|
subrosaDom -> RE: Rotherham child abuse and the cover up (8/30/2014 12:46:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
But that wasn't the main driver, because it was more disbelief: "Father John didn't do that to you; stop imagining such filthy thoughts." Nor can you blame Christianity or Catholicism per se. You can blame the desire to "protect" the reputation of the Church and call out the evil of the many bishops and cardinals (e.g., Cardinal Bernard Law) who knew what was going on but simply reassigned priests to other parishes.
But who protects this reputation? Who are these disbelievers who would say "Father John didn't do that to you"? I've seen this happen quite a bit whenever accusation of some "authority" (whether it's the police, military, government, church, big business, etc.) is made. Back in the day, we used to "question authority," but nowadays, too many people fall all over themselves to protect authority. There are too many people among the masses with waaaaay too much faith in authority, and that's how these things happen.
Yes, there are too many people and you you've used precisely the right word: faith. The "argument from authority" has always been given far too much importance. Rather than, say, the argument from reason, regardless of who makes it. Lister's germ theory wasn't exactly popular back in the day, either. Which wasn't primarily religious. Galileo, obviously, was. Schools in the US don't help, nor do archaic ten commandments, such as as obeying your father and mother (Well, sure, but not if they are twisted abusers, for example.)
quote:
Rotherham is different. It is the sign of a decaying society lacking the balls to stand up to terror. It is the direct consequence of political correctness gone mad.
I would say it comes down to the same thing. With so many people dedicated and committed to their faith in authority, while condemning and ostracizing anyone who challenges that authority using tactics of fear and ridicule, stifles any opposition and willingness to speak out. It's not that people lack the balls to stand up to terror. They lack the balls to stand up to authority. And in this case, it seems that even the authorities lacked the balls, yet people are led to believe that the police are on the job, enforcing the law and protecting society.
There's nothing about so-called "political correctness" which says that those who are guilty of crimes should not be arrested or punished.
You're correct they lacked the balls, but the worry about losing one's job or position because of political correctness is a very palpable one. Let's put it this way. Authority can use as well as be cowed by political correctness to be ever more dogmatic and unreasonable. In Rotherham, PC empowered authority to be dogmatic because of such fear, rather than to stand up and look at the facts. So, yes, I believe PC was a significant factor in the way I described.
quote:
It is the direct consequence of making Islam the first protected religion. The Mormon Church takes out ads in the playbill for The Book of Mormon. Catholics marched in protest of Piss Christ. Muslims kill when there is a cartoon of their fucking pedophile "prophet." And they demand special, sharia-based rights, halal food ONLY in the schools, barring of "indecent" clothing by others, etc. They demand and are given special dispensations due to fear of violence. And so now you have the most repellent, the most shameful, the most disgusting cashing in of that political correctness. Muslim savages destroying the lives of innocent children while the police ignore the reports. This in no way minimizes the tens of thousands of children whose lives were destroyed by pedophile priests -- it points out the causes were different and the solutions different. The solution here is simple. No special rights for Muslims anywhere. None. You (meaning not "you," but an random Muslim) don't like it if I don't eat halal food? Well, go fuck yourself. No other religion would demand or ever get such special dispensations, because no other religion operates purely out of bullying, terror and fear. Eliminate all special rights for Muslims, and lock up the pedophiles for ever. Better to put them in a pyre and burn them, but apparently that's not an option today.
I agree with eliminating "special rights" for any group. But by the same token, I don't agree with any "special condemnations" in which an entire group is blamed for the actions of only some of its members. The Catholic Church priest pedophile scandal was an atrocity, yet that doesn't mean I would say things like "Catholic savages." There are some in the Church's history who operated on bullying, terror, and fear, and in various countries, they have received special dispensations. But that doesn't necessarily reflect on every single individual who happens to be Catholic. Just as with Muslims, some are savages, but most are not.
In almost all cases, I would agree with you regarding special condemnations. Certainly, you cannot use 99% of the New Testament to justify atrocities and certainly not to justify pedophilia. But on the other hand I am absolutely sure you would agree with a special condemnation of Nazism or Maoism. Now those are not religions; they are political movements. As is precisely with Islam. Islam is a political movement under the cover of religion. It is jingoistically bent on world-domination, on the establishment of the Caliphate over all others, including either death to the infidels or their paying a jizya in order to have permission to live in the Caliphate. I condemn Islam as a political movement with dangerous, evil beliefs, not as a religion with foolish beliefs. To your point about individuals, are there individual Muslims who don't understand this and who are innocents? Yes. Just as there were individual members of the Nazi party who likely didn't truly hate Jews, gays, gypsies, etc. and there were individual Maoists who were illiterate and had never read Mao's little red book. Most estimates, including even ones made by liberal organizations such as Pew, put the number of seriously radicalized Muslims at over 100 million and possible up to 275 to 300 million. Muslims almost never condemn any atrocity (except ISIS), because they are scared or because they don't get it. Geert Wilders lives under 24/7 protection. Salman Rushdie did for years and still is very careful. Where is the Catholic critic who fears for his life from the Pope or any Bishop or Cardinal?
|
|
|
|
