| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/21/2009 4:58:04 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 12/20/2009 3:22:36 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Wow, another article about child molestation by Alex Murphy. I thought Coleus got banned for posting these about Protestants.
There was a person named Coleus who was posting similar about Protestants, but for some reason the religion mederator decided that was unfair and banned him.
You miss the point. Are you really saying there's no difference between an article that appears in the National Review and one that appears in The Nation? Of course there is--each is driven by a different agenda, and it colors one's view of the material; that was no unbiased report. If you look at the other piece I excerpted, you can see the magazine's editorial bias. You may blithely accept anything someone publishes at face value just because "every" newspaper has an agenda, but you'd be a fool to do so.
That article wasn't satire. Please--show me the satirical part.
And it's obvious that Vincent Browne's op-ed isn't intended as fiction. BTW, I looked up "Vincent Browne" on the internet and he seems like an Irish journalist who doesn't have any particularly sinister connections (except perhaps for the fact that he's a barrister!).
Uh, I wasn't talking about Vincent Browne's op-ed. I was talking about the short story about the novelist getting a bad review. I'll copy the link for you, but it's, like, right there on the site.
(Of course, since that's fiction, and you claim the other is satire, maybe this article is meant to be "satire," too?)
You're spinning like a top, and it does you no credit. Why not just admit to the type of publication excerpted from? Because it would reveal you have an agenda, too, and the petulance over 'Catholics' posting things you don't like is obvious--you REALLY think that a single person on FR is unaware of the Catholics' priest pedophile problems, and you're simply trying to share more knowledge?
I don't have a dog in this fight, and it's obvious what's going on to me. There's not a thing wrong with your having your position, but please don't post something like this post I'm replying to again--I don't care if you think I'm an idiot, but please don't talk to me like you think I am, because I'll rip your obvious bunk apart every time, ok?
P.S. Unintentionally may have implied you posted the article. All points stand, though, as you support its posting.
Thanks for the info, Mark. There's a whole lot of [excommmunicated] FReeper Catholics out there who'd rather denounce me than denounce their own priests, based on their own posting history.
Really?
Also, is Alex so insecure in his own beliefs that he must attack the Church? This obsession of his (posting Catholic articles, and posting threads about the sins of others) is deeply troubling. Maybe he should speak to his pastor about his need to attack Catholicism, and its implications for his own spirituality.
Coleus hasn’t been banned, he’s still an active FReeper.
Very nearly all of the anti-Catholics are so insecure in their beliefs that they must attack the Church.
Calvinist predestination is nothing more than a cosmic lottery. Unfortunately, none of the participants in the lottery have any idea how many winners there will be and they are horrified that they will not be a winner. So, to convince themselves that they are a lottery winner, they set out to defame those who disavow such idolatry. I cannot imagine the daily dread they must endure.
Don’t forget that in Ireland hatred between Catholics and Protestants is near pathological. Granted it’s not as bad in the Republic of Ireland as it is in Northern Ireland, but it’s still bad.
I've been personally involved in getting several ephebophile priests removed from my own diocese, and therefore feel qualified to denounce you, Alex.
Also, you fall right in with the homosexuals and liberals in continuing the slander against the Church that it has or had a pedophilia problem. It does not. It relaxed its prohibitions on admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, and a cohort of homosexuals have passed through its ranks over the past 4 decades, and the homosexuals did what homosexuals are wont to do.
So in Christian charity, I strongly suggest you cease this grave sin of detraction and slander, and stop implying the Church has a pedophile problem. It does not. It has a homosexual priest problem, and ephebophilia is endemic to the homosexual subculture.
It's a fetish.
That is the nature of a fetish.
Dear Religion Moderator,
Could you please clarify? Is it OK to post articles in the Religion Forum about the sexual proclivities of protestant ministers, or are such postings in the Religion Forum currently limited to articles about the sexual proclivities of Catholic priests?
Thanks in advance,
Dr. Kopp
I strongly suspect these posts were reactions to prior posts about RC priests, but I could be wrong.
Actually, Alex, I stopped, for the most part, posting the details of protestant pervert pastors (except for “big name” televangelists) in the religion forum (preferring to post them over to “general,” along with the exploits of miscellaneous psychologists, teachers, and pediatricians), but I can start again if you’d like.
By the way, what did “European paedophile trolls in Africa (child sex tourism in Mombasa Kenya)” have to do with Protestant ministers (unless you know of some who are engaging, of course)? Sure wasn’t mentioned in the article...
THE RULES
Rule One: 'Rome' is the locus of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
All Else Is Irrelevant.
=========================================================== "The Rules" pretty well explain a huge 'genre' of posting on this forum.
Since I cannot read minds (only words), I cannot say for certain that any individual on this forum actually thinks according to "The Rules". However, a reasonable person, upon reading certain types of writing on this forum, would be led to suspect it.
Was a Roman Catholic poster(s) requested by the Religion Moderator to stop posting articles about sexual abuse by Protestant ministers in the Religion Forum?
If so, would it not also be appropriate for Protestant posters to stop posting articles about sexual abuse by RC priests in the Religion Forum?
Maybe, as markomalley pointed out, you could post these articles in "General" or "News" or "Bloggers/Personal" instead of the Religion Forum.
Oh, but it was. Presumably you didn't know of any priests who were involved? The last paragraph:
It is a thriving industry still in parts of South Asia, as well as Central America and those parts of Africa where tourists venture. It is also an international disgrace. The media, in particular, are hypocritical about it. A pastor or priest who abuses children is called a pedophile, molester, defiler or pervert; it makes front-page news and the media is after his blood until his church apologizes. A Briton, German or Italian is said to be “on a spree” or having a bit of “legitimate fun”: he or she is called a sex “tourist”. He’s not reported; no need to apologize either for a life ruined.
But then you have to ask yourself why a religion would want this perverted, illegal activity within it's ranks protected...
Bingo with one comment. In your writing, the One True Church omits the quotation marks and you neglected to mention that school teachers and the protestant churches (except the cults) do not claim to be the "One True Church" nor do they claim infallibility and or apostolic succession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.