester.

[/quote]

Whomit wins by application of Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
[/quote]

Link doenst work, please explain.

Whomit cannot win, his thought process is that of a degenerate. You can win a debate, and still be morally depraved.

"Kids can't consent.  It's called rape."

These are legal and moral constructs, not absolutes. (Not one's that I disagree with, but still, they are the sorts of words that push the victims into the shadows. Especially, remeber that we are not talking about victims of today we're talking about victims from the past who had these affairs years ago. before we were as enlightened as we are today.)

I'm not minimizing pedophilia, and yet I'm tired of the mainstream media maximizing it too.

If you are so worked up about rape, then why didn't you pick up the strand about the prison system. To my mind it is barbaric that we have a system where the expectation is that when men are sent to prison they will be raped by the other inmates. It's embarassing that we allow such a system to exist within our society. and yet it does, and so we should ask ourselves why.

One reason why is our attitude towards sex in the first place. men rape men in prison, not for the sexual satisfaction but for the humiliation that it puts on the victim, and why should he be humiliated? Because sex is shameful and having sex done to you shows you to be a weakling physically and morally. Granted these are sociopaths that we're dealing with here, but what looking at a sociopath does is strip away the veneer of society's rules.

Pratoman,

Look it up. You know how to use Google? You know how to use Wikipedia? Don't expect everything to be spoon fed to you, otherwise you'll never be smart enough to make you own decisions. 

 These are legal and moral constructs, not absolutes.

If we are talking about an authority figure and a child, we are talking about absolutes.

You are absolutely minimizing it.    I'm not worked up about rape.  I'm worked up about you because you think that a Priest molesting a child isn't that big of a deal because it's just that society puts a stigma on it. 

So with your whole prison analogy, what are you trying to say?  The guilty priests molested children, not because of the sexual enjoyment that these sick pedophiles received, but because they wanted to show the children that they were weaker physically and morally.  Obviously, that is not what you are trying to say, but you are trying to minimalize it by bringing prison rape into the equation.

Every stinkin' time that you bring up garbage like "attitudes towards sex", you are trying to minimalize it.  I'm surprised that you don't start talking about pedophilia as "love making". 

Joe,<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

What about the guy who was busted for having a single joint in NYS back under the Rockefeller Drug law days? Did he deserve to get gang raped in prison for his "barbaric" transgression?

Anonymous,

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word "absolute." An absolute is true in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />ALL circumstances, what you are describing is a absolute belief held by you to be always true in all circumstances.  You are entitled to that core belief (and I don't disagree with it, particularly) but there is a difference between your belief and reality. When you impose your belief on that reality you are being dogmatic. Sometimes, this dogma helps to lift the cultural evolution of the species, and I applaud that.

But, it is important to have some basis upon which this dogma is founded. And in order for that to be there needs to be a reconciliation of all the factors. Are we against rape? Why? How do we define rape? Are we more against rape committed on some people than we are on others? What about the concept of "statutory rape"? Do we nationalize the age of consent? How do we determine the age of consent, isn't it different for each person?

These aren't meant to be rhetorical questions, do you have a valid reason to be opposed to rape (I do and am), do you? And does that valid reason get "unabsoluted" in other cases of rape?

If I were you I'd be saying, "It's axiomatic that rape is wrong!" and I'd have to agree, except that the word "rape" itself can be stretched beyond the axiom, and I'm not sure that it hasn't been in this particular case.

If I were you I'd be saying,...

No.  If you were me, you would be saying, "Priests should not molest little boys (or girls).   This is an absolute."

Your posts are giving me a slimy feeling.  We're not talking about a boss and his secretary.   We're talking about kids and priests.

Ok well then this is obviously beyond your abilities.

Let's talk about a different headline then, your choice.

The ability to rationalize child molestation is absolutely beyond my abilities.

Whatever.

Did you see the article about the new "Creationist" book that has been mass mailed to scientists and museums around the world?

Apparently it is Islamic fundies that are after Darwin this time.

I'd like to get one of these books, it apparently is quite the stunner in terms of its production values.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Kids can't consent.  It's called rape."

These are legal and moral constructs, not absolutes. (Not one's that I disagree with, but still, they are the sorts of words that push the victims into the shadows. Especially, remeber that we are not talking about victims of today we're talking about victims from the past who had these affairs years ago. before we were as enlightened as we are today.)

I'm not minimizing pedophilia, and yet I'm tired of the mainstream media maximizing it too.

If you are so worked up about rape, then why didn't you pick up the strand about the prison system. To my mind it is barbaric that we have a system where the expectation is that when men are sent to prison they will be raped by the other inmates. It's embarassing that we allow such a system to exist within our society. and yet it does, and so we should ask ourselves why.

One reason why is our attitude towards sex in the first place. men rape men in prison, not for the sexual satisfaction but for the humiliation that it puts on the victim, and why should he be humiliated? Because sex is shameful and having sex done to you shows you to be a weakling physically and morally. Granted these are sociopaths that we're dealing with here, but what looking at a sociopath does is strip away the veneer of society's rules.

Pratoman,

Look it up. You know how to use Google? You know how to use Wikipedia? Don't expect everything to be spoon fed to you, otherwise you'll never be smart enough to make you own decisions. 

[/quote]

If I was that interested, I would look it up, but I am not. Trust me, spoon fed, I dont need to be. i\I've learned enough in my 50 plus years without being spoonfed. Just never ran across Godwins law, so I guess I should apologize for being a "simpleton".

Seriously tho, I just cant comprehend your point of view. Saying the media is "maximizing' the issue of priests screwing with little boys, implies to me that you are saying they are making more of the issue than they should. I just dont see how thats possible.

"Seriously tho, I just cant comprehend your point of view. Saying the media is "maximizing' the issue of priests screwing with little boys, implies to me that you are saying they are making more of the issue than they should. I just dont see how thats possible."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

As I've said to others, if we have to confine our discussions to what you can "comprehend" we're going to be very limited as to what we can discuss.

And this goes out to Primary too (Just so you know, I do not engage in PM discussions, I prefer to have what I say in the public record where I can defend it) I do not advocate for either side of this "debate". This having been said, let me lay out a few related opinions:

1. The Catholic Church was the target of a smear campaign that was timed to damage their efforts to connect with lapsed Catholics (which are the fertile field that protestant and "splinter" churches, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, till for membership.) For fundamentalist, evangelical Christian churches, the Catholics are on par with Jews in terms of their sac religiosity, and abolishing the Papists has been a goal for decades.

2. Evidence of the coordination of this effort was offered when the Pope (John Paul) had a meeting of Bishops on this issue (Priests diddling little boys). When the meeting was over the headline on papers across and down the nation was exactly the same "No Zero Tolerance Policy". Zero tolerance policy is anathema to the entire Christian dogma, Forgiveness is the essence of the Christ's message. "He died for your sins!", "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "God is Love." these ring any bells?

3. It is a well established fact that throughout history, it has been considered, perhaps not great but commonplace, that some men make do with little boys. I'm not in favor of this, I'm not in favor of anyone forcibly making do with anyone (except them self, if they so desire) but then I don't live in those earlier times I live in the today. The Church does not live in the today. This is exactly why people gravitate towards churches in general, because they represent a much more absolutist mindset. The Catholic Church is far behind the modern times (and still miles ahead of so many other religions) in that they still live in a time when it would have been seen as a blessing upon the family that one of their boys would be taken into the order and perhaps one day become a priest or a monk.

