Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:35 AM Sep 2014

Priest found guilty of raping dozens of children (and a sled dog) in Canada

A defrocked Catholic priest was found guilty Friday of raping dozens of children and a sled dog in the Canadian Arctic, where he worked as a missionary for decades.

The Belgian-born Eric Dejaeger, 67, was convicted of 31 counts of sexual offenses against children and one count of bestiality.

At the start of the his trial last November in Iqaluit, the capital of Canada's northernmost Nunavut territory, Dejaeger acknowledged and pleaded guilty to eight out of 80 original charges.

Justice Robert Kilpatrick ruled the evidence had been weakened by the passage of time, and whittled down the number in the indictment.

--snip--

Public broadcaster CBC said they recounted how Dejaeger used his position as a missionary to lure and trap them into sex, threatening them with hellfire and separation from their families if they exposed him.

http://news.yahoo.com/priest-found-guilty-raping-dozens-children-canada-222422393.html

84 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Priest found guilty of raping dozens of children (and a sled dog) in Canada (Original Post) cleanhippie Sep 2014 OP
It was the dog that got him convicted Lordquinton Sep 2014 #1
"found a copy of the Dog delusion next to the kennels?" cleanhippie Sep 2014 #2
Wow. Just wow. mr blur Sep 2014 #5
This concerns religion how? rug Sep 2014 #3
"Priest found guilty of raping dozens of children" cleanhippie Sep 2014 #4
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #6
Or just pure wilfull ignorance. cleanhippie Sep 2014 #7
So, are you saying these crimes are a result of his religious belief? rug Sep 2014 #11
He certainly abused religious belief to acquire leverage over his victims. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #12
Others use candy. So what. rug Sep 2014 #14
Really? So what? EvilAL Sep 2014 #21
Yeah, so what. rug Sep 2014 #22
Whatever man, EvilAL Sep 2014 #24
I'm saying "so what" that he's a defrocked priest. rug Sep 2014 #26
It's good that he got caught, EvilAL Sep 2014 #30
Yeah. Rug is just deflecting this. salib Sep 2014 #27
OK, show me step by step how this is a function of his religion. rug Sep 2014 #31
What pre-digested talking point? salib Sep 2014 #32
Let me rephrase. Coherent steps. rug Sep 2014 #34
Huh? salib Sep 2014 #35
I guess I'll have to check back later. rug Sep 2014 #37
You do that... salib Sep 2014 #39
Well, "What pre-digested talking point?" and "Huh?" does not look promising. rug Sep 2014 #40
Again. Pathetic. salib Sep 2014 #41
You're doing great! You'll get to a thought eventually. rug Sep 2014 #42
Lol salib Sep 2014 #43
"Don't tell anyone about this or the boogeman will get you." AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #77
Absolutely agree n/t Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #81
I don't know why Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #45
Do you really think this man was representing the church? Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #49
Yes, the powers of coercion Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #61
OK, you say the other organizations would have disassociated themselves from the individual. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #64
I specifically used the words Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #67
What debate? You are not debating here. You are pontificating. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #76
Dude Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #79
Got a link to me mentioning "conspiracy"? Dudette. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #83
I'm not dismissing the victims in the least. rug Sep 2014 #53
So if I'm to understand Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #62
No, you're the one minimizing it in a rush to use it as an exemplar of religion. rug Sep 2014 #72
You answered Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #73
It's an old tactic, used often by the OP. rug Sep 2014 #74
But then you go on Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #78
Quoting another thread. rug Sep 2014 #80
It has a number of implications. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #23
You are confusing "an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience 'god'" with a human institution. rug Sep 2014 #35
A human institution that purports to represent, advertise for, and dictate doctrine/terms/etc AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #44
And where in its divine charter is child rape? rug Sep 2014 #54
Did I say anything about it being in the charter? AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #75
To quote a new member, "so what?" rug Sep 2014 #10
Rug. Give it up. salib Sep 2014 #28
Are you dense? rug Sep 2014 #33
Wow salib Sep 2014 #38
I see you said "huh?" again. rug Sep 2014 #55
School text books are not full of daughters sleeping with Jamastiene Sep 2014 #46
Do you actually think child rape is a commandment that flows from the Bible? rug Sep 2014 #56
That poster knows more about sexual predators than anyone should ever have to. beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #68
Assuming you're saying that poster is a victim of child abuse, rug Sep 2014 #70
It concerns religion in the sense that the man USED religion to blackmail and coerce the children LeftishBrit Sep 2014 #66
That it says more about this predator and nothing about religion. rug Sep 2014 #71
This hit piece doesn't belong in Religion. beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #8
Lol cleanhippie Sep 2014 #9
Don't you like discussing atheism, which after all, is a meaningless concept without religion? rug Sep 2014 #13
"Maybe all the threads about religion in A&A should be removed" beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #15
I'm glad you like that. Look forward to keeping abreast on atheism in the Religion Group. rug Sep 2014 #16
"Look forward to keeping abreast on atheism in the Religion Group." beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #17
Actually, I think you (singular and plural) do. rug Sep 2014 #18
"I'll keep abreast of DU gossip in your group." beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #19
Believe me, there are few things I want to do less. rug Sep 2014 #20
Yep, meaningless without religion. Cool. salib Sep 2014 #29
A defrocked Catholic priest... Kalidurga Sep 2014 #25
I assume one of the faithful has stood up to defend this nonsense with some idiotic diversion. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #47
I'm making the same assumption EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2014 #48
I'm guessing that the usual nannys Lordquinton Sep 2014 #50
You two remind me of people wearing sunglasses and wondering why everything is dark. rug Sep 2014 #58
+1 mr blur Sep 2014 #60
That must be your blind faith kicking in. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #51
nah, my ignore list was based on just reams of evidence. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #52
You really do talk a lot about your alleged ignore list. rug Sep 2014 #59
I really should try the ignore feature some time. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #63
It is but one of your many incorrect, and stupid, assumptions. rug Sep 2014 #57
The "but everybody else rapes children too" defense seems to be popular. beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #69
That is just so vile LeftishBrit Sep 2014 #65
I hope he's put away for a long, long time. But unfortunately he won't get the penalty he also Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #82
"threatening them with hellfire" trotsky Sep 2014 #84

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
1. It was the dog that got him convicted
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:52 AM
Sep 2014

" used his position as a missionary to lure and trap them into sex, threatening them with hellfire and separation from their families if they exposed him." Only in Canada do they try to convert sled dogs. Perhaps her found a copy of the Dog delusion next to the kennels?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
4. "Priest found guilty of raping dozens of children"
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:30 PM
Sep 2014
Public broadcaster CBC said they recounted how Dejaeger used his position as a missionary to lure and trap them into sex, threatening them with hellfire and separation from their families if they exposed him.



EvilAL

(1,437 posts)
21. Really? So what?
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 05:48 PM
Sep 2014

He threatened them with damnation and hellfire if they didn't obey. So yes, I'd say his religious beliefs had a lot to do with it. He fucking raped children and you say that 'some people use candy'. Stay fucking classy man.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
22. Yeah, so what.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 06:42 PM
Sep 2014

He was prosecuted and convicted and dealt with. To use this predator as some spurious example of religious belief is stupid and doesn't really address the issue of child abuse, in or outside a church.

EvilAL

(1,437 posts)
24. Whatever man,
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 09:02 PM
Sep 2014

you can say 'so what' to child abuse by religious people all you want, it doesn't mean you condone it, but it's a pretty fucking shitty thing to say.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
26. I'm saying "so what" that he's a defrocked priest.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 09:55 PM
Sep 2014

There are disbarred lawyers, disgraced politicians, and likely an atheist or two doing time for the same thing.

What is shitty is using rape as a prop.

EvilAL

(1,437 posts)
30. It's good that he got caught,
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:11 PM
Sep 2014

sometimes it works. 'So what' is the wrong fucking choice of words for this particular event. Anybody could have done it, so what. Doesn't really help your argument.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
31. OK, show me step by step how this is a function of his religion.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:15 PM
Sep 2014

Let's see if you can do it without spewing predigested talking points.

