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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
cleanhippie
cleanhippie's Journal
cleanhippie's Journal
February 9, 2013
The opposition to LGBT rights in general, and to same-sex marriage in particular, overwhelmingly comes from conservative religion, founded in the religious belief that gay sex makes baby Jesus cry. So if same-sex marriage proponents want to persuade religious believers to support same-sex marriage... how can we do that? Should we keep our argument entirely secular, and stay away from the whole question of religious belief? Or should we try to persuade them that God is on our side?
Lots of people make the second argument. Bishop Gene Robinson is one of them. And Bishop Robinson is a man to be taken seriously. The first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Bishop Robinson has been active in progressive political activism for many years: he is a fellow at the Center for American Progress, is co-author of three AIDS education curricula for youth and adults, has done AIDS work in the United States and in Africa, and famously delivered the invocation at President Obama's opening inaugural ceremonies in 2009. He's recently written a book, published by Knopf and widely reviewed and well-received: God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage. Aimed at religious believers who oppose same-sex marriage or are on the fence about it, the book makes a Christian case for same-sex marriage: "a commonsense, reasoned, religious argument made by someone who holds the religious text of the Bible to be holy and sacred and the ensuing two millennia of church history to be relevant to the discussion."
And I think this is a terrible, terrible idea.
--snip--
But the argument he makes in his new book, God Believes in Love, disturbs me greatly. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that God, or any sort of religious or spiritual belief, should have anything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that any decision about politics, law, public policy, or morality should ever be based on what's supposedly going on in God's head. I agree completely with Bishop Robinson's conclusion about same-sex marriage -- but I am passionately opposed to the method by which he's reached it, and the arguments he's making to advance it.
--snip--
But my problem is not, "God doesn't exist, therefore 'what God wants' is a ridiculous thing to worry about." My problem is this: When we base our political/legal/moral decisions on what we think God wants, we have no way of knowing if we're right. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, we have no basis for resolving our differences. Religion is based on faith -- and faith, by definition, is uniquely resistant to evidence. Even at its best, faith ultimately comes down to, "I feel it in my heart." And if someone else feels something entirely different in their heart about God's intentions, we have no means of persuading them that they're mistaken. For that matter, we have no means of being persuaded ourselves if we're mistaken. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, it's ultimately no different from basing our decisions on what we want... reinforced and amplified by the conviction that our wishes dovetail with God's, and made more stubbornly resistant to change by the fundamental irrationality of religious faith.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/gay-bishop-comes-worst-argument-support-same-sex-marriage
Gay Bishop Comes Up With the Worst Argument to Support Same-Sex Marriage
The opposition to LGBT rights in general, and to same-sex marriage in particular, overwhelmingly comes from conservative religion, founded in the religious belief that gay sex makes baby Jesus cry. So if same-sex marriage proponents want to persuade religious believers to support same-sex marriage... how can we do that? Should we keep our argument entirely secular, and stay away from the whole question of religious belief? Or should we try to persuade them that God is on our side?
Lots of people make the second argument. Bishop Gene Robinson is one of them. And Bishop Robinson is a man to be taken seriously. The first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Bishop Robinson has been active in progressive political activism for many years: he is a fellow at the Center for American Progress, is co-author of three AIDS education curricula for youth and adults, has done AIDS work in the United States and in Africa, and famously delivered the invocation at President Obama's opening inaugural ceremonies in 2009. He's recently written a book, published by Knopf and widely reviewed and well-received: God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage. Aimed at religious believers who oppose same-sex marriage or are on the fence about it, the book makes a Christian case for same-sex marriage: "a commonsense, reasoned, religious argument made by someone who holds the religious text of the Bible to be holy and sacred and the ensuing two millennia of church history to be relevant to the discussion."
And I think this is a terrible, terrible idea.
--snip--
But the argument he makes in his new book, God Believes in Love, disturbs me greatly. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that God, or any sort of religious or spiritual belief, should have anything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that any decision about politics, law, public policy, or morality should ever be based on what's supposedly going on in God's head. I agree completely with Bishop Robinson's conclusion about same-sex marriage -- but I am passionately opposed to the method by which he's reached it, and the arguments he's making to advance it.
