| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
The original source (e.g. AP, Bloomberg, Reuters) should appear on the header, dateline or at the bottom of the article.
If the source is a blog and the blog did not source the article and does not claim to be the original source, then the material is suspect and/or the source is not credible and should be ignored.
In that case, if the poster still likes the material and wants to use it, he might extract a unique phrase and Google for the original or a credible source by putting the phrase in quotes.
Your posts, even though they’re being removed, make a point that I don’t think anyone disagrees with.
Sexual abuse will occur in any large organization, religious or not.
If Catholics were saying things like:
“What happened is a travesty and any official, clergy or lay that was involved in either the abuse or covering it up should have to face the consequences.”
very few people would be ‘attacking Catholicism”; and you would add credence to your claims that THOSE people who did were demonstrating anti-Catholic bias.
And even if Catholics were to say: “Keep in mind that not everyone accused is guilty; and a false accuser needs to be treated as harshly as a guilty abuser; most would agree.
But the martyr complex that twists logic by saying (and I’m oversimplifying here)
I love the church
The church is holy
Therefore anyone who stands against the church is an unholy bigot
Therefore their arguments are wrong
is doing more damage to the church you love than is the original abuse.
I’m an United Methodist.
Post as many cases of abuse by UM lay or clergy as you can find. I’m sure there are some egregious examples.
And if we find a single one where the church, or the accused’s superiors shuffled that person to another post, turned a blind eye to the abuse, or paid off the accuser in exchange for a confidentiality agreement, I will join with you in publicly condemning such acts.
Is the media having a field day with this? Absolutely.
And if any of them had the sense to monitor FR, you’d probably get a chance to to go on 60 minutes for an hour-long special, where they’d lend a seemingly sympathetic ear to your arguments all the while letting you dig your beloved church deeper into the pit she’s dug for herself- not by having rogue priests, but by harboring them.
I await ‘anti-Catholic bigot’ comments from one and all.
Will Wallace
Did you read my original post that began this thread? I guess not. Your comment (”And even if Catholics were to say: “Keep in mind that not everyone accused is guilty; and a false accuser needs to be treated as harshly as a guilty abuser; most would agree”) is a paraphrase of mine.
And by the way, the removed posts weren’t MINE, although I did not know that they were a problem. The fact that the source may have been a problem DOES NOT make the litany of presbyterian churches’ inaccurate.
Now, SURELY you must know that there are very similar examples in the Methodist church.
Thanks, I appreciate your help.
April 6, 2006
August 26, 2006
November 9, 2006 (thread)
November 5, 2006 (thread)
November 3, 2006 (thread)
November 3, 2006 (thread)
December 19, 2006 (thread)
January 3, 2007 (thread)
February 6, 2007 (thread)
February 20, 2007
March 21, 2007 (thread)
March 31, 2007
April 3, 2007 (thread)
June 15, 2007
June 15, 2007
June 15, 2007
July 17, 2007
July 22, 2007
September 24, 2007
September 25, 2007
November 19, 2007
December 3, 2007
December 3, 2007
December 10, 2007
And that's just a sampling of 2006 and 2007. Shall I keep going?
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD" -- Proverbs 1:27-29"When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Maybe you SHOULD keep going. Out of the first 9 links, 7 were about the Haggard story. A sampling of others shows a number of comments about Haggard.
No they were NOT put in jail. Some continued their abuse for years. I guess you didn’t get a chance to read the posts.
No state in the union holds the age of consent for sexual relations to be 14 or 15. The youngest a person may be is 16.
Just another diversionary tactic from the fact that the federal government considers sex with someone under the age of 16 in all states to be statutory rape.
Thus these pederast priests are committing rape against all their victims under 16.
Unless they decide to marry them.
Nearly one billion dollars were paid out on two days by church authorities in Los Angeles alone. That money wasn't paid because priests were having sex with other priests. It was paid out because priests were having sex with children.
Wake up, or continue to slumber while children's lives and families and communities are destroyed.
And no matter how one parses the terms used the salient fact is that wolves were feeding on their flocks and the shepherds busied themselves keeping the authorities at bay.
But even Sodom has its defenders.
Yep. And we know what happened to them.
LOL! So, married 14 yos have to wait until they're 16 before having sex?
Bookmarking your excellent post.
WRONG! The Catholic Church had it, which is why it was paid out. The presbyterians are deadbeats in this regard. They have no money, and lawyers don't work for free. I doubt if any of the poor child victims of presbyterian pastor predators will ever see a dime, no attorney is interested in suing a broke church.
lol. “Trifecta.” It’s about all they’re winning these days.
*
*
Judy Judy Judy. Let's recap to see what was originally put forth by whom and how that statement is now being distorted...
You write way back in post 129...
Age of consent refers to the age which a person can legally consent to sexual activity. If that age is 15, are we talking about "child" abuse? What about 14? 129 posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 2:42:15 PM by Judith Anne So, you can talk of a "child" of 17 years of age? Or 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days? Don't be ridiculous.
See, it was YOU who wrote about age of consent and in the context NOT of marriage but of "sexual activity."
This post of yours not only reveals that you set the parameters yourself, not for marriage but for "sexual activity," but it likewise shows that you did not understand the fact that nowhere in this country is the age of "sexual consent for sexual activity" set at 14 or 15, as you incorrectly presupposed.
You’ve posted nothing.
Gibberish. Anything to deflect scrutiny away from pederast priests.
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.