The floor is yours.

salib

(2,116 posts)
41. Again. Pathetic.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:46 PM
Sep 2014

The first was a question which mostly quoted what you posted. The second was simply "huh". I think if you look back at your post, you will be confused. As well.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
42. You're doing great! You'll get to a thought eventually.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:57 PM
Sep 2014

Repeating "pathetic" doesn't really qualify.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
77. "Don't tell anyone about this or the boogeman will get you."
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:13 PM
Sep 2014

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, as a similarly made up, yet widely taught concept of a lake of fire of eternal torment, to abuse as leverage, does it?

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
45. I don't know why
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:57 AM
Sep 2014

You seem dismissive about these victims.
I can understand it is embarrassing for the church as a whole.

To say that his position of power over his victims by scaring them into a silent shame with threats of fire and damnation has nothing to do with his being a priest is disingenuous. He is a representative of the church.

He was threatening those children with the very same doctrine they are taught to believe and respect by the church and their families on Sunday. So why on earth would they disobey a man they trusted if he is assigned to espouse rules of morality.

The analogy of candy is a bad argument because one is a reward, and eternal hell is fear tactics. Both the reward/fear atmosphere in dogma deserves further discussion but I don't want to get off point.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
49. Do you really think this man was representing the church?
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:55 AM
Sep 2014

He used the tools of coercion that were available to him. I have no love for the church or religion but to blame either for the sins of these predators is dishonest. The only relevance religion has to this story is that it was his source of power. A power that he abused.
You are correct about the candy analogy, but predatory pedophiles often use threats to keep their victims silent. Some are priests, some are scout masters, camp counselors, cops, politicians, fathers, uncles. Are we as eager to blame the sources of their power. I think not.

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
61. Yes, the powers of coercion
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 03:02 PM
Sep 2014

Are prevalent in all forms of molestation and abuse.
I can say that most all of the other organizations you stated would of disassociated themselves from the individual ie the few "bad apples" theory. Which may or may not be where it should lie squarely when we are talking strictly abuse of power.
With that being said...
The church has perpetually covered this up by moving priests from parish to parish to hide the shame of being exposed. The church is ashamed because they espouse morality to their "flock" as an institution. The catholic league comes to mind.

None of those other professions had the power and setting, which is perhaps worse. Coercing victims by telling them "god and hell" will reign down upon them for eternity should they tell someone about the abuse is indefensible.
Iconic imagery that is used for the purpose of reminding the "flock" what has been done in the name of a holy being. Or, what is in store for them should they question faith is inflicting guilt period.
Images of a man nailed to a cross which reinforced every Sunday affects those that are being abused tremendously or they wouldn't of kept quiet for so long. Coercion seems to be a common thread here.
So yes I am eager to place blame squarely where it belongs.
Threatening people to be compliant whatever your means to an end, is NEVER a good thing.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
64. OK, you say the other organizations would have disassociated themselves from the individual.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 04:13 PM
Sep 2014

Do you think that this guy being defrocked was an act of disassociation? Did you read the entire piece or did you think there was some kind of cover up going on here.
We all know of the despicable behavior of other priests and the covering up by the RCC. But, let's stick to the OP, which is about one guy in the Arctic, many miles from the Vatican, who raped a huskie and several inuit children 35 years ago. If he hadn't been hiding behind his clerical collar, he would have used other means to scare and threaten his victims. To put the blame for this psycho's conduct on religion or the church is dishonest, inflammatory and ridiculous.

None of those other professions had the power and setting, which is perhaps worse. Coercing victims by telling them "god and hell" will reign down upon them for eternity should they tell someone about the abuse is indefensible.
Iconic imagery that is used for the purpose of reminding the "flock" what has been done in the name of a holy being. Or, what is in store for them should they question faith is inflicting guilt period.
Images of a man nailed to a cross which reinforced every Sunday affects those that are being abused tremendously or they wouldn't of kept quiet for so long. Coercion seems to be a common thread here.
So yes I am eager to place blame squarely where it belongs.
Threatening people to be compliant whatever your means to an end, is NEVER a good thing.


Are you serious? None of my examples had the power? All have the power, from priests to cops to parents. That does not give you a reason to condemn law enforcement or parenthood or the clergy. By your reasoning, the Beatles were responsible for the crimes committed by Charles Manson's disciples and Jodie Foster is responsible for shooting Reagan and Brady. What if Reagan's would be assassin, John Hinckley, had claimed Reagan's love for Jelly Beans had prompted him, would you feel responsible in some way?

The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual who commits the crime.

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
67. I specifically used the words
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:19 PM
Sep 2014

Power AND setting, you are picking and choosing and then calling me inflammatory. The debate isn't going well when you are using my user name and conspiracy theory in your defense.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
76. What debate? You are not debating here. You are pontificating.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:13 PM
Sep 2014
Coercing victims by telling them "god and hell" will reign down upon them for eternity should they tell someone about the abuse is indefensible.
Iconic imagery that is used for the purpose of reminding the "flock" what has been done in the name of a holy being. Or, what is in store for them should they question faith is inflicting guilt period.
Images of a man nailed to a cross which reinforced every Sunday affects those that are being abused tremendously or they wouldn't of kept quiet for so long.


We all know this freak used his power and privilege to coerce and intimidate, just as all predators like him do, be they priests or Uncle Ernie.
This story is about a crime and has no more to do with religion than it has to do with dog sledding.

You want to chime in just to score points against religion, go for it. I'm sure you'll find some support among the few who like to take cheap shots at religion, like CH, at every opportunity. But don't insult us with words like "debate". There is no debate here.

You think the following is a "conspiracy theory"?
Are you serious? None of my examples had the power? All have the power, from priests to cops to parents. That does not give you a reason to condemn law enforcement or parenthood or the clergy. By your reasoning, the Beatles were responsible for the crimes committed by Charles Manson's disciples and Jodie Foster is responsible for shooting Reagan and Brady. What if Reagan's would be assassin, John Hinckley, had claimed Reagan's love for Jelly Beans had prompted him, would you feel responsible in some way?

The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual who commits the crime.

Do you really not get it? If you don't and actually think there is some kind of conspiracy theory happening, then we can call it a day and move along.

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
79. Dude
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:21 PM
Sep 2014

Take a breath and read what you replied.

YOU mentioned conspiracy first and you used my user name to put the cherry on top as if I would be dissuaded by your argument. YOU are the one that brought up those things first.

What part of that can't you read?

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
83. Got a link to me mentioning "conspiracy"? Dudette.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 05:26 AM
Sep 2014

I used a variation of your user name to make an analogy. Analogies are devices often used to help others understand more clearly. My point is that religion had as much to do with this guy's motivation as Jelly Beans did with John Hinckley's motivation. If you still don't see that, then I can't help you further.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
53. I'm not dismissing the victims in the least.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:16 PM
Sep 2014

I'm dismissing the bullshit talking point that because he's a defrocked priest he did it because he was a priest.

That is dismissing the very nature of child abuse and child abusers, all in the name of making a lame argument against religion.

And if you think grooming children as prey has any bearing to catechesis, you're falling into the same pit of illogic.

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
62. So if I'm to understand
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 03:36 PM
Sep 2014

I am the one dismissing child abuse?
So making a little quirky joke about the dog being a Methodist isn't dismissive?
Your knee jerk reaction to dismiss my point is very telling of blind faith.
As I stated before this is embarrassing for the church and you may not want to discuss it honestly but it has become a real problem within the church. More importantly it speaks volume of the coercion and power that religion wields to those most vulnerable.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
72. No, you're the one minimizing it in a rush to use it as an exemplar of religion.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:43 PM
Sep 2014

It's not.

Talk about knee jerks.

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
73. You answered
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:57 PM
Sep 2014

That as a the third post...I read through the post and the responses before I posted my opinion.

Gelliebeans

(5,043 posts)
78. But then you go on
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:17 PM
Sep 2014

Later in the thread to post "so what" (regardless of whether you were speaking from the POV that another predator was off the street) at the very least, was insensitive.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
23. It has a number of implications.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:36 PM
Sep 2014

Using (abusing) religious doctrine, in the trappings of a man of god, to hurt people has some interesting logical conclusions.

One might be that there is no god at all.
One might be that a god is too impotent to intervene.
Another that god actively chooses not to intervene.

When a person, say a teacher, a person in a position of authority over children abuses said children, and the school had monitoring measures in place to catch such abuse, and those measures are not utilized at all, and the abuse goes unchecked, usually that has serious and appropriate consequences for the school, and its administrators.

Why should anyone cut an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience 'god' a pass on same sort of failure?


(of course, I go with option one)

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
44. A human institution that purports to represent, advertise for, and dictate doctrine/terms/etc
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:36 AM
Sep 2014

to followers. Making them an authority on that god's behalf, yes?

Isn't your church allegedly appointed by your god to carry out that work? (Sans abuse, of course.)

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
54. And where in its divine charter is child rape?
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:20 PM
Sep 2014

You are missing the point that the people who belong to it, as any other human institution, do extremely fucked up things regardless of the institution or its purpose.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
75. Did I say anything about it being in the charter?
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:11 PM
Sep 2014

I said something about the god purportedly represented by these people, remaining 100% silent as they misbehave in his name, claiming his authority as they do it.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
10. To quote a new member, "so what?"
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:40 PM
Sep 2014
Am I supposed to join a church because someone who seems to have come to the same conclusion as I regarding the existence, or lack of existence, of a "God" is a sexual predator? Are you expecting people to jump on the faith wagon because of this? Many people who don't believe in "God" are dirtbags as are many who do believe so what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218152152#post1

The actions of this convicted sexual predator have what to do with religion?

salib

(2,116 posts)
28. Rug. Give it up.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:06 PM
Sep 2014

It has everything to do with his taking advantage of his religious position. He was a priest at the time.

You have been pathetically defending "religion" against what is obviously very embarrassing and telling about yourself, just as this pathetic criminal in Canada was doing.

Give it up.

Really.

Give it up.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
33. Are you dense?
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:20 PM
Sep 2014

Some teachers use the classroom to take advantage of students. Is the problem education?

Some correction officers use juvenile detention facilities. Is the problem the juvenile justice system?

Some step-parents use their marriage. Is the problem marriage?

Child abuse is caused by child abusers. Period.

Do you really need this explained to you?

Now, before you call anyone pathetic again, take a minute and consider if what you're typing is really as stupid as it reads.

salib

(2,116 posts)
38. Wow
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:32 PM
Sep 2014

"Some teachers use the classroom to take advantage of students. Is the problem education?"
The religious institution is the problem when it allows an official (priest) to take advantage

"Some correction officers use juvenile detention facilities. Is the problem the juvenile justice system?"
Again, yes, if a priest is abusing his flock, the organization is also responsible

"Some step-parents use their marriage. Is the problem marriage?"
Huh?

"Child abuse is caused by child abusers. Period."
And they take advantage of religion to cover their activities. To ignore the obvious connection is to blind yourself to the realty of religion as a cover and an opportunity for these people.

"Do you really need this explained to you?"
Silly.

"Now, before you call anyone pathetic again, take a minute and consider if what you're typing is really as stupid as it reads."
Even more so.. No, I stand corrected. Pathetic is simply that. Pathetic.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
46. School text books are not full of daughters sleeping with
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:14 AM
Sep 2014

their fathers and other instances of children being used for sex or any of the other extremely violent things in the Bible. He used his position of authority to physically and spiritually abuse those children. It has everything to do with how he interprets religion, at the very least. There are no such excuses that could be used by teachers, corrections officers, etc. in quite the same way.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
56. Do you actually think child rape is a commandment that flows from the Bible?
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:24 PM
Sep 2014

What exactly do you know about sexual predators and their modus operandi?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
68. That poster knows more about sexual predators than anyone should ever have to.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:24 PM
Sep 2014

Instead of continuously defending your institution of choice and excusing fellow catholics who abuse children by using the 'but everybody else does it too' tactic you should show more compassion for the real victims.