--snip--
But my problem is not, "God doesn't exist, therefore 'what God wants' is a ridiculous thing to worry about." My problem is this: When we base our political/legal/moral decisions on what we think God wants, we have no way of knowing if we're right. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, we have no basis for resolving our differences. Religion is based on faith -- and faith, by definition, is uniquely resistant to evidence. Even at its best, faith ultimately comes down to, "I feel it in my heart." And if someone else feels something entirely different in their heart about God's intentions, we have no means of persuading them that they're mistaken. For that matter, we have no means of being persuaded ourselves if we're mistaken. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, it's ultimately no different from basing our decisions on what we want... reinforced and amplified by the conviction that our wishes dovetail with God's, and made more stubbornly resistant to change by the fundamental irrationality of religious faith.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/gay-bishop-comes-worst-argument-support-same-sex-marriage
February 9, 2013
Much more at link....
The roots of the creation story: An atheist’s take on the Bible
Most religions provide some version of a creation myth. This is, after all, necessary to elevate the role of a god or gods in the history of the world—to establish a Supreme Being’s supremacy by making Him the ultimate source and creator of all things. So it is natural that the Bible begins with its creation myth.
The earliest parts of the Bible are the first five books. In the Jewish tradition, they are called by their Hebrew name: the Torah or “law.” In the Christian tradition, they are called by their Greek name: the Pentateuch or “five books.” Christianity spread through the Classical world, where Greek was the lingua franca, and early Christians used a third century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint after the seventy learned scholars supposedly responsible for the translation. Since I’m going the whole distance, through both the Old and New Testaments, and since I’m focusing on the King James Bible, and especially because my primary interest is the influence of Christianity on the West, I will be using the Greek versions of all of these names.
In the Greek/Christian version, each book of the Bible is given a descriptive name. The name of the first book is “Genesis,” the Greek word for birth or coming into being. It is a story of the creation of the world and of man. But right away, we encounter an intriguing clue about the origins of this origin myth.
The first line of the Bible is: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Follow along in your hymnal, or read the King James Bible online.) The Hebrew word for “God” in this verse is “Elohim.” Anyone with a knowledge of Hebrew knows that the –im suffix is plural. So this verse would seem to read, “In the beginning, the gods created the heaven and the earth.” But instead, Hebrew tradition requires that the plural be ignored and that “Elohim” be translated as “God.” Isaac Asimov—whose Guide to the Bible I am using as a fellow atheist’s reference source—notes that “It is possible that in the very earliest traditions on which the Bible is based, the creation was indeed the work of a plurality of gods. The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would carefully have eliminated such polytheism, but could not perhaps do anything with the firmly ingrained term ‘Elohim.’” Bear in mind that the Bible was not definitively written down until the sixth century BC. Before that it was mostly memorized and passed down by oral tradition, much like the works of Homer (which were first written down at about the same time). So the initial verses would have been as firmly ingrained in the mind of the Hebrew public as “Sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles” was for the Greeks. It would be impossible to change. The solution was to simply agree, as a social convention, to give “Elohim” a singular meaning, referring to only one God.
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/02/08/the-roots-of-the-creation-story-an-atheists-take-on-the-bible/
The earliest parts of the Bible are the first five books. In the Jewish tradition, they are called by their Hebrew name: the Torah or “law.” In the Christian tradition, they are called by their Greek name: the Pentateuch or “five books.” Christianity spread through the Classical world, where Greek was the lingua franca, and early Christians used a third century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint after the seventy learned scholars supposedly responsible for the translation. Since I’m going the whole distance, through both the Old and New Testaments, and since I’m focusing on the King James Bible, and especially because my primary interest is the influence of Christianity on the West, I will be using the Greek versions of all of these names.
In the Greek/Christian version, each book of the Bible is given a descriptive name. The name of the first book is “Genesis,” the Greek word for birth or coming into being. It is a story of the creation of the world and of man. But right away, we encounter an intriguing clue about the origins of this origin myth.
The first line of the Bible is: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Follow along in your hymnal, or read the King James Bible online.) The Hebrew word for “God” in this verse is “Elohim.” Anyone with a knowledge of Hebrew knows that the –im suffix is plural. So this verse would seem to read, “In the beginning, the gods created the heaven and the earth.” But instead, Hebrew tradition requires that the plural be ignored and that “Elohim” be translated as “God.” Isaac Asimov—whose Guide to the Bible I am using as a fellow atheist’s reference source—notes that “It is possible that in the very earliest traditions on which the Bible is based, the creation was indeed the work of a plurality of gods. The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would carefully have eliminated such polytheism, but could not perhaps do anything with the firmly ingrained term ‘Elohim.’” Bear in mind that the Bible was not definitively written down until the sixth century BC. Before that it was mostly memorized and passed down by oral tradition, much like the works of Homer (which were first written down at about the same time). So the initial verses would have been as firmly ingrained in the mind of the Hebrew public as “Sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles” was for the Greeks. It would be impossible to change. The solution was to simply agree, as a social convention, to give “Elohim” a singular meaning, referring to only one God.
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/02/08/the-roots-of-the-creation-story-an-atheists-take-on-the-bible/
Much more at link....
February 9, 2013
The only way nonsense like this will be stopped is for moderate and liberal believers to stand up and oppose it. But I won't be making any bets on it happening.
County Board in Tenn. Approves Ten Commandments Displays for Public Schools
A Tennessee school board has approved the placement of Ten Commandments displays in public schools, along with other historically significant documents.
At a meeting in late January, the Cumberland County Board of Education voted to allow Decalogue displays along with other notable documents, including the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Aarona VanWinkle, Director of Schools for Cumberland County, said in a statement that the displays would be more about historical heritage than religious doctrine. "The public schools are charged with teaching our history and heritage to students; we are not responsible for religious instruction – matters wisely left to families and religious organizations," said VanWinkle.
Over the past ten to fifteen years the debate over Ten Commandments displays in public facilities has been heated and often involved lawsuits and differing court decisions. In Tennessee, legislative efforts have existed for the past several years to legalize such displays in the context of them being part of overall sets of documents considered integral to American history.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/county-board-in-tenn-approves-ten-commandments-displays-for-public-schools-89741/#mGPLyIk5tD6oBIjz.99
At a meeting in late January, the Cumberland County Board of Education voted to allow Decalogue displays along with other notable documents, including the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Aarona VanWinkle, Director of Schools for Cumberland County, said in a statement that the displays would be more about historical heritage than religious doctrine. "The public schools are charged with teaching our history and heritage to students; we are not responsible for religious instruction – matters wisely left to families and religious organizations," said VanWinkle.
Over the past ten to fifteen years the debate over Ten Commandments displays in public facilities has been heated and often involved lawsuits and differing court decisions. In Tennessee, legislative efforts have existed for the past several years to legalize such displays in the context of them being part of overall sets of documents considered integral to American history.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/county-board-in-tenn-approves-ten-commandments-displays-for-public-schools-89741/#mGPLyIk5tD6oBIjz.99
The only way nonsense like this will be stopped is for moderate and liberal believers to stand up and oppose it. But I won't be making any bets on it happening.
February 9, 2013
At the Willits, California Food Bank, a 31-year-old cannabis farmer we’ll call Mark was energetically ticking off the community service hours he’d earned for growing our nation’s number-one cash crop. I watched for a few minutes as he passed bags full of apples, cheese and surplus generic sponge cake to a Mendocino County mom. I asked Mark what he thought about the approaching end of federal cannabis prohibition. He acknowledged that it was imminent, but was deeply wary of it. “It’ll be the end of the small farmer,” he told me. “Foks’ll be buying packages of joints made by Coors or Marlboro.”
Why does Mark, like many if not most of today’s American black-market cannabis farmers, dread the aboveground acceptance of his industry? Why did the voters in the Emerald Triangle cannabis farming counties of Mendocino (by 6%) and Humboldt (8%) vote against California’s Proposition 19 in 2010, which would have legalized cannabis?
The answer has as much to do with simple accounting as the more common outsider assumption: that farmers fear the price drops that come when a prohibitionary economy dissolves (though this is certainly part of the story). When, in three generations of farming, your family has never had to pay taxes, record payroll or meet building code, let alone meet a customer (the Emerald Triangle has an entire caste of middlemen and women who broker wholesale deals, so the farmer doesn’t have to leave the farm), the prospect of coming aboveground -- and dealing with the same red tape every other industry does -- can be terrifying.
--snip--
His point is that of course major players are going to enter the fray when we’re talking about what is already a $35-billion-a-year crop in the U.S., greater than the combined value of corn and wheat. Although the end of cannabis prohibition will almost certainly cause short-term wholesale price drops, what Balogh says to jittery farmers like Mark is, “even if your worst, most paranoid fears about modern corporate ethics are correct, there is still a lucrative (and expanding) niche for top-shelf, organically grown cannabis like the Emerald Triangle provides.”
http://www.alternet.org/pot-becomes-legal-weve-got-fight-against-corporate-control-cannabis
As a Craft Brewer, I think that Balogh is correct when he says,
Craft beer is a market that seems to have no limit. While the big companies make yellow fizzy beer water, thousands of brewers like myself are making small-batch craft beer that sells like wildfire. Small, neigborhood breweries are becoming more and more popular. And it is a collaborative industry, not competitive. (yes, there is competition, but craft brewers are not selfish and secretive. We tend to share and help each other out.)
So yes, we should be wary of big corporations and their role in how cannabis legislation gets written, not allowing them to create a market that only they can compete in.
As Pot Becomes Legal, We've Got to Fight Against Corporate Control of Cannabis
At the Willits, California Food Bank, a 31-year-old cannabis farmer we’ll call Mark was energetically ticking off the community service hours he’d earned for growing our nation’s number-one cash crop. I watched for a few minutes as he passed bags full of apples, cheese and surplus generic sponge cake to a Mendocino County mom. I asked Mark what he thought about the approaching end of federal cannabis prohibition. He acknowledged that it was imminent, but was deeply wary of it. “It’ll be the end of the small farmer,” he told me. “Foks’ll be buying packages of joints made by Coors or Marlboro.”
Why does Mark, like many if not most of today’s American black-market cannabis farmers, dread the aboveground acceptance of his industry? Why did the voters in the Emerald Triangle cannabis farming counties of Mendocino (by 6%) and Humboldt (8%) vote against California’s Proposition 19 in 2010, which would have legalized cannabis?
The answer has as much to do with simple accounting as the more common outsider assumption: that farmers fear the price drops that come when a prohibitionary economy dissolves (though this is certainly part of the story). When, in three generations of farming, your family has never had to pay taxes, record payroll or meet building code, let alone meet a customer (the Emerald Triangle has an entire caste of middlemen and women who broker wholesale deals, so the farmer doesn’t have to leave the farm), the prospect of coming aboveground -- and dealing with the same red tape every other industry does -- can be terrifying.
--snip--
His point is that of course major players are going to enter the fray when we’re talking about what is already a $35-billion-a-year crop in the U.S., greater than the combined value of corn and wheat. Although the end of cannabis prohibition will almost certainly cause short-term wholesale price drops, what Balogh says to jittery farmers like Mark is, “even if your worst, most paranoid fears about modern corporate ethics are correct, there is still a lucrative (and expanding) niche for top-shelf, organically grown cannabis like the Emerald Triangle provides.”
http://www.alternet.org/pot-becomes-legal-weve-got-fight-against-corporate-control-cannabis
As a Craft Brewer, I think that Balogh is correct when he says,
“even if your worst, most paranoid fears about modern corporate ethics are correct, there is still a lucrative (and expanding) niche for top-shelf, organically grown cannabis like the Emerald Triangle provides.”
Craft beer is a market that seems to have no limit. While the big companies make yellow fizzy beer water, thousands of brewers like myself are making small-batch craft beer that sells like wildfire. Small, neigborhood breweries are becoming more and more popular. And it is a collaborative industry, not competitive. (yes, there is competition, but craft brewers are not selfish and secretive. We tend to share and help each other out.)
So yes, we should be wary of big corporations and their role in how cannabis legislation gets written, not allowing them to create a market that only they can compete in.
February 9, 2013
There are congresscritters who are also trying to get Darwin Day officially recognized too!
Council member Cecil Bothwell releases Feb. 12 Darwin Day proclamation
On Feb. 12, Asheville City Council will declare "Darwin Day." Council member Cecil Bothwell has released the full text of the city's proclamation:
In recognition of Charles Darwin's immense contribution to the sciences, stemming from his explanation of evolution moderated by natural selection, the City of Asheville will join municipalities across the continent, and nations around the world in declaring Feb. 12, International Darwin Day.
The proclamation will be issued at the regular meeting of the Asheville City Council on that date.
The proclamation will read as follows:
http://www.mountainx.com/article/48327/Council-member-Cecil-Bothwell-releases-Feb.-12-Darwin-Day-proclamation
In recognition of Charles Darwin's immense contribution to the sciences, stemming from his explanation of evolution moderated by natural selection, the City of Asheville will join municipalities across the continent, and nations around the world in declaring Feb. 12, International Darwin Day.
The proclamation will be issued at the regular meeting of the Asheville City Council on that date.
The proclamation will read as follows:
International Darwin Day Proclamation
Whereas February 12, 2013 is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809;
And Whereas Charles Darwin is recognized for the development of the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection;
And Whereas Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is recognized as the foundation of modern biology, an essential tool in understanding the natural world and the development of life on earth;
And Whereas Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has provided, and continues to provide, the basis for great advances in science, medicine and philosophy;
And Whereas the anniversary of Darwin's birthday is an appropriate period on which to reflect and celebrate the importance of scientific advancement to all people;
And Whereas government bodies around the world, including the United States Congress, have designated this anniversary as a celebration of the life and work of Charles Darwin;
And Whereas the City of Asheville is rightfully proud of its commitment to scientifically-based environmental awareness, appropriate technology and high educational standards;
Now, Therefore, I Terry Bellamy, Mayor of the City of Asheville, do hereby proclaim February 12, 2013 as "International Darwin Day" in the City of Asheville.
http://www.mountainx.com/article/48327/Council-member-Cecil-Bothwell-releases-Feb.-12-Darwin-Day-proclamation
There are congresscritters who are also trying to get Darwin Day officially recognized too!
February 9, 2013
There are congresscritters who are also trying to get Darwin Day officially recognized too!
Council member Cecil Bothwell releases Feb. 12 Darwin Day proclamation
On Feb. 12, Asheville City Council will declare "Darwin Day." Council member Cecil Bothwell has released the full text of the city's proclamation:
In recognition of Charles Darwin's immense contribution to the sciences, stemming from his explanation of evolution moderated by natural selection, the City of Asheville will join municipalities across the continent, and nations around the world in declaring Feb. 12, International Darwin Day.
The proclamation will be issued at the regular meeting of the Asheville City Council on that date.
The proclamation will read as follows:
http://www.mountainx.com/article/48327/Council-member-Cecil-Bothwell-releases-Feb.-12-Darwin-Day-proclamation
In recognition of Charles Darwin's immense contribution to the sciences, stemming from his explanation of evolution moderated by natural selection, the City of Asheville will join municipalities across the continent, and nations around the world in declaring Feb. 12, International Darwin Day.
The proclamation will be issued at the regular meeting of the Asheville City Council on that date.
The proclamation will read as follows:
International Darwin Day Proclamation
Whereas February 12, 2013 is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809;
And Whereas Charles Darwin is recognized for the development of the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection;
And Whereas Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is recognized as the foundation of modern biology, an essential tool in understanding the natural world and the development of life on earth;
And Whereas Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has provided, and continues to provide, the basis for great advances in science, medicine and philosophy;
And Whereas the anniversary of Darwin's birthday is an appropriate period on which to reflect and celebrate the importance of scientific advancement to all people;
And Whereas government bodies around the world, including the United States Congress, have designated this anniversary as a celebration of the life and work of Charles Darwin;
And Whereas the City of Asheville is rightfully proud of its commitment to scientifically-based environmental awareness, appropriate technology and high educational standards;
Now, Therefore, I Terry Bellamy, Mayor of the City of Asheville, do hereby proclaim February 12, 2013 as "International Darwin Day" in the City of Asheville.
http://www.mountainx.com/article/48327/Council-member-Cecil-Bothwell-releases-Feb.-12-Darwin-Day-proclamation
There are congresscritters who are also trying to get Darwin Day officially recognized too!
February 9, 2013
This story goes well beyond just the religious viewpoint. This is criminal behavior, and they now want to get others to pay for it.
LA Catholic archdiocese considering “massive” fundraiser to pay for child-rape settlements
Who doesn’t want to pony up big dollars to bail out the financially-troubled archdiocese after their reported $660 million settlement with 562 victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests? It’s for a good cause, right?
Sure, the archdiocese appears to have ignored reports of potential pedophile priests. And the Catholic church overall still hasn’t fessed up to its crimes. And sure, some Catholic leaders blames the kids. And they some cardinals attack the victims outright. But who could possibly feel like they’re funding the sins of the church when they hand over money to an organization that has consistently lied and obstructed authorities from finding out the truth about the systematic rape of children?
I mean sure, there’s that little issue of the Catholic church even being involved in modern-day slavery and holding firm on bigotry, but besides that, they’re really a great bunch of people once you get to know them, and hand them all your money so that they don’t have to feel the pain of their sins.
Just because the LA archdiocese is still holding back on providing the full details of their decades of child rape doesn’t mean that they haven’t learned any lessons from their severe failings. I mean, who hasn’t helped to cover up rape, especially the rape of children?
Catholic priest in handcuffs pedophilia sex abuse child
Remind me again why anyone gives the Catholic church money these days for anything, let alone to help the church minimize the damage from its horrific sins on this matter?
http://americablog.com/2013/02/los-angeles-catholic-archidiocese-fundraiser-child-abuse.html
Sure, the archdiocese appears to have ignored reports of potential pedophile priests. And the Catholic church overall still hasn’t fessed up to its crimes. And sure, some Catholic leaders blames the kids. And they some cardinals attack the victims outright. But who could possibly feel like they’re funding the sins of the church when they hand over money to an organization that has consistently lied and obstructed authorities from finding out the truth about the systematic rape of children?
I mean sure, there’s that little issue of the Catholic church even being involved in modern-day slavery and holding firm on bigotry, but besides that, they’re really a great bunch of people once you get to know them, and hand them all your money so that they don’t have to feel the pain of their sins.
Just because the LA archdiocese is still holding back on providing the full details of their decades of child rape doesn’t mean that they haven’t learned any lessons from their severe failings. I mean, who hasn’t helped to cover up rape, especially the rape of children?
Catholic priest in handcuffs pedophilia sex abuse child
Remind me again why anyone gives the Catholic church money these days for anything, let alone to help the church minimize the damage from its horrific sins on this matter?
http://americablog.com/2013/02/los-angeles-catholic-archidiocese-fundraiser-child-abuse.html
This story goes well beyond just the religious viewpoint. This is criminal behavior, and they now want to get others to pay for it.
February 9, 2013
LA Catholic archdiocese considering “massive” fundraiser to pay for child-rape settlements
Who doesn’t want to pony up big dollars to bail out the financially-troubled archdiocese after their reported $660 million settlement with 562 victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests? It’s for a good cause, right?
Sure, the archdiocese appears to have ignored reports of potential pedophile priests. And the Catholic church overall still hasn’t fessed up to its crimes. And sure, some Catholic leaders blames the kids. And they some cardinals attack the victims outright. But who could possibly feel like they’re funding the sins of the church when they hand over money to an organization that has consistently lied and obstructed authorities from finding out the truth about the systematic rape of children?
I mean sure, there’s that little issue of the Catholic church even being involved in modern-day slavery and holding firm on bigotry, but besides that, they’re really a great bunch of people once you get to know them, and hand them all your money so that they don’t have to feel the pain of their sins.
Just because the LA archdiocese is still holding back on providing the full details of their decades of child rape doesn’t mean that they haven’t learned any lessons from their severe failings. I mean, who hasn’t helped to cover up rape, especially the rape of children?
Catholic priest in handcuffs pedophilia sex abuse child
Remind me again why anyone gives the Catholic church money these days for anything, let alone to help the church minimize the damage from its horrific sins on this matter?
http://americablog.com/2013/02/los-angeles-catholic-archidiocese-fundraiser-child-abuse.html
Sure, the archdiocese appears to have ignored reports of potential pedophile priests. And the Catholic church overall still hasn’t fessed up to its crimes. And sure, some Catholic leaders blames the kids. And they some cardinals attack the victims outright. But who could possibly feel like they’re funding the sins of the church when they hand over money to an organization that has consistently lied and obstructed authorities from finding out the truth about the systematic rape of children?
I mean sure, there’s that little issue of the Catholic church even being involved in modern-day slavery and holding firm on bigotry, but besides that, they’re really a great bunch of people once you get to know them, and hand them all your money so that they don’t have to feel the pain of their sins.
Just because the LA archdiocese is still holding back on providing the full details of their decades of child rape doesn’t mean that they haven’t learned any lessons from their severe failings. I mean, who hasn’t helped to cover up rape, especially the rape of children?
Catholic priest in handcuffs pedophilia sex abuse child
Remind me again why anyone gives the Catholic church money these days for anything, let alone to help the church minimize the damage from its horrific sins on this matter?
http://americablog.com/2013/02/los-angeles-catholic-archidiocese-fundraiser-child-abuse.html
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jul 3, 2010, 12:24 PMNumber of posts: 19,705