The Catholic Church didn't translate to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />USA in the ways that its traditions had evolved in Europe. Throughout the history of Europe and the Church there were ghettoes from which people were willing to sell their lives to the church for the chance at a full belly and a relatively disease free living environment. The Church and the Military were just about the only paths to prosperity and respectability available. In America, this was never the case. There was land aplenty and starvation was a thing of the past for most (city dwellers being the exception, once cities were established) and the Catholics weren't really among the first in North America. However, in Central America, there were lots of "converts".

Point here being that the level of commitment to the Catholic Church has not been the same as throughout its history. And what was seen as part of the job in the church's past is not seen that way anymore. The Church has been slow to adapt to this idea, and it is passed time that it does. But therein lies a conundrum, we want the Church to both change and stay the same.

4. The notion that children will be scarred for life is overblown. The pendulum has swung from pre child labor laws to full citizenship for the unborn. We cloak far too many pieces of stoopid legislation in "Think about the children" rhetoric and rationalization. Will the child be irreparably harmed? In my opinion, it depends on the who what when where how and why of the abuse. If a father repeated rapes his daughter from the age of six on, with a mother who does nothing to stop the abuse... Yes, that girl will carry scars of her childhood throughout her adult life. This is not to say that she is irredeemably useless to society, and that she can't live a full life, just that she'll do it with scars.

Everyday we see the handicapped overcome their limitations (isn't there a guy with false legs running for a spot on the Olympic team?) But for some reason we're to think that these people who carry these scars are somehow less able to overcome. This is what I'm saying about the self-creation of the victim class.

5. The media has made a major issue of under aged sex. Look at the "To catch A Predator" series on Dateline.

The issue here is "what is under aged?" In some states the age of consent is 14 (I believe there is still one at age 12). A girl can get married at 14. Does this mean that every 12 year old girl is ready to be married? no, not at all in the slightest. However, I do remember that when I was in sixth grade, Mary Baxter was already going all the way on dates... Not with me, but what did I know from all the way anyway? Karen somthingoranother's sister told me to go for it with Karen, she wouldn't say no! I'm sure you all have like/same stories.

I'm not in favor of customs around the planet where old men take teenaged brides, and I'm not in favor of NAMBLA. I'm not in favor of guys going to Bangkok and having sex with little girls/boys/ducks and sheep. I'm not in favor of child porn. I'm not in favor of rape in any form (including prison rape). But I'm also not in favor of witch hunting the Catholic Church and I'm not in favor of the puritanical based attitudes towards sex that this country unequally applies.

With every post, you try to minimalize the issue.  This isn't a 13 year old girl getting felt up by a 13 year old boy.  This is a 40 year old man using is position of authority and his religious stature to molest a 13 year old boy. 

The Church doesn't need to have zero tolerance.  It would be perfectly acceptable to forgive the priest and then call the police and then let all parishoners know so that they could keep their children away.  Instead, the church didn't just forgive, they covered it up and let more children get abused.  The church knew that reassigned priests would keep molesting.  The Church cared more about its reputation than its parishoners. 

Personally, I think that pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.

[quote=anonymous]

With every post, you try to minimalize the issue.  This isn't a 13 year old girl getting felt up by a 13 year old boy.  This is a 40 year old man using is position of authority and his religious stature to molest a 13 year old boy. 

The Church doesn't need to have zero tolerance.  It would be perfectly acceptable to forgive the priest and then call the police and then let all parishoners know so that they could keep their children away.  Instead, the church didn't just forgive, they covered it up and let more children get abused.  The church knew that reassigned priests would keep molesting.  The Church cared more about its reputation than its parishoners. 

Personally, I think that pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.

[/quote]

amen!

Whomit diddles little boys.

[quote=farotech]

Whomit diddles little boys.

The point is that every newspaper had the same headline. A headline that is not what one would have expected from the VAtican in the first place, so what are the chances that they all had the same reaction if they were independently written? Answer: Zero chance.

Anon,

What is "Minimalize" your word of the week? You have to say it 107 times so that it sticks in your memory?

It's guys like you that require us to come up with words like "Ginormous" because you overuse the the extreme so that the extreme doesn't seem extreme enough anymore. (Kinda like how no one is "Prejudice" anymore, they are only "racist".)

Do I want to say that this is less of a story than you think that it is? Yes, because you think it is a ginormous story and I have shown in numerous ways why it is not so. I don't think that it is nothing, but then I don't think it is as big a deal as others do. I think people ought to exorcize themselves of the "Cult of the Child". And stop thinking that sex is such a sinful thing that no child could ever recover from premature sex.

I've made my position as clear as I can, if you are serious about discussing this then refute what I have said , not by just spouting dogma, but by showing that you understand what has been said and then saying why it is wrong.

And Farotech, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses a bogus company meant to defraud investors in a movie that highlights the absolute worst of this industry as their handle deserves to be summarilly ignored. Grow up, then we'll talk. 

Joedabrkr said:

"Ironic statement, really, considering that the modus operandi of the Catholic Church for centuries has been one of "Zero Tolerance" on many issues....."

Really? Name 10.

Throughout its 1400 year history, I'm sure you can find ten instances. And yet I can name hundreds of exceptions that the church makes for the sake of convenience. 

And stop thinking that sex is such a sinful thing that no child could ever recover from premature sex.

I've made my position as clear as I can, if you are serious about discussing this then refute what I have said , not by just spouting dogma, but by showing that you understand what has been said and then saying why it is wrong.

You have made your position perfectly clear:

Whomitmayconcern's positon: sexual molestation of children by priests is just "premature sex" and although is not a good thing, it is only society that makes this a bad thing.  The priests deserve to be forgiven.   The payment to the children who got to enjoy the love making was an undeserved bonus. 

Anonymous' Position: sexual molestation of children by priests is a terrible awful crime.   They belong in jail for the rest of their lives as does anybody who was involved with covering up the crime and allowing these priests to have further access to children.  The payment to the children who were raped will never make up for what happened to them.

If that's the best that you can comprehend, then fine, there's no sense in continuing on, as I observed yesterday.

Now why don't you pick a headline that you would like to discuss and we'll move forward.

Am I misrepresenting your viewpoint?  Does anyone think that I’m misrepresenting Whomit’s viewpoint?

What do you want Anonymous? Do you want to fight me? Is that what you want. You think you got the ballz to take me on?

I won't waste my time, getting into a battle of intellects with you is like competing in the special olympics. You're a horsefly in the stable, yes you can be annoying, but you are not a real threat.

I say this after having tried patiently to explain to you several times why I take the position I do and you've shown not only no more understanding but indeed less in that you have let your emotions cloud what little perception you may have been capable  of expanding upon. I gave you chance after chance after chance to come up with anything other than your simple opinion and you did not (whether because you would not or could not I don't really care, either way you prove yourself to be devoid of original, independent thought processes).

So go wrap yourself in your self righteousness and tell all your friends that you took on Whomitmayconcer and you "beat him". Whatever, I know how shallow your brain really is, even if you don't. 

Whomit, your ability to back up your viewpoints about why child molestation isn't so bad, speaks much greater volumes about your character than it does about your intellect.

ok, this is degenerating into a Michael Vick dogfight, so we need to change the subject. Lets just say its  three to one in favor of the opinion that child molestation by anyone, let alone men of the cloth, is the worst kind of crime imaginable to man, short of mass genocide.

New subject - U.S. troops caught this dog they say is the head of Al Queda in Iraq, or something like that. Does anyone have the feeling that I do, that we are going to be almost nice to the guy, relatively speaking, so that we are in accord with the rules of war, or Geneva Convention, or something (never claimed to be the most educated guy on the boards). I submit to this forum, that we need to throw that mentaility out the window. The only value there is in getting one of these higher ups, other than the media value, is the info we get from him, which no doubt he will not give in a forthcoming or cooperative way. And we have to treat him with respect, while his guys kill our guys. I think we need to start out with a lit cigarette butt put out on his face (close to his eye, maybe), and then tell him its the last time we'll treat him that nicely, if he doesnt lead us to more of his kind, in a big picture way.

