Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » God bothering » Christainity » The rise of the Greens its support for paedophiles compared to the abuse of children by Catholic priests.

The rise of the Greens its support for paedophiles compared to the abuse of children by Catholic priests.

Craigy has for a very long time, chided me for being rather quiet on the issue of Priests who have used their office to to abuse either their vulnerable parishioners and the young children of their congregation. He has taken particular offence at the hierarchy that has done its darnedest to avoid scandals by moving offenders from place to place rather than to surrender them to secular justice and expel them from their priestly office. Mea Culpa I have let this issue through to the keeper for a couple of reasons mainly though it has been because my attention has been focused elsewhere.Regular readers will realise that my tolerance for any kind of abuser is very low indeed and my desire for justice for such crimes has lead me to advocate the most severe sanctions for such crimes. I will however concede that I have expressed reservations about any allegations of misconduct that are many years old, mainly because proving such allegations becomes very difficult. The Catholic church clearly does deserve some censure for the way that it has failed to address the legitimate complaints. Likewise I have been concerned by the way that present day activists want to see vile practices of the past as if they were happening now because that denies that the crimes that we now think to be the most vile were not always seen as such in the past.

Critics of the church really have no choice but to concede that there is no liturgical justification for the vile practices of the deviant priests. Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is there the sort of example that one finds in Islam (that the Prophet Mohammed married a child ) so while we can clearly criticise the very poor response from the powers that be in the church it can not justifiably be claimed that any offender is fulfilling the tenants of the faith when they have abused children.

But when it comes to the religious abusing children the Greens are not actually paragons of virtue either.

The Greens are not of course a vast monolithic international organisation but as far as I understand it they do follow the template and the iconography of the original Green party that began in Germany in the late sixties. Just as the communists kept the dogmatism of the religion that they had rejected in favour Marx the Greens, many of whom are ex-communists who think that they have evolved (or at least found a new way to continue their beef with capitalism), like to think that they hold the copyright on moral virtue but when you get back into the embryonic  German Green party you find some rather unsavoury attempts to do social  experiments on their own children

The Greens were not long immune to the argument that the government should not limit the sexuality of children. At its convention in Lüdenscheid in 1985, the Greens’ state organization in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia argued that “nonviolent sexuality” between children and adults should generally be allowed, without any age restrictions. “Consensual sexual relations between adults and children must be decriminalized,” the “Children and Youth” task force of the Green Party in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg wrote in a position paper at about the same time. Public protests forced the party to remove the statement from the document.

During this time, no other newspaper offered paedophiles quite as much a forum as the alternative, left-leaning Tageszeitung, which shows how socially acceptable this violation of taboos had become in the leftist community. In several series, including one titled “I Love Boys,” and in lengthy interviews, men were given the opportunity to describe how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent boys supposedly was. “There was a great deal of uncertainty as to how far people could go,” says Gitti Hentschel, the co-founder and, from 1979 to 1985, editor of Tageszeitung. Those who, like Hentschel, were openly opposed to promoting paedophilia were described as “prudish” — as opposed to freedom of expression. “There is no such thing as censorship in the Tageszeitung,” was the response.

Of course there has subsequently been a lot of efforts made to refine their social agenda and to distance themselves from this early and grossly misplaced excuse making for sexual abuse that allowed the prototype Green Party to become the number one choice for paedophiles. Good on them for learning from their early mistakes But as mistakes go those of the prototype  Greens don’t get much more gross.

I do have  a point to make here and that is no matter how noble an organisation may set out to be it can by hijacked by those with a vile and self-serving agenda but what matters is that they make the best possible efforts to repudiate such evil and to  ensure that it does not happen further. Its the same with the Catholic church. The abuse of children was incredibly vile and those responsible deserve the most severe sanctions that are available in the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed but just as I a would not expect Craigy to call for the dissolution of the Greens on the basis of the abuses committed in the past one should not expect or call for the the dissolution of the Church  either.

Both organisations seek to make a better world  and both want to honour the creator as their ideology moves them to do. Neither has a monopoly on virtue nor do  either have clean hands when it comes to the issue of child abuse. Frankly I think that there would not be an organisation, group or class of people on the planet  who have not at sometime had a vile predator  lurking among their ranks  waiting for the opportunity to exploit  a vulnerable person or child. This fact  should not be a reason for paranoia but its should  be an inspiration for vigilance, support for the victims of abuse, and the delivery of real justice to the individuals who abuse children.

Cheers Comrades


137 Comments

  1. Craigy says:

    Thanks Iain, I was contemplating taking up your offer to write a post on this topic after reading today’s Fairfax press here in Melbourne. You beat me to it.

    I worked for the Catholics on and off over many years, and without going into to much detail, I was covering an internal conference on their problems for them, and heard many of the excuses along the lines of the sick German Greens stuff you quote above.

    They were telling their priests that paedophilia was just misplaced love and that paedophiles could be cured and forgiven. This was coming at the time from the US where they had set up an institute to treat paedophile priests. This was about 1989 if I remember.

    Along with the many letters in today’s Age, was this editorial that says it better than I.

    Archbishop Hart

    ”Sexual abuse in any form, and any attempt to conceal it, is a grave evil and is totally unacceptable. As Christ’s church, we must face up to the truth of these revelations and not attempt to disguise, diminish or avoid in any way the actions of priests and religious who have betrayed their sacred trust.” In his pastoral letter and in an article published in this newspaper on Saturday, Archbishop Hart expressed his ”deep sorrow” and offered ”a sincere and unreserved apology to all those victims who have suffered the pain and humiliation of sexual abuse and to their families”.
    That Melbourne’s Archbishop has taken this step is not entirely self-motivated, but, rather, has been partly instigated by recent articles in The Age dealing with sexual abuse in the church but, in particular, by the relentless tide of revelation that has swept across the church in Europe and the United States this year. The phrase ”terrifying crisis”, far from being sensationalist, was, in fact, used by Pope Benedict XVI. How else to describe a culture that, for years and years, has worked more in the favour of the perpetrator than the concerns of the victim – in which many offenders were not defrocked or charged, but simply moved on, free to re-offend and cause new hurt, anguish and shame? In March, after fresh allegations of sexual abuse of children in a German diocese, it was revealed that the Pope, in earlier roles including as an archbishop in Germany, had failed to discipline many clergy he knew who committed sexual abuse. With the church’s inherent complicity spreading to the top, denial could no longer serve as an excuse……………………

    ……………..As The Age has noted, a church that teaches absolute moral values must act according to those same values. While Archbishop Hart’s pastoral letter goes some way to reinforcing the Catholic Church’s improved mood of mea culpa, it still contains elements of self-defence that are open to question. For example, the archbishop defends the controversial Melbourne Response protocols (set up by his predecessor, Archbishop George Pell, in 1996) in which complaints of sexual abuse are tested by an independent commissioner, with a compensation cap of $75,000. Archbishop Hart credits Melbourne Response with compensating almost 300 victims of sexual abuse in incidents that occurred 30 and up to 80 years ago, but which have declined since the 1970s. While the Archbishop said he believes the Melbourne Response ”goes a long way towards addressing [the issue] compassionately”, and although some consolation can be gained from the fall in cases identified, its methodology has been criticised by victims and the police. Since Archbishop Hart and his church have now publicly accepted that sex abuse issues are, in the first instance, crimes, perhaps a full review of how they are dealt with would be a necessary next step.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-archbishop-apologises-but-later-rather-than-sooner-20100704-zvrf.html

    My view is that the Church should open its books and all its records on this, and properly compensate those it has harmed and continues to harm by its action. If they don’t respond, take away their tax breaks and force them to sell their land to pay up.

    And before you say what about the good stuff people like St Vinnies do, I think it is easy to separate the welfare work from the religious work, so that the good stuff isn’t effected.

    In the same way that scientology is under attack, especially for its tax free status, I think we need to ask the questions about the future of the Christian Churches in this country and the special privileges they enjoy.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t know if it is compensation payments that victims need as much as it is a recognition of their suffering Craigy. because I can’t see that any amount of money is going to address what ails them, even after so many years. That said the church may be assets rich but I do doubt that it has the cash to payout as much as many people think would be appropriate,

    I hope that you think that I have done the subject justice because I have spend a much longer time writing this post than I usually do on posts here.

  3. Husky Jim says:

    Here’s a thing that hsa always bothered me about the issue in the Catolic church.

    Firstly a declaration. I am a Catholic and nominally practicing. I.e I go to church occasionally, but not weekly. More weakly if you like 🙂
    Also I went to a Catholic school where there were some issues with molestation of students, mostly by the lay staff. I was never a victim, though I realised many years later that a teacher was in fact grooming me. I thought it wierd at the time and I was cautious of this bloke which more than likely stopped him persuing the cause. Also he met my dad who was a huge rock ape plumber at the time, and I think he was frightened off. An old school chum, who was molested by this teacher, says it was because I was an ugly kid. The humour surrounding this issue amoung the real victims is quite black, often confronting, but always refreshing.

    Anyhow here’s the thing that bothers me.

    If one of my kids was molested by anyone I would take 2 actions.
    1) Confront the teacher. (probably to bash his brains in)
    2) Complain to the POLICE. (probably to ask them to ignore the fact that I bashed his brains in)

    I would never go to his employer.
    Notwithstanding that they have no process to manage complaints of that type, it is a personal and criminal matter and should be dealt with personally and then criminally.

    The biggest issue with the church has been that the most authoritative process documet that the church has says “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

    You can’t preach forgiveness and then not practice it.

    There’s a serious conflict in interest there and I would simply and summarily avoid this as mentioned above.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Jim I agree that this has been the root of the church’s problem:

    The biggest issue with the church has been that the most authoritative process document that the church has says “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

    You can’t preach forgiveness and then not practice it.

    But I would have argued that if a sinner keeps repeating the sin then they have not truly repented .

  5. Husky Jim says:

    That’s not the teaching of the Church Iain.

    The Church say judge not lest ye be judged.

    In a secular context i would agree with you that actions speak louder than words and someone who continually say one thing and does another can’t be believed. We’ve seen that here.
    However in the context of the forgiveness of a wrong, the teaching is that you need to take his contrition as genuine.
    And I have to say that, despite the abhorant nature of the offences, that it is acceptable to me that when confronted with their wrongs, these people are absolutely sorry and realise the hurt that they have caused. The people who forgive them do so with all the best intentions and you can’t condemn them for that out of hand.
    On the other hand there’s a rockspider syndrome that is deeply intrenched in some of these people and they have no doubt targeted the church as a place of refuge and a source of conquests and that it why the only reasonable authority to deal with their actions if the police and the family of the victim should only ever approach the issue from there.

  6. Husky Jim says:

    Sorry Iain got called away there. Didn’t finish.

    I’m trying to say that I think at the time that many of these people truely are sorry, but they suffer a particular condition that is impossible to resist for them. That excuses absolutely nothing, but it explains why I don’t accept that the church has the ability to handle complaints made against many of them.

  7. PKD says:

    Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is there the sort of example that one finds in Islam (that the Prophet Mohammed married a child )

    I’m not so sure about that Iain – there is the verse in Corinthians that reads…
    “1 Corinthians 7:36
    But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin[ daughter], if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry. ”

    now i read thatnto mean that you can marry a girl as soon as she hits puberty – which is usually under 16, and it can even be your own daughter. that’s Incest and underage sex in one verse. Still I may be interpreting it wrong, so happy for Jim as the resident Catholic here to interpret that one differently…

  8. Craigy says:

    Yes I appreciate the post Iain, but I think you made a mistake with your attempt at moral equivalence, in comparing the German Greens with the Church abuse issue.

    What do you and HJ think about the ‘tax free’ issue, in light of the obvious public interest in this problem with religious organisations?

    Would this money be better targeted at their welfare role?

  9. JM says:

    Ahh, Iain, I think you want to pay attention to PKD here. There is a certain passage in the New Testament where a certain prominent personage has children brought to him and “he knew them” – in the Biblical sense.

    I’m not saying any more than that because I don’t want to provoke you too much, but it is there.

    The Bible is a very old set of books with some stories that are spectacularly obnoxious to modern sensibilities. (The Koran on the other hand isn’t too bad – it’s actually quite sane by comparison, you should try reading it sometime. It’s not nearly as long as the Bible so you should be able to knock it over pretty quickly.)

    For evidence of sanity I point you to the very famous Sura 4, Verse 3 and it’s very strict restriction on polygamy:


    [4:3] If you deem it best for the orphans [this is a reference to fatherless children whose mothers are unable to care for them], you may marry their mothers – you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship.

    ie. You can take extra wives but only if necessary to look after their children and ONLY if you can discipline yourself enough to treat all your wives equally. Otherwise, stick to one woman. (There’s another translation that I read a few years ago that includes a bit of a cynical taunt along the lines of “…only if fair, but remember you are men and I don’t believe you can.”)

    I suppose I could also point you to the bit in the Old Testament where the law is laid down that if a rapist marries his victim and gives her father a cow he can keep her and escape punishment – which must be the precursor to the passage PKD quotes (sorry I don’t remember accurately, it’s a few decades since I read the thing).

  10. JM says:

    Oh, and I suppose it’s probably worth pointing out that Mohammed’s first wife was a woman about 20 years his senior who he had run the commercial side of the family. In the context of his thoughts on polygamy and its purpose, “marrying a child” comes a bit too close to slander.

  11. Craigy says:

    Oh and compensation, Yes absolutely, many peoples lives have been damaged. They are paying it already. It was cynically limited by George Pell. The compensation should be scaled against the level of abuse etc.

  12. PKD says:

    Oh, and I suppose it’s probably worth pointing out that Mohammed’s first wife was a woman about 20 years his senior who he had run the commercial side of the family.

    Although I suspect she wouldn’t be able to do that in todays ‘modern’ Arabia, the scriptures having been distorted by the mufti’s to deny women basic rights and wrap them up in ridiculous burqa’s that I will bet Mohammeds mum and probably his senior wife never had to wear.

    But I guess we are digressing a bit coz frankly there are some pretty screwed up bits in *both* books – possibly including the bit in the New testement you are referring to…it rings a bell…

  13. JM says:

    Although I suspect she wouldn’t be able to do that in todays ‘modern’ Arabia,

    True.

    the scriptures having been distorted by the mufti’s to deny women basic rights

    Truer.

    and wrap them up in ridiculous burqa’s that I will bet Mohammeds mum and probably his senior wife never had to wear.

    Absolutely certain. Burqa’s (and veils) are a cultural practice, and apparently relatively recent.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I would suggest that you are rather desperate to suggest that the passage in question endorses either paedophilia or incest as these different translations of the same passage prove:

    New International Version (©1984)
    If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.New Living Translation (©2007)
    But if a man thinks that he’s treating his fiancee improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.

    English Standard Version (©2001)
    If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.

    International Standard Version (©2008)
    If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, and if his passion is so strong that he feels he ought to marry her, let him do what he wants; he isn’t sinning. Let them get married.

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn’t sinning by letting her get married.

    King James Bible
    But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

    American King James Version
    But if any man think that he behaves himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sins not: let them marry.

    American Standard Version
    But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter , if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

    Bible in Basic English
    But if, in any man’s opinion, he is not doing what is right for his virgin, if she is past her best years, and there is need for it, let him do what seems right to him; it is no sin; let them be married.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry.

    Darby Bible Translation
    But if any one think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

    English Revised Version
    But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself uncomely towards his virgin, if she hath passed the flower of her age, and need so requireth, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

    Weymouth New Testament
    If, however, a father thinks he is acting unbecomingly towards his still unmarried daughter if she be past the bloom of her youth, and so the matter is urgent, let him do what she desires; he commits no sin; she and her suitor should be allowed to marry.

    World English Bible
    But if any man thinks that he is behaving inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he desires. He doesn’t sin. Let them marry.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    and if any one doth think it to be unseemly to his virgin, if she may be beyond the bloom of age, and it ought so to be, what he willeth let him do; he doth not sin — let him marry.

    The great majority do not translate the passage as you suggest

  15. Husky Jim says:

    Well said Iain

    Craig
    I think that the tax free status of the churches is not at all connected to the conduct of their staff.
    Any charity should have tax advantages that other business does not have.
    Otherwise the government will have to foot the bill for the work that they and their volunteer workers do.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    I think that the issue of a church’s business ventures paying tax is not an entirely simple one. Some like their Op shops are esy to say that no tax should be paid but others like the seventh Day Adventist’s “Sanitarium” foods should be treated the same as its competitors and pay tax IMHO.

  17. Craigy says:

    Agree Iain.

    HJ, I agree that a charity should get tax free status, if it is providing services that are essential and not provided by Government. The separate businesses run by the Catholics, including health care and schools (although these should be nationalised and secular), as well as welfare, should continue to have tax free status, which is easy, as they all run as separate businesses.

    What we are talking about are the Churches and the Priests and Bishops that only minister to their flock or spend most of their time running the religious side of their organisations.

    The way this has, and is being abused, along with the messages they preach that cost lives (think the condom ban and the millions of lives this has cost) should not be supported by the broader community in the form of a tax break. This is without mentioning the argument that having a ‘magical friend in the sky’, and wishing to push this ridiculous idea on people, with no basis in science, in a secular nation, should not entitle you to special privileges not available to other community groups that do real work assisting the broader community.

    If we continue to give the big religions our money, then groups like scientology and other cranks can continue to claim.

    Nick Xenophon has the right Idea, but it should go further and not exclude ‘genuine religions’.
    How you determine ‘genuine’ from ‘fake’ in organisations based on ‘faith’ I have no idea.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/28/2938392.htm

  18. Craigy says:

    And Iain, I think you have demonstrated perfectly above how any group of cranks can interpret the meaning of religious texts in anyway they think fits their agenda.

    This kind of manipulation is another reason why religion should not be able to influence politics using our money.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    I think that there would not be an organisation, group or class of people on the planet who have not at sometime had a vile predator lurking among their ranks waiting for the opportunity to exploit a vulnerable person or child.

    It’s just that the Catholic Church seems to have had so many, Iain. I don’t think it’s a good argument to point to the German Greens and say, “well the Greens can’t talk!” There are many things about the Greens that I don’t like either but it’s avoiding the issue of the Church’s tolerance of paedophiles to drag other groups into this with such tenuous arguments. If you could find a few examples of, say, the Greens hierachy in Australia hiding the pedo activities of some of their members you’d at least have some justification for what you’re saying. But I don’t think you’ll find any.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    my point is to suggest that both the greens and the Catholic Church have an international presence and that both can be subverted by those with evil intent. I also wanted to point out that “progressive” ideas about sexuality and child rearing are not by definition always good .
    And certainly there is a long history of abuse in the Catholic Church but that is the case in a lot of protestant churches too. I could name at least two ALP pollies who have gone to jail; for these sort of offences but the Der Spiegel piece just happened to appear at the time when i was thinking about this topic so I went with that.

  21. Husky Jim says:

    Craig.
    Priests and Bishops that only minister to their flock are extrordinarily rare.

    “the messages they preach that cost lives (think the condom ban and the millions of lives this has cost)”

    That’s simply illogical and foolish crap.
    Exactly how is it possible for an adult (my assumption of you, but one I will gladly accept as wrong) to come to that conclusion?
    Even if we were to enter the realm of make believe we need to in order to accept that, how is it true in Australia?

    “This is without mentioning the argument that having a ‘magical friend in the sky’, and wishing to push this ridiculous idea on people, with no basis in science, in a secular nation, should not entitle you to special privileges not available to other community groups that do real work assisting the broader community.”
    Name another such group WITHOUT that tax exemption?

    And we’re not “giving” the church our money, we’re allowing them to avoid paying tax and to use that money to perform good works within the community.

  22. JM says:

    Iain: The great majority do not translate the passage as you suggest

    You’re being far too sanguine.

    Firstly, a number of translations – the older ones – do translate it in the fashion PKD suggested

    “a man’s virgin daughter … he should marry [her]. It is not a sin.”.

    Secondly, all of the remainder simply drop the word “daughter” at which point the passage makes no sense.

    In the Christian tradition, only a father can “own” a virgin. A father “gives her away” on the marriage day, and that night the husband “takes” her virginity. If that doesn’t happen the marriage is not consummated and is not real. The husband in other words can never “own” a virgin, only a wife.

    Apparently, this is a slightly controversial passage that is often discussed, and PKD’s interpretation is not at all unusual. But it is usually either a.) translated into modern, acceptable terms (such as in the New International Version), ie. made a product of our times, or b.) handwaved away as a product of the times in which it was written (much like polygamy is handwaved away in Islam – I referred to this earlier).

  23. Husky Jim says:

    Ahh
    arguing 21st century values with 1st century text. Always a winner.

  24. PKD says:

    Ahh
    arguing 21st century values with 1st century text. Always a winner.

    ahh but HJ changing the bible text in any way is a sin as per Revelations 22:18 which is basically a 1st century threat to anyone who would make any future chafes to the Bible whatsoever.

    All these modern reinterpretarions and rewordings of the underage incest verse is basically a guarantee that you will be removed from the tree of life.

    Iain,
    as JM points out the text has been reworded to fit modern moral values. That’s the problem I have with religions unless you follow the scripture literally 100% of the time you have to cherry pick the bits you want to practice. Which is a sin. (Thank goodness we don’t otherwise would be stoning to death apostates, going on Crusades etc etc.)

    anyway the point is the underage incest verse stands – that’s what 1st century morals were like back then, hence why it’s in the book.

  25. Husky Jim says:

    So PKD you take the 1st century view of a text you don’t believe in?

    That’s paradoxical to say the least.

    Then there’s the translation thing.
    2 questions

    1) Are you aware that the letters to the Corinthians were written in 1st century Greek.
    2) Do you read 1st century Greek?

    Unless you can answer yes to both, then your critique of modern reinterpretarions and rewordings is rather mute.

  26. Luzu says:

    PKD,
    You are exactly right. People can and do interpret Scripture in various ways to suit themselves. You are doing just that.
    Now, as to your point comparing Mohammed/Koran and his marriage to Aisha, I would ask you to consider the following: Are there Muslims today who defend the practice of marrying young girls because Mohammed did it first? The answer is ‘yes’.
    Can you please show me where the practice of a man marrying his own daughter is defended by orthodox Christians and done widely in what are or have been Christian societies?
    I know that incest happens in some families. But to say that the Bible condones it is ridiculous and says more about you and your particular prejudices than anything else.
    I read the passage in question in two translations (NKJV and NIV). Nowhere does orthodox translation render the passage as providing a basis for incest.
    Given that you claim that incest was part of 1st century morality and approved by Scripture, where does our very strong societal taboo against the practice originate?
    Looking forward to your reply.

  27. PKD says:

    Luzu,
    The text i copied was out of the American standard version (ASV) – sorry for not stating that before. The ASV version keeps the daughter wording, the King James version omits it (a sin according to Revelations as I said).

    You might not like the original wording, but it’s there and in the 1st century marrying your daughter probably happened a lot more than it happens now.

    The point i made earlier stands 1 Christians have to pick and choose which parts of the bible to obey.

    All Christians now ignore the verse in Deutronomy calling on them to Crusade against christians people who turn apostate. That verse I will bet would have been used by the Vatican to justify the crusade massacaring the Cathars for example.

    Either way, the bible is regularly ignored on many things that modern moral values frown upon…

  28. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    The big difference is that the Bible under Christianity is amenable to interpretation as society changes but the Koran is considered the unalterable word of God. You and PKD have found something that can be interpreted to mean something that we find entirely unacceptable in the present day, Big deal !!!
    Muslims do not have the same luxury of picking and choosing the bits of their holy book that they like.

  29. PKD says:

    No Iain – you claimed that no where in the Bible does it mention marrying a child.
    I demonstrated a text where it clearly does. Modern cuts of the bible have omitted the daughter reference in order to tone down and hide the original meaning.

    And don’t forget the bible forbits *any* alterations to it at the end. And the bible used to be taken as literally by Christians in old times as the Koran still is by many today.
    All that has really happened is Christians societies have becoming much more liberal and open minded about their faith than Arab societies and cultures have about Islam. In fact they have probably become more extreme in their literal interpretations of scriptures than the original Muslim generations did.

    But anyway back to the point! The bible contains the same sort of extreme morals that the Quran does it’s just our society that is rejecting those bits nowadays as Christians pick and choose which bits they want to follow. If you still think it doesn’t then you’re simply in denial.

  30. PKD says:

    Oh and I missed Jim’s post sorry.
    All I need to point out is that I bet you don’t know 1st century Greek either.

    Now I find that to be rather paradoxical myself!

    What doesn’t stack up is the claim that a father would wait until his daughter would be past her youth to marry here – let’s be generous and say that’s 20. By that time the father would most likely be dead given the Biblical life expectancy being not much more than 30.

    But marry your 12 year old daughter and you still have 7 or 8 years of married life.

    So sorry the idea of waiting for the daughter to reach 20 unclaimed doesn’t wash.

  31. PKD says:

    Hmm 7 to 8 years of marriage that – should give about 4 to 5 children and grand children!
    Anyway sorry for the typos above – it’s bloody hard typing on the iPhones keyboard…

  32. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I am no linguist and my Greek is restricted to knowing the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet but It occurs to me that in the context of your quote it could well mean that a father could “marry” his daughter in terms of arranging that she becomes the wife of a man of his choosing, rather than it meaning that he can enter into an incestuous relationship with her.
    Oh and as you know I am happy to fix your typos anytime mate 🙂

  33. JM says:

    No Iain, it can’t mean “arranging that she becomes the wife of a man of his choosing”

    It clearly says, in all versions “if your virgin [daughter] is beyond her prime, follow your desire and marry her … it is not a sin”

    It does not in any way, or in any form say, “marry her off”. If she’s beyond her prime it means you haven’t found a husband for her already, and the “go forth and multiply” prescription just kicked in, so the verse clearly says that if you feel the need to do it yourself it isn’t a sin.

    Look, what you’re arguing – particularly with your “the Bible can be changed, the Koran cannot” argument – is just what I said.

    Modern translations of the Bible are suited to modern sensibilities. You’re saying that modern translations of the Koran are not. That’s probably true.

    And it’s also true that Islam closed down debate on interpretation of the Koran about 400 years after the Prophet’s death.

    But that really is a false contrast. Muslims in modern societies are modern people and don’t live their lives by the same rules as adopted by nomadic Arabs 1400 years ago. Just as modern Christians don’t live their lives by the same rules as an outcast group (who were probably nomads also) from 2000 years ago.

    The words are interpreted. But people like you are very keen to sling slander the way of Mohammed because of his behaviour while excusing and hand-waving much more questionable injunctions in the actual words of the early Christrians. Let me explain.

    The fact that Mohammed married a young girl late in life – after his first wife died, I might add – is his behaviour. It is not scripture. Whether or not there was anything objectionable about this relationship in today’s context, no-one knows. It might simply have been the political marriage that almost everyone agrees it was. That it was unremarkable at the time is certain.

    Corinthians on the other hand is scripture and meant to be accepted as general practice in society. It also clearly contemplates sex and the birth of children. For the context of the time, it was probably acceptable. It would not be today.

    So both books are products of their time, and both contain things that are unacceptable to us. You can’t damn one without damning the other.

  34. JM says:

    Sorry, I forgot to insert the following about Islam closing down debate. This happened about the time of the Caliphate (I think) and was a political step to extend power.

    However, there are many Muslims today who argue that debate and modification (ie. re-interpretation) was an original part of Islam and should be restored.

    And don’t ignore fundamentalist, “literalist” Christians just because Islam has its own fundamentalist jerks – they’re all bad and you have to apply the same standard to them all.

  35. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    The faithful contend that the only way to understand the Koran is to do so in the original Arabic so the issue of various translations is moot when it comes to that book.
    Christianity has since the time of the reformation been a gospel much translated into the vernacular which is why there can be so much variation in its interpretation.
    Anyway after just watching the Maroons smash the blues it bed time for me and I will address your comment in more detail in the morning.

  36. Luzu says:

    PKD,
    You did not answer my question. Where did our strong taboo against incest originate?
    Where has it been a regular and church-sanctioned practice?
    Where is the proof for your claim that 1st century people committed incest on a regular basis?
    JM,
    The gates of it jihad closed about 1100 years ago. There is no going back, no matter how much some Muslims would like to do so. I’d also like to know how you consider Christian fundamentalists to be as bad as Muslim fundamentalists. Maybe a compare and contrast? But I can’t help commenting that some well-known Christians, such as Benny Hinn and Jim Bakker, probably aren’t quite in the same league as, shall we say, Mohammed Atta or Abu Bakar Bashir.

  37. Husky Jim says:

    PKD
    I’m not advocating that a 1st century text be followed by anyone. You are.
    If you’re going to suggest that 1st century ideals and beliefs be adopted by modern christians or even that they be defended, then you need to be absolutely sure of your translation from the original text. Especially where you make the argument that the modern texts are conveniently leaving out parts of the original.
    In any case it is hardly reasonable to argue that modern christians should follow 1st century custom simply because those customs are mentioned in passing in the new testament.
    In Craigy’s comments he suggests that he’s a follower of science because science has all of the answers. That means if I quote hima 17th century scientific paper from say – the royal society – that you would be jumping all over him and suggesting that he must still believe that. Of course that’s stupid, beceuse science has moved on from the 17th century, but you are still insisting that christians remain in the 1st?

  38. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Answer in detail as promised 😉

    No Iain, it can’t mean “arranging that she becomes the wife of a man of his choosing”

    Why on earth not? we say a priest or a celebrants marries a couple when he performs the marriage ceremony I really can not accept that the proto Christians would have accepted incest.

    It clearly says, in all versions “if your virgin [daughter] is beyond her prime, follow your desire and marry her … it is not a sin”

    see above

    It does not in any way, or in any form say, “marry her off”. If she’s beyond her prime it means you haven’t found a husband for her already, and the “go forth and multiply” prescription just kicked in, so the verse clearly says that if you feel the need to do it yourself it isn’t a sin.

    Find me a scholarly analysis of the passage that supports your interpretation if you don’t mind

    Look, what you’re arguing – particularly with your “the Bible can be changed, the Koran cannot” argument – is just what I said.

    Modern translations of the Bible are suited to modern sensibilities. You’re saying that modern translations of the Koran are not. That’s probably true.

    No probably about it, the evidence of the bible’s many translations proves that. Like wise I am sure that You will have no trouble finding Islamic scholars who will tell you that the Koran is the immutable final revelation of Allah.

    And it’s also true that Islam closed down debate on interpretation of the Koran about 400 years after the Prophet’s death.

    But that really is a false contrast. Muslims in modern societies are modern people and don’t live their lives by the same rules as adopted by nomadic Arabs 1400 years ago. Just as modern Christians don’t live their lives by the same rules as an outcast group (who were probably nomads also) from 2000 years ago.

    Now you are going into Vicky Pollard mode!!!! 😆

    The words are interpreted. But people like you are very keen to sling slander the way of Mohammed because of his behaviour while excusing and hand-waving much more questionable injunctions in the actual words of the early Christrians. Let me explain.

    The fact that Mohammed married a young girl late in life – after his first wife died, I might add – is his behaviour. It is not scripture. Whether or not there was anything objectionable about this relationship in today’s context, no-one knows. It might simply have been the political marriage that almost everyone agrees it was. That it was unremarkable at the time is certain.

    I excuse no abhorrent behaviour from Christians ancient or modern But I am amazed that you are willing to defend a man marring girl of what was it seven? and consummating the marriage when she was nine? I don’t care if the man was the devine messenger of the lord there is absolutely no reasonable defence of a grown man taking a pre pubescent girl as a wife. We have a name for that and its Paedophilia!!!! But there is plenty of evidence that Mohammed did marry and bed the child so there is actually no slander here at all because we accept that the truth is an absolute defence in any claim of slander.

    Corinthians on the other hand is scripture and meant to be accepted as general practice in society. It also clearly contemplates sex and the birth of children. For the context of the time, it was probably acceptable. It would not be today.

    Yada Yada yada 🙄

    So both books are products of their time, and both contain things that are unacceptable to us. You can’t damn one without damning the other.

    As an atheist I am defending neither but you seem to be awfully keen to defend the Koran JM care to explain way?

  39. Craigy says:

    Just wish to point out that I didn’t say what HJ claims I did.

  40. Husky Jim says:

    I’ll simply point out at this point that I didn’t say you said it, I said “In Craigy’s comments he suggests that he’s a follower of science ………….”.

    The suggestion is clear because you make the distinction that all belief needs to have a “basis in science”. Otherwise the following (July 6, 2010 at 11:13 am ) is pointless ramble.
    ” This is without mentioning the argument that having a ‘magical friend in the sky’, and wishing to push this ridiculous idea on people, with no basis in science, in a secular nation, should not entitle you to special privileges not available to other community groups that do real work assisting the broader community.”

  41. PKD says:

    Luzu,

    Where did our strong taboo against incest originate?

    Err, somewhere between biblical times and modern times. Apparently it was on a Monday, but that’s as much as know…

    Where has it been a regular and church-sanctioned practice?

    I never claimed it was regular I just pointed out the text that shows it happened in the past and the bible (and therefore the moral values of that time) was ok with it – disproving Iains claim of a moderate Bible.

    Where is the proof for your claim that 1st century people committed incest on a regular basis?

    Again I never claimed it happened on a regular basis, so I can’t answer that one either.

    Look, I know daring to criticise the Bible is an emotive issue for followers of the faith, but can you please re-read my arguments again and post back when you have understood them? Thanks.

  42. PKD says:

    Jim,
    Aaaand the theme of misreading an argument continues…

    I’m not advocating that a 1st century text be followed by anyone. You are.

    Nope never claimed that.
    My point was that the incest mentioned in the Bible reflects the Biblical moral vlaues. I never advocated people should follow it now, the opposite in fact. I’ll point out one more time (please read this twice before posting!) that this text highlights that modern Christians have to pick and choose which parts of the bible to still follow, which parts to make major ‘modern translations’ to, and which parts to just plain ignore.

    In reality ‘modern translations’ (apart from being a sin according to the original Bible) are not translations but rewordings to reflect modern morals. Which often amounts to a sanitising of the more questionable verses to be acceptable to more modern Christian morals, in much the same way that medieval fairy tales were sanitised for popular conusmption in mainly the 19th century.

    If you want to know what I mean, just read an early version of ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ and you’ll get a somewhat different ending to the story. And those modern transaltions on moral basis thats what the modern Bible transaltions that you, Iain and Luzu are buying into, whilst pretending that the original script never existed.

    (Otherwise you are leaving yourself the only logical alternative which is that modern tranlsations only exist because we somehow know 1st Century Greek better than the Romans who wrote the 1st versions of the Bible did. Which would be absurd.)

    If you’re going to suggest that 1st century ideals and beliefs be adopted by modern christians or even that they be defended, then you need to be absolutely sure of your translation from the original text.

    Nope – never claimed that.

    In any case it is hardly reasonable to argue that modern christians should follow 1st century custom simply because those customs are mentioned in passing in the new testament.

    Didn’t argue for that either…

    Especially where you make the argument that the modern texts are conveniently leaving out parts of the original.

    Yep. Thats 1 right out of 4! 😉
    Look, as I said to Luzu, kust read my main response after your 1st point above and think about it carefully ok?
    Thats all I ask Jim.

    cheers.

  43. JM says:

    Iain: Find me a scholarly analysis of the passage that supports your interpretation if you don’t mind

    So you’re insisting that I employ the weak fallacy of an appeal to authority rather than dispute the reasoning itself? C’mon, you can do better than that. Argue the case itself.

    I excuse no abhorrent behaviour from Christians ancient or modern But I am amazed that you are willing to defend a man marring girl of what was it seven? …. [etc]

    Well I’m a modern guy, like yourself (although in your case maybe the term “slightly modern, with throwbacks to barbarian times” might be more appropriate), so I don’t like it any more than you do.

    My point was not to defend ancient religious or social practices but to show that neither book documents exemplary, up-to-the-minute, politically correct practices.

    You, on the other hand are trying to say that:-

    a.) the Bible is an up-to-the-minute politically correct document, even if it takes modern re-interpretation to make it appear that way in clear contradiction of the meaning of the actual words

    b.) the Koran doesn’t get the same pass in any situation, despite having passages that document similar practices as those condoned (yes, condoned) by the Bible.

    I know you’re not good at logic, but do try to learn.

  44. JM says:

    A few people have mentioned this:

    1st Century Greek

    Can we put this to bed? Modern Greek is not that different to Ancient Greek, in fact I’ve seen primary school educated modern Greek’s read inscriptions 2,500 years old. There are some changes and we can’t be sure of pronunciation but it hasn’t changed a lot.

    I can’t do the same for English older than about 800 years, original Chaucer is beyond me and I can only get close to it because I happen to know some German (helps a lot with early English)

  45. gigdiary says:

    Why are people who were born here, grew up here, defending a culture that often times seeks to undermine our culture? The Islam culture is neither supportive of Australian custom, nor its way of life.

    The Left seem to think we are deficit for not allowing this aberrant culture to gain a foothold here.

  46. Husky Jim says:

    “My point was that the incest mentioned in the Bible reflects the Biblical moral vlaues.”
    And that anyone who believes the teaching of the bible follows that distorted reading, or should. Ergo that the 1st century morality you see there is or should be followed by modern christians.
    Your whole premis is that modern christianity is based on lies and cherry picking and that those not following the bible to the letter are in sin or hypocritical or god knows what.
    The bible and little red riding hood are two entirely different texts. Not th least of which reason being that little red was not composed about real events and not composed in ancient Greek.
    There’s no point arguing with someone who wants to lecture on translation and sanitisation when neither of us is able to read or understand ancient Greek and only one of us believes that incest is the intent of the example you use.
    Cheers.

  47. gigdiary says:

    Why are people who were born here, grew up here, defending a culture that often times seeks to undermine our culture? The Islam culture is neither supportive of Australian custom, nor its way of life.

    The Left seem to think we are deficit for not allowing this aberrant culture to gain a foothold here.

    Why is the Left so supportive of Islam, at the expense of Christianity, given that Christianity has given us 200+ years of stable nationhood. Would they prefer Islam, this is a joke surely.

  48. PKD says:

    The Islam culture is neither supportive of Australian custom, nor its way of life.

    Islam is a religion *not* a culture.
    Islam is followed in worhsippers of many many cultures, including Arab and western cultures.

    There’s no point either in arguing with someone who continually fails to read (or understand) the argument and makes basic errors like confusing religion with culture.

    *sigh*

  49. PKD says:

    sanitisation when neither of us is able to read or understand ancient Greek and only one of us believes that incest is the intent of the example you use.

    Jim,
    You criticise any attempt to understand the original texts meaning, yet you are 100% convinced that the intent of the text isn’t incest.

    Now *that’s* hypocrisy…

  50. gigdiary says:

    Well that’s easy, in this case culture and religion are one and the same. Playing semantics is neither helpful nor productive. So yes, Islamic culture, if you like. But remember that back of Islamic culture, acknowledge there is the Islamic religion.

    By all means use asterisks, but answer my original question.

  51. PKD says:

    If you mean your last paragraph be better off getting someone from the left to answer it, although I suspect they will tell you they don’t support Islam over Christianity, but treat each equally…

  52. gigdiary says:

    Sure PKD, as if…pull the other one

  53. JM says:

    Sure gigdiary, the “left” goes against it’s own raisone d’etre – namely that of equality – to promote one ancient superstition over another…..

    Yeah, like hell they do.

    And moderate conservatives don’t either. Only radical, ratbag, pretend “conservatives” do that.

    Because they get to choose their own tribal beliefs over those of the “other”.

  54. PKD says:

    Yeah I liked the way gigdiary went straight for the ‘lets turn it into a left vs right’ issue.

    Sorry, try and stick to the facts mate ok?

  55. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    So you’re insisting that I employ the weak fallacy of an appeal to authority rather than dispute the reasoning itself? C’mon, you can do better than that. Argue the case itself.

    When the text in question was originally written in Greek , translated firstly in to Latin then into English It is entirely reasonable that I ask you to back up the meaning that you are insisting is correct for the passage. Its not like you are claiming any grasp of ancient languages now is it?

    Well I’m a modern guy, like yourself (although in your case maybe the term “slightly modern, with throwbacks to barbarian times” might be more appropriate), so I don’t like it any more than you do.

    I am more modern that you think, because Marxism is like SO last week ….. 🙄

    My point was not to defend ancient religious or social practices but to show that neither book documents exemplary, up-to-the-minute, politically correct practices.

    You may be claiming this now but your previous utterances do not support this contention at all.

    You, on the other hand are trying to say that:-

    a.) the Bible is an up-to-the-minute politically correct document, even if it takes modern re-interpretation to make it appear that way in clear contradiction of the meaning of the actual words

    NO that is not what I said at all my argument is that there is a long tradition of reinterpretation of the scriptures to suit contemporary paradigms that makes Christianity more able to cope with modernity

    b.) the Koran doesn’t get the same pass in any situation, despite having passages that document similar practices as those condoned (yes, condoned) by the Bible.

    Its not a matter of the Koran getting a pass because the faith itself insists that the book can not be reinterpreted something that you have conceded.

    I know you’re not good at logic, but do try to learn.

    Rubbish and I at least do not struggle under the yoke of a failed ideology as you do.

  56. PKD says:

    Its not a matter of the Koran getting a pass because the faith itself insists that the book can not be reinterpreted something that you have conceded.

    no iain, it’s not the faith , it’s certain *cultures* insisting on following the faith literally.
    There are some cultures that allow more modern, relaxed (sanitized) interpretations, where Muslims are more moderate and aren’t going to call the jihads and stone robbers to death etc. (like Christians used to do)

    I see you and HJ suffer from the same problem – confusing religion with culture.

  57. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    You are mistaken if you believe that there is any dichotomy between religion and culture when it comes to Islam 🙄

  58. PKD says:

    Then how do you explain moderate Muslims is western cultures who don’t follow the literal, cultural interprations of the Quran but follow more more modern interpretations where calling for Jihads and stoning of criminals isn’t supported?

  59. Iain Hall says:

    They are considered to be bad Muslims by those more devout followers and then they end up with a branch of the brotherhood moving in to bring them back into line.

  60. Husky Jim says:

    PKD
    “You criticise any attempt to understand the original texts meaning, yet you are 100% convinced that the intent of the text isn’t incest. ”
    That conviction is nothing to do with the text. There’s simply no historical contemporary evidence that St Paul, 1st century christians or Jews nor the people of 1st century Corinth culturally, haditually or religiously practiced incest.
    In order to take the text in context you’d be forced to suggest that St Paul was advising some wildly radical departure from the social mores of the time.
    In short – no matter how you would like to spin it or dance around it, the new testament does not advise, advocate or even suggest incest.

  61. Craigy says:

    This is for HJ.

    “The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass – potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
    The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

    “In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region,” said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

    The Catholic Church opposes all forms of contraception and instead promotes abstinence as a way to avoid spreading AIDS.

    http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?ID=6122

    And HJ said….
    “In Craigy’s comments he suggests that he’s a follower of science because science has all of the answers.”

    Please show me where I said science has all the answers…..??? Why can’t you argue in good faith?

    gigdiary,

    “Why are people who were born here, grew up here, defending a culture that often times seeks to undermine our culture?”

    Can you please explain what ‘our’culture is in your view?

  62. Husky Jim says:

    Ok so here’s a lesson in logic for Craig.
    Try and keep up.
    Let’s just say I’m a Latin american Catholic.
    I, as you suggest I must, follow the teaching of the church.
    If the church says jump to the left I jump to the left, if they say jump to the right I jump to the right.
    If they say don’t don a condom – NO CONDOM!!!!

    Now let’s just say I am a married man and neither me nor my wife is HIV+.
    She’s like me. Jumping left and right to the beat of the bishop of Rome.

    Just how exactly are either of us ever going to get HIV?

  63. Husky Jim says:

    Again Craig I did not say that you said science has all of the answers. I said you SUGGESTED it. In other words Craig it is implied in your comment.
    Lesson #2 in Logic for Craig
    Craig said (check it out above {MY CAPITALS})
    ” This is without mentioning the argument that having a ‘magical friend in the sky’, and wishing to push this ridiculous idea on people, WITH NO BASIS IN SCIENCE, in a secular nation, should not entitle you to special privileges not available to other community groups that do real work assisting the broader community.”

    The suggestion being that having any belief WITH NO BASIS IN SCIENCE is ridiculous. The further suggestion being that all belief WITH ANY BASIS IN SCIENCE is truth.
    Bestowing, by any logic, answers on science.

    Case rested me lud.

  64. Craigy says:

    ” Just how exactly are either of us ever going to get HIV?”

    I don’t see what this has to do with the millions of people who have died around the world due to the teachings of the church and its pope.

    You also missed the point that I was making and put up words that I didn’t say or suggest.

    It is clear that I am talking about why we give tax breaks to a group that suggests we run this country on some ‘magical friend’ fantasy when we are a SECULAR nation. In a secular nation you base laws not on religious principles but on secular principles based in science. Groups shouldn’t get tax breaks for having ‘faith’ in magic, but for doing good stuff to help the community, especially when that ‘faith’ leads to covering up pedophilia and abuse.

    What do you think I am SUGGESTING now???? Sheesh.

  65. Husky Jim says:

    Craig
    The answer to my question is that neither my Latin American Catholic wife nor I can get HIV if we are following the teachings of the church.

    Your accusation relies on people following the teachings of the church. If they follow those teachings then they can’t get HIV except in remakably rare ways like being raped by HIV+ rapist or an accidental blood exchange with an HIV+ person. Wearing a coondom won’t be likely or useful in those cases.

    When do we give tax breaks to a group that suggests we run this country on some ‘magical friend’ fantasy?
    I’m not aware that there are any main stream churches suggesting anythin of the kind.

    “In a secular nation you base laws not on religious principles but on secular principles based in science.”
    So science must have the answers then?

    And where does science inform property law, corporate law, reproductive law etc etc????
    Ethics are not science based, in fact ethics are very often in conflict with science.
    E.g.
    Scientifically it might be able to illustrate that lowering the population of Africa will stop famine. However how do we ethically do that?

  66. Craigy says:

    Your last point is a good one HJ, what do we base our ethics on in a secular nation?

    But that isn’t the discussion. We don’t base our Law on the Bible or teachings of the Church. We base laws on science and research as well as secular public opinion (which has to pass the test of Government scrutiny to prove it necessary).

    And yes, I agree the Church does teach marriage as the best way to live, but you ignore the fact that many Catholics around the world have sex outside of marriage, which the Pope knew when he condemned them to a painful death by outlawing Condoms.

  67. Husky Jim says:

    You’re saying that you base laws not on religious principles but on secular principles based in science in a secular nation Craig. NOT ETHICS. That suggests you believe that science has answers ethics lacks. ERGO all the answers.

    “We don’t base our Law on the Bible or teachings of the Church.”
    Yes Craig we do. Wars have been fough and lost over the laws we have here and what they are based on and to ignore that as an historical fact is just not an honest apraisal of the law at all.

    “…. you ignore the fact that many Catholics around the world have sex outside of marriage, which the Pope knew when he condemned them to a painful death by outlawing Condoms.”
    And there is the nub of the issue!!!!
    Your argument says “Catholics are SOOOOOOOOOO willing to follow the Pope’s instruction that they won’t dare brake the teaching an wear a condom while they break a teaching and commit adultery.”
    That’s simply laughable.
    What is good though is that you were able to follow the little logic crums I left you and come to that ridiculous conclusion. Now let’s see you do one on your own.

  68. JM says:

    Iain: When the text in question was originally written in Greek , translated firstly in to Latin then into English It is entirely reasonable that I ask you to back up the meaning that you are insisting is correct for the passage. Its not like you are claiming any grasp of ancient languages now is it?

    I speak neither although I have a few words of tourist Greek. Both languages are very well known, Greek hasn’t changed and Latin – although dead – has been studied and taught continuously for over 2000 years. Can you speak either yourself?

    I, like you, rely on translations.

    The real problem is not how well the languages are known but:-

    a.) the fragmentary nature of the 1stC versions we have, and
    b.) different versions. There are usually few copies of the originals and they often vary a great deal so translations have to take into account the copying process – this is called “redaction” I believe

    But all of that doesn’t matter much because the Koran suffers the same problems.

    Bottom line. In both cases the “original” often condones stuff unacceptable to modern ears, while modern versions are sanitized or adapted.

    You just have a double standard.

  69. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    The real problem is not how well the languages are known but:-

    a.) the fragmentary nature of the 1stC versions we have, and
    b.) different versions. There are usually few copies of the originals and they often vary a great deal so translations have to take into account the copying process – this is called “redaction” I believe

    Your problem is that YOU WANT this passage to be an endorsement of incest but I found this explanation of the passage’s meaning that makes sense to me because it has an appropriate historical context:

    Paul and the Corinthian Situation

    In the 7th chapter of his First Corinthian letter, Paul, by the inspiration of the Spirit, gave a variety of instructions pertaining to the marriage relationship. Some of these were fixed rigidly as a matter of moral correctness. Others were given by way of the apostle’s seasoned advice.

    One of the historical realities woven into the fabric of Paul’s message is that of a serious, impending persecution that threatened the ancient saints (see: vv. 26,29,32,35,38,40). Some of his instruction hinged on the premise of this coming reality.

    Here is the passage that is the focus of this “tempest in a tea pot” controversy.

    “But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” (1 Corinthians 7:36).

    To foist upon this text the meaning that a father is allowed to marry his own daughter, if he cannot resist the temptation of being intimate with her, is one of the most perverse misappropriations of scripture imaginable. Let us examine the context with common sense.

    (1) First, the historical or cultural circumstances must be taken into consideration. In that age, parents arranged their children’s marriages more often than not. A father could consent to his daughter’s marriage, or withhold permission, depending upon the circumstances. Children grew up in this environment, and they embraced this process out of respect for their parents and tradition. Apparently, these unions were much more stable than those of the modern merry-go-round, marriage/divorce glitches that so trouble society today (where about half of all marriages end in divorce). It is against this background that Paul’s advice takes its rise.

    (2) In view of the foregoing, we would paraphrase verse 36 as follows:

    “But if any man [father] thinks that he is behaving himself improperly [by refusing his daughter permission to marry due to the impending persecution] with reference to his virgin [daughter], if she is past the flower of her age [mature enough for marriage], and if need so requires [there is a more compelling factor that overrides the danger of persecution], let him [the father] use his own judgment [and grant her permission to marry in spite of the apostle’s general advice to remain single]; he [the father] will not be sinning [in granting this concession].”

    Thus, Paul himself concedes permission for the marriage at the father’s discretion. Yet (in v. 37), the apostle thinks that in most cases the father would do better to stand his ground [against his daughter’s emotional pleading], and think foremost of her safety and Christian fidelity — that could be jeopardized in a time of intense tribulation.

    This text, therefore, has nothing under the sun to do with incest.
    source

    But all of that doesn’t matter much because the Koran suffers the same problems.

    Actually it has none of these problems at all because it has remained almost entirely in the language that it was written until very recent times and unlike the bible it is a single unified whole rather than a collection of disparate and separate texts that have been compiled into one larger document

    Bottom line. In both cases the “original” often condones stuff unacceptable to modern ears, while modern versions are sanitized or adapted.

    You just have a double standard.

    No the Bible passage that PKD has cited has been interpreted to mean something that is not what was clearly intended as my citation shows but the teachings of Islam
    There is no doubt that Islam teaches that which we find abhorrent to a modern secular society which respects the autonomy of women and girls and by pretending , as you do that it is morally the same as the teachings of the bible on matters sexual it is YOU who demonstrates a double standard JM not I.

  70. Craigy says:

    “what they are based on and to ignore that as an historical fact”

    Correct HJ, historical fact it is. Just not done that way now as you well know.

    “Catholics are SOOOOOOOOOO willing to follow the Pope’s instruction that they won’t dare brake the teaching an wear a condom while they break a teaching and commit adultery.”

    I provided the evidence for this above, that you don’t think this is what happens to real members of your faith is telling.

    And finally, I do think science can answer most of our questions given time. Science has taught us that the Bible is just a bunch of stories, without that information then we might still be doing the things the original texts suggest. As for ethics, are you saying that atheists can’t have ethics?

  71. SockPuppet says:

    “The rise of the Greens its support for paedophiles compared to the abuse of children by Catholic priests”

    I dunno about that but I do know the Greens get a “rise” out of porn. Ask Patricia.

  72. JM says:

    Iain, your original statement was:

    Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is there the sort of example that one finds in Islam

    Now, when PKD and I point to an explicit example, and point out that modern day translations are often reinterpretations, what do you do?

    You come up with a modern day reinterpretation. Logical, consistent? moi?

    And while we’re on the topic, Islam does have an explicit prohibition on incest, Sura 4, verse 23:

    Incest Forbidden

    [4:23] Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage – if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time – but do not break up existing marriages. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful

    I also suggest you read the remainder of Sura 4 which is solely about women and children and is very protective of them, something which the Bible often isn’t.

  73. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    PKD cited a a passage from Corinthians that at its worst is ambiguous you and He have wanted to suggest that it is an endorsement of incest, even I on my first reading of it did not read it the way that you want to to read and when I find a biblical scholar who explains why both you and PKD are wrong your comeback is very weak indeed.

    You come up with a modern day reinterpretation. Logical, consistent? moi?

    What are you trying to say here? Because I think that you misunderstand the meaning of “Moi” and as such this is meaningless.

    Are you a Muslim BTW ?

  74. JM says:

    And Iain, you’re relying on a trashy source, here’s what Sura 65 (Divorce), verse 4 actually says:

    65:4] As for the women who have reached menopause, if you have any doubts, their interim shall be three months. As for those who do not menstruate, and discover that they are pregnant, their interim ends upon giving birth. Anyone who reverences GOD, He makes everything easy for him.

    Nothing about children at all.

  75. Iain Hall says:

    Care to answer my questions JM??
    And what does your quote have to do with anything?

  76. JM says:

    What questions?

  77. PKD says:

    (Sorry – been too ill for last few days)

    There’s simply no historical contemporary evidence that St Paul, 1st century christians or Jews nor the people of 1st century Corinth culturally, haditually or religiously practiced incest.

    What HJ?
    When the whole premise of the Bible is that we are all begat from Adam and Eve whose siblings would therefore needed to have had sex with each other. And then again with Noah and his wife repopulating the world (or at least the Jews) by mercifully wiping everone out in a 40 day flood.

    Again repopulation could only have been by incest. Or are these parts of the bible you like to apply ‘modern translations’ to or simply ignore?

    Anyway this is where the Christian saying they we ‘all men are brothers and sisters’ comes from. And yet you stand here and deny any incest in the Bible?

    Give me a break!

    In short – no matter how you would like to spin it or dance around it, the new testament does not advise, advocate or even suggest incest.

    Aaah, I see you only like to follow the teachings of the new testament then? Old testement and bit to raidcal to follow perhaps? Either way I don’t envy the daily excercise of making up double standards and jumping through logic hoops you have to go through in order to pick which parts of the bible to take literally and which too better forget.

    But may I ask whether you are choosing to follow only the New Testament?
    And if yes, then why? Is it because its the Jewish bit?

  78. PKD says:

    The Old testament is the Jewish bit I mean.

    So don’t remember HJ, no cooking meat in the milk of its mother oreating pork…and get that circumcision done! 🙂

  79. gigdiary says:

    PKD, given that your raison d’être is supporting both sides of the ideological debate, as you have previously stated, perhaps you can show us a few ethical contretemps that occur in the Koran, or is your sole purpose a denigration of Christian beliefs in favour of Muslim and other beliefs?

  80. PKD says:

    Oh you are quite right GD, there are plenty of parallels involving marrying children, stoning criminals, holy wars etc that feature in both the Koran and in the Bible. Both contain Biblical moral values that are horribly outdated and at times offensive.

    I guess it’s that this whole thread has spawned in response to Iains claim that nowhere in the Bible does it mention marrying children. The reality is That despite Iains attempts to deny it, child marriage is in the bible… Just as it is also is in the Koran.

    Too be honest I am not here to defend Either (or indeed any) religion over the other. As an agnostic I don’t care for the whole blind faith bit that becoming a follower generally requires…

  81. Husky Jim says:

    Craig
    “I provided the evidence for this above,………………”
    You provided no such evidence.

    Your thesis demands that the reader believe three things.
    1)All sufferers of HIV/AIDS in Africa and Latin America are Catholics with an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
    2) That Catholics don’t use condoms BECAUSE the Pope tells them they will burn in the fires of hell if they do.
    3)That Catholics are promiscuous and bonk anything at the drop of a hat EVEN THOUGH the Pope tells them they will burn in the fires of hell if they do.

    I think a 9th grade clear thinking workshop group would see the flaws in that logic.
    The truly telling thing is that you can’t.

    PKD

    I’m afraid that you’re quite confused.
    You seem unable to separate the allegory of Genesis and the teachings of the New Testament.
    If indeed humanity is descended from a mutation of a primeval primate (which I and my church accept as more than likely)then, unless you accept mad theories of coincidental evolution, indeed it would appear that that mutation was passed on through very close breeding of a small group indeed. In other words “incest”.
    So YOUR POINT IS?

    “Anyway this is where the Christian saying they we ‘all men are brothers and sisters’ comes from. And yet you stand here and deny any incest in the Bible? ”
    Now despite the fact that some of that make absolutely no sense linguistically, it’s not accurate. Brothers and sisters is a reference to God the Father. Anyone with the same father as you is your brother and sister. Unions, footy clubs and nations use the same terminology. Ar you suggesting the the French are an incestuous nation?

    ” Old testament and bit to radical to follow perhaps?”
    Again the language is difficult there, but I think you mean “too radical”.
    No.
    The fact is that as a Christian I’m compelled to follow the teachings of Christ and he himself distanced himself from the old teachings. You should read about him some time.
    The old testament, for a Catholic, is to put the new into context. If you have issue with the teachings of the old testament then take it up with a rabbi, not me.

  82. PKD says:

    I see – so you only feel compelled to follow the teachings of the New Testament then?
    Thanks, it explains a lot.

    I guess that means you also believe noahs ark to be allegorical and not literal then?

  83. Craigy says:

    So evidence from the UN and from the mouth of a Cardinal aren’t evidence in your view…..fine HJ

    “The president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: “The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom. “

    And this stuff coming out of THE VATICAN is in no way misinforming people about HIV/Aids and costing lives, in HJ’s view. Nice work mate.

    Next you will be trying to say there is no evidence of child abuse either.

    And I would be vary careful accusing other of not arguing logically, considering you believe in a ‘magical friend in the sky’ and a book that you feel you can disregard if the advice doesn’t suit your current view of the world.

    I guess this is the strength of your argument HJ. An atheist like me, is never going to convince you with logic, because your beliefs are so illogical. I can’t debate the logic of holding religious belief with someone who defends the worst of that belief or denies that the worst even exists.

    Good luck with your logic and your faith.

  84. Husky Jim says:

    Pretty much.

    There are stories of great floods in many cultures and of leaders like Noah. I think there could be something to the story, but it’s more likely not a true account of anyone as told in Genesis.

  85. Husky Jim says:

    Craigy that’s not evidence that Catholics ignote the pope and shag while following him and not wearing a condom.
    That’s your thesis.

    It is the same defence that brought down Col. Nathan R. Jessep.
    Remember?
    He said that marines always do what they are ordered to do. He said that he ordered his marines to leave Pt Santiago alone. Then he said that Pt Santiago was in danger because the men might take things into their own hands.
    How could that be right if the marines always follow the orders.

    So how can a Catholic, whom you contend is faithfull to the teaching of the Pope to the extent that he’ll never don a dinger, ever be in need of donning a dinger when the teachings of that same exact Pope, the one he faithfully follows the teaching of, tells him not to have sex with anyone else except his wife? Are you contending that his wife is sleeping around and defying the Pope? But she’s a Catholic too and loyal to the teachings? Is he sleeping with another man? Not if he’s following those papal edicts Craigy.
    So explain how it happens. Please?

  86. Craigy says:

    If you can’t see what is in front of your own eyes HJ, I’m not going to convince you.

    As I said, good luck with that.

    Cheers

  87. Husky Jim says:

    Believe me you’re a man of extraordinary faith. Illogical and unprovable faith, yet faith none the less.
    The difference is I’m happy to admit I have faith.

  88. Craigy says:

    Okay HJ, Evolution is a faith position, your right…As I said, I can’t argue with your type of logic.

    Keep tossing those curve balls they really have me thinking (of what I will have for dinner tonight)…..

    The last word is yours…..go at it man!!!

  89. Husky Jim says:

    When have i ever expressed an opinion that evolution was based in faith?

    The point still remains, and remains un challanged, that you are suggesting that someone does what their leader says because of their fanatical faith, but then that same person defies that same leader despite that fanatical faith.

    If that’s good logic then I’m surprised you’re not thinking of eating a Julie Childs recipe book for dinner tonight.

  90. Craigy says:

    Oh HJ, you’re like a dog with a bone you are!

    The point you are asking me to challenge is not in dispute, the fact stands that people die because of the proclamations of the Catholic Church and the misinformation that I point out in the evidence I provided is a clear example of that. You just refuse to see it.

    Why don’t you start by explaining why your cardinal is correct in his ‘faith’ view on condoms and the scientists are wrong?

    I have heard first hand the ‘truthiness’ of the churches teachings on paedophile and HIV/AIDS and I can tell you that it made me (and other of your faith) squirm.

    You choose to defend it so why don’t you explain why the Vatican is correct that condoms don’t work?

    ”someone does what their leader says because of their fanatical faith, but then that same person defies that same leader despite that fanatical faith.”

    And yes you are right, though you don’t have to be a fanatic to follow the Catholic faith.

    In fact you have shown the answer to your challenge in your argument with PKD. That is that Catholics tend to pick and choose what they will follow from the words of the Pope, Bible and the Vatican. In Africa and South America for instance, it is common for Catholics to have sex out of marriage, as it is a cultural norm, but it is also common for them to follow the line from the church and not use condoms. The followers of the Church are not all fanatics, but regular people trying to do their best to follow what they mistakenly believe is quality advice.

    If you want another example as to how they get infected, then a lapsed Catholic man has sex then passes it to his wife who insists they shouldn’t use a condom, even though she knows he sleeps around. This practice is very common in Africa and has brought the deaths of many innocent people. All because the Catholic Church puts its head in the sand about the outcomes of its policies on those who think they should make some attempt to follow them.

    Now I don’t expect you to take my word but I know if I post any more evidence you will just scream ‘that isn’t evidence’ so I suggest you Google ‘Aids and the Catholic Church’ and do some reading.

    Get back to me when you have some evidence that I and most others are wrong on this. Not your opinion but evidence.

  91. Husky_Jim says:

    “The point you are asking me to challenge is not in dispute, the fact stands that people die because of the proclamations of the Catholic Church and the misinformation that I point out in the evidence I provided is a clear example of that.”
    Craig that’s not a fact. It’s an assertion you make based on a logically flawed premis. Once the premis is examined, it’s unsubstanciated and the thesis topples.
    People are not dying because of those reasons at all. Most of them are not catholic, and even if they were the idea that they shag around (which the church tells them will get them in hell), but don’t wear a condom (because the church tells them they will go to hell) is ludicrous.

    “In Africa and South America for instance, it is common for Catholics to have sex out of marriage, as it is a cultural norm, but it is also common for them to follow the line from the church and not use condoms.”
    Back that up! There is no evidence that that’s the case. Just bigoted dogma.

  92. Craigy says:

    Care to answer my questions first HJ?

  93. Craigy says:

    “The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass – potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
    The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

    “In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region,” said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

    The Catholic Church opposes all forms of contraception and instead promotes abstinence as a way to avoid spreading AIDS.

    http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?ID=6122

    Go on explain how the Church is not responsible for the spread of HIV given this evidence that I posted MUCH earlier and you ignore.

    Explain how the Church is right to promote that condoms don’t work and this doesn’t cause people to practice unsafe sex. Your argument that all Catholics are fanatics and only follow all the churches proclamations is clearly rubbish.

  94. Husky_Jim says:

    Why don’t you start by explaining why your cardinal is correct in his ‘faith’ view on condoms and the scientists are wrong?
    He isn’t.
    You choose to defend it so why don’t you explain why the Vatican is correct that condoms don’t work?
    They’re not.

    Answered?

  95. Craigy says:

    Then what do you think the outcome of spreading this rubbish is HJ?

    They understand the results in many countries.

    “Dr. Esperanza Cabral, the current health department secretary is under fire from the influential Catholic bishops of the Philippines for her efforts in promoting condoms as a way of protecting the general public from HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases.
    Garin said that the Roman Catholic leaders distract career officials serving the country by imposing their personal beliefs on public servants.
    “The Catholic bishops must not impose their personal beliefs on our government officials and the people. They must let the Department of Health do its work, and, above all, they must immediately refrain from spreading baseless information that will impact on the health of the people,” she added.

    My Bold.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288613

  96. Husky Jim says:

    Do you expect me to answer all of your questions Craig?
    You have not explained how your locig follows, but you expect me to answer you rhetoric?

    Your comments and the attitude of people generally to this issue is disingenuous at best.
    The church’s approach to HIV is not simply a “no condoms” policy which of course you wish to paint is as. It is a whole of sexuality approach where the focus is, as it should be, on the danger of the promiscuity that leads to these conditions. The alternative -wear a condom and go for it – is akin to telling drivers to wear a seatbelt and drink as much as you like and drive as fast as you want.
    The issue of HIV must be seen as one involving the whole of human sexuality, which only the church seems to be embracing.
    If they were to embrace only a part of that then they would in fact be saying it is OK to express your sexuality in any form with any person without regard to consequences, because the condom protects you from the consequences.
    That’s not the place of the church, and it is certainly not the teaching of the church.
    Even within marriage in a completely monogamous relationship, the church’s attitude is that there are consequences an expectations of human sexuality and that’s part of their reason for being reluctant about contraception in general.

  97. Craigy says:

    HJ, it’s not 1950, people have sex…..your ‘justification’ for the Church ban on the use of condoms is in no way dealt with by a lecture from a priest (if he can keep his hands to himself) or lay person on the joys of abstinence.

    You need to look in the mirror and ask yourself, why are so many prominent people telling the Church to STFU? Read it again….

    “they must immediately refrain from spreading baseless information that will impact on the health of the people,”

    People die because of the baseless information spread by people in your Church, deal with it.

    It is disgusting that we celebrate on last night’s news, the fact that a Bishop in Queensland has had the guts to say we take full responsibility for abusing young girls.

    Disgusting because an organisation with any moral standing and under any set ethics you like to use should have been doing this from the start.

    Now the Church is in a position where they probably need legal dismantling and banning like a bike gang in Adelaide. Tax free status should be revoked immediately.

  98. Husky Jim says:

    Ok Craigy you’re confusing two completely seperate issues here.
    The topic is abuse and the acceptance of responsibility and subsequent apology for that abuse. We’ve gotten side tracked onto HIV and I think I nore than handled your points there.
    The church is not the only organisation that’s been slow to act in the correct manner in this area. Public schools, government run orphanages, government run disability institutions, scouts and some sporting organisations that were infiltrated by rock spiders in the past have also been very slow to act here and to condemn the church alone is unfair in that way.
    That said, I agree that there has been a great deal of pain caused in the past and that we need to take full responsibility for all of it now where it actually exists/existed.

    However that does not justify the continued bigotry against faithful and decent priests (as you have done above) and lay people or the dismanteling of organisations that have done good works for centuries, that no government or secular organisation would ever attempt or bother with.

  99. Craigy says:

    No you have not dealt with the HIV issue at all. You have just avoided the facts I have presented. As I said go have a LONG look in the mirror and examine your conscience as a good Catholic should.

    The fact that other organisations have had child abuse issues, and they should be dealt with in the same way as the Church (that is by the police not by themselves) in no way lets your Church off the hook. Of all the organisations involved in systematic sexual abuse, the Catholic Church has been the most obviously recalcitrant and continues to try and hide the guilt of the abusers and the Bishops that have been covering this up.

    The fact that members of the Church aren’t leaving in large numbers in disgust at what is being done is a clear indication to me of the dangers of Church teachings and its supposed morals and ethics.

    Now unless you can argue these and the many other points you are dodging I suggest you go and pray to your friend in the sky, as this is the only way you may gain some enlightenment on this.

  100. Husky Jim says:

    Craig you don’t have the fist idea what a good Catholic should do. You’re simply determined to foist your bigotry on good Catholics by claiming some high moral ground because of the evils done by bad Catholics. Pretty pathetic really. Making yourself feel big and just by attacking the Church. Tough guy Craigy.

    I’m not trying to let the church off the hook. I’m simply saying that there are many more “good Catholics” than there have ever been bad ones.
    The sexual abuse was not “systematic”. The lack of any policy to deal with it certainly was, but to say that the abuse itself was is inaccurate and deliberately sets out to paint good people as evil.
    There are hundreds of people within the church who are agitating to get “systematic” change that will help the church move on from these outrages.
    It takes a lot more courage to stay and change the culture than it does to runn for the hills and leave those behind you to manage it.
    If that’s the kind of resolve you gain from your faith then you need to live with that, but I don’t share it and neither do about a billion others.
    Praps you can join one of your altruistic atheis aid organisations and …….of wait sorry… none of those to join eh?

  101. Craigy says:

    Playing the man again I see…..Matt.

    If they were good Catholics they would leave such a toxic organisation responsible for SYSTEMATIC abuse.

    “Abuse is defined as the systematic pattern of behaviours in a relationship that are used to gain and/or maintain power and control over another.”

    http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/dap/img5.html

    And I have no problem with the good work done by many of the Christian and Catholic welfare groups.

    As I said earlier and you have ignored, it is the religious part of the church, and the authority it has over those of faith, that is being rightly questioned in light of the way that authority has been misused in order to abuse children and cover it up.

    If this doesn’t legitimately raise the question ‘should we support the Church with tax breaks?’ or ‘Should the Church be put on the banned organisations list?’, then I don’t know what does.

    We ban terrorist groups in this country when we are yet to be attacked on our own soil, but we let these religious organisations get away with no punishment for allowing and covering up the sexual abuse of children.

    I don’t know how you can stand being anywhere near these people, after all they are all through the Church in Australia and supported by the head of the Church here and in Rome.

    Oh and if I’m a Bigot for hating people who abuse children and their apologists’, then I guess I’m a Bigot and proud to be one on this issue. I don’t think I am being bigoted at all though.

  102. Craigy says:

    Oh Boy….I just found this list and it just about made me sick.

    The shear numbers of clergy and senior Catholics involved in this, just in Australia, is staggering…. and sickening.

    http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html

  103. Iain Hall says:

    That is quite a list Craigy and a litany of great sadness but I still don’t think that it is a counter argument to Jim’s suggestion that there are more good Catholics than bad (in both the Clergy and the Laity)

  104. Craigy says:

    And I’m sure their are good members of Hamas and Hezbollah as well Iain, would you give them tax free status in Australia?

    And how can you be a ‘good catholic’ and continue to support such people by attending, giving money etc?. How do you tell the good from the bad when there are so many people involved and the organisation is activly trying to keep it under raps?

    Remember these people are in positions of power over the people they abuse….take away that power and the money that supports them in my view.

  105. Craigy says:

    wraps….typo

  106. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    I would very much like to know how many people have been in the clergy over the time period covered by your list. Just to get a baseline and some sort of notion of what proportion of the people that you are condemning here are actually culpable .

  107. Craigy says:

    But the list isn’t everything Iain, we also have the cover-up at the highest levels of the Church here and internationally. To say this is a massive scandal is an understatement. I think if this was happening in Mosques in this country you would be taking a very different line.

    Anyway, how come you and HJ have tag teamed on this, has the man who calls me a tough guy gone all soft?

  108. Craigy says:

    And I ask you Iain, would you leave your daughter alone with a catholic priest?

  109. PKD says:

    Maybe…but only if she was wearing a chastity belt, and armed with a pepper spray and a panic alarm…

  110. Husky Jim says:

    Would you leave her with a school teacher?

  111. Ben Capuano says:

    If I had a daughter I would happily leave her alone with a Catholic priest, a rabbi, a teacher, a policeman, a doctor and so on. It is right and fair that we presume those individuals would behave correctly.

    A more appropriate question is “If your daughter was interfered with by a priest, would you expect the church to deal with the matter openly and effectively”. And for most reasonable people the answer would of course be ‘yes’.

    Every large organisation will have its share of kiddy fiddlers, sexual deviants, touchy-feely pervs and assorted weirdos. The existence of those things can’t be controlled. It’s how each organisation deals with them when they cross boundaries is what really counts. And as far as I can tell the Catholic church has been pretty slack on this, both lazy and secretive.

    And to answer Jim’s point re: more good Catholics than bad, that’s probably true. But among the Catholics I know (and I know a few) I’ve meet a hell of a lot of apologists for the church’s failure to deal with the pedophiles in its ranks. That may be part of the problem, if the church’s members aren’t pressuring it to be accountable.

  112. PKD says:

    Maybe, but only a good Catholic teacher, you can trust them…

  113. PKD says:

    Well said Ben!!!

  114. Ben Capuano says:

    Praps you can join one of your altruistic atheis aid organisations and …….of wait sorry… none of those to join eh?

    What a silly thing to say. Most of the world’s aid organisations are not religious or affiliated with churches. This is part of the problem, when some Catholics try to convince us that they do more good in the world than everyone else.

  115. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    And I ask you Iain, would you leave your daughter alone with a catholic priest?

    Yes Craigy for a couple of reasons:
    My daughter is smart and not subject to religious superstition or undue deference to any man of the cloth. Which means that she would not fit the usual victim profile. But secondly with all of the scandal I think that we can expect a darn sight more from any Catholic priest and the church in general than when most of the offences on your list happened.

  116. Ray Dixon says:

    I find it staggering that this thread is still going. I have no idea what you’re all on about. If you want to know about the Greens support for pedos I suggest you visit those sites opposing the filter.

  117. PKD says:

    I find it staggering that this thread is still going. I have no idea what you’re all on about.

    Some people might same the same thing about your own blog Ray! 😉
    Although at least you have one i guess…

  118. gigdiary says:

    I found myself thinking the same thing Ray. What is this about??

    On another topic I see that woman who didn’t like Socky’s post about the Porno Green Woman has returned in full force. She reckons we must all have lower than average IQs.

    Seems like she read this post too….nah, only joking…..my comments on Socky’s post obviously helped her come to that conclusion.

  119. Ray Dixon says:

    PKD, the posts on my blog (now in hiatus) were clearly defined but sometimes they too got off track. But this has gone out the window and is now orbiting Mars. Go read a certain Greens advocate’s blog if you want to be blown away by how adamant they are that there should be no anti-child porn filter. I won’t conclude anything from it but …………….

  120. Ray Dixon says:

    Yeah, GD, do you think “Susan” might be …. oh, no, she wouldn’t fraudulently self promote herself, would she?

  121. gigdiary says:

    Good grief, no! This is the internet. That sort of thing doesn’t go on. And anyway, she’s a politician, and a tall poppy apparently.

    Definitely no subterfuge there.

  122. Ray Dixon says:

    She’s a wannabe (and, hopefully, a never-will-be) politician.

    But we are on the wrong thread to continue this here. How will Susan/Pat find these comments? She’s not too bright, you know.

  123. Husky Jim says:

    Ben
    “Most of the world’s aid organisations are not religious or affiliated with churches.”
    Probably not true, but lets say we agree on that point, that does not make those ATHEIST organisations nor most of their members atheists. I’ll add to that that a lot of the members of those organisations are indeed religious people and that, in my experience, where atheists get involved in NGOs and welfare organisations it is usually with saving stray dogs, whales and trees. The current push by a couple of mega atheists in Dawkins and Hitchins is bent on two things. Dragging down the heartfelt and honest good faith of billions of good religious people, and making money for THEMSELVES.

  124. Craigy says:

    Ray and others, HJ and I are having a debate on matters relating to the way the Church is handling the abuse scandal, and my view that there should be some sanction against the Church and its supporters for the way they have attempted to cover it up over so many years. It is off the initial topic but we have been having in this old thread.

    What’s your problem that you need to breeze in like a bunch of school kids….. If you don’t follow it, then just stay with a newer thread.

    It has been an interesting argument, without to much getting personal. It is difficult to argue with a Catholic without questioning their faith, in light of the scandal, but I appreciate HJ has done his best in a difficult situation and put up with the odd dig as have I.

  125. Craigy says:

    “Dragging down the heartfelt and honest good faith of billions of good religious people”

    Don’t you mean exposing the bullshit that a belief in a magical friend in the sky really is?

    Dawkins foundation mission statement:

    Support the scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.

    And as for making money, when did you become a communist HJ. Maybe you can try and argue that the Churches don’t collect money at all or some such other nonsense.

    You make statements that show you have no idea what you are talking about (well said Ben) and just blindly lap up what ever propaganda your Catholic leaders feed you. It’s disgraceful, given the abuse, but what can be done to open the eyes of the faithful I don’t know. I guess we just leave you in ignorance and continue to press for some justice and attempt to hold the Church to account for these massive failings.

  126. Ben Capuano says:

    Husky Jim, your comments are deplorable. I have no issue with someone defending their religion, but doing it by tearing down the good work of others is a dog act. Wake up to yourself mate.

    I have worked for an aid organisation that had no links with or funding from any church, and did some amazing work in impoverished parts of the world through good people. The great majority of them weren’t outwardly religious. You have just insulted them all. Well done, I hope you feel better.

  127. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, good luck with extending it into 10 days! Sorry for butting in but, wow mate! Cheers.

  128. Husky Jim says:

    Sorry Craigy.
    The magical friend in the sky argument is just childish. I get that you have faith in different “magic”, and I share that to some extent, but we’re not going to have a friendly and reasoned discussion if you continue to make fun of something shared by a pretty large proportion if the human race for millenia.
    Religion, in all of its forms, has been responsible for some stunning abomination and depravity over the centuries. I acknowledge that and I don’t need you to keep banging on about it. However it has also been responsible for the most astonishing pulchritude, artistry, benevolence, compassion, patronage and philanthropy. I doubt that you could name a single atheistic or even just a secular body that comes close in a year to the good that religion does in a week.
    Religion, like politics or nationalism, brings out the best and the worst in humanity. Mostly the best though.
    You can list all of the failings of religion her if you like and I’ll list each of thos failings for humanity as a whole. Because religion is people and their attempt to understand the place of people in the world.
    Would you stop being a member of the CFA (if you were one) because a CFA member lit a bush fire? Would you stop being one because the royal commission on Feb 7 finds that the CFA was incompetent and even negligent?
    My failure to throw away a hearfelt faith and focus soley on the failings of the church is not because of any propaganda, but in spite of propaganda.
    Would that it was so easy to walk away from. But where would walking away leave those who have been victim or perpitrator?

  129. Husky Jim says:

    Ben
    I did not disparage anyone.
    I realise that non religious groups do some wonderful work and that many of those people do that work without a great reliance on faith for that altruism.
    However there is a vast gulf between being non-religious and being atheist.
    Atheist organisations would include the communist party as an example where religion was discouraged and persecuted. I would put any of the major religions of the world’s good works against the Communists any day.
    In my experience even people in non religious welfare organisations are often involved because of a deeper religious or spiritual motive than just being a member of that organisation.
    Also in my experience, ATHEISTS don’t get involved in those groups. And why should they? When they do, by and large – speaking as a generalisation – they get involved in naturalist groups like green peace and WWF.
    Here’s a list of atheist groups http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/listFeatured
    Can you spot the one hepling to feed starving kids?
    I’m sure that you’ll find a link if you dig deep enough, but not a first level response. Whereas almost all of the religious welfare groups are focussed on the care and compassion of people FOR people.

    I have never excused any of the crimes of modern religion and I would only excuse the crimes of the pre modern religion by putting them into their contemporary context.

  130. Ben Capuano says:

    I did not disparage anyone.

    You did matey. You did the usual aggressive defensive routine of implying that religious people do more good works than non-religious people. And Im calling bullshit on that. People of all faiths (and non-faiths) do good and bad in similar measures. Trying to suggest otherwise is insulting to those who dedicate their life to working for good causes in non religious causes.

    However there is a vast gulf between being non-religious and being atheist.

    Its not as big as the gulf between being religious and non-religious.

    Atheist organisations would include the communist party as an example where religion was discouraged and persecuted.

    That communist party is/was a political party first and foremost that happened to reject religious ideas. That doesn’t make them an “atheist organisation”. They didnt form purely and simply because of their atheism. Anyway, referring to communists is just an attempt to muddy the argument, much like referring to the Nazis or to Hitler (who incidentally was raised a Catholic).

    Atheists dont form groups because they have no reason to (why would you form a group to discuss something you don’t believe in?) They get involved in other organisations, in humanistic causes they are interested in. Which means your argument about the groups atheists get involved in is baloney. Atheists and agnostics get involved in a wide range of causes. My cousin does not believe in god and for a time worked in the World Health Organisation looking at providing potable water sources in some part of Africa. Your assumptions about him and the thousands of other non-religious people who do so much good in the world are bloody insulting.

  131. Craigy says:

    HJ, I respect just about all you say above and your point about the CFA is a good one. I guess I will stay a member of my local CFA due to the local people involved, all of whom are good people well known to me. I would leave the organisation in protest (as some people have since Feb. 2009) if I felt that sending a message to the leadership to improve things could be achieved this way and was necessary.

    “But where would walking away leave those who have been victim or perpitrator?”

    Well, it would send a message that the approach the church is taking is wrong if its members started moving to other faiths (even just for a while) and publicly calling it what it is, appalling.

    The victim is best dealt with by professionals outside the organisation that abused them, and the perpetrators should go to goal and be put on the SOR for life. That’s the law the way it should be, the Churches attempt to deal with this in-house has increased suffering.

    I guess that is the difference between the CFA and Church, no matter how bad the Church behaves, you will stick with it because you follow the faith and are not encouraged to express your disapproval publicly as this might effect the good work that the Church does. I am trying to understand your position.

    The magical friend issue is annoying for you, but you must understand that this is the best description I have read for the belief you have. It seems no more childish to express it that way than to believe a magical friend exists.

    And I guess you can’t have it both ways, you can’t claim all the good done by individuals inside the Church as ‘Good the Church does’ and not except that when individuals do bad things (undercover of religious authority) that this isn’t the ‘Bad the Church does’.

    Do you feel the same about Islam? After all it has added much to humanity over time, can we overlook Jihad because of the ‘good that Islam has done’?

  132. Husky Jim says:

    “I would leave the organisation in protest (as some people have since Feb. 2009) if I felt that sending a message to the leadership to improve things could be achieved this way and was necessary.”
    Fair enough too, but there are 1,000,000,000 Catholics. I’m a very important person in some circles, but I doubt I’d be missed if I left the church :-). And in my opinion the church is doing the right things about the sins of the past now. Or at least attempting to.

    I don’t have a magical friend Craigy. That’s why it’s annoying. I don’t believe in magic and I don’t see God as magical.
    It’s not as simple as moving to other faiths (even just for a while). Imagine if you thought your wife was wrong (not that wives ever are) and you left her and took up with another one just for a while? Not withstnding that wives don’t like sharing, it wouldn’t show a lot of faith would it?

    “The victim is best dealt with by professionals outside the organisation that abused them,……..”
    Couldn’t possibly agree more there. The church’s biggist failing in this has not been through malice, but because it simply had no mechinism, policy or process to handle this kind of thing and because victims expected it to.

    “I guess that is the difference between the CFA and Church, no matter how bad the Church behaves, you will stick with it because you follow the faith and are not encouraged to express your disapproval publicly as this might effect the good work that the Church does.”
    That’s not my position at all. If that’s how you’re trying to understand it then you’re on the wrong tram.
    I am encouraged, and do, express my disapproval. Often. And people like me are the main reason for the recent apologies. I’m not sure you understand mch of the way pastural community works within the RCC.

    “And I guess you can’t have it both ways, you can’t claim all the good done by individuals inside the Church as ‘Good the Church does’ and not except that when individuals do bad things (undercover of religious authority) that this isn’t the ‘Bad the Church does’. ”
    You’ll have to quote me doing that. I don’t remember ever doing that.
    I have said that there is massively more good than evil. That’s not excusing the evil, but explaining the loyalty to the good.

    I do feel the same about Islam. However the evil done by Islam is in the name of Islam and Allah. That is for the preceived good of the religion and its people
    The evil done by the church, that is the sexual issue primarilly, is done by individuals and in the name of selfish depravity, not the good of the church or it’s people.
    I realise you’ll arc up about the HIV issue, but again i see the church’s stategy there as a wholistic one and you’ll simply focus on the condom issue. We’ve done that one and I think I’ve made my point there.

  133. Husky Jim says:

    “People of all faiths (and non-faiths) do good and bad in similar measures. ”
    Not even close. I’m not talking about non-religious I’m on about ATHEISTS? Give me examples of ATHEIST aid organisations?

    ” (why would you form a group to discuss something you don’t believe in?)”
    Ask Dawking and Hitchins.

    I’m not being insulting. You’re attempting to make an argument where none exists. That’s all I have to contribute to that point.

  134. Ben Capuano says:

    Dawking (sic) and Hitchins (sic) don’t run organisations. They are authors and commentators who attract a lot of attention for their views. Nothing more.

    Atheists, by and large, don’t form organisations because it’s pointless forming an organisation based on what you DON’T believe. That’s why you can’t join a non-stamp collectors club.

    The upshot of your argument is that atheists do little or less good than other people because they dont form organisations. This is a logical fallacy because atheists are individuals first and foremost, who may and often do belong to other groups. It is also insulting to atheists (and agnostics, secularists, etc.) who give their time money and labour to charitable and worthwhile causes.

  135. Craigy says:

    Okay HJ I’ll leave it there and say thanks for your honesty…..

  136. Husky Jim says:

    “Dawkins and Hitchens don’t run organisations.”
    Actually Dawkins does, but not to benefit anyone, but to raise money to further evangelise atheism.
    My point preeeeecicely.

    “They are authors and commentators who attract a lot of attention for their views.”
    One’s a Zoologist and Evolutionary biologist and the other a journalist.
    They both charge money to appear and talk about religion. Not to benefit the people they charge, but to insult and condemn those with beliefs they don’t share.

    “The upshot of your argument is that atheists do little or less good than other people because they dont form organisations.”
    Not at all. The basis of my argument is that the opposite is true of religious people. That they do MORE good because they believe in a higher ideal than their own and that they are motivated by that belief to do good works. Atheists are not.

    “.atheists are individuals first and foremost…….”
    As opposed to religious people who have two heads and 19 arms?
    “…….. who may and often do belong to other groups………..”
    While religious folk only belong to their religion?

  137. Husky Jim says:

    No worries Craig.
    Thanks for (eventually) having a civil attitude to the discourse.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: