Three laws on the books which are a direct result of emotionally sensitive cases or situations. Not relevant to the formation of sound public policy?
So… you feel these laws to be unsound? If so, fuck you pal.
If not, then your quoted statement above is a lie.
Which is it ?
Cartooniverse
Well, I daresay Megan’s Law has led to some bad applications, i.e. states that are overly broad in their definitions of “sex offender” when, as I understand it, the law was supposed to specifically target violent criminals.
Readily agreed.
Man, this is tough. Which to choose, which to choose?
Hmmm…
Well, I could use a good fucking, no question about it.
Yeah, I think I’ll take option A.
I’ve been quite consistent about brain activity being a necessary condition for personhood. That’s a big difference from “personhood = brain activity.” It’s “no brain ==> no person.” That’s all.
I don’t claim to know what the sufficient conditions for personhood are.
No doubt you are right–I don’t play in Bricker’s sandbox (and there’s a visual I could have done without) enough to know. But in skipping a day and coming back to this thread, I am left with this: Bricker is an attention whore in the worst way. He baits and taunts, he shucks and jives and no matter what, he cannot get the damned thing to spell Mother, so he ups the ante. Right now he is playing Keep Away with Cartooniverse. I don’t think he cares one whit about innocent babies slain by evil abortionists; he cares about keeping this thread alive and thriving, so that he can bask in his self-made righteousness and piety.
Bottom line: I don’t feed small men who live under bridges.
I’d gladly feed hm, but he doesn’t respond to me that often.
Ha ! Well said.
He’s sooooo easy with this topic. He was back when it was Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston protecting the babyfuckers, he’s just as easy now. His predictability is one of his most adorable traits.
I keep wondering if Catholics regard human created life as sacred, or even part of creation.
We have a situation where it has been possible to generate life artificially, which kind of undermines the ‘God created all life’ meme so beloved of all sorts of religious factions.
What effect would the creation of a human have? Without mother or father? Is it alive, is it sacred? Could you murder such a life form?, does it have rights?
What woud it say about organised religion if life can be created by humans, after all, we have just broken down one of the fundamental barriers.
So far we have not had any comment but this does have an impact on Catholics, because essentially we have a bunch of chemicals and we have reorganised them in such a way as to fulfil the criteria to be defined as life. Sort of diminishes your version of God rather doesn’t it?
You see, if we get to create life from its formative stages it can also be taken to imply we have some right to control it, a responsibility even, and it kind of takes away Papal authority over in vitro fertilisation, contraception and even abortion, after all, it is just mankind taking control over its environment in a similar way it has done so to create life.
All we now have is a biological manufacturing process, instead of an industrial one - the outcomes are the same.
The evidence is overwhelming and has been for many decades ( centuries ? ) that they regard human life as a source of sexual release. Baptize 'em, raise 'em for a few years, then let the priests have at 'em. And-along with this- build a very carefully layered hierarchy that protects, diffuses, shifts blame to the victims ( always a superb tactic ) and deflects all attention away from the priests.
Who do seem to have a never-ending supply of young orifices at their disposal.
So, do they regard it as sacred or even a part of creation? No, seriously? Allow me to introduce you to the concepts of power, commerce and politics.
Jesus would weep.
I left the thread, but I got curious about something.
Lots of people assume that the RCC is against the child molestation, and I do too.
But let’s posit for a moment that they are actually for it. How would their behavior be different than it is now?
Because, honestly, I think it would look exactly the same.
So, how to tell the difference?
Jesus would kick the shit out of them. Money changers in the temple pissed him off? That was nothing in comparison.
At least now, FINALLY, these things are being brought forward to the law and acted on - not canon and church law which failed miserably, but secular criminal and civil law.
I’m surprised no one has had the “brilliant” idea of threatening police and judges with excommunication.
Render unto Caesar…
It ain’t just about taxes, ya know.
Is it that, or that men who already have a pedophilic bent often turn to the priesthood as an occupation that will ensure them a steady supply?
Would it be inappropriate at this juncture to ask,
How do you get a nun pregnant?..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dress her as an altar boy…
Very simple. It would show abnormally high levels of sexual abuse an coverup compared to similar professions.
Well then: in what other profession or organization has a coverup (specifically of child molesting activities) on the RCCC scale been perpetrated?
I believe that’s ‘none.’
Thanks for settling that issue.
[idle question] Wouldn’t it be easier for them to become a teacher? I know nothing about how one becomes a priest but I imagine it’s more difficult than becoming an elementary school teacher. [/iq]
Um, no. Coverup may be a problem, but the number of molesting priests is no higher than the general molesting population. At least, that’s what’s been asserted countless times in these threads, and I haven’t seen anyone counter it.
Anyways, if they actually did condone child abuse, I would expect there to be laws whose sole purpose was to encourage said abuse. I’d expect there to be former priests reporting it, particularly the molesting priests who would say their superiors told him it was okay.
Despite being a pretty overarching organization, the Roman Catholic Church has enough unrest that one of the higher ups would have said something about it by now. There’s always that one idealist that sees it as a problem and is willing to risk ostracism by saying something.