Of course he won't.
-
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
-
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Young men join the armed forces with an expectation they may be called on to risk their lives. Young(er) men don't become alter boys with an expectation of being fucked in the arse by a dirty old man who claims to be celibate.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah, I've heard a lot of 'open talking' about how it isn't really abuse once the child above a certain age, how it's just a smear manufactured by Liberals and atheists, how they're not 'real' Catholics, etc.
Well, that's a surprise to me. I've never heard this argument used. Where have you heard this?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm guessing the subtext of this question is that you think I'm not good enough to criticise the Church.
Nope, that wasn't it at all. The subtext, above text, whatever you want to call the damn thing is that the vast majority of Christians give money to support good causes. I'm delighted that you've done the same, but the point being made was that they are giving the money for the causes - it just happens that the organisation in place to spend the money is the church. If other organisations were present and willing to do the same in place of the church, then I've no doubt that they'd be happy to give their money to those organisations instead. I believe one of the core tenets of the Christian faith is to support those less fortunate, and that seems to be what these people are trying to do. Is that such a bad thing?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Well, that's a surprise to me. I've never heard this argument used. Where have you heard this?
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I believe one of the core tenets of the Christian faith is to support those less fortunate, and that seems to be what these people are trying to do. Is that such a bad thing?
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Well, that's a surprise to me. I've never heard this argument used. Where have you heard this?
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I believe one of the core tenets of the Christian faith is to support those less fortunate, and that seems to be what these people are trying to do. Is that such a bad thing?
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Citation please. As I've said, I've not heard this so perhaps I've just been reading the wrong things.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so. A lot of it is in land, and stored treasures. That doesn't affect people giving donations now does it? I get it - you don't like the Catholic church. Fair enough. A lot of people do though, so perhaps it's reasonable to take the moral high ground here and just let them get on with it, or are you going to descend to the same petty levels as those who want to impose their views on you. Try the high ground. The view's lovely up here.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
Problem is you remove the confidence of confession then people stop confessing. The idea at the moment is that if you can at least get them to confess to a priest then the priest can try to persuade them to confess to the law. If you put them off the first step of that process then the rest doesn't happen.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
I think even the believers can have fun with religion. Two words: Dave Allen. Go and look him up. He was a stone cold comic genius.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
The primate of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Brady, has said he isn't going to resign over revelations he had details of abuse victims, and didn't pass them on to the police. Clickety[^] Why should he resign? After all, it's not as though he was guilty of not forwarding this information; of keeping quiet about it and being complicit in moving priests between parishes to keep them ahead of the allegations. I haven't started this off with the intention of knocking the catholic church. This is about personal responsibility - regardless of his feelings regarding the chain of command inside the church, he had a moral and legal duty to report the crimes. Even when he was a note taker, he was as responsible for reporting the acts as the person he reported to.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
On a serious note, why should he resign? If he has done wrong (and he has) then the law should take its course. It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I think even the believers can have fun with religion
I am the greatest fan of the Life of Bryan.
Rage wrote:
I am the greatest fan of the Life of Bryan.
I preferred his brother Brian.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
On a serious note, why should he resign? If he has done wrong (and he has) then the law should take its course. It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
Wrong. The church is specifically espousing a morality as a fundamental precept of the organization itself. It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Citation please. As I've said, I've not heard this so perhaps I've just been reading the wrong things.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so. A lot of it is in land, and stored treasures. That doesn't affect people giving donations now does it? I get it - you don't like the Catholic church. Fair enough. A lot of people do though, so perhaps it's reasonable to take the moral high ground here and just let them get on with it, or are you going to descend to the same petty levels as those who want to impose their views on you. Try the high ground. The view's lovely up here.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so.
Pretty sure that the actual accumulation didn't span 2000 years. Also pretty sure that at least some of that wealth was accumulated in ways that, one might suppose, that many current members would object to. So hypothetically one might suppose that a moral and apologitic way to deal with that now would be to sell it and use the proceeds to to help others. Versus the current policy which I suspect is that current tithes are being used to buy more even if it is some small percentage. Presuming it is small, say less than 1%. But I suspect it is larger than that.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
Wrong. The church is specifically espousing a morality as a fundamental precept of the organization itself. It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
jschell wrote:
It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
No, no it's not. Not remotely similar. it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
jschell wrote:
It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
No, no it's not. Not remotely similar. it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
Completely specious. First you are referring to an aspect of law and actually the law of a very limited (if not only one) number of countries. And that has nothing to do with the fundamental aspect of the church itself. Second if that concept is relevant in any way then why were they moving priests around?
_Maxxx_ wrote:
it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
Again morality is a fundamental precept of the religion. So your analogy is not apt because it ignores the connection between the specific nature of the religion and the act. For your analogy to be apt the priests would have needed to have been engaging in ponzi schemes.