Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2122232425 41>
Poll Question: What are you?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
26 [30.59%]
13 [15.29%]
46 [54.12%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:27
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^^ Due to recent polls more than 80% of US citizens don't believe in the concept of evolution. More than 40% believe in the book of creation, and the others only believe in evolution that was "governed" by divine intervention. I would call that blind belief at least to a large degree ... many of those people might simply not give much consideration to the question, but many simply say "I don't care about fossils or DNA ... I rather believe in the book".
 
And what's yor problem?
 
They are allowed to believe in whatever they want, this is a free world...As long as you believe in what you think is true, the rest shouldn't matter..

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

And religion is much more than a tool. A hammer is not biased, religion is. The bible contains numerous passages that command believers to inflict violence on nonbelievers, homosexuals, blasphemers and so on. It is not a hammer, but rather an instruction book on who and when to hammer.
 
O please Mike there are worst things in the newspapers or Internet just check http://www.linkbase.org/articles/How-To-Kill-Someone.htm,
 
There are pages and books about how to rape or how to suicide and all of them are protected by the First Ammendment...This are instructions.
 
But every Christian (except irrational fanatics) understand some of the rules in the old testament don't apply anymore.
 
You will find excuses always Mike.
 
Iván
 
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 27 2009 at 15:28
            
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:35
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^^ Due to recent polls more than 80% of US citizens don't believe in the concept of evolution. More than 40% believe in the book of creation, and the others only believe in evolution that was "governed" by divine intervention. I would call that blind belief at least to a large degree ... many of those people might simply not give much consideration to the question, but many simply say "I don't care about fossils or DNA ... I rather believe in the book".
 
And what's yor problem?
 
They are allowed to believe in whatever they want, this is a free world...As long as you believe in what you think is true, the rest shouldn't matter..



I think it's wrong. It's backward, it keeps people from progressing. People who might have become scientists might be taught Creationism by religious people and then not become scientists.

As I said: I think it's wrong. And as you said, this is a free world (at least in our parts), and I'm allowed to make this criticism. And when it comes to schools, you could call it teaching untruths, which is simply a euphemism for "lying to children". If you believe in something, and you know it contradicts established scientific fact, and you teach it to children instead of those scientific facts, then I simply think it's (gravely) wrong.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

And religion is much more than a tool. A hammer is not biased, religion is. The bible contains numerous passages that command believers to inflict violence on nonbelievers, homosexuals, blasphemers and so on. It is not a hammer, but rather an instruction book on who and when to hammer.
 
O please Mike there are worst things in the newspapers or Internet just check http://www.linkbase.org/articles/How-To-Kill-Someone.htm,
 
There are pages and books about how to rape or how to suicide and all of them are protected by the First Ammendment...This are instructions.
 
But every Christian (except irrational fanatics) understand some of the rules in the old testament don't apply anymore.
 
You will find excuses always Mike.
 
Iván
 
 


Can you really honestly say that every Christian on this planet knows that?

And I don't think that we should tolerate an excuse for crimes just because there may be others.
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:36
"You mean the myth of atheist violence?"

I meant violence by atheists and should have phrased it that way.  I did clearly state "doctrinal or not" and you are the one bringing the atheist black sheep into it, not me (this time).

I was thinking of this:
Jeffrey Dahmer: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" [An interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994]. "

or this:

"You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that."
-- Ted Bundy

but, as usual, you know best and also know what everyone else is thinking.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:36
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


The death penalty is a strange thing anyway, since it contradicts the ten commandments. Talking about having your cake and eating it too ...
 
Not according to my Church:
 
Quote

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."[56]

 
A convicted criminal is not an innocent human being
 
And more clear:
 
Quote

Capital Punishment

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

 
Our interpretation is different.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:39
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

"You mean the myth of atheist violence?"

I meant violence by atheists and should have phrased it that way.  I did clearly state "doctrinal or not" and you are the one bringing the atheist black sheep into it, not me (this time).

I was thinking of this:
Jeffrey Dahmer: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" [An interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994]. "

or this:

"You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that."
-- Ted Bundy

but, as usual, you know best and also know what everyone else is thinking.


What a completely nonsensical argument. What point is there in listing violent crimes committed by atheists? I never listed violent crimes committed by religious people, since it would be completely besides the point. Violent crimes are relevant in this discussion if they can be attributed to religious beliefs or atheism. Otherwise I could also list violent crimes committed by people with mustaches.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:44
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I think it's wrong. It's backward, it keeps people from progressing. People who might have become scientists might be taught Creationism by religious people and then not become scientists.

As I said: I think it's wrong. And as you said, this is a free world (at least in our parts), and I'm allowed to make this criticism. And when it comes to schools, you could call it teaching untruths, which is simply a euphemism for "lying to children". If you believe in something, and you know it contradicts established scientific fact, and you teach it to children instead of those scientific facts, then I simply think it's (gravely) wrong.

 
That's called freedom...Take care for what you and your famnily elieve and let the rest of the world believe in what they want.
 
Just remember
 
  1. Lemaitre a Catholic Bishop was the first person to talk about the Big Bang
  2. Louis Pasteur was a faithful Catholic
  3. It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936, to the point that Seismology is also known as "The Jesuit Science"
  4. Jesuit Priest  Roger Boscovich,  has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory and the father of Astrophysics
  5. Fr. Giambattista Riccioli (Jesuit Priest also) was an astronomer and first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body.

Did religion limited them?....I guess not.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

  
Can you really honestly say that every Christian on this planet knows that?


I already replied to that:

 
Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:

But every Christian (except irrational fanatics) understand some of the rules in the old testament don't apply anymore
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

And I don't think that we should tolerate an excuse for crimes just because there may be others.
 
 
So Mike, if this is your point of view
  1. Lets ban history books that describe toprtures,
  2. Lets ban action movies that give a class of crime,
  3. Lets ban novels and books that talk about crimes
  4. Lets ban newspaper that place descriptive images of crimes

You will end being more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists.

Freedom has a price.
 
Iván 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 27 2009 at 15:54
            
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:46
^^and people with mustaches.

What if the mustache made them do it?  What if they wouldn't have done it without the mustache?  Should all mustaches then be done away with as a result, even if others could wear one without committing crimes?

Ted Bundy had a beard, I have a beard therefore by your logic I must be Ted Bundy.

 "I never listed violent crimes committed by religious people, since it would be completely besides the point."

You've done this every time you brought up the child molestation by catholic priests (5-6 times over the course of these various threads). 


Edited by Trademark - December 27 2009 at 15:52
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:51
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I think it's wrong. It's backward, it keeps people from progressing. People who might have become scientists might be taught Creationism by religious people and then not become scientists.

As I said: I think it's wrong. And as you said, this is a free world (at least in our parts), and I'm allowed to make this criticism. And when it comes to schools, you could call it teaching untruths, which is simply a euphemism for "lying to children". If you believe in something, and you know it contradicts established scientific fact, and you teach it to children instead of those scientific facts, then I simply think it's (gravely) wrong.

 
That's called freedom...Take care for what you and your famnily elieve and let the rest of the world believe in what they want.
 
Just remember Lemaitre a Catholic Bishop was the first person to talk about the Big Bang.....Did religio limited him....I guess not.


Yes, and when he told the pope he answered: "Should I make that a doctrine?".Wink

I would say that he did this in spite of religion. I guess we can agree that Christianity was always reluctant to accept scientific fact when it contradicted scripture. Think about Galileo ... he was killed for his discoveries.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

  
Can you really honestly say that every Christian on this planet knows that?


I already replied to that:
 
Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:

But every Christian (except irrational fanatics) understand some of the rules in the old testament don't apply anymore
 


There are a lot of those fanatics around and about ... and many of them in influential positions. Just go to the "bible belt" in the US and tell people that the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally. They will call you an atheist.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

And I don't think that we should tolerate an excuse for crimes just because there may be others.
 
 
So Mike, if this is your point of view
  1. Lets ban history books that describe toprtures,
  2. Lets ban action movies that give a class of crime,
  3. Lets ban novels and books that talk about crimes
  4. Lets ban newspaper that place descriptive images of crimes

You will end being more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists.

Freedom has a price.
 
Iván 


It's not my point of view. I'm criticizing religion. And especially those who offer a reward for killing me.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:54
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


The death penalty is a strange thing anyway, since it contradicts the ten commandments. Talking about having your cake and eating it too ...
 
Not according to my Church:
 
Quote

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."[56]

 
A convicted criminal is not an innocent human being
 
And more clear:
 
Quote

Capital Punishment

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

 
Our interpretation is different.
 
Iván


Where does it say in the ten commandments that "Thou shalt not kill [the innocent]"?
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:55
" And especially those who offer a reward for killing me." 

You have a high opinion of yourself and your value.  LOL

Have you actually been to the Bible belt?  Lived there?  You haven't got the first remote clue what you;'re talking about.  You better stick to your rational facts.  When you venture into logic you don't do so well.


Edited by Trademark - December 27 2009 at 15:59
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 15:59
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:




I would say that he did this in spite of religion. I guess we can agree that Christianity was always reluctant to accept scientific fact when it contradicted scripture. Think about Galileo ... he was killed for his discoveries.

 



Galileo was not killed, though he was imprisoned under suspicion of heresy. The one who was killed, more or less in the same historical period (1600, to be precise) was philosopher Giordano Bruno.
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:




I would say that he did this in spite of religion. I guess we can agree that Christianity was always reluctant to accept scientific fact when it contradicted scripture. Think about Galileo ... he was killed for his discoveries.

 



Galileo was not killed, though he was imprisoned under suspicion of heresy. The one who was killed, more or less in the same historical period (1600, to be precise) was philosopher Giordano Bruno.

Watch, Mike will say this isn't the point and isn't important.  
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

^^and people with mustaches.

What if the mustache made them do it?  What if they wouldn't have done it without the mustache?  Should all mustaches then be done away with as a result, even if others could wear one without committing crimes?

Ted Bundy had a beard, I have a beard therefore by your logic I must be Ted Bundy.


My point was precisely that such a logic would make no sense at all.

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:



 "I never listed violent crimes committed by religious people, since it would be completely besides the point."

You've done this every time you brought up the child molestation by catholic priests (5-6 times over the course of these various threads). 


Do you think that their celibacy had no part in it? Why does this happen so often with *catholic* priests, statistically?

I completely agree that in this case scripture is not the direct motivation for the crime, and in that it is definitely different from under age marriage in other religions for example, but I still think that the combination of celibacy and general sexual taboos in the Catholic church contributes to the problem.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:06
Mike...Galileo was killed by the Church?????
 
I believed he died of old age in 1642....But the Pope has asked pardon for this and more
 
Originally posted by Mike Mike wrote:

Where does it say in the ten commandments that "Thou shalt not kill [the innocent"?
 
The Bible is much more complex than the Ten Commandments:
 
Exodus 21:16 (NIV)

16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

 
 
Exodus 22:19 (NIV)

19 “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.

 
Exodus 21:12 (NIV)

12 “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.

 
It's easy to talk out of context Mike, the Holy Bible must be ubnderstood as a whole.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 27 2009 at 16:18
            
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:07
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



Where does it say in the ten commandments that "Thou shalt not kill [the innocent]"?


I can't hang around for discussion (I have to leave for church soon LOL), but I feel I should point out that the Hebrew word translated "kill" in the Ten Commandments is a completely different one than the Hebrew verb that is used for execution and the one used for killing in the military.

Of course, the dutiful scholars of Evil Bible are completely ignorant that translating ancient text is an art, not a science.  Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:08
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:




I would say that he did this in spite of religion. I guess we can agree that Christianity was always reluctant to accept scientific fact when it contradicted scripture. Think about Galileo ... he was killed for his discoveries.

 



Galileo was not killed, though he was imprisoned under suspicion of heresy. The one who was killed, more or less in the same historical period (1600, to be precise) was philosopher Giordano Bruno.


Thanks for pointing that out ... indeed I confused the punishments.Embarrassed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Imprisonment.2C_trial_and_execution.2C_1592.E2.80.931600
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:10
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



Where does it say in the ten commandments that "Thou shalt not kill [the innocent]"?


I can't hang around for discussion (I have to leave for church soon LOL), but I feel I should point out that the Hebrew word translated "kill" in the Ten Commandments is a completely different one than the Hebrew verb that is used for execution and the one used for killing in the military.

Of course, the dutiful scholars of Evil Bible are completely ignorant that translating ancient text is an art, not a science.  Wink


I know - you can translate it as "thou shalt not commit murder" and thus it becomes ok to kill for various reasons, as long as the person to be killed is not completely innocent. Of course a concept like original sin comes in handy in that situation ... Wink
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:11
"Do you think that their celibacy had no part in it? "

Non celibate people (even a few atheists) commit the same crime at roughly the same percentages in the general population so no, I don't think that celibacy was an issue in the sin of those few priests.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:15
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

" And especially those who offer a reward for killing me." 

You have a high opinion of yourself and your value.  LOL



I wasn't entirely serious of course ... but my address is on my website. Something tells me that I should be careful when criticizing Islam ... and the mere notion that I should probably be careful tells me something about religion.

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:



Have you actually been to the Bible belt?  Lived there?  You haven't got the first remote clue what you;'re talking about.  You better stick to your rational facts.  When you venture into logic you don't do so well.


I think I've seen enough documentaries to have a "remote clue". Of course a first hand impression would be better, but I think that I don't have to see Ted Haggard (or rather his successor) on stage to get an adequate impression of the kind of people that represent the 40+% that believe in Creationism.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:19
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

"Do you think that their celibacy had no part in it? "

Non celibate people (even a few atheists) commit the same crime at roughly the same percentages in the general population so no, I don't think that celibacy was an issue in the sin of those few priests.


Which percentage are you referring to?

And btw: If you read the article you realize that in this case "abuse" means much more than just pedophilia:

"She spent the first 18 years of her life in a Dublin orphanage where she said children were forced to manufacture rosaries — and were humiliated, beaten and raped whether they achieved their quota or not. She didn't track down her parents, an Irish mother and Nigerian father, until her 40s, when she became one of the first to break silence and demand justice for her stolen youth.

"I didn't have a childhood," said Buckley, who recalled being constantly cold and hungry. She was severely beaten by a nun for trying to smuggle out a letter detailing the abuse, she said — which included being forced by nuns to have a "date" with a pedophile on staff."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2122232425 41>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.289 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.