| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
stonebeard 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
 Posted: December 12 2010 at 21:56 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Ivan, you don't get that some things about religion deserve to be hated.
|
Iván |
For instance: 1) The Roman Catholic church covering up the psychological torture and physical rape of young children, and enabling pedophiles to come into contact with fresh batches of meat to be fondled. 2) Mother Theresa not supporting condom usage and the emancipation of women, two very effective things at relieving poverty. She clearly cared more about dogma than about really solving the problem. 3) Giving white landowners a textual reason not to give up slavery. 4) A large majority of Christians do not support equality in society nor in the benefits of marriage to a class of people that are attracted to the same sex. These are all things that can and should be condemned and driven off the face of society with no farewell.
|
|
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 18:50 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean, I would have thought that you knew my position on the abuse scandal well enough over the course of this and Teo's thread. However I'll accept that i may not have been 100% clear which parts of Hitchens' statement I was referring to at different points in my last post. So, for the sake of clarity... my ''unfounded allegations/fairy tales'' comment was a reference to ... it's the Roman Church who seems to want to have sex with children, and seems to want grownups to have sex with children, at that. There is no evidence for claims such as these, although I concede your argument about his use of the word seems.
I did not and have never denied the history of abuse, and have mentioned the pope's reference to ''crimes'' already in this thread. While they got away with the abuse for decades, ultimately the cover-up was a failure hence my use of the word ''tried'' (I did not mean to imply any dubiety about the cover-up). Hitchens does not even mention the cover-up scandal in that quote, I mention it in the post. Therefore, what you have done is to attribute my ''unfounded allegations/fairy tales'' comment to something that I said (attempted cover-up), rather than to Hitchens' comment (Church wants child sex). Is that any clearer? Please read the final paragraph of my post again with that in mind.
I notice you didn't comment on the wrong sex issue. Perhaps best to leave this? |
I didn't read Teo's thread on the abuse scandal, this is the first time I have commented on the scandal as far as I recall and I don't keep records of everybody's stance on every subject nor do I have such a great memory as to be able to remember who is on which side in any controversy. Sorry.
I think I need to learn to write more succinctly: I was also referring to the same phrase (... it's the Roman Church who seems to want to have sex with children, and seems to want grownups to have sex with children, at that. ) and gave my interpretation of the reasons why Hitchens would make that statement (which, incidentally, is not a claim or an accusation). Of course Hitchens is talking about the cover-up in that quote - and the cover-up is "the facts" that you were so dismissive about - he is using sarcasm to make the point that by covering up the crimes the church seems to be encouraging priests to molest and abuse children. With that in mind perhaps you should re-read my post.
The wrong sex issue I covered in my previous post - I think you are being selective in your interpretation, (or mistaken in your interpretation depending on how you look at it). I hope my subsequent silence on the subject isn't misinterpreted.
|
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 18:27 |
Dean, I would have thought that you knew my position on the abuse scandal well enough over the course of this and Teo's thread. However I'll accept that i may not have been 100% clear which parts of Hitchens' statement I was referring to at different points in my last post. So, for the sake of clarity... my ''unfounded allegations/fairy tales'' comment was a reference to ... it's the Roman Church who seems to want to have sex with children, and seems to want grownups to have sex with children, at that. There is no evidence for claims such as these, although I concede your argument about his use of the word seems.
I did not and have never denied the history of abuse, and have mentioned the pope's reference to ''crimes'' already in this thread. While they got away with the abuse for decades, ultimately the cover-up was a failure hence my use of the word ''tried'' (I did not mean to imply any dubiety about the cover-up). Hitchens does not even mention the cover-up scandal in that quote, I mention it in the post. Therefore, what you have done is to attribute my ''unfounded allegations/fairy tales'' comment to something that I said (attempted cover-up), rather than to Hitchens' comment (Church wants child sex). Is that any clearer? Please read the final paragraph of my post again with that in mind.
I notice you didn't comment on the wrong sex issue. Perhaps best to leave this?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 17:26 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Would someone explain what Hitchens means by having sex with the wrong sex of child? |
I hope you're not trying to make it appear like he's saying that picking the right (hetero) combination, that would somehow make it less immoral.
Now, I grant that Hitchens can sometimes be awfully high handed - but I don't mind too much, as long as it doesn't affect his general line of argumentation (and it doesn't).
Journalists should strive to be precise in everything they say - but don't tear their head of whenever they say "everything" instead of "most". |
Mike, He's obviously trying to make some sort of point or he wouldn't have said that. I can't put my finger on it, but I just have a gut feeling there's something wrong with his wrong sex comment. No, I don't think he's saying different sex combination would be less immoral. Is he same that same sex combination is more immoral? I really don't know but perhaps he should take greater care when throwing these accusations about. Btw, I don't think the terms hetero/homo have any place in this argument. |
Looks more like selective interpretation to me. It's evidently clear what Hitchens is saying and that the phrase concludes with "as well as the wrong age" makes any attempt to make it appear he's saying something else completely specious. |
Well, it's not evidently clear to me, which is the reason I asked the question. Let's look at the complete quote: ... it's the Roman Church who seems to want to have sex with children, and seems to want grownups to have sex with children, at that. Often of the wrong sex, as well as the wrong age. "No child's behind left," as I say in my book.
The abuse scandal has been well documented, so I think we all know already that we're talking about underage children. In Scotland the age of consent is 16 regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (England & Wales) Section 9 states that a person commits an offence if the other person is under 16. Section 16 (Abuse of position of trust) of the same act makes it an offence if the other person is under 18. Given that Catholic priests would be seen to be in a position of trust, I imagine this is the section that would apply in England & Wales. So, we have clearly defined wrong ages. Now, what constitutes a wrong sex?
Regarding the first part of Hitchens' statement, setting aside the immoral and criminal aspect of the argument, I would imagine this would be the last thing the Church wanted given the furore around the scandal (yes I realise it's said for effect). However let's look at the facts, you know, that stuff that atheists are always talking about. Some priests abused children -> the Church misguidedly tried to cover-up the abuse. Isn't the attempted cover-up bad enough? Why invent fairy stories unfounded allegations? |
The cover-ups were not "attempted" - they actually did it and got away with it for years - and not just a few years but tens of years. Electing to conduct hearings within the body of the church, (and deal with any subsequent punishment internally), for what are undeniably criminal acts (regardless of whose statutes and laws you care to chose) is a cover up intended to avoid any embarrassment to the church rather than exact punishment for the offenders or any redress for the victims. These are not unfounded allegations and fairy stories - they are facts as admitted by the church itself. By holding internal hearings and not handing the offenders over to the police for public trial they are protecting them, which can be seen as condoning their behaviour - that is the point Hitchens is making (note the repeated use of the word "seems" in the quote).
|
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 17:05 |
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Would someone explain what Hitchens means by having sex with the wrong sex of child? |
I hope you're not trying to make it appear like he's saying that picking the right (hetero) combination, that would somehow make it less immoral.
Now, I grant that Hitchens can sometimes be awfully high handed - but I don't mind too much, as long as it doesn't affect his general line of argumentation (and it doesn't).
Journalists should strive to be precise in everything they say - but don't tear their head of whenever they say "everything" instead of "most". |
Mike, He's obviously trying to make some sort of point or he wouldn't have said that. I can't put my finger on it, but I just have a gut feeling there's something wrong with his wrong sex comment. No, I don't think he's saying different sex combination would be less immoral. Is he same that same sex combination is more immoral? I really don't know but perhaps he should take greater care when throwing these accusations about. Btw, I don't think the terms hetero/homo have any place in this argument. |
Looks more like selective interpretation to me. It's evidently clear what Hitchens is saying and that the phrase concludes with "as well as the wrong age" makes any attempt to make it appear he's saying something else completely specious. |
Well, it's not evidently clear to me, which is the reason I asked the question. Let's look at the complete quote: ... it's the Roman Church who seems to want to have sex with children, and seems to want grownups to have sex with children, at that. Often of the wrong sex, as well as the wrong age. "No child's behind left," as I say in my book.
The abuse scandal has been well documented, so I think we all know already that we're talking about underage children. In Scotland the age of consent is 16 regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (England & Wales) Section 9 states that a person commits an offence if the other person is under 16. Section 16 (Abuse of position of trust) of the same act makes it an offence if the other person is under 18. Given that Catholic priests would be seen to be in a position of trust, I imagine this is the section that would apply in England & Wales. So, we have clearly defined wrong ages. Now, what constitutes a wrong sex?
Regarding the first part of Hitchens' statement, setting aside the immoral and criminal aspect of the argument, I would imagine this would be the last thing the Church wanted given the furore around the scandal (yes I realise it's said for effect). However let's look at the facts, you know, that stuff that atheists are always talking about. Some priests abused children -> the Church misguidedly tried to cover-up the abuse. Isn't the attempted cover-up bad enough? Why invent fairy stories unfounded allegations?
Edited by seventhsojourn - December 12 2010 at 17:07
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 16:03 |
stonebeard wrote:
Ivan, you don't get that some things about religion deserve to be hated.
|
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 15:18 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Would someone explain what Hitchens means by having sex with the wrong sex of child? |
I hope you're not trying to make it appear like he's saying that picking the right (hetero) combination, that would somehow make it less immoral.
Now, I grant that Hitchens can sometimes be awfully high handed - but I don't mind too much, as long as it doesn't affect his general line of argumentation (and it doesn't).
Journalists should strive to be precise in everything they say - but don't tear their head of whenever they say "everything" instead of "most". |
Mike, He's obviously trying to make some sort of point or he wouldn't have said that. I can't put my finger on it, but I just have a gut feeling there's something wrong with his wrong sex comment. No, I don't think he's saying different sex combination would be less immoral. Is he same that same sex combination is more immoral? I really don't know but perhaps he should take greater care when throwing these accusations about. Btw, I don't think the terms hetero/homo have any place in this argument. |
Looks more like selective interpretation to me. It's evidently clear what Hitchens is saying and that the phrase concludes with " as well as the wrong age" makes any attempt to make it appear he's saying something else completely specious.
|
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 13:34 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Would someone explain what Hitchens means by having sex with the wrong sex of child? |
I hope you're not trying to make it appear like he's saying that picking the right (hetero) combination, that would somehow make it less immoral.
Now, I grant that Hitchens can sometimes be awfully high handed - but I don't mind too much, as long as it doesn't affect his general line of argumentation (and it doesn't).
Journalists should strive to be precise in everything they say - but don't tear their head of whenever they say "everything" instead of "most". |
Mike, He's obviously trying to make some sort of point or he wouldn't have said that. I can't put my finger on it, but I just have a gut feeling there's something wrong with his wrong sex comment. No, I don't think he's saying different sex combination would be less immoral. Is he same that same sex combination is more immoral? I really don't know but perhaps he should take greater care when throwing these accusations about. Btw, I don't think the terms hetero/homo have any place in this argument.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 12:32 |
stonebeard wrote:
Ivan, you don't get that some things about religion deserve to be hated.
|
To me, faith - or specifically the mindset that faith is a virtue - is the most hateworthy thing about religion. That of course makes it somewhat difficult for me to find anything positive in what the church is doing. Basically it's charitable work and giving people a sense of community, but a lot of that is tainted by proselytizing.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 12:30 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Would someone explain what Hitchens means by having sex with the wrong sex of child? |
I hope you're not trying to make it appear like he's saying that picking the right (hetero) combination, that would somehow make it less immoral.
Now, I grant that Hitchens can sometimes be awfully high handed - but I don't mind too much, as long as it doesn't affect his general line of argumentation (and it doesn't).
Journalists should strive to be precise in everything they say - but don't tear their head of whenever they say "everything" instead of "most".
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 12:21 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Extreme skepticism = hate?
|
I don't see the connection. I think this would be more reasonable:
Extreme sarcasm/cynicism = strong dislike
I strongly dislike Mother Teresa, based on what I know about her. Maybe I don't know all the facts, maybe I do but I draw the wrong conclusions ... be that as it may, I feel a strong dislike.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 12:04 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Yes, but that strikes me as a strange argument coming from Hitchens. This is about the abuse of children, I don't understand the relevance of the child's sex. |
No....unless its somehow more wrong to have sex with a young boy. Or at least that's how he feels. Perhaps he just phrased it badly?
|
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 12:00 |
|
Yes, but that strikes me as a strange argument coming from Hitchens. This is about the abuse of children, I don't understand the relevance of the child's sex.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 11:48 |
|
^ same sex, sex I suppose.
|
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 11:44 |
In that first video Hitchens says: Everything everybody thinks they know about her is false... all the things. And yet he calls Muggeridge arrogant. 
The abuse scandal keeps getting brought up here. In an interview at A.V. Club - Christmas with Christopher Hitchens: ... it's the Roman Church who seems to want to have sex with children, and seems to want grownups to have sex with children, at that. Often of the wrong sex, as well as the wrong age. "No child's behind left," as I say in my book. Stonie, I have repeatedly criticised the Church for its handling of the abuse scandal, so wouldn't have any issue doing the same here if there's any truth behind the claims about Mother Teresa. Deliberately withholding analgesia and failing to sterilise IV equipment, money disappearing... as Iván says, serious accusations if they can be substantiated.
Would someone explain what Hitchens means by having sex with the wrong sex of child?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 11:11 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Extreme skepticism = hate?
|
I don't think so. Do you?
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 10:47 |
|
Ivan, you don't get that some things about religion deserve to be hated.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 10:42 |
|
Extreme skepticism = hate?
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 09:52 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
"No child's behind left".
(Christopher Hitchens, about the Catholic church) |
I like this guy.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 12 2010 at 09:41 |
Please Penn Jillette and Hitchens together?
What more hatred against religion can you ask.
What is he doing fotr this people in India appart from insulting a woman who gave her life.
Again, you call the opinion of many antoi-Catholics and renegade nun WITH NO PHYSICAL PROOF OF ANYTHING THEY CLAIM OR CORROBORATION.
Of course when the second rate magician started to talk about rapist Priests...It's evident what his looking for.
Here we are not talking about the existence of God that can't be proven, this are serious accusations without a single document or piece of evidence.
Please Mike, you can do better than this.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
