Doubtdispelled wrote:Oh, and I would have been quite happy for this thread to just go dormant, but I felt I couldn't just let Beatsong be wrong without pointing it out.

We kinda have this thing going, if you know what I mean.

Aww, I certainly know what you mean, anyway.

My wife also can't let me be wrong about things without pointing it out.

Emmeline wrote:

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Indeed. And the great thing about the dead, or banned, is that you can say what you like about them and they can't answer back.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

jamest wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Yes, but I thought that the point of having Mick ejected was so that you all didn't have to read about his views and become emotional any more? By continuing with these issues you've all just contradicted yourselves.

Hang on just a minute there, James.

Having Mick ejected??

A couple of members swore at him and this evolves in your mind into 'having him ejected'?

Mick encountered no abuse other than a couple of members swearing at him? Are you having a fuckin' laff? You'll have to excuse me for a short while whilst I get the frozen badger out of the freezer and give myself a jolly good rogering.

And anyway, this more properly belongs in one of the threads about his banning, not here.

Fair enough, though note that this thread will be exhibit B if and when the appeal happens.

jamest wrote:

Paul wrote:

jamest wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Yes, but I thought that the point of having Mick ejected was so that you all didn't have to read about his views and become emotional any more? By continuing with these issues you've all just contradicted yourselves.

It wasn't his views it was his behaviour - how many fucking times does this have to be repeated?

What fucking behaviour? I don't remember Mick swearing or calling anyone a cunt or getting emotional. He mostly delivered his views and tried his utmost to debate them rationally.

Try reading the bullying thread, jamest, or the one where Mick talks about whistling at lesbians. That might give you a clue.

Beatsong wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Beatsong wrote:The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

It isn't about what happened to the bodies of those children, Beatsong. Although having your kid chucked into a septic tank would be pretty horrendous, it isn't even about that.

I understand that. If you read my comment here in context, I was replying to this specific question of lyingcheat:

Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

I see. So Lyingcheat's question as to whether there can be another side to this issue gets translated into a sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more. Ok.

Beatsong wrote:He was specifically asking about that aspect of it - the fact that the dead bodies were thrown into a septic tank rather than disposed of in a normal, more dignified manner.

You seem so sure about that.

Beatsong wrote:No.

Thank god.

Beatsong wrote:
So what do you want to do? Let off steam about how angry it makes you, while others do the same? That's fair enough; it's certainly anger-inducing. Not sure what you want me to add to it though. The issue can either be discussed from all sides or it can't.

Er.. did someone ask you to participate?

And no, I don't want to let off steam. I did that already. It wasn't my idea that the thread and op be preserved.

The Plc wrote:

John Platko wrote:I recently say the movie Philomena. It doesn't seem to have captured how bad things
really were.

I recommend, if you can find them, the brave films Songs for a Raggy Boy and The Magdalene Sisters, which actually do brutally depict shocking scenes of child abuse, rape and enslavement in Church run institutions in Ireland.

<snip>

Here's another film that's worth watching. It's quite sad to watch however.

The Boys of St. Vincent

The Boys of St. Vincent is a 1992 film directed by John N. Smith for the National Film Board of Canada. It is a two-part docudrama based on real events that took place at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in St. John's, Newfoundland, one of a number of child sexual abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church.

The first film, The Boys of St. Vincent, covers the sexual and physical abuse of a number of orphans by Brothers headed by Brother Peter Lavin (Henry Czerny). The second film, The Boys of St. Vincent: 15 Years Later, covers the trial of the Brothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_of_St._Vincent

Beatsong wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

Beatsong wrote:

lyingcheat wrote:Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

Sure. The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

But discussing that might upset people, and then I'd be banned. So I'd better stop.

How about the obvious contradiction between on the one hand, an organisation which believes in the sanctity of life, that all human beings are unique creations of a loving God, which opposes abortion and allowing people control over the end of their life; and on the other hand, members of that organisation who neglected children to death and then dumped them in a septic tank?

Yep, that's an interesting aspect too.

If only there were someone here with more personal experience of that organisation, who could give some insight into the mentality behind such a contradiction, from the organisation's POV.

I can give some insight into how the Catholic Church's actions can contradict with what it states it believes, or even with what it's official written rules and agreements require it to do. Sometimes people in charge, at all levels of the Church, simply refuse to play by the agreed upon rules and make up their own because they believe that the situation warrants it. This sometimes happen when a vocal minority claiming to know what is best for the good of the organization gets their way in spite of what the rules say should happen.

An example might help demonstrate how this sometimes works in the Catholic Church.

Many people think that Catholic priests can't marry, but that's not really the whole story. For example, since the 1596 Union of Brest, Eastern Catholic priests could be married men (to women). These priests could not only have sex but they were also given the ability to perform the sacrament of conformation, a privilege reserved for Bishops in the Roman Rite. And since they had a tendency to stay in their own remote part of the world other Catholics didn't seem to care much about this.

Fast forward to the late 19th early 20th century, when many of the poor Ruthenian people, like Andy Warhol's and my ancestors, were enticed to the US to work in Steel Mills and Coal mines to help break the union power of the earlier Irish and Italian immigrants who were starting to acquire some collective power in America.

These Ruthenian people came from communities where the Church played a central spiritual and social role in their life, so naturally they wanted to recreate those structures in their new homeland. They earned money the hard way, built churches, and sent money back home so that priests of their rite could join them. Cultural issues and language barriers made it difficult for these people to feel comfortable in the Roman Catholic churches that were already well established in America. It didn't help that these other Catholics had a nasty tendency to use pejorative words like "honky" to put them down.

The Eastern priests came, sometimes with their wives, but even though they came with legitimate holy orders, they found it very difficult to be recognized and granted permission by the local Bishops to set up shop. The American Bishops didn't feel that they needed to honor centuries old agreements or the legitimate holy orders of these priests. The American Bishops felt that there would be too many issues having married priests getting their share, having children, etc. etc. alongside theoretically celibate priests. So, they insisted on doing what they felt was best for the greater community and made new rules as they went. Eventually Rome got involved. Being a such a small minority, the Eastern priests who had very little political power didn't stand a chance. The RC's were very vocal and won the day. It took a while but eventually, new official Vatican approved, "local" rules were put in place and Eastern priests couldn't officially be married and serve in America. Interestingly, they did keep their power of confirmation. I for example, was baptized and confirmed as an infant by a priest. Many of these priests and their parishes said, "fuck you" to the Catholic Church for not honoring the Union of Brest and left the Catholic Church and joined the Russian Orthodox Church. This sadly, caused a lot of needless division between former friends and families.

So, that's one example of how an organization like the Catholic Church can say one thing, even have well defined rules documenting what they say, and do something very different when some members in authority think that "for the good of all" new rules now apply- especially when egged on by a vocal and perceived important minority or person- like an American Bishop.

(Note: although the "Eastern Catholic priests can't be married" ban stood for about 100 years, it has now been rescinded. And the Church where I was baptized and confirmed as an infant now has a married catholic priest who is the father of four children.)

(Edit: For Andy Warhol fans, or those who just don't want to drink alone, I recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tubcVylNOa0)

So basically, in the past, priests were allowed to be married, but in the present, if the majority of the church (aka mafia) bosses don't agree that they should be allowed to be married, they can't do that. A load of old garbage to me, and only more confusing as to why adult people need to believe in mythology, especially when such mythology is interpreted by silly old men who aren't getting any and who want to make sure that no one else is either. Argh!!