Ongoing religious scandals

Corkfeen

jank wrote: »

Shame then people are brainwashed into forgetting the other 97%. The impression one would have is that only religious organisation abuse children.

You're beginning to sound a bit like iSaw now. This is an ongoing religious scandals topic. It has not solely discussed Catholic scandals, there's a jewish one only a few pages back. I also view the state's **** up to be disgraceful however this is not the topic in which to discuss it in. I doubt anyone on this forum believes that the Catholic Church are the sole perpetrators of abuse and you're merely attempting to irritate posters.

jank

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, first of all, the stories of abuse that have been posted here are the most prominent facet of a much larger scandal that has played out here and across the world. The abuse of children, however is not the scandal. Like it or not, there are some sick people out there and try as we might it may never be possible to eliminate such stories of abuse. The real scandal is that this abuse was covered up. The church and other religious communities made the problem worse by hiding it from the civil authorities and subverting the justice system. That cuts way deeper than the abuse itself.

Secondly, as I explained already, this thread was opened because lots of different posters kept opening threads about this abuse story or that one. To prevent the forum being clogged up, the mods wisely opened a catch-all thread for all "religious" stories just as they did for hazards and the funny side. Anything you're reading into that is only in your own head.

Yes, I agree there are some sick people out there and one doesn't need to be a priest to become that sick person who abused kids. People are the problem, not religion.

I have no time for the RCC either for its middle age power structure not to say anything about the cover ups. Some people think that I do because I am a critic of the echo chamber effect that is perpetrating here.

However in essence it is the power of the RCC that bothers people, not the fact that they abused kids and tried to cover it up. At least you are honest about that. The press, media and society in general are not interested in a sad story of a little girl abused by its uncle or cousin. Much better to go after an ogranisation who has such clout and moral influence. This thread proves this to some extent and the fact that no other thread about the HSE report exists on boards.ie presently.

Sarky

Your arrogant claim to know the REAL reasons people are bothered by these stories is pretty disgusting. I'm not sure how someone with an attitude like that could look themselves in the mirror.

fitz0

Where'd you pull that 97% statistic out of? What is it even in reference to?

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

You're beginning to sound a bit like iSaw now. This is an ongoing religious scandals topic. It has not solely discussed Catholic scandals, there's a jewish one only a few pages back. I also view the state's **** up to be disgraceful however this is not the topic in which to discuss it in. I doubt anyone on this forum believes that the Catholic Church are the sole perpetrators of abuse and you're merely attempting to irritate posters.

Thing is though, nobody wants to discuss the HSE or the States failings because they are already emotionally invested into being anti religious. Therefore anything that comes up that confirms their preconceived truth gets talked about, other stuff gets conveniently ignored.

That is just my take on it. People are fundamentally irrational.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Shame then people are brainwashed into forgetting the other 97%. The impression one would have is that only religious organisation abuse children.

Who is forgetting the other 97% ? Why don't you post that HSE report in the soccer forum and then accuse them of only having an interest in soccer and not caring about children ?

This is a very specific forum, as is the soccer forum- why is it such a difficulty to acknowledge that ?

You can have no idea as to what other opinions people hold on other issues based on posts in this forum.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Thing is though, nobody wants to discuss the HSE or the States failings because they are already emotionally invested into being anti religious. Therefore anything that comes up that confirms their preconceived truth gets talked about, other stuff gets conveniently ignored. .

So you plonk a story unrelated to the threads purpose in, and when people complain, you exclaim "Victory Is Mine!!!". Great stuff.

Dades

jank, if you're not interested in posting something relevant to the thread, don't post at all. This is the second interruption in recent times with someone taking umbrage at what this thread is about.

It is what it is. Accept it, or don't. This is an official warning.

Everyone back on topic...

Corkfeen

I guess i'll throw set this back on topic.

Timbuktu couple get 100 lashes for child out of wedlock

BAMAKO — The Islamists occupying northern Mali on Wednesday gave a couple 100 lashes of a whip for having a child out of wedlock as they continue enforcing sharia law, witnesses told AFP.
"At Sankore Square in Timbuktu, a man and a women got 100 lashes for having had a child outside of marriage," said local official Mohamed Ould Baby.
"People were watching it was like a show. I was there, I saw the youths arriving at the square, I saw them being whipped, it is the first time I have seen something like that."
The official said Islamist group Ansar Dine (Defenders of Faith) carried out the punishment.
Ansar Dine, which seized control of the north of Mali flanked by other rebel groups, has been implementing strict Islamic law, sharia, since late March, but this is the first time a couple has been punished in this fashion.
They have asked women to wear veils, whipped smokers and destroyed cartons of cigarettes while banning the sale of alcohol.
According to sharia, 100 lashes of a whip is the punishment for "fornicators" or those who have sex outside of marriage.

A hospital source in Timbuktu said the couple had sought treatment at the hospital after the beating.
An Islamic police official in the town said six other women who had had children outside of marriage would soon be "punished by Islamic law."
The age of the children was not mentioned, however with Ansar Dine only in charge for about three months, they would have been conceived before the group seized the city.
While majority Muslim, Mali has long had a secular and moderate culture, with the ancient city of Timbuktu a meeting point for various tribes and religions.
Full Story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2ODAHiqHy7JL-fYp3s14KP5E9HQ?docId=CNG.677a3844510da6c1f209b37501f351a8.8d1

It disgusts me to no end that this is deemed to be acceptable in any modern society. Religion might give people hope but it also causes a hell of lot of damage when used as a form of law enforcement at the same time.

jank

Dades wrote: »

jank, if you're not interested in posting something relevant to the thread, don't post at all. This is the second interruption in recent times with someone taking umbrage at what this thread is about.

It is what it is. Accept it, or don't. This is an official warning.

Everyone back on topic...

Clearly yes, everyone knows what the true entails of this thread is about.

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

I guess i'll throw set this back on topic.



It disgusts me to no end that this is deemed to be acceptable in any modern society. Religion might give people hope but it also causes a hell of lot of damage when used as a form of law enforcement at the same time.

How is that a religious scandal? Was there a cover up?

Delirium

because a couple were whipped 100 times for having a child out of wedlock. This was done because it goes against sharia law.

Looks like a religious scandal to me.

jank

koth wrote: »

because a couple were whipped 100 times for having a child out of wedlock. This was done because it goes against sharia law.

Looks like a religious scandal to me.

Well the fact that religion exists is probably a scandal to you.
Maybe it should be moved to "The Hazards of Belief" sticky. Must keep the bandwagon on the road now!

Delirium

jank wrote: »

Well the fact that religion exists is probably a scandal to you.

nope.

Maybe it should be moved to "The Hazards of Belief" sticky.

fine with me. The story is appropriate to either thread.

Dades

jank, a card this time - a ban is next.

Don't post unless you have something to contribute.

joseph brand

It seems that this thread got hijanked! Ba dum tish! :pac:

/ gets coat

joseph brand

Man accused of assaulting priest who he says raped him when he was only seven.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162319/Will-Lynch-trial-Man-beat-priest-raping-seven-goes-trial.html

He said he attacked the man for raping him when he was seven and forcing him to perform a sex act on his own brother, who was then four, while camping in Northern California in the 1970s.

It just gets worse.

Sarky

omg your so judgemental that happened way more than 10 years ago

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

omg your so judgemental that happened way more than 10 years ago

and it was only 0.00065% of priests who were camping in Northern California with two young boys :mad:

jank

Not only that but they were lefty's.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Not only that but they were lefty's.

I don't see the relevance of which hand was their dominant one or were you perhaps referring to which side they 'dress to'?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

which side they 'dress to'?

"Dress to"? I always understood it was "Dress on"...

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

"Dress to"? I always understood it was "Dress on"...

Not being the possessor of a penis I am not familiar with the correct terms. Is it not 'do you dress to the left or the right?' ?

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not being the possessor of a penis.........

Get Thee To A Nunnery!!!!!!

recedite

You need only worry about dressing left and right when your trousers are janked up too high.


Joking aside,

Corkfeen wrote: »

I guess i'll throw set this back on topic.
It disgusts me to no end that this is deemed to be acceptable in any modern society.

Saying "Modern Society" is pushing it. A lot of these guys are Tuareg fighters, formerly of the Libyan army, who left Libya in convoys (armed to the teeth) after Gadaffi's downfall. Now they control most of Northern Mali.
In war-torn regions, when destruction and human misery are at a peak, you can always rely on religious fundamentalism to rear it's ugly head. These are the most ideal and fertile conditions for it to prosper.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is it not 'do you dress to the left or the right?' ?

I'll have to consult my Director of Etiquette over the weekend and over a beer, but I could have sworn that a new manservant in one's employ would typically ask "Does sir dress on the left or the right?", while a man of lesser grammatical nous would inquire as to whether one dressed to the left or right.

Or is it, perhaps, related to size? With "to" suggesting that one simply doesn't stretch as far as an "on". Without wishing to seem to boast unduly, as above, I've always dressed "on".

/waits for the younger denizens to inquire thusly: WTF?!

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

/waits for the younger denizens to inquire thusly: WTF?!

Oh grandpa... :pac:

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Get Thee To A Nunnery!!!!!!

cue lesbian in a nunnery jokes.

Newaglish

robindch wrote: »

I'll have to consult my Director of Etiquette over the weekend and over a beer, but I could have sworn that a new manservant in one's employ would typically ask "Does sir dress on the left or the right?", while a man of lesser grammatical nous would inquire as to whether one dressed to the left or right.

Or is it, perhaps, related to size? With "to" suggesting that one simply doesn't stretch as far as an "on". Without wishing to seem to boast unduly, as above, I've always dressed "on".

/waits for the younger denizens to inquire thusly: WTF?!

I have no idea what this dressing to the left or on the right or whatever means.

Concisely, WTF?!

Sarky

I'll look it up tonight, I got a gentleman's pocket guide to this sort of thing when I bought my moustache comb. :pac: