Ongoing religious scandals

Bannasidhe

CiaranMT wrote: »

He is aye.

:eek::eek::eek:

robindch

Ultra-orthodox jews in New York ostracize jews who report child abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

New York Times wrote:

The first shock came when Mordechai Jungreis learned that his mentally disabled teenage son was being molested in a Jewish ritual bathhouse in Brooklyn. The second came after Mr. Jungreis complained, and the man accused of the abuse was arrested.

Old friends started walking stonily past him and his family on the streets of Williamsburg. Their landlord kicked them out of their apartment. Anonymous messages filled their answering machine, cursing Mr. Jungreis for turning in a fellow Jew. And, he said, the mother of a child in a wheelchair confronted Mr. Jungreis’s mother-in-law, saying the same man had molested her son, and she “did not report this crime, so why did your son-in-law have to?”

By cooperating with the police, and speaking out about his son’s abuse, Mr. Jungreis, 38, found himself at the painful forefront of an issue roiling his insular Hasidic community. There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases. [...]

Sarky

How messed up does someone have to be to ostracise their neighbour because they had the decency to report a child abuser? I mean, seriously, that's just pathetic.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

How messed up does someone have to be to ostracise their neighbour because they had the decency to report a child abuser? I mean, seriously, that's just pathetic.

I used to be a Community Worker in Hackney in London which has a huge Hassidic community. I can honestly say I have never encountered a more bigoted, intolerant, rule bound, homophobic, misogynistic, insular, and racist group of people in my life.

I could work with even the most fundamentalist of the Imans (mainly as they decided to 'see' me as male) and once I had a rant impassioned discussion with them about respecting cultural differences being a two way street- that in my culture women hold positions of power and influence which they needed to respect (or the grant chequeys would stop being processed) they 'got it' .

The Hasidic - no working with them. They treated anyone not a member of their 'gang' with utter contempt with a special hatred reserved for non-orthodox Jews.

I am not even slightly surprised by the wall of silence they have erected against anyone who sought to involve the goyim authorities in their nasty little world.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

How messed up does someone have to be to ostracise their neighbour because they had the decency to report a child abuser?

Leaving aside the abuse itself for a moment, that story is interesting because it shows the power that religion has to subvert people's normal moral sense -- the same subverted moral sense which had Sean Brady thinking it was a good idea to keep his mouth shut.

Genghiz Cohen

robindch wrote: »

Leaving aside the abuse itself for a moment, that story is interesting because it shows the power that religion has to subvert people's normal moral sense -- the same subverted moral sense which had Sean Brady thinking it was a good idea to keep his mouth shut.

But... but... but... you can't be moral without God!!!

Maybe it should be changed to morally corrupt.

Galvasean

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But... but... but... you can't be moral without God!!!

Maybe it should be changed to morally corrupt.

God defines what is moral. God is corrupt and petty. Therefore, being corrupt and petty is moral.
Problem? :cool:

Fortyniner

Weren't this lot responsible recently for spitting, verbally abusing and throwing bags of sh1t at girls going to school near their locality in Israel, just for going to school, which is contrary to the Hasidic beliefs?

dmw07

Galvasean wrote: »

God defines what is moral. God is corrupt and petty. Therefore, being corrupt and petty is moral.
Problem? :cool:

Yeah, you've used reasoning to define god :P

recedite

While some ultra-Orthodox rabbis now argue that a child molester should be reported to the police, others strictly adhere to an ancient prohibition against mesirah, the turning in of a Jew to non-Jewish authorities, and consider publicly airing allegations against fellow Jews to be chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.

Seems quite similar to the priestly code here; the idea that fellow priests were only answerable to canon law.
That is sickening though; The abuser picked on mentally and physically disabled victims, yet people flocked to defend him.

robindch

More reports of abuse, but -- WTF?!! -- assets of £22 billion?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seven-priests-from-legion-of-christ-investigated-by-vatican-for-alleged-child-sex-abuse-3104795.html

Independent wrote:

SEVEN priests from the Legion of Christ are being investigated for alleged sexual abuse of children, it was revealed today. In a statement, the Legion confirmed it had referred the seven cases to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Six of the cases refer to alleged incidents from decades ago but one is more recent, it was reported.

The investigations mark the first known Vatican action against Legion priests for alleged sexual assault following the scandal of the Legion's founder who was found to have raped and molested his seminarians. The conservative order once hailed by the Vatican for its orthodoxy and ability to recruit priests fell into disarray in recent years as it admitted that its founder, the Rev Marciel Maciel, sexually abused seminarians and fathered at least three children. Two years ago the Pope granted broad powers to the archbishop he picked to overhaul the Legionaries of Christ following revelations that the order's founder led a double life.

A decree approved by Benedict XVI and published on the Legionaries' website said Archbishop Velasio De Paolis can override the Legionaries' own constitutions as he goes about reforming the order and purging it of its institutional abuses. The Vatican said Maciel had built a system of power built on obedience and deceit that allowed his criminal and immoral misdeeds to go unchecked for decades.

It said the Legionaries needed to be profoundly purified to survive, with the order's essential spirit redefined, its founding constitutions revised and the systemic abuse of authority corrected. In the decree dated July 9 2010, the Vatican said Archbishop De Paolis would have broad powers of governance to carry out those tasks. The order's current leadership - accused by critics of having covered up for Maciel's misdeeds - remains in place "unless it becomes necessary to provide otherwise", the decree said. Questions about the fate of the current leadership and control of the group's finances have swirled since the Vatican announced it was taking over the order.

News reports have estimated the Legion has assets totalling £22 billion in a holding company headed by the order's current number two. Appeals against Archbishop De Paolis' actions go to the Pope himself, the decree states.

Maciel founded the Legion in his native Mexico in 1941. The Legionaries now claim a membership of more than 800 priests and 2,500 seminarians in 22 countries, along with 70,000 members in its lay movement, Regnum Christi. The order runs schools, charities, Catholic news outlets, seminaries for young boys, and universities in Mexico, Italy, Spain and elsewhere.

Seems so.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

More reports of abuse, but -- WTF?!! -- assets of £22 billion?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seven-priests-from-legion-of-christ-investigated-by-vatican-for-alleged-child-sex-abuse-3104795.html

Seems so.

It's not just the Legion of Christ who need to be 'profoundly purified'- the whole damn Church is vile.

However, I suspect that what they mean by profoundly purified and what us non-Catholics mean by profoundly purified are two completely different things. Bit like what to me is a lie they define as a mental reservation

The Catholic doctrine on lying

According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

Newaglish

In a statement, the Legion confirmed it had referred the seven cases to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Six of the cases refer to alleged incidents from decades ago but one is more recent, it was reported.

Have they referred it to the police also? It doesn't seem to mention them at all.

Sarky

The Vatican said Maciel had built a system of power built on obedience and deceit that allowed his criminal and immoral misdeeds to go unchecked for decades.

They'd know, wouldn't they?

robindch

Newaglish wrote: »

Have they referred it to the police also?

In the Vatican, I'd imagine the CDF are the police.

magicbastarder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Hasidic - no working with them. They treated anyone not a member of their 'gang' with utter contempt with a special hatred reserved for non-orthodox Jews.

i'd say the biggest issue would be when they come in contact with basic jews.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd say the biggest issue would be when they come in contact with basic jews.

One of my colleagues was a Jewish lesbian and they were publicly absolutely awful to her, yet in private she was regularly hit on by the men to the extent that she refused to be left alone with a hasidic man. The strange thing was that part of her desperately wanted their approval, it was if she bought into their B.S. that their form of Judaism was 'pure'.

All of the Hasidic are Ashkenazi Jews - of Eastern European extraction, Yiddish speakers - and their contempt for Sephardi Jews - Iberian extraction - knows no bounds.

Me, as a goyim, they would just about tolerate but tended to try and treat me as a servant to be ordered about. Things finally blew up during a ceremony at the Cenotaph in Whitehall for victims of the Holocaust - I had been asked to lay a wreath on behalf of the Lesbian and Gay men who were victims of the nazis, as I went to place it the Chief Rabbi moved to block me. He wouldn't actually touch me as that is forbidden. He spit-screamed in my face that the wreath was an insult to his people and that 'those' people deserved to die. To say things kicked off would be to put it mildly.

Delirium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He spit-screamed in my face that the wreath was an insult to his people and that 'those' people deserved to die. To say things kicked off would be to put it mildly.

Truly depressing that a Jewish person would have that attitude after so many Jews died because other people held the same attitude towards Jews

Bannasidhe

koth wrote: »

Truly depressing that a Jewish person would have that attitude after so many Jews died because other people held the same attitude towards Jews

It was one of those times when a person says something so appalling that for a second everyone freezes in shock. Then the realisation dawns that not only did they say that - they meant it and intend to stand by it.

Working in London's East End I encountered a wide spectrum of intolerance and hatred, and the Irish were often up there in expressing bigotry, but that comment from the Chief Rabbi was the one that truly horrified me to the core.

Sarky

I hope you laid the wreath anyway.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

I hope you laid the wreath anyway.

Absolutely - due to the help of the ONLY Tory on Hackney Council, Rabbi Joe Liebenstein, who physically cleared a path for me. I do mean physically. He was like a raging bull.

It was only the second time Joe and myself were united on any issue. The first was over the invitation of Louis Farakhan to speak at Hackney Town Hall. Our objection was not against him speaking, but the venue and the fact that the ratepayers of Hackney were paying for his visit. The Nation of Islam - there's another bunch of bigots using religion as justification for hatred.

Edit to add - I did end up with a broken nose and I'm only little

qrrgprgua

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Me, as a goyim, they would just about tolerate but tended to try and treat me as a servant to be ordered about. Things finally blew up during a ceremony at the Cenotaph in Whitehall for victims of the Holocaust - I had been asked to lay a wreath on behalf of the Lesbian and Gay men who were victims of the nazis, as I went to place it the Chief Rabbi moved to block me. He wouldn't actually touch me as that is forbidden. He spit-screamed in my face that the wreath was an insult to his people and that 'those' people deserved to die. To say things kicked off would be to put it mildly.

Hold on a second.. Which Rabbi..? You can't make this allegation without back it up with evidence. FYI.. Israel is a lot more open towards Gays that it ever was.

fatmammycat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely - due to the help of the ONLY Tory on Hackney Council, Rabbi Joe Liebenstein, who physically cleared a path for me. I do mean physically. He was like a raging bull.

It was only the second time Joe and myself were united on any issue. The first was over the invitation of Louis Farakhan to speak at Hackney Town Hall. Our objection was not against him speaking, but the venue and the fact that the ratepayers of Hackney were paying for his visit. The Nation of Islam - there's another bunch of bigots using religion as justification for hatred.

Edit to add - I did end up with a broken nose and I'm only little

That's horrific, good for you for standing up for what you believe in.

5uspect

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Hold on a second.. Which Rabbi..? You can't make this allegation without back it up with evidence. FYI.. Israel is a lot more open towards Gays that it ever was.

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Hold on a second.. Which Rabbi..? You can't make this allegation without back it up with evidence. FYI.. Israel is a lot more open towards Gays that it ever was.

Firstly I never mentioned Israel - I said Whitehall.

Secondly, unlike you I can and do provide evidence for my statements. So, in the spirit of I'll show you mine if you show me yours:

The Chief Rabbi in question was Immanuel Jakobovits.

Here is a snippet of information on Rabbi Jakobovits and his views on homosexuality

In the House of Lords he became known as a campaigner for traditional morality. Lord Jakobovits aroused considerable controversy when, after the discovery of a possible genetic explanation for homosexuality, he suggested that he saw no "moral objection for using genetic engineering to limit this particular trend". While he did not advocate abortion, he did describe homosexuality as "a grave departure from the natural norm which we are charged to overcome like any other affliction"; if there were genetic explanations for homosexuality, "the errant gene" should be "removed or repaired" in order to prevent the "disability".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Jakobovits,_Baron_Jakobovits

Further reading here: http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/judaism.htm


Now - let's see yours.

:D:D

Sarky

Oh, snap!

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Me, as a goyim, they would just about tolerate but tended to try and treat me as a servant to be ordered about. Things finally blew up during a ceremony at the Cenotaph in Whitehall for victims of the Holocaust - I had been asked to lay a wreath on behalf of the Lesbian and Gay men who were victims of the nazis, as I went to place it the Chief Rabbi moved to block me. He wouldn't actually touch me as that is forbidden. He spit-screamed in my face that the wreath was an insult to his people and that 'those' people deserved to die. To say things kicked off would be to put it mildly.

Hi when was the ceremony?

qrrgprgua

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly I never mentioned Israel - I said Whitehall.

Secondly, unlike you I can and do provide evidence for my statements. So, in the spirit of I'll show you mine if you show me yours:

The Chief Rabbi in question was Immanuel Jakobovits.

Here is a snippet of information on Rabbi Jakobovits and his views on homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Jakobovits,_Baron_Jakobovits

Further reading here: http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/judaism.htm


Now - let's see yours.

:D:D

So you are claiming that as you went to place a wreath that Immanuel Jakobovits moved to block you? Am I correct? When did this happen.

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So you are claiming that as you went to place a wreath that Immanuel Jakobovits moved to block you? Am I correct? When did this happen.

1986. However, as the newspaper articles written at the time mention me by name I have no intention of providing links which will identify me in a public forum.

Now - when are you going to show me your evidence for your myriad claims?