• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is how you avoid accepting responsibility.

Craig4 said:
No facts are required beyond that the RCC did enable pedophiles to keep raping and sexually assaulting children. Whether they did it as doctrine is immaterial.
Click to expand...

A fact that was, indeed, proven in multiple courts of law in multiple countries.
 
abaddon said:
Well let's see.

Child rape and abuse.
Covering up said rape and abuse.
Intentionally hiding the perps.
Hiding money to avoid paying reparations to aforementioned victims.

Aren't they the most cuddly, cute and adorable cross-dressing virgins you ever saw? Surely all of it is the fault of the victims.

You apologised earlier, yet immediately turn about and defend the most scurrilous and despicable acts of those perverts, yet again.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Craig4 said:
What difference does that make? No facts are required beyond that the RCC did enable pedophiles to keep raping and sexually assaulting children. Whether they did it as doctrine is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Okay, this is not just addressed at you two, but in general.

Now we are skeptics, so how do we objectively describe and explain this human phenomenon?
That is it! In the general sense of what science does, I ask this question: How do we objectively describe, explain and understand this?

Now it is up to you, who object, to decide if you want to report this as a derail or not. I am honest now, I know it can be considered a derail, but it can also fall within the rules.

Rule 11
E7

This rule is intended to prevent discussions from being arbitrarily derailed, not to stifle thread drift, short asides, jokes, or similar things. If it appears that a poster often brings up a particular topic in threads in which it only has a tenuous, if any connection, that will be considered a breach. Responding to part of an on-topic post in such a way that leads to a different branch of discussion will likely not be considered in breach of the rules, but may be split to a new thread as noted under H1 and H2.
Click to expand...

So do you want to continue here? Should we make another thread? Or should we just conclude that religion is a special phenomenon, which falls outside the general reality; i.e. that is irrelevant, because it is wrong, unnatural and so on? In other words what has happen is wrong and we don't have to try to understand it objectively, because it is wrong?

On the other hand if religion is not a special case, then there might be some underlying general structures, which could be of interest to understand if we want to remove religion, because the general structures if there may resurface outside religion.

Leumas said:
...
We do not suspend opinions and judgment about their "wrong, evil and vile" doings because the same has been done over and over again.

Yes, viruses and diseases and parasites and all sorts of calamities are the causes of disasters and suffering.

When you are trying to fight a particular viral disease you do not say "it has nothing to do in particular with it being an Ebola virus. This sort of thing has been going on for ages caused by whatever...".

You identify the virus causing THIS CURRENT INFECTION and tackle this PARTICULAR VIRUS for now.... you can combat other virus strains when they too start infecting... but we still need to tackle THIS SPECIFIC virus that is CURRENTLY infecting by using treatment aimed at it.

...
Click to expand...

So if religion as a virus of evil is something we fight against, my question is what does it have in common with other viruses of evil and besides fighting this particular virus of evil, how do we in general fight viruses of evil?

In the end, I am a former professional soldier and I have no problem fighting the enemy, but I have also learned to question the plan. That is part of the way how I was trained.
So in the context of fighting the evil virus of religion, is there something we might have overlooked if we only concentrate on the aspect of religion?

So if you find that this is a derail, report it. But before you do, you could ask yourself if it is an arbitrary derail or if it is a natural thread drift, because how we fight evil, is not restricted to religion?

With regards
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
.... Now we are skeptics, so how do we objectively describe and explain this human phenomenon? That is it! In the general sense of what science does, I ask this question: How do we objectively describe, explain and understand this?
Click to expand...
The OP question of responsibility for actions/inaction in society are not only a function of scientific inquiry or skepticism. But in general terms, this can be done as in other cases: by separating description from prescription.

Ethics are a matter of social consensus. You can think of cultural mores as aggregate preferences that have been influenced by a wide range of factors, including pseudo-science, mythology, bias, group behavior, religion, philosophy, psychology, political theory, and... breakfast.

Bad breakfast is a leading cause of poor behavior in the morning. I know this to be absolutely true from personal experience. A cult of avoiding me until sufficient caffeine has been ingested resides in my own home, with avid human and canine members.

As for religions being simple viruses of evil in the rest of the post, that is a different topic of discussion. But ethical behavior is not only a religious topic.

Returning to how to create the mechanisms by which the original OP problems might be better addressed, I continue to think religion should be taxed. Note that if there were a fiduciary responsibility to care for the interred over a known time frame or in perpetuity, this would require an accounting provision. Proper tax accounting could have unraveled true intentions more clearly in this particular case, in the form of past acctg treatment of this issue.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The OP question of responsibility for actions/inaction in society are not only a function of scientific inquiry or skepticism. But in general terms, this can be done as in other cases: by separating description from prescription.

Ethics are a matter of social consensus. You can think of cultural mores as aggregate preferences that have been influenced by a wide range of factors, including pseudo-science, mythology, bias, group behavior, religion, philosophy, psychology, political theory, and... breakfast.

Bad breakfast is a leading cause of poor behavior in the morning. I know this to be absolutely true from personal experience. A cult of avoiding me until sufficient caffeine has been ingested resides in my own home, with avid human and canine members.

As for religions being simple viruses of evil in the rest of the post, that is a different topic of discussion. But ethical behavior is not only a religious topic.

Returning to how to create the mechanisms by which the original OP problems might be better addressed, I continue to think religion should be taxed. Note that if there were a fiduciary responsibility to care for the interred over a known time frame or in perpetuity, this would require an accounting provision. Proper tax accounting could have unraveled true intentions more clearly in this particular case, in the form of past acctg treatment of this issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the end part of the problem is openness and that we don't allow a part of society to close to much around itself and become isolated with its own rules.
 
I never asked about the science of how someone becomes a pedophile. The RCC moved priests around so they could abuse again. Bishops and cardinals, to include Ratzinger using authority granted by the RCC and acting as its agent covered for and enabled future abuse. So, it doesn't matter what RCC doctrine was. All that matters is what they did regardless of intent.
 
Craig4 said:
I never asked about the science of how someone becomes a pedophile. The RCC moved priests around so they could abuse again. Bishops and cardinals, to include Ratzinger using authority granted by the RCC and acting as its agent covered for and enabled future abuse. So, it doesn't matter what RCC doctrine was. All that matters is what they did regardless of intent.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what they did(the intent), is that a evil religious virus or a evil virus in general?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yes, but what they did(the intent), is that a evil religious virus or a evil virus in general?
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with whether an organisation should accept responsibility and pay up as required by the courts?
 
Once again, I find myself confused by some of the twists and turns of this thread. To my mind, it appears as if there have been several levels of argument, and to clarify, I list them below. Perhaps other posters can help me by noting which they are arguing:

1. Child sex abuse is not morally wrong because nothing is objectively morally wrong, and there should be no law against it. I believe that this was advanced only to make some philosophical point about atheism rather than seriously, but I will include it here for completeness. Obviously I disagree, and I personally would not desire to continue discussing such a topic.

2. Child sex abuse is morally wrong, but is so common a feature of humans that there is no reason to have a law against it. My view is the same as above.

3. There should be a law against child sex abuse, but the RCC had no role in child sex abuse and should never have been found in a legal court to have responsibility for it. I can see some might wish to argue this, although the fact that multiple courts, in multiple cities and multiple countries, have found the RCC guilty would present a very large burden to successfully making such an argument; especially given the historic willingness of many people and governments to trust and respect religious figures. I do think that this is properly another thread (I suspect that we already have several on this topic), but I can see that, taken very broadly, such a discussion might possible be included here.

4. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC should pay the legal judgement, but the criteria for who should share in the settlement is too weak. I believe this should be a separate thread. But in any case, I would need to know the current criteria for legally verifying a legitimate claimant, why a poster believes this is inadequate, and how the poster would change it.

5. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC was correctly found liable for violating it, but the RCC has the right to attempt to avoid paying the judgement by legal manipulations. I think that this is the topic of this thread, based on the OP. In which case, I would argue, as I have, that making such an argument is legally allowed, although I hope the courts will ultimately reject it. Morally, I find it reprehensible that an institution that claims to provide moral guidance to others would use what I consider a sleazy attempt to avoid their own moral responsibility. This is a cynical claim based on a concept that it is more important to place flowers on the graves of dead people than to help the living victims of the child abuse that they aided and abetted. Further, in my own opinion, it has nothing to do with grave decoration at all, but it is a way to retain money for broad use by the Church for the infinite future.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Once again, I find myself confused by some of the twists and turns of this thread. To my mind, it appears as if there have been several levels of argument, and to clarify, I list them below. Perhaps other posters can help me by noting which they are arguing:

1. Child sex abuse is not morally wrong because nothing is objectively morally wrong, and there should be no law against it. I believe that this was advanced only to make some philosophical point about atheism rather than seriously, but I will include it here for completeness. Obviously I disagree, and I personally would not desire to continue discussing such a topic.
Click to expand...
Agree, child sex abuse is morally wrong.

2. Child sex abuse is morally wrong, but is so common a feature of humans that there is no reason to have a law against it. My view is the same as above.
Click to expand...
Agree, child sex abuse ought to have a law against it.

3. There should be a law against child sex abuse, but the RCC had no role in child sex abuse and should never have been found in a legal court to have responsibility for it. I can see some might wish to argue this, although the fact that multiple courts, in multiple cities and multiple countries, have found the RCC guilty would present a very large burden to successfully making such an argument; especially given the historic willingness of many people and governments to trust and respect religious figures. I do think that this is properly another thread (I suspect that we already have several on this topic), but I can see that, taken very broadly, such a discussion might possible be included here.
Click to expand...
No, members of the RCC can be found guilty of covering up crimes.

4. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC should pay the legal judgement, but the criteria for who should share in the settlement is too weak. I believe this should be a separate thread. But in any case, I would need to know the current criteria for legally verifying a legitimate claimant, why a poster believes this is inadequate, and how the poster would change it.
Click to expand...
IANAL, so that is beyond my range of knowledge.


5. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC was correctly found liable for violating it, but the RCC has the right to attempt to avoid paying the judgement by legal manipulations. I think that this is the topic of this thread, based on the OP. In which case, I would argue, as I have, that making such an argument is legally allowed, although I hope the courts will ultimately reject it. Morally, I find it reprehensible that an institution that claims to provide moral guidance to others would use what I consider a sleazy attempt to avoid their own moral responsibility. This is a cynical claim based on a concept that it is more important to place flowers on the graves of dead people than to help the living victims of the child abuse that they aided and abetted. Further, in my own opinion, it has nothing to do with grave decoration at all, but it is a way to retain money for broad use by the Church for the infinite future.
Click to expand...
As long as it doesn't involve some form of retrograde lawmaking and any other attempt to twist the law to get the bad guys, I am with you.

With regards
 
Giordano said:
I don't really see how that answers the question that you were asked. Unless you are arguing point #2 in my list, which I don't really think is very likely.
Click to expand...

Different question :)

Should we treat religion differently, because it is religion goes both ways - we can treat it differently in a positive or negative sense. I am against both.

With regards
 
Giordano said:
Once again, I find myself confused by some of the twists and turns of this thread. To my mind, it appears as if there have been several levels of argument, and to clarify, I list them below. Perhaps other posters can help me by noting which they are arguing:

1. Child sex abuse is not morally wrong because nothing is objectively morally wrong, and there should be no law against it. I believe that this was advanced only to make some philosophical point about atheism rather than seriously, but I will include it here for completeness. Obviously I disagree, and I personally would not desire to continue discussing such a topic.

2. Child sex abuse is morally wrong, but is so common a feature of humans that there is no reason to have a law against it. My view is the same as above.

3. There should be a law against child sex abuse, but the RCC had no role in child sex abuse and should never have been found in a legal court to have responsibility for it. I can see some might wish to argue this, although the fact that multiple courts, in multiple cities and multiple countries, have found the RCC guilty would present a very large burden to successfully making such an argument; especially given the historic willingness of many people and governments to trust and respect religious figures. I do think that this is properly another thread (I suspect that we already have several on this topic), but I can see that, taken very broadly, such a discussion might possible be included here.

4. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC should pay the legal judgement, but the criteria for who should share in the settlement is too weak. I believe this should be a separate thread. But in any case, I would need to know the current criteria for legally verifying a legitimate claimant, why a poster believes this is inadequate, and how the poster would change it.

5. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC was correctly found liable for violating it, but the RCC has the right to attempt to avoid paying the judgement by legal manipulations. I think that this is the topic of this thread, based on the OP. In which case, I would argue, as I have, that making such an argument is legally allowed, although I hope the courts will ultimately reject it. Morally, I find it reprehensible that an institution that claims to provide moral guidance to others would use what I consider a sleazy attempt to avoid their own moral responsibility. This is a cynical claim based on a concept that it is more important to place flowers on the graves of dead people than to help the living victims of the child abuse that they aided and abetted. Further, in my own opinion, it has nothing to do with grave decoration at all, but it is a way to retain money for broad use by the Church for the infinite future.
Click to expand...

Beautiful summary!

...5, it is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom