384 Priests Defrocked Over Abuse in 2 Years

The Vatican defrocked 260 priests for the sexual abuse of children in 2011 and 124 more in 2012 after the scandal exploded in Europe and beyond and bishops forwarded hundreds of cases to the Vatican, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.

The numbers were confirmed by the Vatican on Friday, and were based on statistics published in its annual reference books. Two Vatican officials had the statistics in hand but never cited them when they defended the church’s handling of sexual abuse cases before a United Nations panel in Geneva on Thursday.

more…

Isnt a crime to harbour a known criminal?
How do these dicks get away with it.

“looking at you Pell”

End rant no 2.

Will shut up now.

Some religious people think that they are above the law

things are changing, a lot of people now realize religion is all made up, all of it

I put religion in the same basket as astrology and witchcraft, tooth fairies and Santa Claus

all made up, stories that are now 2000 years old, made up by people to control people

end the medieval nonsense, end the imaginary medieval stories

a lot of monks, nuns, priests, bishops, cardinals look the same as they did 2000 years ago, while reading the same 2000 year old books that never change, while everything else around them does change

CrazyNeutrino said:

Some religious people think that they are above the law

things are changing, a lot of people now realize religion is all made up, all of it

I put religion in the same basket as astrology and witchcraft, tooth fairies and Santa Claus

all made up, stories that are now 2000 years old, made up by people to control people

end the medieval nonsense, end the imaginary medieval stories

a lot of monks, nuns, priests, bishops, cardinals look the same as they did 2000 years ago, while reading the same 2000 year old books that never change, while everything else around them does change

There is a trend I’ve noticed, when debating in other places, of Christians separating “The Religion” from “the church”. They claim that Christianity is perfect and loving and only leads to good things, and that anything bad is a corruption or misinterpretation or manipulation by imperfect humans in The Church.

while i am not a supporter of religions i think to lose all the ceremony and history would be a shame. bit like the monarchy and all the pomp and ceremony associated with that.

Ive just started reading God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

after I read that book, Ill start reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

well into the first chapter now

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ive just started reading God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

after I read that book, Ill start reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

well into the first chapter now

But don’t you know how it ends?

Brother of a mate (god bothering family the lot of them) had a heart attack a couple of days ago.
Airlifted from ballarat yo Alfred hosp Melb it was that serius.
“Its gods will” these idiots are saying
Now they’re praying to god for his recovery, WTF?

PermeateFree said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ive just started reading God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

after I read that book, Ill start reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

well into the first chapter now

But don’t you know how it ends?

which book?

serius = serious

gaghalfrunt said:

Brother of a mate (god bothering family the lot of them) had a heart attack a couple of days ago.
Airlifted from ballarat yo Alfred hosp Melb it was that serius.
“Its gods will” these idiots are saying
Now they’re praying to god for his recovery, WTF?

medical science is what saves a lot of peoples lives

we need critical thinking not wishful thinking

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ive just started reading God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

after I read that book, Ill start reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

well into the first chapter now

Let me know what you think of both books.

Skeptic Pete said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ive just started reading God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

after I read that book, Ill start reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

well into the first chapter now

Let me know what you think of both books.

yep, ok, I’m taking notes as I go

Skeptic Pete said:

Let me know what you think of both books.

They were beautifully typed.

Even if your only source of information is the Church’s own documents (and there seems to be valid concern over their integrity), on the numbers alone, it’s very difficult to imagine that there has been any Priests / Brothers who were not directly involved.

Any national government worth a crumpet would simply dissolve the church, divide its assets between the victims, and gaol the perpetrators.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Skeptic Pete said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ive just started reading God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

after I read that book, Ill start reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

well into the first chapter now

Let me know what you think of both books.

yep, ok, I’m taking notes as I go

Both are good in my opinion.

Dawkins is thorough in his pre-empting of religious claims.

Hitchens is just great to read, he had such a way with words.

My favourite part of Hitchens book is where a hypothetical question was put to him by Dennis Prager, an American talk-show host. Hitchens was asked to imagine himself in a foreign city at dusk, with a large group of men coming toward him. Would he feel safer, or less safe, if he were to learn that they were coming from a prayer meeting?

With justified relish, the widely travelled Hitchens responds that he has had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad, and that, in each case, the answer would be a resounding “less safe.”

Awesome!

The problem is that for a long time the Church regarded it was a sin rather than a crime. Instead of reporting it to the authorities to deal with and having nothing further to do with the perpetrator, they have seen it as their duty to attempt to reform the perpetrator instead. This approach hasn’t worked.

Rule 303 said:

Even if your only source of information is the Church’s own documents (and there seems to be valid concern over their integrity), on the numbers alone, it’s very difficult to imagine that there has been any Priests / Brothers who were not directly involved.

I find that hard to believe. IIRC stats show that paedophile priests are no more prevalent than paedophiles in other large organisations.

However the extent of the Jimmy Savile scandal shows that there has been a culture of covering things up in a large organisations. I just don’t think everyone was involved.

party_pants said:

The problem is that for a long time the Church regarded it was a sin rather than a crime. Instead of reporting it to the authorities to deal with and having nothing further to do with the perpetrator, they have seen it as their duty to attempt to reform the perpetrator instead. This approach hasn’t worked.

They have completely failed to deal with it, mate. Even now, faced with overwhelming evidence, the senior members of the church are treating it as a short-term embarrassment, the damage from which is to be ‘contained’. This, to my mind, indicates a total abdication of responsibility.

Went through my school years exclusively in Catholic schools, from 5 to 17 and saw no evidence of paedophilia what so ever and neither did all the boys and girls who went through with me.

Rule 303 said:

Even if your only source of information is the Church’s own documents (and there seems to be valid concern over their integrity), on the numbers alone, it’s very difficult to imagine that there has been any Priests / Brothers who were not directly involved.

Any national government worth a crumpet would simply dissolve the church, divide its assets between the victims, and gaol the perpetrators.

If it was some crappy Cult like the Branch Davidians, but here and involving children, Im sure it would be dissolved

how do all these religions start, they start as a cult with a leader who wants power, money, sex and social control, and from there the cult starts to grow, followers behaving like sheep. led by a wacko

Christianity, Islam, they all started as little cults

Witty Rejoinder said:

I find that hard to believe. IIRC stats show that paedophile priests are no more prevalent than paedophiles in other large organisations.

However the extent of the Jimmy Savile scandal shows that there has been a culture of covering things up in a large organisations. I just don’t think everyone was involved.

By their own (internal, silenced) process, they compensated 17,000 victims of sexual assault within Australia between 1950 and 1980, to the tune of $40mil.

Can you point me to the evidence you refer to above, please?

Witty Rejoinder said:

IIRC stats show that paedophile priests are no more prevalent than paedophiles in other large organisations.

I’ve heard similar stats, usually provided by the church.

I’m skeptical.

Peak Warming Man said:

Went through my school years exclusively in Catholic schools, from 5 to 17 and saw no evidence of paedophilia what so ever and neither did all the boys and girls who went through with me.

You can confidently speak for all of them can you?

Skeptic Pete said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Went through my school years exclusively in Catholic schools, from 5 to 17 and saw no evidence of paedophilia what so ever and neither did all the boys and girls who went through with me.

You can confidently speak for all of them can you?

Yep.

Rule 303 said:

Can you point me to the evidence you refer to above, please?

I think it was a newspaper article a while back.

You can confidently speak for all of them can you?

tut tut, that isn’t how it works.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Rule 303 said:

Can you point me to the evidence you refer to above, please?

I think it was a newspaper article a while back.

I remember it being quoted from a catholic official during the Victorian inquiry.

The old priests often come to class reunions, some of them are retired now, it’s great to talk with them.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it was a newspaper article a while back.

Yeah OK. Well I’m convinced.

forget my last post misread.

ChrispenEvan said:

You can confidently speak for all of them can you?

tut tut, that isn’t how it works.

Well given that most victims feel much shame and guilt and fear of reprisal I don’t know how anybody could be so presumptuous as to speak for all their schoolmates experiences.

Rule 303 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it was a newspaper article a while back.

Yeah OK. Well I’m convinced.

It’s not as though you have evidence for your contention that all priests and brothers were involved either.

Went to catholic school myself,(christian brothers) never sexually abused but was physicaly assulted nearly every day.
Speak at the wrong time. smack in the head
Late for class, 6 cuts. Yes they all carried a weapon for punishing children as and when they they felt it appropriate.

I reckon a class action should be taken on behalf of victims of physical assault also.

Churches to count the cost of abuse – 100,000 victims to sue

from the link

UP to 100,000 people will make claims for compensation in the wake of the royal commission into institutionalised abuse, according to a leading lawyer.

They are pinning their hopes on the commission recommending that a “redress fund” be set up, into which institutions at blame would pay commensurate sums of money.

Lawyer Peter Kelso said the Catholic Church may be forced to sell some of its multi-million dollars worth of land and property holdings to pay its fair share of a fund.

While the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will not be able to make awards of compensation, its terms of reference call on it to find ways so that victims can get redress from institutions.

“The words ‘by institutions’ send the clear message that Australian taxpayers will not be paying a cent,” Mr Kelso said.

To read Peter’s featured article in The Daily Telegraph, please click here.

Source: The Daily Telegraph

Witty Rejoinder said:

Rule 303 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it was a newspaper article a while back.

Yeah OK. Well I’m convinced.

It’s not as though you have evidence for your contention that all priests and brothers were involved either.

Well evidence of sorts is knowing the type of environment that they all were exposed to in seminaries.

Young virile hormonal males bunking together for three years and trying to accept celibacy.

I would suspect that the seeds of sexual misconduct were sown in those institutions.

Witty Rejoinder said:

It’s not as though you have evidence for your contention that all priests and brothers were involved either.

I think I contend that, based in the numbers (that we know about), it difficult to believe they were not all directly involved.

In general terms, do you acknowledge that there has been a long history of sexual abuse of children and the evidence now coming to light points to collusion, cover-up and and obfuscation throughout all levels of the organisation?

Skeptic Pete said:

I would suspect that the seeds of sexual misconduct were sown in those institutions.

I don’t think being a paedophile is a learnt behaviour.

gaghalfrunt said:

Went to catholic school myself,(christian brothers) never sexually abused but was physicaly assulted nearly every day.
Speak at the wrong time. smack in the head
Late for class, 6 cuts. Yes they all carried a weapon for punishing children as and when they they felt it appropriate.

I reckon a class action should be taken on behalf of victims of physical assault also.

And you turned out alri………………hey what about the cricket the other night, did you see that finish.,

<THE Catholic="" Church="" has="" admitted="" paying="" at="" least="" $43="" million="" in="" hush="" money="" to="" victims="" of="" its="" paedophile="" priests,="" as="" the="" church's="" barrister="" outraged="" victims="" yesterday="" by="" quoting="" from="" the="" Bible.="" a="">

THE Catholic Church has admitted paying at least $43 million in hush money to victims of its paedophile priests, as the church’s barrister outraged victims yesterday by quoting from the Bible.

In some cases, victims were not even allowed to tell their husbands, wives or children about the secret settlements negotiated through the church’s controversial Towards Healing process.

more…

gaghalfrunt said:

Went to catholic school myself,(christian brothers) never sexually abused but was physicaly assulted nearly every day.
Speak at the wrong time. smack in the head
Late for class, 6 cuts. Yes they all carried a weapon for punishing children as and when they they felt it appropriate.

I reckon a class action should be taken on behalf of victims of physical assault also.

In grade five, primary school, I was caned, along with other recalcitrant classmates on a regular basis.

probably four to six strokes every single week.

It was Mr Raft’s way.

Peak Warming Man said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Went through my school years exclusively in Catholic schools, from 5 to 17 and saw no evidence of paedophilia what so ever and neither did all the boys and girls who went through with me.

You can confidently speak for all of them can you?

Yep.

You were lucky Peak Warming Man, others were not so lucky

Witty Rejoinder said:

Skeptic Pete said:

I would suspect that the seeds of sexual misconduct were sown in those institutions.

I don’t think being a paedophile is a learnt behaviour.

I’m not so sure.

A funny religious themed Southpark is on for all those who cant get enough of religion. I am sure the red heifer is a reference to the Native American white buffalo thing.

What happens in threads like this is that you get the mob mentality starting and you can watch it develop as it goes.
You can almost smell the lightered tapers being lit as the outrage builds with every exaggeration.
Fortunately there are those with a more sceptical and steady countenance, Witty for example, who try to keep things in perspextive.

red heifer is an apocalypse thing. one of the signs.

Peak Warming Man said:

You can almost smell the lightered tapers being lit as the outrage builds with every exaggeration.

I’ve got some faggots here to throw on the fire when you’re ready.

Rule 303 said:

I think I contend that, based in the numbers (that we know about), it difficult to believe they were not all directly involved.

In general terms, do you acknowledge that there has been a long history of sexual abuse of children and the evidence now coming to light points to collusion, cover-up and and obfuscation throughout all levels of the organisation?

I think compared to the number of students schooled in the Catholic system, the number of victims is not prohibitively high enough to assume all priests and brothers were involved. I would however admit that those in authority in the Church must have been aware of the scale of the problem.

On the other hand the Savile inquiry shows that the institutional response of the Church to allegations of paedophilia was not unusual for the time.

ChrispenEvan said:

red heifer is an apocalypse thing. one of the signs.

yes it’s a Jewish thing.

It has to be perfect though.

Whos exaggerating?

Of course, the devious and manipulative Cartman brushes off the warning. But before long, a trio of Haredi Jews from Jerusalem show up in the principal’s office urgently asking to see the red heifer — the extremely rare animal that was used in Temple times for a purification ritual, and which is also associated with a prophecy about the end of days. “The fate of the world is at stake!” they tell Kyle.

Read more: South Park sacrifices the red heifer | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/south-park-sacrifices-red-heifer/#ixzz2qptAQyV0
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think compared to the number of students schooled in the Catholic system, the number of victims is not prohibitively high

You could probably get a job as Pell’s PR man :-)

“I think compared to the number of students schooled in the Catholic system, the number of victims is not prohibitively high”

So whats the acceptable figure?

gaghalfrunt said:

“I think compared to the number of students schooled in the Catholic system, the number of victims is not prohibitively high”

So whats the acceptable figure?

That is not the full quote of my text and is thus taken out of context.

Not all amusing where that repressed sexual desire and weird paternalism went, sort of got projected, I suppose the children were being ‘saved’. Weird stuff.

I notice that there are plenty of Red Heifer Steakhouses. A bit like Crazy Cow Cafes.

Witty Rejoinder said:

On the other hand the Savile inquiry shows that the institutional response of the Church to allegations of paedophilia was not unusual for the time.

They’re still doing it!

I wont be bothering to pursue you over the direct question I put, and you clearly evaded, other than this acknowledgement, and the supposition that the same tactic is no longer working for the church you’re defending. And that’s good.

Peak Warming Man said:

What happens in threads like this is that you get the mob mentality starting and you can watch it develop as it goes.
You can almost smell the lightered tapers being lit as the outrage builds with every exaggeration.
Fortunately there are those with a more sceptical and steady countenance, Witty for example, who try to keep things in perspextive.

I try to keep my emotions from running away, it only leads to anger

better for me to stay focused, I learn more that way

gaghalfrunt said:

Brother of a mate (god bothering family the lot of them) had a heart attack a couple of days ago.
Airlifted from ballarat yo Alfred hosp Melb it was that serius.
“Its gods will” these idiots are saying
Now they’re praying to god for his recovery, WTF?

They are hoping God made a mistake.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Rule 303 said:

I think I contend that, based in the numbers (that we know about), it difficult to believe they were not all directly involved.

In general terms, do you acknowledge that there has been a long history of sexual abuse of children and the evidence now coming to light points to collusion, cover-up and and obfuscation throughout all levels of the organisation?

I think compared to the number of students schooled in the Catholic system, the number of victims is not prohibitively high enough to assume all priests and brothers were involved. I would however admit that those in authority in the Church must have been aware of the scale of the problem.

On the other hand the Savile inquiry shows that the institutional response of the Church to allegations of paedophilia was not unusual for the time.

The BBC did cover it up for years,

BBC staff turned blind eye to Jimmy Savile victims: report

Jimmy Savile scandal: Smith inquiry reportedly suggests BBC staff ‘turned blind eye’ to abuse

It identified 450 victims but the Smith inquiry suggests up to 1,000 people were abused by Savile while he was working for the BBC, according to the Observer.

PermeateFree said:

gaghalfrunt said:

Brother of a mate (god bothering family the lot of them) had a heart attack a couple of days ago.
Airlifted from ballarat yo Alfred hosp Melb it was that serius.
“Its gods will” these idiots are saying
Now they’re praying to god for his recovery, WTF?

They are hoping God made a mistake.

Yeah, I’ve seen too much of that crap too. Everyone is praying for the person to make a recovery, even in a completely hopeless situation. But at the funeral it’s all praise God and it’s all God’s will and what not. My observation is that if that was God’s will then God is a complete prick.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Rule 303 said:

I think I contend that, based in the numbers (that we know about), it difficult to believe they were not all directly involved.

In general terms, do you acknowledge that there has been a long history of sexual abuse of children and the evidence now coming to light points to collusion, cover-up and and obfuscation throughout all levels of the organisation?

I think compared to the number of students schooled in the Catholic system, the number of victims is not prohibitively high enough to assume all priests and brothers were involved. I would however admit that those in authority in the Church must have been aware of the scale of the problem.

On the other hand the Savile inquiry shows that the institutional response of the Church to allegations of paedophilia was not unusual for the time.

The BBC did cover it up for years,

BBC staff turned blind eye to Jimmy Savile victims: report

Jimmy Savile scandal: Smith inquiry reportedly suggests BBC staff ‘turned blind eye’ to abuse

It identified 450 victims but the Smith inquiry suggests up to 1,000 people were abused by Savile while he was working for the BBC, according to the Observer.

Looks like they covered it up for 50 years,

and a lot of people in the BBC knew about it, but did nothing

Rule 303 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

On the other hand the Savile inquiry shows that the institutional response of the Church to allegations of paedophilia was not unusual for the time.

They’re still doing it!

I wont be bothering to pursue you over the direct question I put, and you clearly evaded, other than this acknowledgement, and the supposition that the same tactic is no longer working for the church you’re defending. And that’s good.

I cannot, for the life of me, see how witty was in any way defending anyone.

sibeen said:

I cannot, for the life of me, see how witty was in any way defending anyone.

He wasn’t.

But his comment did remind me of Pell’s classic line on the night the royal commission was announced, when he said that the catholic church “wasn’t the only cab on the rank”

Jimmy Savile scandal: Smith inquiry reportedly suggests BBC staff ‘turned blind eye’ to abuse

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-19/bbc-staff-savile-abuse-smith-inquiry/5207158

Posted 8 hours 9 minutes ago

A leaked internal inquiry has reportedly found BBC staff turned a blind eye to star presenter Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuse of up to 1,000 girls and boys in the corporation’s changing rooms and studios.

A report in the Observer newspaper says the inquiry by former judge Janet Smith found Savile’s behaviour had been recognised by executives at the world’s biggest public broadcaster but they took no action to stop him.

A police investigation concluded last year that the television and radio presenter, who died in 2011 aged 84, was a predatory sex offender who abused children as young as eight over more than 50 years.

It identified 450 victims but the Smith inquiry suggests up to 1,000 people were abused by Savile while he was working for the BBC, according to the Observer.

Peter Saunders, chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which has been consulted by Smith’s inquiry, says many people at the BBC have admitted knowing about Savile’s behaviour.

“The other thing I have found extraordinary, and very sad, is the number of people I have spoken to connected to the BBC – and that is a lot of people – who said: ‘Oh yes, we all knew about him’,” Mr Saunders told the newspaper.

The Smith inquiry report is likely to throw the BBC into fresh turmoil when it is presented next month.

The Savile revelations sparked a crisis at the corporation over how he was able to carry out such attacks and about the BBC’s failure to report the claims against him when they were first raised in the weeks after his death.

Director-general George Entwistle resigned in the wake of the scandal, and was replaced by Tony Hall.

Savile was one of the biggest TV stars in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, and used his fame as a presenter of the BBC chart show Top of the Pops and children’s program Jim’ll Fix It to rape and assault his victims.

The BBC is not the only organisation with questions to answer.

The health ministry is currently investigating alleged abuse of patients at state-run hospitals, while a police report last year found that officers had failed to follow up evidence against Savile dating back as far as 1964.

The publicity over Savile prompted a number of women to complain of abuse by other television stars from the same era, a number of whom are now facing criminal charges.

AFP

A culture of covering it up

CrazyNeutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

What happens in threads like this is that you get the mob mentality starting and you can watch it develop as it goes.
You can almost smell the lightered tapers being lit as the outrage builds with every exaggeration.
Fortunately there are those with a more sceptical and steady countenance, Witty for example, who try to keep things in perspextive.

I try to keep my emotions from running away, it only leads to anger

better for me to stay focused, I learn more that way

I was raised as a Catholic. OK, i didn’t go to a Catholic school, and i wasn’t an altar boy (no chance of that!).

But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

I don’t doubt that they were out there, but, as someone said, probably in no greater proportions than in the general population.

I saw the Navy. Now, the Navy (in)famously has the ‘hello, sailor!’ image. And, there were a few chaps i knew who were gay (when you sleep in the bunk below another man, above another man, at the feet of another man, at the head of another man, in a space no bigger than a suburban lounge room, along with ten other blokes, you get to know people well).

But, again, in no greater proportion, i should say, than in the rest of the world.

Perhaps we were more tolerant in the Navy; you don’t get to choose your shipmates. And, what your are ashore is your business, as long as it’s not a problem at sea – which, in my experience, it wasn’t.

Perhaps it’s the mix of sex and religion that gets the headlines. Maybe it’s the ‘trust’ element. I agree it’s a heinous crime. Just don’t tar everyone in that calling with the same brush.

Skeptic Pete said:

sibeen said:

I cannot, for the life of me, see how witty was in any way defending anyone.

He wasn’t.

But his comment did remind me of Pell’s classic line on the night the royal commission was announced, when he said that the catholic church “wasn’t the only cab on the rank”

So, all that proves is that Pell can occasionally be right.

:)

captain_spalding said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

What happens in threads like this is that you get the mob mentality starting and you can watch it develop as it goes.
You can almost smell the lightered tapers being lit as the outrage builds with every exaggeration.
Fortunately there are those with a more sceptical and steady countenance, Witty for example, who try to keep things in perspextive.

I try to keep my emotions from running away, it only leads to anger

better for me to stay focused, I learn more that way

I was raised as a Catholic. OK, i didn’t go to a Catholic school, and i wasn’t an altar boy (no chance of that!).

But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

I don’t doubt that they were out there, but, as someone said, probably in no greater proportions than in the general population.

I saw the Navy. Now, the Navy (in)famously has the ‘hello, sailor!’ image. And, there were a few chaps i knew who were gay (when you sleep in the bunk below another man, above another man, at the feet of another man, at the head of another man, in a space no bigger than a suburban lounge room, along with ten other blokes, you get to know people well).

But, again, in no greater proportion, i should say, than in the rest of the world.

Perhaps we were more tolerant in the Navy; you don’t get to choose your shipmates. And, what your are ashore is your business, as long as it’s not a problem at sea – which, in my experience, it wasn’t.

Perhaps it’s the mix of sex and religion that gets the headlines. Maybe it’s the ‘trust’ element. I agree it’s a heinous crime. Just don’t tar everyone in that calling with the same brush.

UP to 100,000 people will make claims for compensation in the wake of the royal commission into institutionalised abuse, according to a leading lawyer.

http://www.royalcommission.com.au/churches-to-count-the-cost-of-abuse-100000-victims-to-sue/

Royal Commission to investigate Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

Unfortunately the “they did it too” defense ,isnt much of a defence.
It didnt work at Nuremburg.
Pell is a harbourer of criminials and should be treated as such. Claims of belief of a majic being in the sky shouldn’t give you immunity.

Churches to count the cost of abuse – 100,000 victims to sue
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/churches-to-count-the-cost-of-abuse-100000-victims-to-sue/story-e6freuy9-1226618617951

UP to 100,000 people will make claims for compensation in the wake of the royal commission into institutionalised abuse, according to a leading lawyer.

They are pinning their hopes on the commission recommending that a “redress fund” be set up, into which institutions at blame would pay commensurate sums of money.

Lawyer Peter Kelso said the Catholic Church may be forced to sell some of its multi-million dollars worth of land and property holdings to pay its fair share of a fund.

While the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will not be able to make awards of compensation, its terms of reference call on it to find ways so that victims can get redress from institutions.

“The words ‘by institutions’ send the clear message that Australian taxpayers will not be paying a cent,” Mr Kelso said.

more…

gaghalfrunt said:

Unfortunately the “they did it too” defense ,isnt much of a defence.
It didnt work at Nuremburg.
Pell is a harbourer of criminials and should be treated as such. Claims of belief of a majic being in the sky shouldn’t give you immunity.

I agree, throw Pell in jail with the others

I don’t know if the Catholic Church has more or less paedophiles than the general population. But what they are accused of is that when it has been discovered they have covered it up and tried to deal with it in-house rather than refer it to the proper authorities for proper attention. They have placed their reputation and authority above the law. In doing so they have enabled perpetrators to continue. Sure they’re not the only ones, other organisations have had similar problems. They will be exposed in the RC too.

>>But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

What do altar boys actually do?

CrazyNeutrino said:

UP to 100,000 people will make claims for compensation in the wake of the royal commission into institutionalised abuse, according to a leading lawyer.

http://www.royalcommission.com.au/churches-to-count-the-cost-of-abuse-100000-victims-to-sue/

Oh plllllhheeaassee!

Did you even have a gander at that sire?

bob(from black rock) said:

>>But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

What do altar boys actually do?

mainly stuff around with the candle flames during the service, step on each others tassels causing the other one to nearly fall over and flick hot candle wax at each other.

bob(from black rock) said:

>>But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

What do altar boys actually do?

In my humble experience, pinch the altar wine :)

sibeen said:

bob(from black rock) said:

>>But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

What do altar boys actually do?

In my humble experience, pinch the altar wine :)

altar wine in churches has a vinegary taste to it

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

wookiemeister said:

altar wine in churches has a vinegary taste to it

1. How would you know?

2. You obviously were attending the wrong church.

wookiemeister said:

bob(from black rock) said:

>>But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

What do altar boys actually do?

mainly stuff around with the candle flames during the service, step on each others tassels causing the other one to nearly fall over and flick hot candle wax at each other.

So nothing functional? it is mainly theatrical, and part of the smoke and mirrors?

ASCA

Adults Surviving Child Abuse

http://www.asca.org.au/

Adults Surviving Child Abuse

ASCA’s Professional Support Line – 1300 657 380

sibeen said:

I cannot, for the life of me, see how witty was in any way defending anyone.

‘defending the church’ might be a bit strong, OK, but I’m interpreting his statements wrt the incidence being no higher than similar institutions and the response being no different to any other organisation at the time as attempts to cast doubt over the incidence or seriousness or whether they should now be held answerable to modern, some might say more enlightened, social standards.

Under the circumstances, they are perhaps the only defences one might offer up without putting oneself at risk of being laughed out of the discussion.

ChrispenEvan said:

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

:-)

I wonder what the situation is like with child abuse within Islamic institutions?

and other religions

would it be similar?

bob(from black rock) said:

wookiemeister said:

bob(from black rock) said:

>>But, i, too, never saw or heard anything about paedophile priests or brothers, and i had plenty of friends who did go to RC schools, and some who were altar boys.

What do altar boys actually do?

mainly stuff around with the candle flames during the service, step on each others tassels causing the other one to nearly fall over and flick hot candle wax at each other.

So nothing functional? it is mainly theatrical, and part of the smoke and mirrors?

yeah

I’d be the offsider to the one that knew what he was doing and fill in when someone couldn’t make it for the 10am service

I was sent to go for confirmation lessons but to be honest I found the priests luck lustre attitude and knowledge wanting

I never was baptised or “confirmed” it seemed a waste of time, the only reason I had to go through the motions was that church of England schools at the time required the pupils to be Christian.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

Very interesting revelations when combined with general attitudes and political outlook

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/, also called Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper, and other names, is a sacrament accepted by almost all Christians. It is reenacted in accordance with Jesus’ instruction at the Last Supper, as recorded in several books of the New Testament, that his followers do in remembrance of him as when he gave his disciples bread, saying, “This is my body”, and gave them wine saying, “This is my blood.”

Christians generally recognize a special presence of Christ in this rite, though they differ about exactly how, where, and when Christ is present. While all agree that there is no perceptible change in the elements, some believe that they actually become the body and blood of Christ, others believe in a “real” but merely spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and still others take the act to be only a symbolic reenactment of the Last Supper. A minority of Protestants view the Eucharist as an ordinance in which the ceremony is seen not as a specific channel of divine grace, but as an expression of faith and of obedience to Christ.

In spite of differences between Christians about various aspects of the Eucharist, there is, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, “more of a consensus among Christians about the meaning of the Eucharist than would appear from the confessional debates over the sacramental presence, the effects of the Eucharist, and the proper auspices under which it may be celebrated.”

The word Eucharist may refer not only to the rite but also to the consecrated bread (leavened or unleavened) and wine (or grape juice) used in the rite. In this sense, communicants (that is, those who partake of the communion elements) may speak of “receiving the Eucharist”, as well as “celebrating the Eucharist”.

bob(from black rock) said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

To remember them.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I wonder what the situation is like with child abuse within Islamic institutions?

and other religions

would it be similar?

probably

someone told me once of some rabbi he once knew banging his daughter

CrazyNeutrino said:

I wonder what the situation is like with child abuse within Islamic institutions?

and other religions

would it be similar?

There have been a few scandals in some Jewish organisations in Melbourne of late about abuse dating back two decades.

party_pants said:

bob(from black rock) said:

sibeen said:

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

To remember them.

I remember lots of living creatures, not just humans, and I didn’t need to drink pretend blood to do this.

Pells career seems to have started at st Alepius and st Pats in Ballarat which also seems to be the epicentre of most abuse accusations
in Victoria.

bob(from black rock) said:

I remember lots of living creatures, not just humans, and I didn’t need to drink pretend blood to do this.

Yeah but no but – will complete strangers still be remembering your mates 2000 years from now? It’s a pretty effective strategy.

wookiemeister said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I wonder what the situation is like with child abuse within Islamic institutions?

and other religions

would it be similar?

probably

someone told me once of some rabbi he once knew banging his daughter

if Australia has 100,000 sexual abuse victims, I wonder what the figure is like for America, Africa, England and Europe etc

bob(from black rock) said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

my take on it?

I don’t think anyone really knows, it is very very odd. the eating of human flesh is a big no no in most cultures. jesus was infact a man whilst performing the right at the last supper.

a last supper might have happened but I suspect that the body and blood thing was something written into the script to incorporate followers of other religions.

bob(from black rock) said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you’re not supposed to enjoy drinking the blood of christ.

rolls eyes

It’s not the blood of christ until it’s been consecrated. Everyone knows that.

What, you think I’m some kind of barbarian and into weird mumbo jumbo?

rolls eyes

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

Might have started out as a toast at JC’s funeral, but became down and dirty after they had had a few.

the body of Christ and blood of Christ thing comes from left field with no warning

it doesn’t fit with anything jesus had been teaching

I don’t see anything leading up to the execution to suggest that jesus was some sacrificial lamb

jesus was breaking traditions and laws not reinforcing them – sacrifice doesn’t seem to fit within the whole thing

Who is this jebus of which you speak?

bob(from black rock) said:

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

Umm…are we here taking literally the dogma of ‘transubstantation’?

Just like we get upset with religious nuts – about how they take dogma literally?

Christianity as we know it developed, it wasn’t born intact with the birth of jesus

i also don’t see god having a kid ie making mary pregnant. the idea of gods making women pregnant is from another time and , the ancient greeks etc

perhaps Jesus’ reference to “father’ is purely figurative rather than literal

i find it curious that jesus wrote nothing

the most you’ll get from jesus is the parables – the rest of it is hog wash.

captain_spalding said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

Umm…are we here taking literally the dogma of ‘transubstantation’?

Just like we get upset with religious nuts – about how they take dogma literally?

The god botherers take literally (when it suits them) so why not use it against them in an arguement?

actually thinking about it

what does jesus say about child abuse?

wookiemeister said:

actually thinking about it

what does jesus say about child abuse?

Jesuits do it, so I assume he approves.

gaghalfrunt said:

captain_spalding said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Why does anyone need to drink the blood of a mythical person?

Umm…are we here taking literally the dogma of ‘transubstantation’?

Just like we get upset with religious nuts – about how they take dogma literally?

The god botherers take literally (when it suits them) so why not use it against them in an arguement?

you’re getting sucked into their fanaticism

god botherers are people that need some professional mental help – you are being to harsh on them. scratch under the surface and you’ll find a history of mental breakdown due to alcoholism/ marriage, separation/ financial breakdown etc etc.

once you understand that these people have had mental breakdown you’ll be able to simply – let go.

gaghalfrunt said:

Funny, i don’t remember that in Cole Porter’s lyrics.

religions thrive on these people

it is enough to understand this

gaghalfrunt said:

Jesuits do it, so I assume he approves.

Funny, i don’t remember that in the Cole Porter lyrics.

wookiemeister said:

Christianity as we know it developed, it wasn’t born intact with the birth of jesus

i also don’t see god having a kid ie making mary pregnant. the idea of gods making women pregnant is from another time and , the ancient greeks etc

perhaps Jesus’ reference to “father’ is purely figurative rather than literal

i find it curious that jesus wrote nothing

the most you’ll get from jesus is the parables – the rest of it is hog wash.

The Catholic Church invented the most successful business model EVAH, franchising,
now used to sell hamburgers and other “Fast Foods”, Pool Cleaning services, etc.

bob(from black rock) said:

now used to sell hamburgers and other “Fast Foods”, Pool Cleaning services, etc.

And, don’t think that THEY aren’t after your kids, too!

wookiemeister said:

actually thinking about it

what does jesus say about child abuse?

Im sure it isnt – Do unto others as you would have them do to you

break the cycle

dont continue abuse

Nah. godbotherers are dickheads who pretend to believe in a magic being in the sky.
They prey on the depressed and vunerable
They should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

CrazyNeutrino said:

break the cycle

Done it.

More than a couple of people shot at me some years back.

I haven’t tried to shoot anybody. Lately.

gaghalfrunt said:

Nah. godbotherers are dickheads who pretend to believe in a magic being in the sky.
They prey on the depressed and vunerable
They should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

they are the depressed and vulnerable

religions are really institutions that house mentally unstable people

governments have never known what to do with them. the problem with religion is often it reaches a point of hysteria where everything is about religion

the followers become poisoned and aggressive trying to kill lots of people, and when they do kill people they rest easy in their beds of a night knowing they have done a “good” job.

restrict your spending with religious organisations it will only ever lead to genocide

“they are the depressed and vulnerable”

No they are kaniving and manipulative, they knock on your door whe a loved one has died and send you endless mail about eternal salvation.
I hate them all and am sick of them,
Dont ever try and defend these idiots to me.
(are you one of them?)

gaghalfrunt said:

Dont ever try and defend these idiots to me.
(are you one of them?)

No, i’m not one of those idiots.

I’m an idiot, but not one of those idiots.

captain_spalding said:

gaghalfrunt said:

Dont ever try and defend these idiots to me.
(are you one of them?)

No, i’m not one of those idiots.

I’m an idiot, but not one of those idiots.

peers at captain_spalding with suspicion

You’re not one of those…are you?

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

gaghalfrunt said:

Dont ever try and defend these idiots to me.
(are you one of them?)

No, i’m not one of those idiots.

I’m an idiot, but not one of those idiots.

No, not one of those.

One of THOSE, yes. But definitely, not one of those.

peers at captain_spalding with suspicion

You’re not one of those…are you?

captain_spalding said:

gaghalfrunt said:

Dont ever try and defend these idiots to me.
(are you one of them?)

No, i’m not one of those idiots.

I’m an idiot, but not one of those idiots.

Sorry Captain, I thought I was responding to Wookie.

wookiemeister said:

restrict your spending with religious organisations it will only ever lead to genocide

Yes. You only have to look at Iraq to see the truth of that.

The ruling Sunnis didn’t spend enough with the Shi’ite majority, and now look: the Sunnis feel obliged to try to exterminate the Shi’ites via suicide bombers.

gaghalfrunt said:

captain_spalding said:

gaghalfrunt said:

Dont ever try and defend these idiots to me.
(are you one of them?)

No, i’m not one of those idiots.

I’m an idiot, but not one of those idiots.

Sorry Captain, I thought I was responding to Wookie.

You were. I was butting in.

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

Possibly. But there is clearly a massive cultural factor involved.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

Possibly. But there is clearly a massive cultural factor involved.

mediocrity.

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

I reckon the born agains are putting it on.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

Possibly. But there is clearly a massive cultural factor involved.

I wonder if other species have this mental disorder that Homo Sapiens Sapiens has?

morrie said:

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

Possibly. But there is clearly a massive cultural factor involved.

Dunno, just looking at my extended family. There is a fundy faction and an atheist faction. Brought up in the same household some of my siblings are fundies, some are athieists.

captain_spalding said:

You were. I was butting in.

Is that supposed to be some form of double entendre?

:)

Anyway…. Back to pell
If the hell his type claim to believe in exists, he’s in for a nasty shock.

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

You were. I was butting in.

Is that supposed to be some form of double entendre?

:)

No.

(looks around the room)

Oh, there’s someone i know. Nice to have met you.

(moves quickly in the direction of ‘away’)

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

restrict your spending with religious organisations it will only ever lead to genocide

Yes. You only have to look at Iraq to see the truth of that.

The ruling Sunnis didn’t spend enough with the Shi’ite majority, and now look: the Sunnis feel obliged to try to exterminate the Shi’ites via suicide bombers.

no one seems to know why we ever invaded iraq

party_pants said:

morrie said:

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

Possibly. But there is clearly a massive cultural factor involved.

Dunno, just looking at my extended family. There is a fundy faction and an atheist faction. Brought up in the same household some of my siblings are fundies, some are athieists.

We need a twins study :)
I was thinking about US vs Oz, or perhaps more starkly, some middle eastern countries in comparison with us.

party_pants said:

I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

i suspect so

the religious people are told to breed

so its numbers game, every non believer they kill means theres more of the religious minds walking around

in the end we’ll all be hardwired to be as batty as the fundamentalists.

wookiemeister said:

no one seems to know why we ever invaded iraq

Three reasons:

1. Oil.

2. Business left unfinished by Pappy back in ’91.

3. Oil.

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

no one seems to know why we ever invaded iraq

Three reasons:

1. Oil.

2. Business left unfinished by Pappy back in ’91.

3. Oil.

its principally a religious thing

Abraham comes from Ur, the yanks had/ have a base near it

reclaiming the land of the bible is natural to the believer – the land is the physical understanding of the religion

all the land between the nile and Euphrates is belonging to Abraham’s descendants – i hope the people that live there understand this and will please leave quietly.

anyway – that’s their business , anyone who refuses to learn the art of war is consigned to history.

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

no one seems to know why we ever invaded iraq

Three reasons:

1. Oil.

2. Business left unfinished by Pappy back in ’91.

3. Oil.

Oh come on. The USA could have bought the oil production for the next 100 years from Iraq with what they’ve spent on the war.

wookiemeister said:

its principally a religious thing

I think that you’ll find that, in a face-off between God and Mammon (in the form of oil revenue), religion jumps into the back seat.

>I wonder if perhaps it a genetic thing – some brains are hard-wired differently to others. For some people religion is real, to others it is not.

Or is it more to do with receptivity (perhaps suggestibility) regards social environment, and more largely culture. I don’t get it myself, though do remember ‘adults’ from the church (neighbours you know that drop in) had their ways.

I think right off the bat from very young the social world finds its way in ahead of physics, not universally maybe. I think culture still today works on the (social) mechanisms of minds, and that somehow these mechanisms have a fluid representational character (perhaps even ‘purpose’), probably operate in a relative way using comparison, contrast, that sort of thing, so if the grounding in physical forces is manipulated (school etc), then probably in the process of forging instrumental desires from more basic desires there’s room for ‘socialization’ shall I say.

Anyway, whatever it is it may be interesting. One thing that does strike me is there’s a lot of complexity involved in looking inward at the psychological mechanisms involved in social receptivity, and i think everyone in ways has to simplify it a bit, the process, so I wonder if religion (like much of ideology, or ‘easy-think’ I call it) is ‘simplification’.

There may be a type of worldly delusionality about religion. This may tap into our ability to see things from above, from another perspective, third-persons perspectives even, but probably its meant to be a multi-view, or even multiview possibilities, but to simplify it tends to be monisticated.

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

no one seems to know why we ever invaded iraq

Three reasons:

1. Oil.

2. Business left unfinished by Pappy back in ’91.

3. Oil.

I have some more reasons than that, get rid of a PITA dictator and insert a democracy in the middle east with little (seemingly) effort, a bit of religion, Bush no doubt that he was on a mission and he was also convinced that there was WMD despite what the intelligence agencies told him, as you say, unfinished business, oil, or more precisely manipulation of Bush by the Saudi ambassador, encouragement by Rumsfeld to prove his light army concept, encouragement by Rumsfeld and Cheny both advocates of PNAC.

sibeen said:

The USA could have bought the oil production for the next 100 years from Iraq with what they’ve spent on the war.

Therein lies the real tragedy of the situation.

For the sake of political face, so many lives and so much wealth has been expended on what could have been had for a fraction of the expense.

Probably could have got rid of Saddam for a comparative trifle, too. But, no, politics demanded a grand gesture, and that’s what was provided.

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

its principally a religious thing

I think that you’ll find that, in a face-off between God and Mammon (in the form of oil revenue), religion jumps into the back seat.

oil and religion mix quite well i find

i worry for the future when you have the poisoned Christians running around preaching genocide. i was talking to one last week – apparently its ok to be killing people who are kind of in the way – the old testament says so – strange – christianity is a new testament religion nothing to do with the old testament. the person i was talking to i suspect had had some breakdown – i was on the cusp of learning what it was and we were called away.

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

The USA could have bought the oil production for the next 100 years from Iraq with what they’ve spent on the war.

Therein lies the real tragedy of the situation.

For the sake of political face, so many lives and so much wealth has been expended on what could have been had for a fraction of the expense.

Probably could have got rid of Saddam for a comparative trifle, too. But, no, politics demanded a grand gesture, and that’s what was provided.

Yep, thats Good ol’ God at work for yuh.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monism

Philosophy
1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being

transition said:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monism

Philosophy
1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being

Yup.

Three grouse books are The Prize by Yergin, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Isikoff and Bush at War by Woodward.

Unsurprisingly it is a bit more complicated than the hippies saying it was just for oil but oil was a big factor in the matrix.

Skunkworks said:

… but oil was a big factor in the matrix.

If it wasn’t for oil, all of the Middle East would go back to breeding camels, living in tents, and chopping bits off each others’ anatomy for various real and imagined crimes.

And we’d be happy to leave them to it.

captain_spalding said:

Skunkworks said:

… but oil was a big factor in the matrix.

If it wasn’t for oil, all of the Middle East would go back to breeding camels, living in tents, and chopping bits off each others’ anatomy for various real and imagined crimes.

And we’d be happy to leave them to it.

just imagine if we didn’t need their stupid oil anymore and we used electric vehicles and our brains to power our society

Skunkworks said:

Three grouse books are The Prize by Yergin, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Isikoff and Bush at War by Woodward.

Unsurprisingly it is a bit more complicated than the hippies saying it was just for oil but oil was a big factor in the matrix.

Will check them out.
BTW thread has gone seriously off topic .

wookiemeister said:

i was talking to one last week – apparently its ok to be killing people who are kind of in the way –

Forumites seem to spend a lot of time meeting with and talking to or otherwise debating godbotherers. I seem to manage to avoid them all and cant remember the last time I discussed religion outside of this forum. Doesn’t generally come up in conversations and the ones who knock on my door I just say a polite no thanks without setting dogs onto them or answering the door naked or other tricks the forumites seem to get up to.

captain_spalding said:

Skunkworks said:

… but oil was a big factor in the matrix.

If it wasn’t for oil, all of the Middle East would go back to breeding camels, living in tents, and chopping bits off each others’ anatomy for various real and imagined crimes.

And we’d be happy to leave them to it.

Yeah, if only we could replace conventional oil with oil grown from algae. It would have far-reaching geo-political ramifications.

I really do hope that fracking takes off big, big big time. The USA not having to kowtow to the house of fucking saud and the rest of opec can only be a good thing IMHO.

sibeen said:

I really do hope that fracking takes off big, big big time. The USA not having to kowtow to the house of fucking saud and the rest of opec can only be a good thing IMHO.

So then we’ll be left with trying to grow food in the sahara.

sibeen said:

I really do hope that fracking takes off big, big big time. The USA not having to kowtow to the house of fucking saud and the rest of opec can only be a good thing IMHO.

I wrote the other day (from the Prize) that back in the day the house of Saud carried his treasury in the saddlebacks of a single camel, and he only got rich because his tribe was strong enough to protect the concessionaires in their search for oil from other tribes. Libya could even make an international phonecall in the 40s, prospectors had to fly to Rome to ring America.

saddlebags obviously.

And OPEC is a story, has come full circle. And Iran….fuck, what a convulated history that has, at one point the Sha was pressuring Nixon for more weaponry to protect from an American invasion. Kissinger and Nixon have a lot to answer for the Iranian mess, they went against much sounder advise.

Skunkworks said:

sibeen said:

I really do hope that fracking takes off big, big big time. The USA not having to kowtow to the house of fucking saud and the rest of opec can only be a good thing IMHO.

I wrote the other day (from the Prize) that back in the day the house of Saud carried his treasury in the saddlebacks of a single camel, and he only got rich because his tribe was strong enough to protect the concessionaires in their search for oil from other tribes. Libya could even make an international phonecall in the 40s, prospectors had to fly to Rome to ring America.

One of the other Gulf states that got rich in oil hired the newly formed Jacques Cousteau group as contractors. In the early days they needed the coin before they could set up as a science foundation. One of the old $2 DVDs from Crazy Clarkes fleshes it out in detail.

On the other hand though religion, can, at times, be more metaphysically open-ended, thought-provoking even, but tends often not to be by believers. At (its) best it is a projection of consciousness perhaps. Long ago though I think it were hijacked for ideology, perhaps more so with the advent of the printing press etc.

But monistic tending views aren’t restricted to what’d typically be seen as ‘religion’ involving a non-material God. I mean in some ways I see scientific secular humanism and maybe the drive toward a unified theory (of everything) to be a bit, well, I dunno, arrogant maybe, perhaps not entirely healthy.

In some ways religion maybe a reaction to the physical world and physical forces being indifferent toward organic life. Certainly I see the instruments of state, including the ideological apparatus (media, school, and religion I suppose) as doing some ‘creative work’ to do with the ‘authority’ of physics (physical forces, the forces of nature more generally), the apparatus tends to diminish the reality of the authority of physics, take it for its own, and from there the story is interesting to the point of being potentially overwhelming when ventured out the other side.

The ideological apparatus presents both a pillow and barrier for general suspension this way, or ‘ideological suspension’ I call it, which is mostly what most people occupy most of the time. Things out the other side probably puts whatever in the territory of abnormal psychology, requiring a constant effort, largely unsupported to make ideology work. Unless you have plenty of that which most people aspire, which could be a quite different view of it all.

sibeen said:

I really do hope that fracking takes off big, big big time. The USA not having to kowtow to the house of fucking saud and the rest of opec can only be a good thing IMHO.

If no one internationally cares about oil from that region and not willing to spend treasure to intervene it will also get interesting. Iran and Iraq will feel unrestrained, so Saudi will feel compelled to arm itself. I imagine Israel would feel happy, still protected by America but all its foes would be at each others throats. Kuwait, Oman and all the other tiny hangovers would get swallowed up.

methinks everyone is already swallowed up.

>In some ways religion maybe a reaction to the physical world and physical forces being indifferent toward organic life.

A key aspect of what’s usually called “the human condition”. In a cosmic context, we are a product of processes that don’t care about us, so there’s long been a tendency to pretend that we’re really a product of processes that do care about us. This is the essence of religion, a kind of desperate, delusional self-hugging that quickly degenerates into chronic neurotic habits.

The solution is to take control, and ensure that our descendants really do become products of processes we’ve chosen ourselves, processes that do care very deeply about us and our experience of being. Transhumanism is the way forward – humans taking control of our evolutionary destiny and ultimately building worlds of the mind, fit for our own habitation.

>Transhumanism is the way forward – humans taking control of our evolutionary destiny and ultimately building worlds of the mind, fit for our own habitation.

That doesn’t require an “..ism” of any sort, individuals tend to build (are born with a mental toolbox) for personalized/ing experience, for “building worlds of the mind”, to great extent through force of personality, given a protected and regarded-highly-enough ‘operating space’.

Not all of the forces of nature being indifferent to organic life is bad by the way, it can be what tends one person to look after or look out for another or others, which I think you were getting at anyway.

I am not sure about “humans taking control of our evolutionary destiny”, there’s something about just about everything in the word-formulations and propositions in the way you put that that seem not quite right to me. For one the “humans” and “our” have a dodgy generalizing inclusivity about them. Sort of a weird ‘we thing’. That sort of “we” to me is very much like religion.