What say you, good citizens, and child molester defenders!@

Whomit, your argument is ludicrous.  A child being used to fulfill some sick asshole's pleasure is absolutely being raped.  This type of behavior should land ALL of these fkwads in prison forever.  Let them get a taste of their own medicine. 

"Your attempts to apply moral relativism to justify child molestation(and the efforts to conceal it) do not make you a mental giant. "

No, they don't and I never claimed that they do, I see you've not improved in your reading comprehension and more than in your ability to back up anything that you have said. Do you have 10 examples of the Church's Zero Tolerance policy? I didn't think so.

Nor did I ever try to "justify child molesation", not once. It is the sign of a weak mind that one can only see black or white. That I disagree with the claims of the molested does not mean that I justify the actions of the molestor. Just because "A" does not equal "B" does not mean that "A" equals "Not B" I wish you could show that you understand that.

"They just show that you have questionable morals."

All morals should be questioned all of the time that's how we evolve as a society.

Please Joe, do me this one little favor, when you post to me cram the emoticons! I don't need them and you misuse them! When you say I have questionable morals and then a winkie smiley face doesn't mask the intent of your sentence. It's like Rickie Bobby saying "With all due respect...", and then saying something outrageously disrespectful. Do you want me to think that you are as smart as Rickie Bobby?

"Horrors" My best friend's mother went into the hospital when he was 13 and stayed ther until she died when he was 19. He has never recovered from this horrible experience. A nine year old boy that goes to school with my daughter was in the car with his father when his father pushed him down onto the seat and drove under a semi that had cut infront of him, slowly killing the father while the son heard the cries and groans of his dying father who just saved his life. My grandfather died when my father was nine years old, leaving my father as the "man of the family" with six younger brothers and sisters, long before there was anything like "Public assistance". When I was growing up, if I did something wrong, I got the living sh*t beat out of me (can't do that today).

My friend with the mother, he lives as a victim, he loves the role (even though he has no expressed idea that this is true.) In truth, it's killing him, he only feels good when he feels bad and so he encourages himself to be sick.

The boy with the car, he'll be expected to grow up and get past this.

My father, aside from the fact that he had no real idea how to raise sons, went on to be a solid citizen who has contributed greatly to his community.

Me? I harbor lots of ill will towards my father, but I have lots of love and respect for him too, and I know that what I went through helped make me  the whom I am today.

I don't buy it when people whine and cry about their childhoods! Grow UP! Take responsibility for your own life and live it. Life is far too long to hold grudges.

And that goes double for the guy who was abused (or saw a father abuse a mother) as a child when it is time for him to be a father. I don't buy that you are genetically predisposed to being abusive (with the exception of being genetically stupid).

"Red Herrings", how is it red herring to point out that there is a co-ordination of the forces that pushed this issue to the forefront? How is it a red herring to point out the inequality with which our "absolutes" are enforced? How is it a red herring to point out the downside of our puritanical sexual morays? There not red herrings, they are legitimate discussion points which both you and Anonymous choose to disregard because they don't fit in with you preconceived notions.

"That certain unacceptable practices are allowed in other cultures also has no bearing on the matter."

I see, so  whatever is done here means it's right and whatever is done not here has no validity... Egoism at it's finest!

"Apologist" I didn't apologize for anybody. I don't condone their behavior and I have said so numerous times, but again, there's that reading comprehension problem we've spoken about.

Now that I have explained to you why you are not up to the task of having this discussion, why don't you find another headline that we can discuss and maybe you'll do better in that conversation.

[quote=anonymous]

Whomit, your ability to back up your viewpoints about why child molestation isn't so bad, speaks much greater volumes about your character than it does about your intellect.

[/quote]

You see Anonymous, this is what is known as an ad hominem argument. You don't refute a single thing I've said and only attack my character (you argue at the man and not the argument he makes.)

This is how I know how smart you aren't (I'm telling you something important here, you'd be well served to take this lesson to heart). people judge your intellect by things like your vocabulary and the depth of your reasoning.

Yes they also judge you by how shiney your shoes are and your suit is not. Yes they also judge you by what kind of car you drive and what sort of wine you drink and what sort of family life you have and on and on and on... But people want to believe that they are dealing with someone who is smarter than they are, and that's why they put their financial trust in you. So far, I'd trust you to get a gallon of milk, but I'd tell you how much change to expect.

Ad Hominem is the second lowest form of argument, lowest being pro hominem, meaning being a "Yes Man" as in, there is no argument. You should ty to avoid ad hominem arguments at all costs

[quote=anonymous]And stop thinking that sex is such a sinful thing that no child could ever recover from premature sex.

I've made my position as clear as I can, if you are serious about discussing this then refute what I have said , not by just spouting dogma, but by showing that you understand what has been said and then saying why it is wrong.

You have made your position perfectly clear:

Whomitmayconcern's positon: sexual molestation of children by priests is just "premature sex" and although is not a good thing, it is only society that makes this a bad thing.  The priests deserve to be forgiven.   The payment to the children who got to enjoy the love making was an undeserved bonus. 

Anonymous' Position: sexual molestation of children by priests is a terrible awful crime.   They belong in jail for the rest of their lives as does anybody who was involved with covering up the crime and allowing these priests to have further access to children.  The payment to the children who were raped will never make up for what happened to them.

If I may give my take on this. Whomit, you do not agree with the pedophile acts of priests (incidentally, they are gay same sex pedophiles) since they don't bother little girls but it could be due to "alter boy" situations, convenience, whatever.   You say that the young boys will "get over it" and won't be scarred for life.  You say that some states recognize a young age as "age of consent".  You say the Catho-o-lic Church is the real victim here and doesn't deserve this penalty of paying out lots to victims.  Have I got that right? re: your viewpoint.  You say some girls are victimized at a young age and you don't say this is wrong.  Sure, maybe the girls would get over it since they never had a chance to use their sex organs, anyway. 

Could it be that when it comes to money or a reputation (for example, the Catholic Church's reputation here), that your judgment is very cloudy?  Judging from your other posts, you are highly influenced by anything financial and it does seem to totally cloud your judgement. 

The Catholic church have the anulment process for making money-it costs lots of money to get an anulment.  Think about someone who is married with a prior child getting their marriage annuled, it's like the child wasn't born with a legal father since you are renouncing the prior marriage with the anulment process.

IMO, It's wrong to prey on young children (boys or girls) and penalty should result.  Just like there are class actions and law suits against financial services agencies, religious institutions should be hit where it hurts (in the pocketbook).  Throughout history, there have been alot of injustices from the results of actions of the Catholic Church or believers thereof - in goverment even hints of mafia affliation with the church. I'm no history buff so can't give specifics.

Before you move on to another headline, look at what you said, whomit, and 'why' you said it.

There was a talkshow few years ago where a gay guy said he had a crusch on this straight guy.  The straight guy was so embarrassed that he murdered this guy.

Sure some children are abused and get over it, --but what about the ones who don't.  Many don't get over it and are scarred for life.  The moneys paid out are for the victims who don't get over it.  There needs to be some justice for the injustice.  Too bad you don't feel this way.  But perhaps once you reflect, you will have a new way of thinking here.  If you are the intellectual you think you are, then you will know when you are actually wrong in your current view and have "faulty' thinking.  Being able to change your view will show just how smart you really are.

Society must pay for it's ills and pedophile priests is an ILL whether a molested, raped child gets over it or not.  

[quote=primary]

Sure some children are abused and get over it, --but
what about the ones who don’t.  Many don’t get over it and are
scarred for life.  The moneys paid out are for the victims who
don’t get over it.  There needs to be some justice for the injustice.[/quote]

So justice can be measured in monetary terms? 13 "bad touches" @ 12,500 per touch == All better???

If this was really about pain and suffering, then the "victims" would not be asking for money.

All of the events in question happened (if they happened) privately, a long time ago, and are subject to hazy recolection. The impact of those events is similarly unquantifiable. How do you show that it was "sexual abuse" that caused the problems vs some other cause.

If someone accuses you "He touched my wee wee 17 years ago"  how exactly do you defend yourself, or even prove that the incident ever happened (not happen)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

We have a very big problem with accusations of child abuse being non-falsifiable if the only evidence in their favor is someone claiming to be abused and the only counter evidence being a claim that it didn't happen.

The whole subject has been taken over by people who prefer emotion (rage, hysteria, holier than thou gloating,  smugness, etc) over being in touch with reality and the objective world.

No, it would be better to throw them in jail and let them get butt raped but then they'd probably like it since they are gay but just prefer very young partners since it's all about overpowering a helpless child so let them be overpowered by some tossedsalad 'girlfriends' in prison.

It can be worked out with the JUSTICE system-that's why we have a justice system and normally if you don't go to jail as in case of OJ Simpson whom everyone believes is guilty then you get them where it hurts (monetary)-he owes a bunch of money but won't pay any of it.

If you do a wrong, you must pay and the justice system either puts you away and/or you pay a price.

Whomit, you need to evaulate your faulty thinking here.  If the priests are innocent, let it be worked out in the justice system.

By ignoring and not paying a price, this will only encourage further abuse.  

[quote=primary]

No, it would be better to throw them in jail and let
them get butt raped but then they’d probably like it since they are gay
but just prefer very young partners since it’s all about overpowering a
helpless child so let them be overpowered by some tossedsalad
’girlfriends’ in prison.
[/quote]

I think you are projecting.

[quote]Whomit, you need to evaulate your faulty thinking here.  If the priests are innocent, let it be worked out in the justice system.[/quote]

There's no proof that anything happened. Just alot of people asking for money on the basis of "abuse" that they "experienced"

But it's not socially acceptable to point out how weak and swiss cheese the case of the "victims" is. E.g see the reaction to whomit is.

[quote]By ignoring and not paying a price, this will only encourage further abuse.  

That's like asking how DUI's are being deterred.  If you have a punishment that fits the crime (of course! they should go to jail).

I'm not projecting anything just commenting on prior post that prison isn't that nice and you can be raped in prison (better to avoid doing wrong or going to prison and if innocent, we hope the justice system will serve you just as we do if you are guilty.)

My post was directed to whomit and understanding why he thinks the way he does.  Appears to be financially motivated.  If there's no proof, Catholic church can seek justice so they don't have to pay then.  It's up to the justice system out of our hands.

The best thing would be to throw these priests out of the church-assume this has been done. Not Catholic and don't have the interest in knowing all the details here.  Maybe there's a saint for pedofile priests they can pray to. Yes, Christian way is to forgive sins and they should repent of those sins.  I don't know the details but maybe the Catholic Church will have a fresh start to ensure this doesn't continue to reoccur and since it's in the "headlines" victims will promptly report it.  Parents have more awareness and so do children on what's appropriate behavior of a Catholic priest.  Underlying issue is that church requires celibacy and seems to ensnare pedophiles into the profession just as teachers are drawn into the profession so they can have close interaction and opportunity for committing pedophile acts.  

http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html

Here's a list of consent ages by state, please note Mississippi.

Primary, I must say that I don't understand much of what you have said, and while I thank you for at least trying to show that you understand what I have said, I'm pretty sure that you have some key points wrong.

First, Yes, I do NOT agree with the actions of pedophile priests.

Second,(firstly) I don't care if they are gay or not. I do think that the priesthood has become a closet for men who did not want to face the fact that they were gay and went into the priesthood for the "safety" of celibacy. Secondly, I do not think that pedophile priests are so because they are gay, two gay men in the priesthood are much more likely to be attracted to each other than to young boys. Historically, hetero males "make do" with young boys so as to get around the commandment against adultery.

Third.. something about little girls... Well, when MY little girls are involved, I'm damned sure to be aware of what's going on around them, I can't imagine some parent just letting their son go away for the weekend with a full grown man who has no nookie of his own and there is no chaperone. Not me! No way!

4. "scarred for life" We're all scarred. But the way the boy whose father died in the car crash, or the girl whose face was torn asunder by a dog, or a car accident, or the boy I went to school with who dropped a firecracker into a tank of gasoline and had burn scars from his neck to his feet, they have to learn to live with it. What then is the difference?

The difference is the phony importance we put on sex. We make the victim of sexual abuse feel that it is better to hide the fact that they had been abused than to report it. We're in many ways no better than the Pakistani's who will kill a woman who allowed herself to be raped. We cling to this old testament view of ourselves that sex is evil (when King David took Bathsheba to be his wife, by sending her husband, a general out on a mission that David knew was suicide, after having seen her bathe nude on her rooftop, God, who used to talk with David all the time, suddenly stopped. The message was clear, sexual desire is a sin!) As I stated earlier in re prison rape, the reason for the rape is to subjugate to victim, how is this? Because the victim knows, deep in his heart that having sex done to you is dirty. It's the same with the boy molested by the priest. Whether the boy wanted to engage or not (most boys are smart enough to know when to get away from somebody whose getting too close) he still knows, deep down that what happened is wrong. Not because it specifically IS, but because we accept that it is.

We know that this is true because we can see throughout history that people who have lived without this prohibition have suffered no ill effects.

The irony here is that, given the freedom to choose, most opt away from this sort of activity and it is mostly in theocratic societies that this behavior manifests.

5. Catholic victim... Again, here is an example of "A" equals "Not B" thinking. I don't mean to imply that the true victim is the Church, but I do point out that they are also a victim of a vested interest. Don't think for a second that this is not costing the Catholic Church both members and at the collection plate. There is a resistance to dropping money into a basket that will pay fines for a priest that did what we all know is wrong.

The Catholic Church already has a huge problem in the USA, not enough priests, not enough people entering the priesthood. As I mentioned before, the church thrives where prosperity doesn't. This blow is not going to help the Church's situation. That helps the Anti Papist churches who want the Catholic money in their collection plates.

So when you ask "Have I got it right re: your viewpoint?', I guess I have to say no.

Nor do you have this right: "You say some girls are victimized at a young age and you don't say this is wrong. Sure, maybe the girls would get over it since they never had a chance to use their sex organs, anyway." You have that so wrong it makes me wonder what the heck you're talking about. Female Genital Mutilation was brought up to give some perspective to the issue. The point was raised that priests are particularly heinous because of their position of authority, and yet mothers are the one's who hold down their daughters (some as young as 5 years old) and spread their legs as someone practically tears away the clitoris and labia while the child screams in horror and pain! And yet, these girls grow up to be women (there's some supermodel who speaks out against this and it happened to her) So when someone says that an altar boy will never get over this, I ask "why?". One answer is that this is something that happens to all girls of certain cultures, and so they don't grow up with the shame. That is the reason that I aver that it is our attitude towards sex that causes the "mental anguish" that never heals.

"

Could it be that when it comes to money or a reputation (for example, the Catholic Church's reputation here), that your judgment is very cloudy? Judging from your other posts, you are highly influenced by anything financial and it does seem to totally cloud your judgement."

You're not in this business are you? Fine with me, I'll have the discussion anyway, but this point is not worthy of response.

The Catholic Church does lots of things that make it lots of money. Religion in general is the opiate of the people and by that I mean they will pay anything to have more of it once they're hooked on it. Annulment is one of those sorts of conveniences that Thomas Moore (author of the book Utopia ) says is why the Catholic Church is far from Christ's message (BTW Thomas Moore was martyred when he would not go along with Henry the Eight's break from the Church because they wouldn't grant him another annulment, he became Saint Thomas for his pains).

Keep in mind that I am the one who Indyone disdains for having said "Christians are retarded" by which I meant that they are forced to accept ideas that fly in the face of all logic and reason, they must "retard" (hold back) their own thought process.

"Throughout history, there have been alot of injustices from the results of actions of the Catholic Church or believers thereof - in goverment even hints of mafia affliation with the church. I'm no history buff so can't give specifics."

Yeah, I'm no history buff, but I'm pretty sure that was Godfather III !

I'm so glad you brought up the bad things that mother Church is responsible for. I don't suppose the number of St Somebody colleges in this country? They're Catholic! In fact it was the church that established the university system, based on the books of Aristotle. How about the St. Somebody Hospitals? Heard of them?

But of course, nobody wants to talk about the good the Church has done with its money and power.

Yes the Jenny Jones incident, that goes to prove my point about how screwed up our sexual morays are, thanks for bringing it up, but I don't think we see it as having the same significance.

"Sure some children are abused and get over it, --but what about the ones who don't. Many don't get over it and are scarred for life. The moneys paid out are for the victims who don't get over it. "

That is one psychotic thought, that money can make it better! Money, the sex you can carry in your wallet!

Money equals Justice huh? You shouldn't be talking to me about religion or morality.

"Too bad you don't feel this way. But perhaps once you reflect, you will have a new way of thinking here. If you are the intellectual you think you are, then you will know when you are actually wrong in your current view and have "faulty' thinking. Being able to change your view will show just how smart you really are."

That only works one way huh? It doesn't work if you decide that I'm correct in my thinking, only if I capitulate and surrender myself to the "TRUTH!" You prove it and I'll consider it, but so far you got bubkiss.

Societies' ills, we agree, but I want to treat the disease, not just punish the symptoms.

You see Anonymous, this is what is known as an ad hominem argument. You don't refute a single thing I've said and only attack my character (you argue at the man and not the argument he makes.)

Your character deserves to be attacked.   Your specific points are not worthy of a response.

"I'd bet a milkshake, that if the church offered only free psychotherapy and no cash to anyone who had been "molested" you would see very few takers."

I'm sure that this is true.  So what.  It doesn't change the fact about what happened to them.  It just means that free psychotherapy doesn't make it worth it to the victims to have this take center stage in their life again.  Can't you understand that they want the church and the priests to be punished. 

At best this is a medical issue and should be treated as such.

Well at least I can understand why you  are backing up Whomit in this conversation.

Allreit,

I just want to say that I'm honored to be one the same side here.

I admire people who can recognize that one difference of opinion doesn't mean all opinions must be different.

Primary, I'm sorry, I should have ignored you from the start.

Now youre going to ruin the thread.

I'm asking you, please don't.

Please.

You know and I know, and I'm asking you politely, please leave.

Anonymous,

Ok, You're right.

Why is "Anti Papist" inflammatory?

The whole of the Protestant Revolution was based on the Fallibility of the "infallibility' of the Pope. The Poe is supposed to be the voice of God on earth and yet here were these popes selling indulgences and having lotteries and making exceptions for this one and that one and generally mucking the whole holy thing up.

Once you reach that point then you get to where Protestants put forth the "There is no way to the father save through Me" line which they say the Pope short circuits. Not to mention the Idea that they then put Mother Mary in there as a way to get her son's ear. And then there are all those saints that you can, for a fee, pray to and they will pass your prayer along to the big guy at the next board meeting. (I like the saints myself, but mostly because they are a remnant of the Greek/Roman pagan gods where there was a different god for each subdivision of living, and they really did break it down quite nicely!)

Let's not forget that the country almost didn't (it can be well argued that they didn't) elect JFK because he was a Catholic who the country feared would take his orders from the Pope (pretty funny to think that JFK was considered a religious man).

I have been observing this site for a few weeks as a financial advisor looking to pick up a new sales idea or two after work hours. After finding this thread, though, I felt compelled to post. I had no idea that upon visiting a financial chat site, that I might find enlightenment to rival that of the Buddha himself. The originator of this post, specifically, is one of the few men I’ve ever read that can legitimately be called a true Renaissance Man. He is obviously infallible, not only as an extremely wealthy and successful financial advisor, but also proves his infallibility as a theologian, philosopher, social commentator, arbiter, linguist and moral compass to us all. To him, all I can do is offer my eternal, heartfelt thanks to have had the privilege to have been in the cyber-presence of such intellectual power. Sir, thank you.

The point being that the Christian community doesn't see the Catholics as Christian at all, because they have the Pope and the others I mentioned.

Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians would like to see the Catholic church abolished in accordance with God's word. That way they can "save" all those misbegotten Catholics from the hellfire and damnation that they are sure to experience! After the rapture, which could come at any time!

Joe,

I'm happy for you that you're happy where you are.

Personally I just can/will not believe in an anthropomorphic "God" (much less one who's three). And religion itself is something that I feel has outlived it's usefulness.

But that's me.

I do not know who you think I am.  I can assure you that I am not the poster you chased off the site and don't plan to post reason why I sent you the pm. ...--Bbut I was amused to see that NASD is wanting to check our behavior which was myonly post.  Ask the mods to check my ip address against who asked to leave the site.  I am in training and just got hired as a fa at a company I don't want to mention. This topic isn't about the job.  It's about religion.  Whomit, you engaged me in this topic and when I call you on your faulty thinking, you do not allow me to address your reactions to my statements.  You are one-sided and if someone proves you to be wrong, you attempt to admonish them and accuse them of being "your friend". 

As I said in my pm, you want to be a shock jockey.  The kitchen is getting too hot and you want me to leave because you know I am right.  

Tough cookies. You addressed my rebuttal and I shall comment like it or not.  

I noticed several people here who have very similar writing styles.  Remarkably, whomit, your writing resembles allrites and he did seem to agree with you, too.

I don't care to run this thread but will address your reaction to my comment if you don't mind endulging me here.

unless yuou’d like to have that pm conversation.

I don't want to ruin your thread so will address my disagreement via pm's since I have no alternative. As you noticed, I only had one post and don't care to post much on this site.  TGP has been more to my liking for my purposes. I do not use this name on that site.  You had wrong interpretations of my reaction that is fine if no one benefits from my insights but you. 

pm forthcoming. 

[quote=anonymous]

“I’d bet a milkshake, that if the church offered only free psychotherapy and no cash to anyone who had been “molested” you would see very few takers.”

I'm sure that this is true.  So what.  It doesn't change the fact about what happened to them.  It just means that free psychotherapy doesn't make it worth it to the victims to have this take center stage in their life again.  Can't you understand that they want the church and the priests to be punished.

I'd punish lots of people if the cash went straight into my pocket. I'd sell alot of life insurance too.

The fact is that money (the universal solvent)  pulls all these "victims" out of the woodwork should be raising up a very big red flag. It means that most of these actions vs the church are motivated by greed in excess of a need for healing.

People who may have suffered at best an intangible harm are collecting alot of very tangible cash.

At best this is a medical issue and should be treated as such.

Well at least I can understand why you  are backing up Whomit in this conversation.

The fact is that money (the universal solvent)  pulls all these "victims" out of the woodwork should be raising up a very big red flag. It means that most of these actions vs the church are motivated by greed in excess of a need for healing.

"Victims" in quotes.  I guess that is because to you the children did nothing more than engage in premarital sex as opposed to having the innocence of their childhood's taken from them.   How much money is needed to heal?  The answer is money and healing is not related.  The better question is how much money is needed to punish the church and the priests for their actions.  Without the money, many of the victims simply felt that nothing positive would come out of coming forward. 

People who may have suffered at best an intangible harm are collecting alot of very tangible cash.

Tangible/Intangible....so what.  Lock a kid in his room for 10 years and the harm will be intangible. 

There is an enourmous tendancy in this society to criminalise and punish alot of things which are really issues of disicipline. 

Since the priests didn't have enough discipline they molested children.  The Church didn't have enough discipline so they allowed it to continue.   Silly me.  I thought that people needed to take responsibility for their own actions.  I didn't realize that if someone wasn't disciplined, that would make a very good reason for their actions and they should not be punished.   I've got no problem with someone getting help if they don't have enough "discipline".  As long as help doesn't get in the way of the punishment.

Anony,

I really don't see what you're getting so exercised about. I understand what you're saying and I understand what you mean but I don't agree with several of your premises. Not least of which being the value of "the innocence of youth" and the ability of that quality to be taken. Further, I think that you are assuming that the altar boys involved here are younger then they were.

Lets take the second first. Altar servers are not 5 and 6 and 7 year olds, they have to have the maturity to be able to follow directions and coordinated enough to carry and hold stuff, alert and aware enough not to let the water and/or the wine spill. We're talking 9, 10 years old before they start.

The other day it was reported that some sicko kidnapped a two year old, molested and killed her. It's important not to assume that there is only one level of molester and that all are equally wrong. You agree with this premise, otherwise you wouldn't make the distinction of child molester v. boss secretary, but you don't seem to make it amongst the category of child molesters.

As to the innocence of youth. within the time frame of these abuses that are being paid out on now (certainly within the lifetimes of the parents) children were basically seen as property. You raised your kid that way you wanted to and if that meant beating the snot out of them, that was your business. "Spare the rod spoil the child." was axiomatic, "Children should be seen and not heard" was the golden rule. It was in 1938 that FDR signed the Child Labor Laws (actually, the Fair Labor Standards act)

Our attitude towards children has changed 180 degrees for a whole host of pop philosophical reasons "You'll give him a complex!" replaced earlier admonitions. Now we worship at the feet of "the innocence of youth" and, ironically, we've shortened that innocence by indulging it. Now 5 year olds know the words to songs by Akon and l'il Kim. & year olds dress like 27 year old hookers and youth is all about materialism and social engineering as parents do everything they can to make life fulfilling for their children. Children have come to expect to be driven to play dates and dance class and organized baseball games and travel soccer teams that take the family out of state every other weekend and every holiday season.

I think that you are looking at this issue through the lens of today's perception of children. I disagree.

Children are a lot tougher than we expect. They can put up with a lot more than we demand of them. We haven't evolved to the point where children are made out of porcelain.

This doesn't mean that what happened is "right" it doesn't mean that the church wasn't too slow in recognizing the issue and correcting it.

All it says is that kids are tougher than you think they are and if you stop making them a victim they'll stop being a victim.

One last idea... Think about the best thing that ever happened to you as a child (or as an adult). Is that the person that you are? The best thing that ever happened?

Now think about the worst thing that ever happened to you. Is that who you are?

If it's not true for you, that you are the best thing or the worst thing that ever happened, then why would it be reasonable to think that these people are the worst thing that ever happened to them?

It's not.

Now that we know that it's 9 year olds being molested instead of 7 year olds that is supposed to make a difference?

It's important not to assume that there is only one level of molester and that all are equally wrong.

All belong in jail.  The boss/secretary is not molestation and not comprable.

In the 60's, 70's and 80's, kids were seen as property?  Even so, they weren't the property of the pedophile priests.

Children are a lot tougher than we expect. 

Some are.  Some aren't.  Regardless, this doesn't lesson the crime.

Now think about the worst thing that ever happened to you. Is that who you are?

The worst (or best) thing doesn't make you the person who you are.  It does in many, many cases have a profound impact on your life and is certainly an influencing factor on making you the person who you are.   If that worst thing is the result of a criminal act, the perp should pay the price.  Don't you think that it is reasonable that the worst thing that happens to a person would have a profound influence on the rest of their lives?

Child molesters belong in jail for the rest of their lives or at least until they are too old to be a threat to other children.  They prey on people who are defenseless and for this they deserve no leniency.

[quote=anonymous]

The fact is that money (the universal solvent)  pulls all these “victims” out of the woodwork should be raising up a very big red flag. It means that most of these actions vs the church are motivated by greed in excess of a need for healing.

"Victims" in quotes.  I guess that is because to you the children did nothing more than engage in premarital sex as opposed to having the innocence of their childhood's taken from them.

Right now its just a wave of accusations, no one has any way to figure out if the claims of abuse are legitimate or not. If anything happened or not.

The Church is being weak by giving in on this, since it is optically bad to challenge the truthfulness of the "victims". All the victims have a sob story, but did it really happen?

Right now anyone can go and claim "That dirty preist touched my wee-wee, and I was harmed for life! Only a large cash payment can help me!"

How much money is needed to heal? The answer is money and healing is not related.

That's not what the plaintiff's lawyers are saying...

The better question is how much money is needed to punish the church and the priests for their actions.  Without the money, many of the victims simply felt that nothing positive would come out of coming forward.

So it is about money and not healing. Please forgive me if I am not that impressed with crass motives.

People who may have suffered at best an intangible harm are collecting alot of very tangible cash.

Tangible/Intangible....so what.  Lock a kid in his room for 10 years and the harm will be intangible.

And the damage done is not something that can be cured with cash.

There is an enourmous tendancy in this society to criminalise and punish alot of things which are really issues of disicipline. 

Since the priests didn't have enough discipline they molested children.  The Church didn't have enough discipline so they allowed it to continue.   Silly me.  I thought that people needed to take responsibility for their own actions.  I didn't realize that if someone wasn't disciplined, that would make a very good reason for their actions and they should not be punished.   I've got no problem with someone getting help if they don't have enough "discipline".  As long as help doesn't get in the way of the punishment.

I don't see where punishment helps the situation for anyone involved. It's not going to heal anyone, and its not going to deter anyone. What purpose does it serve?

I don't see where punishment helps the situation for anyone involved. It's not going to heal anyone, and its not going to deter anyone. What purpose does it serve?

Great logic.  By this reasoning, pedophiles shouldn't be put in jail because jail won't act as a deterrent and it won't help the victims.

You don't think that the Church having to pay $600 million dollars won't stop them from looking the other way?   You don't think that a victim getting some of this $600 million won't help improve their life.

The primary purpose of punishment is to punish.  It's not to heal and it's not to deter.  These may be secondary reasons, but certainly not primary ones.

[quote=anonymous]

I
don’t see where punishment helps the situation for anyone involved.
It’s not going to heal anyone, and its not going to deter anyone. What
purpose does it serve?

Great logic.  By this reasoning, pedophiles shouldn't be put in jail because jail won't act as a deterrent and it won't help the victims.

Pretty much, putting them in jail costs alot of tax payer money and doesn't make the public much safer over some sort of residential treatment program.

You don't think that the Church having to pay $600 million dollars won't stop them from looking the other way?   You don't think that a victim getting some of this $600 million won't help improve their life.

No I don't. If the victims had pure motives they wouldn't be seeking cash payment.

It's not even proven that this is anything other than people trying to cash in on massive hysteria.

The primary purpose of punishment is to punish.  It's not to heal and it's not to deter.  These may be secondary reasons, but certainly not primary ones.

So what is the benefit of punishment?

How many children get molested by pedophiles who are in jail?

Anonymous,

Yes we are all well aware of your POV, it is not at all complicated and it is the product of a failed educational system.

There absolutely is a difference between a 7 year old and a 9 year old. Does this difference make having sexual relations with this child ok? Not in our culture, No. Nobody ever said that it did. But there is a difference between the Priest seducuing a 12 year old boy and a sociopath living out his fantasy on a two year old girl that he then kills.

I know that you don't want to concede any point to me because in your mind that means that your "White" has turned to "Black" so I won't expect to hear you accept that all rape is comparable, (can be compared) and then qualified as to serverity and depravity. For example, Statutory Rape can be a lesser crime than date rape. There is the case of the husband, who married his wife in a state where the age of consent is 16, he was 19. The baby was born and he was arrested based on the evidence of the the baby proving that he had sex with a girl under the age of consent. That's statutory rape. But who was raped by which statutes?

Peewee Herman was arrested once for having "Kiddie Porn" in his house, he had a copy of the Rob Lowe sex tape and a copy of a Tracy Lords tape. That's the same as someone looking at (or worse, producing) snuff films of 4 year olds? (interestingly, it has been decided that even watching CGI images of kiddie porn is illegal, this is thought police sort of stuff, that we as freedom loving Americans should be against, but we're not!)

Ruhipnol, administered to a girl of the consenting age and then she gets gangbanged by the entire frat is a much more serious crime, worse, in my estimation than the priest situation. So you see, there are gradations in severity crimes, whether you want to concede the point or not.

Allreit makes a very subtle point here that I must say is also beyond your displayed capacity to grasp. He has given this discussion a wholey different direction to explore, the efficacy of imprisonment. This nation has more people incercerated per capita (at least) than any other nation on the planet, and yet we still have crime. At what point do we ask ourselves if this makes any sense? Are we by definition insane as a nation?

Your Hanrabian notion that prison is for punishment is a failed paradigm. I don't really expect you to understand this either, and so I'm asking myself why I'm bothering to explain it.

And now I'm going to stop.

Priests don't seduce 12 year old boys.  They molest them.

My POV isn't complicated because the idea that molester's should be incarcerated isn't a complicated idea.

I have never said, nor do I believe, that all rape is comparable.  I'm probably on your side that much that is called "rape" is not rape.

If part of the idea of prison for child molestors is to protect other children, prison works perfectly.   Prison may not be a deterrent, but lack of prison is not a deterrent either.  Given a choice, I'd rather see the bad guys in prison.

[quote=joedabrkr]

[quote=anonymous]How many children get molested by pedophiles who are in jail?[/quote]

And yet, whomit, you did not address the above question…
[/quote]



The answer is probably very few, and not more than if those same people
were in a residential treatment program. Infact given that prison
sentances are finite, you have to consider rates of redicivism after
they get released.



What seems to get lost is the huge opportunity cost of tying up capital
in prisons (vs schools etc) and the huge ongoing costs of incarceration
(vs spending the money on schools, lower taxes etc).



The obsession with punishment per se instead of the desired outcomes is silly.
Of course the prison unions/law enforcement/criminal justice complex
folks have a big stake in promoting a need for their services.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Anonymous,

Yes we are all well aware of your POV, it is not at all complicated and it is the product of a failed educational system.

There absolutely is a difference between a 7 year old and a 9 year old. Does this difference make having sexual relations with this child ok? Not in our culture, No. Nobody ever said that it did. But there is a difference between the Priest seducuing a 12 year old boy and a sociopath living out his fantasy on a two year old girl that he then kills.

Whomit who do you think you are are? George Eastman? You're intorducing color into our black and white world.

Ruhipnol, administered to a girl of the consenting age and then she gets gangbanged by the entire frat is a much more serious crime, worse, in my estimation than the priest situation. So you see, there are gradations in severity crimes, whether you want to concede the point or not.

There could no worse crime possible than than some kid getting his wee-wee touched. It's the most awful this imaginable. Worse than murder, rape, terrorism and every other crime combined.

Allreit makes a very subtle point here that I must say is also beyond your displayed capacity to grasp. He has given this discussion a wholey different direction to explore, the efficacy of imprisonment. This nation has more people incercerated per capita (at least) than any other nation on the planet, and yet we still have crime. At what point do we ask ourselves if this makes any sense? Are we by definition insane as a nation?

No, you are insane for questioing the obvious logic of locking everyone up.

Your Hanrabian notion that prison is for punishment is a failed paradigm. I don't really expect you to understand this either, and so I'm asking myself why I'm bothering to explain it.

That's Hammurabi, and I think pedophiles should have their wee-wee's and hands cut off live on cable tv. And every child should be made to watch, so as to deter them from growing up to be pedophiles.

And now I'm going to stop.

Not least of which reason being that they were crossed posts. I started writing my post before I went to lunch and then finished after I got back, during which time I did not see Anonymous' overpowering  question.

Anonymous does not show that he understands the first thing about the criminal justice system. He doesn't want to admit that there are degrees of crime and that people are incarcerated for various lengths of time based on the severity of the crime and other mitigating factors.

Nor is there any light bulb going off in his head about the relative numbers either way on the molestation issue. He shows Chicken Littleism in his fear of what might happen to the children, as if an entire generation is at risk. This mindset is brought on by too much credibility given to "gut instinct" and the lack of practice in being skeptical of the numbers being tossed around.

If you go by the numbers put forth by the Fear Media children are being disappeared like during the Pinochet regime!

So the point is that you don't put people in jail "for life" for crimes that are relatively minor (relative to someone selling heroin to middle schoolers, or someone who tortures, rapes and kills co-eds, or someone who bilks thousands of people out of millions of dollars savings, or someone who conspires to blow up a federal building, or someone who uses substandard concrete to build the dam).

It would have been at least a half step more sophisticated if Anonymous had called for chemical castration of the offender. But to think that jail is the answer is juvenile.

The obsession with punishment per se instead of the desired outcomes is silly.

When someone molests the child, there are two major desired outcomes.  1) Punish the molester.  2) Make sure that the molester can't molest again.  As long as the molester is in jail, the desired outcome is achieved.

Your Hanrabian notion that prison is for punishment is a failed paradigm.

I have no clue what Hanrabian means.  What is a failed paradigm is trying to use prison for anything else other than punishment.  It fails at rehab.  It fails as a deterrent.  It fails at education.  It fails at turning people into productive members of society.  It is only successful as punishment and keeping criminals from brutalizing society while they are still locked up.

The obsession with punishment per se instead of the desired outcomes is silly.

Isn't it the desired outcome that the pedophile be removed from society and the opportunity to molest more children?  If that means incarceration then so be it. 

If you think incarceration is too expensive, then I suggest a strategically placed bullet is much more cost effective and permanently gives us the desired outcome. 

It would have been at least a half step more sophisticated if Anonymous had called for chemical castration of the offender. But to think that jail is the answer is juvenile.

You can keep your sophistication.  I want child molesters off the streets.  I have no problem with chemical castration...after they serve their jail term.  Molesters belong in jail.   This shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.

Congratulations Anonymous, you have dragged the conversation down to a level matches your intellect.

Good for you.

If wanting child molestors in jail drags down the conversation, let it be dragged.

My unsophisticated unintellectual brain can't understand why anyone wouldn't want them there.  Well, I can think of one reason, but it's not something that I would want to post.  I'll leave the personal attacks to you.

Ok, you can shut up now.

[quote=anonymous]

It would have been at least a half step more sophisticated if Anonymous had called for chemical castration of the offender. But to think that jail is the answer is juvenile.

You can keep your sophistication.  I want child molesters off the streets.  I have no problem with chemical castration...after they serve their jail term.  Molesters belong in jail.   This shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.

[/quote]

Anonymous, you have totally destroyed this thread. Please leave now please please since youknowwhom knows that you know that I know.  Surely, we shouldn't have a problem in grasping the concept that it's ok to molest a child-after all of course "they will get over it" (the priest just "made do") and per whomit's privately owned vehicle, they will get over it.  It's not the end of the world.  Let the priests continue molesting.  The foundation is that the children are resilient and "will get over it". The Catholic Church owes nothing.  Amen!    

Nancy, shut the hell up and go away.

All child molesters should be executed.

Did anyone see the new show Mad Men on A&E?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It's apparently produced by the guy who produced Sopranos (but it's not written by David Chase). Set in 1960 ish this program is heavy with reminders of what the world was like when The Pill and Valium were both first introduced.

The show reminded me of the Joseph Heller book Something Happened where the expectation was that one took a two Martini lunch and schtupped a steno daily. It was a rarefied time when women were liberated but before women's liberation (which was a subsubject of the show about the '60s on PBS right before Mad Men) . I have a particular fondness for the advertising business, I think that there are only very few jobs that are worth doing, This one, Ad Exec, Ordnance sales, Astronaut and Senator or above level politician. These are jobs that require you to be analytical, smart, personable and creative to be good at them. As such, this show, while not being about our business is about the type of people that we are, or at least were, back in the day.

The show hit on at least three controversial issues in it's pilot. First was the problem with advertising cigarettes, which they Readers Digest had just labeled as deadly, and the F something something (CC, TA, a federal agency) had outlawed using health claims for selling cigarettes. The second was a threefer, a woman, who was Jewish was running her family store and wanted to position it as an upscale destination at a time when this demographic distinction didn't really exist. The third slips my mind right now. It's not really the sex thing or the Pill, it's not how shabbily women were treated pre "Sexual Harassment" concepts, Ah, it was the smoking! Everybody smoked, all of the time! The show goes out of it's way to recreate the mystique of smoking and the social opportunities it presented (how suave one could be lighting a ladies cigarette, and how she handled the job of posing with her cancer stick.)

I would have felt that the director was going overboard with the whole issue and was only bringing it up to go along with the  protagonists dilemma (how to advertise the cigarette without making health claims), but overall, I'll put that judgment off until I see other episodes not about smoking we'll see how much smoking is being done in those eps. The net result does not come off as an endorsement for smoking, it actually reminds us how annoying it used to be to be a non smoker. One could easily think that the tobacco companies were underwriting this program.

The protagonist, however does pull the rabbit out of the hat at the pitch meeting with big tobacco, and again it is very much like what our business can be like (except differently). He boots the meeting with the Jewish store owner though, which of course means that they are eventually going to wind up in bed together after plenty of Sturm und Drang.

This show has an interesting twist in that during commercial breaks the show will return with a tidbit about an ad category, like "The first Pharmaceutical ad aired in 1997" and then there is an ad for the pill for Fibrosis. The tid bit refers to Egyptian papyrus advertising poster, and then there is an ad for Disney (sometimes it takes a hop to figure how the two are related , but they are). Personally, I liked this in that it is a fresh idea, and I'm in favor of the creativity. But it also breaks up the monotony of a commercial break.

I'd recommend that, assuming you watch something on the tube, that you give this show a try. It's not the sort of stuff I usually watch, and I'll be sure to be bored with it soon enough, but I'll try to keep it on my viewing schedule.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Did anyone see the new show Mad Men on A&E?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It's apparently produced by the guy who produced Sopranos (but it's not written by David Chase). Set in 1960 ish this program is heavy with reminders of what the world was like when The Pill and Valium were both first introduced.

The show reminded me of the Joseph Heller book Something Happened where the expectation was that one took a two Martini lunch and schtupped a steno daily. It was a rarefied time when women were liberated but before women's liberation (which was a subsubject of the show about the '60s on PBS right before Mad Men) . I have a particular fondness for the advertising business, I think that there are only very few jobs that are worth doing, This one, Ad Exec, Ordnance sales, Astronaut and Senator or above level politician. These are jobs that require you to be analytical, smart, personable and creative to be good at them. As such, this show, while not being about our business is about the type of people that we are, or at least were, back in the day.

The show hit on at least three controversial issues in it's pilot. First was the problem with advertising cigarettes, which they Readers Digest had just labeled as deadly, and the F something something (CC, TA, a federal agency) had outlawed using health claims for selling cigarettes. The second was a threefer, a woman, who was Jewish was running her family store and wanted to position it as an upscale destination at a time when this demographic distinction didn't really exist. The third slips my mind right now. It's not really the sex thing or the Pill, it's not how shabbily women were treated pre "Sexual Harassment" concepts, Ah, it was the smoking! Everybody smoked, all of the time! The show goes out of it's way to recreate the mystique of smoking and the social opportunities it presented (how suave one could be lighting a ladies cigarette, and how she handled the job of posing with her cancer stick.)

I would have felt that the director was going overboard with the whole issue and was only bringing it up to go along with the  protagonists dilemma (how to advertise the cigarette without making health claims), but overall, I'll put that judgment off until I see other episodes not about smoking we'll see how much smoking is being done in those eps. The net result does not come off as an endorsement for smoking, it actually reminds us how annoying it used to be to be a non smoker. One could easily think that the tobacco companies were underwriting this program.

The protagonist, however does pull the rabbit out of the hat at the pitch meeting with big tobacco, and again it is very much like what our business can be like (except differently). He boots the meeting with the Jewish store owner though, which of course means that they are eventually going to wind up in bed together after plenty of Sturm und Drang.

This show has an interesting twist in that during commercial breaks the show will return with a tidbit about an ad category, like "The first Pharmaceutical ad aired in 1997" and then there is an ad for the pill for Fibrosis. The tid bit refers to Egyptian papyrus advertising poster, and then there is an ad for Disney (sometimes it takes a hop to figure how the two are related , but they are). Personally, I liked this in that it is a fresh idea, and I'm in favor of the creativity. But it also breaks up the monotony of a commercial break.

I'd recommend that, assuming you watch something on the tube, that you give this show a try. It's not the sort of stuff I usually watch, and I'll be sure to be bored with it soon enough, but I'll try to keep it on my viewing schedule.

[/quote]

THanks for the tip. It's on AMC, not A&E. Another good show that kicks the soprano's ass is "The Brotherhood" on Showtime. THe first season is available on Showtime On Demand.

Actually watched Mad Men last night as well. Good show.

I liked when he said "They don't have machines that magically make two copies of the report."

Then there was the "Don't be scared by the technology (as she unveils an IBM Selectric), they made it so easy even a woman could use it!"

And the Cerberus at the switchboard.

Enough comic relief to keep the show light, not too much.

OK  I have to Tivo it.   Right now, I’m into re-watching the first season of Deadwood.   I am so pissed that HBO didn’t go for the fourth season.  cokesoakers!!    Seriously, how much money do they want to throw away not to renew this?   I cancelled my subscription.

Hey, there's still Big Love to watch.

[quote=Dust Bunny]OK  I have to Tivo it.   Right now, I'm into re-watching the first season of Deadwood.   I am so pissed that HBO didn't go for the fourth season.  cokesoakers!!    Seriously, how much money do they want to throw away not to renew this?   I cancelled my subscription.[/quote]

I'd drop mine if they ever ended Entourage.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 Speaking of which, anyone notice the girl trying on shoes at the shoe store? I couldn’t have been the only one to see it….