And apologize to this one.

Or you could keep demanding that victims explain and justify their hatred for religious child predators.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
70. Assuming you're saying that poster is a victim of child abuse,
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:38 PM
Sep 2014

1) the poster doesn't say that and it's rather sleazy of you to announce it to the world at large. It's not your place to do so;

2) a personal experience doesn't equate to broader knowledge of child abuse, see Dawkins comments on his own "mild pedophilia";

3) the post remains unsupported by the evidence;

4) get off your high horse.

The only explanation of hatred I see is your hatred of any and everything religious.

If you want to discuss your own hatred, see someone with training. A message board is not the best place.

LeftishBrit

(41,192 posts)
66. It concerns religion in the sense that the man USED religion to blackmail and coerce the children
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 04:26 PM
Sep 2014

Both by using his authority as a missionary, and by threatening them with hell.

If it had not been religion it might have been something else; but certainly in this case he used religion for blackmail purposes.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
13. Don't you like discussing atheism, which after all, is a meaningless concept without religion?
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:43 PM
Sep 2014

Maybe all the threads about religion in A&A should be removed. Won't leave much in there, though.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
17. "Look forward to keeping abreast on atheism in the Religion Group."
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:16 PM
Sep 2014

And there it is!

We no longer have to question your motivation for posting about atheists and atheism in this forum.




beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
19. "I'll keep abreast of DU gossip in your group."
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:36 PM
Sep 2014

You leave my breasts out of this!

If you're going to peep in our window at least wait until I cover up my lady bits.



salib

(2,116 posts)
29. Yep, meaningless without religion. Cool.
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:09 PM
Sep 2014

Oh how I wish we did not have to be a-theists. No theism. Simple.

Imagine no religion...

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
25. A defrocked Catholic priest...
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 09:18 PM
Sep 2014

wait a minute. It seems to me this defrocking was the problem to begin with.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
47. I assume one of the faithful has stood up to defend this nonsense with some idiotic diversion.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:03 AM
Sep 2014

That would account for the plethora of responses I can't see.

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
48. I'm making the same assumption
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:08 AM
Sep 2014

Of the 47 responses, I can only see 7. My guess is there's some professional level apologetics going on.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
50. I'm guessing that the usual nannys
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:15 PM
Sep 2014

Aren't there telling them how disgusting it is to defend him, and asking how low can he go.

 

mr blur

(7,753 posts)
60. +1
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:19 PM
Sep 2014

My guess would be that this actually has nothing to do with religion at all, he probably just really liked animals and the dog led him on.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
51. That must be your blind faith kicking in.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:27 PM
Sep 2014

Open your eyes and you will see that nobody, not even one of the "faithful" has stood up to defend this nonsense. Good to see you recognize it as nonsense. You're really making progress.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
52. nah, my ignore list was based on just reams of evidence.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:59 PM
Sep 2014

It might be the case that those two have changed their ways, and the ~40 responses I can't see are not some bizarre apologetics for rape of children, and in this case a dog, but I doubt it.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
59. You really do talk a lot about your alleged ignore list.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:28 PM
Sep 2014

I've never seen anyone talk so much about something he's ignoring.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
63. I really should try the ignore feature some time.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 03:45 PM
Sep 2014

Just as an experiment to see if it makes life easier, as my better half claims, or results in some mystical insight such as you seem to be having.
Do you think it is a failing on my part that I can't bring myself to ignore anything or anyone? I like to hear everything, but I don't listen all the time, yet I like to listen at times without hearing. Does that make any sense?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
69. The "but everybody else rapes children too" defense seems to be popular.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:29 PM
Sep 2014

Along with the implication that victims are unfairly placing blame on christian institutions, clergymen, enablers and apologetics.

ssdd.

Louisiana1976

(3,962 posts)
82. I hope he's put away for a long, long time. But unfortunately he won't get the penalty he also
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:37 PM
Sep 2014

deserves, which is to be castrated.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Priest found guilty of ra...