Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[josie_L]

not easy to find … but just looking at forcible rape:

(per 100,000 people)

Connecticut 18
Arkansas 47

New York 16
Alabama 36, LA 36, KY 31.

NJ 14 (lowest in the country, with NY & CT rounding out the top three in terms of lowest rates of sexual assault).

Wow!!!

census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0297.pdf

Actually compared to the Northeast (particularly NY, NJ, and CT) the rest of the country is pretty screwed up. Thanks, I knew we were good, but not that good, in fact the best (all hail the American Yankee).

I don’t believe this report factors in sexual child abuse. I “assume” you come from NY?

 

[josie_L]

I don’t know … where?

Yankee don’t play coy with me.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Judeo-Christianity as an organized religious movement, yes. Given that the Bible doesn’t even pretend that organized religion centered on God has been around forever (the oldest form of it, Judaism, didn’t begin until Abraham), belief in the Judeo-Christian God outside of such religion may have been believed in, on a person to person basis, since the beginning of time for all we know; and the Scripture/Belief System allows, actually, for a time between creation and Judaism when people had forgotten about God altogether. I know that the “for all we know” doesn’t prove anything; I am simply pointing out, that neither does the youth of the Judeo-Christian organized religion dis-prove anything, so that it may be established as not being a cause for either triumph (for those who are not Judeo-Christian) or doubt (for those who are Judeo-Christian). That’s not in the context of what you were trying to show, of course, but I just want to be sure than anyone who should happen across it doesn’t get the wrong idea.

I frankly doubt Abraham is anymore than folklore and myth. So from my perspective I date Judaism as beginning when most secular historians and archeologists say it did.

Except that now it is indisputably the one place where people are going to speculate that they are pedophiles, more than in any protestant ministry, more than any other walk of life, period. It just doesn’t make sense that pedophiles would continue to think it was the safest place to try to redeem themselves anymore.

I believe this has all been sufficiently dealt with, hundreds of times whenever someone comes along trying to say that priests are especially likely to be pedophiles compared to other people. People love to be able to point fingers at a certain group of people and say that they are “dangerous” just for their station in life, and it has always been exacerbated–claimed to be justified–when any number of people within that station have indeed committed crimes or atrocities; whether that station is race, class, or whatever, I suspect that such evaluation of people in bulk before the individual members are known to be guilty will always persist…

All this is probably somewhat speculative and we are rehashing past events. However, I don’t think the CC has sufficiently paid for its own sins; and therefore I don’t view it as an organization worthy of my respect. I see it as a generally corrupt organization.

Even if they are Atheists or Agnostics, hating one’s crime, even if with the most intense hatred imaginable, doesn’t always mean one hates oneself enough to snuff oneself out of existence for eternity prematurely.

of course not … they’re dishonorable men in every other sense of the word, why should I expect them to do society a favor by killing themselves? But like I said, they could at least voluntarily undergo removal of their sexual organs. A happy medium; but of course they’re not even that honorable. In other words they’re criminals.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t believe this report factors in sexual child abuse. I “assume” you come from NY?

I’m from CT (but also lived in NY)

 

[josie_L]

I’m from CT (but also lived in NY)

Where does your family reside now? And in one part of NY did you live?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t believe this report factors in sexual child abuse. I “assume” you come from NY?

no it doesn’t … but it is telling all the same (and I looked for statistics to support our Yankee stereotype of red necks, couldn’t find any … probably because states like Alabama don’t release their numbers to deprive us Yankees of more food for fodder).

But everyone knows hill billies are inbred?

alright, alright … just joking around hill billies

 

[josie_L]

no it doesn’t … but it is telling all the same (and I looked for statistics to support our Yankee stereotype of red necks, couldn’t find any … probably because states like Alabama don’t release their numbers to deprive us Yankees of more food for fodder).

But everyone knows hill billies are inbred?

alright, alright … just joking around hill billies

So then you were wrong.

 

[estesbob]

no it doesn’t … but it is telling all the same (and I looked for statistics to support our Yankee stereotype of red necks, couldn’t find any … probably because states like Alabama don’t release their numbers to deprive us Yankees of more food for fodder).

But everyone knows hill billies are inbred?

alright, alright … just joking around hill billies

Well at least we know why you came to CAF-to flaunt your moral superiority over a bunch of yahhos duped into following a faith that has only been around 2,000 years and who’s unerpinnings is homsexual rape of boys by its clergy.

Not only does you lack of faith make you superior but you also are privilieged to live in the Northeast-the bastion of enlightement and good manners-an oasis of reason in this backwards country still shackled by superstitions about omnipotent gods and saviors. Observing us in all of our ignorance and stupidity assures you of just how superior you are… Does that preety much sum it up or did I miss somethng?

Of course in the darkness of night I am sure you wake up and break into a cold sweat wondering “what if the yahoos are right”?

 

[Marfran]

You guys are all out of control here. Reel it in, try not to be so nasty to each other, be civil and courteous–and maybe you can have some meaningful dialog–but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[Ronsatron]

Yes - undergoing due process and serving a prison term is a good thing.

Believe me there is disgust in America too. We are not defending evil.

We should also note that there are many many good holy priests in the world. Broadbrushing the Church is a way to attack her in her most vulnerable spots. The Priesthood. Look at the ramifications to the faithful and out children.

Those holy priests need our support and encouragement to be courageous. Isolating priests opens them up to additional attacks by the devil. We cannot let him win.

I hope we don’t disagree on these matters. I agree that the vast majority of priests are good men. I am not broadbrushing the church at all. A very small number were paedophiles, that is not disputed. The issue is that these men were hidden and protected by the catholic church. What I dont understand is how this can be defended. The CC was wrong, and I am sure it wont happen again.

Did you read the Ryan report? Can you defend the actions of the CC?

 

[Ronsatron]

In this case it is. And no they will be screening all potential priests.

If they are screening for paedophiles, gay or straight, then their sexuality is not the issue, it is the fact that they are paedophiles.

You can try and deflect the issue if you like. You can substitiue the word paedophile for homosexual if you like, but it does not change the facts. You can say 80% are paedophiles, but I can say that 100% were catholics. Does that make a difference?? No, of course not.

 

[josie_L]

If they are screening for paedophiles, gay or straight, then their sexuality is not the issue, it is the fact that they are paedophiles.

You can try and deflect the issue if you like. You can substitiue the word paedophile for homosexual if you like, but it does not change the facts. You can say 80% are paedophiles, but I can say that 100% were catholics. Does that make a difference?? No, of course not.

Yes, they were all Catholic did I deny this? Furthermore, as I have repeated time and time again it is important to understand the characteristics of those who abused and the nature of the abuse because in relation to the Church almost all were homosexual (80%) priests preying on post pubescent boys. Moreover, I am not saying that homosexuality leads to sexual abuse I am saying as I believe kindredsoul as oft repeated that these people deliberately seek out key positions that would put them in authoritative and trusting roles wherein they have access to children. Furthermore, the priesthood or seminaries is an all male environment so this can further compound a problem for someone with a homosexual orientation.

I took this from a Catholic Answers article thinking it might help you to understand what I mean:

**"The secular media in the United States are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the homosexual movement. This was admitted recently by Al Rantel, a talk-show host on KABC, a major Los Angeles radio station, during a June 14 interview on CNN:

"I do not say this happily . . . because, as you may know, I happen to be gay myself. I’m openly gay here on the radio in Los Angeles and have been for many years.

"But I have to tell you that, you know, even if you are gay, two and two is still four, and there’s this proverbial 3,000-pound elephant sitting in the room that no one wants to talk about. This is not a pedophile issue, although the media called it a pedophile issue, because they do not want to insult the gay community. They do not want to be politically incorrect.

“But what you have here are not pedophiles. You have predatory gay men—and there are some of us, believe me. I do not happen to be one of them, but there are some, and we should all admit they’re there. And these predatory gay men found their way into the Catholic priesthood in inordinately large numbers—you know, it makes the Boy Scouts look prescient with what they did. And these gay men have gone after young males. And I think it’s disgraceful, and I think the media needs to address this. The gay community needs to address this.” (For the program transcript, see www.cnn.com/transcripts/0206/14/tl.00.html. )"**

 

[yankee_doodle]

So then you were wrong.

better than being uptight (kidding)? But no … I wasn’t wrong since I was just joking (I at least think one has to make a serious assertion before it makes sense to examine its credibility). Although, they do say there’s a lot of nasty hanky panky going on south of the Mason Dixon (although I’ve been to the south plenty of times, I’ve never lived in a southern community or known southerners on that intimate a level to make a serious statement about how they live … I assume it’s not too much different than us northerners, with the exception of course being they tend to be more religious than we are, or at least that’s what the statistics say).

The fact of the matter is you can say what you want … but the states with the lowest divorce rates in the US are the least religious. NY, CT, MA, and NJ have among the lowest divorce rates in the US.

infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

Indeed six of the ten least religious states in the US are in the Northeast:

gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx

Even the religious in my region of the country aren’t very religious. Most Catholics I know support gay marriage and abortion rights. Denominations like Southern Baptists are non-existent. We house the most liberal protestant denominations in the country, and I assume the world (for instance the Episcopal Church USA is based in NYC, the United Methodist Church in Stamford, CT, and the Unitarian Universalist Assoc. of Congregations in Boston).

Yet we’re the most affluent, most educated, have the lowest divorce rates, some of the lowest crime rates (New York is the safest large city in the United States, and even rivals European cities at this point), and the greatest poverty in the US is found in our most religious states.

So you can say what you want … but the facts don’t support your thesis.

 

[josie_L]

better than being uptight (kidding)? But no … I wasn’t wrong since I was just joking (I at least think one has to make a serious assertion before it makes sense to examine its credibility). Although, they do say there’s a lot of nasty hanky panky going on south of the Mason Dixon (although I’ve been to the south plenty of times, I’ve never lived in a southern community or known southerners on that intimate a level to make a serious statement about how they live … I assume it’s not too much different than us northerners, with the exception of course being they tend to be more religious than we are, or at least that’s what the statistics say).

The fact of the matter is you can say what you want … but the states with the lowest divorce rates in the US are the least religious. NY, CT, MA, and NJ have among the lowest divorce rates in the US.

infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

Indeed six of the ten least religious states in the US are in the Northeast:

gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx

Even the religious in my region of the country aren’t very religious. Most Catholics I know support gay marriage and abortion rights. Denominations like Southern Baptists are non-existent. We house the most liberal protestant denominations in the world I guess (for instance the Episcopal Church USA is based in NYC, the United Methodist Church in Stamford, CT, and the Unitarian Universalist Assoc. of Congregations in Boston).

Yet we’re the most affluent, most educated, have the lowest divorce rates, some of the lowest crime rates (New York is the safest large city in the United States, and even rivals European cities at this point), and the greatest poverty in the US is found in our most religious states.

So you can say what you want … the facts don’t support your thesis. It is clear that not only this world will do just fine without religion, but we’ll do much better without it.

Maybe the “heathens” in the North have lower divorce rates because they don’t get married anymore but rather live in common law, thus allowing for a lower divorce rate. The poverty in the South could be due in part or more than in part to illegal immigration, anyways nothing you’ve said is conclusive or demonstrates that the South has more sexual abuse than any other part of the U.S.

p.s. I asked a question you must have missed it, but what part of NY are you and your family from? I have relatives in NY.

p.p.s. I may be “uptight” but I rather think of myself as consistent.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Maybe the “heathens” in the North have lower divorce rates because they don’t get married anymore but rather live in common law, thus allowing for a lower divorce rate. The poverty in the South could be due in part or more than in part to illegal immigration, anyways nothing you’ve said is conclusive or demonstrates that the South has more sexual abuse than any other part of the U.S.

no, poverty in the south has always been high (long before Mexican immigration); and people in the north as just as likely to get married as southerners (common law marriage doesn’t even exist anymore).

p.s. I asked a question you must have missed it, but what part of NY are you and your family from? I have relatives in NY.

yes, and I said I’m from Connecticut.

p.p.s. I may be “uptight” but I rather think of myself as consistent.

you’re consistently uptight?

 

[josie_L]

no, poverty in the south has always been high (long before Mexican immigration); and people in the north as just as likely to get married as southerners (common law marriage doesn’t even exist anymore).

This is neither here nor there, as our argument was about you stipulating there is more sexual abuse in the South as opposed to the North without providing any data. And stop being such a snob being poor is not a crime.

yes, and I said I’m from Connecticut.

Yes, but you said you also lived in NY, so what part of NY did you reside in?

you’re consistently uptight?

:jrbirdman:

 

[josie_L]

Yankee, I just realized you said you were joking (in poor taste I might add) about their being more sexual abuse in the South (although it did seem like you were serious at the time).

 

[yankee_doodle]

This is neither here nor there, as our argument was about you stipulating there is more sexual abuse in the South as opposed to the North without providing any data. And stop being such a snob being poor is not a crime.

no one said being poor is a crime, but it is generally a result of low education, poor work ethic, bad habits, bad choices, etc.

Yes, but you said you also lived in NY, so what part of NY did you reside in?

in the city for a short time

 

[josie_L]

no one said being poor is a crime, but it is generally a result of low education, poor work ethic, bad habits, bad choices, etc.

in the city for a short time

Were you in the city when the towers fell?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Were you in the city when the towers fell?

why so many questions … are you getting tired of trying to advocate for a hopelessly wrong position?