Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Savageduck on 8 Apr 2010 20:45 On 2010-04-08 17:16:19 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:31:26 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >> In message <1Amvn.32611$pj7.29288(a)en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com>, GMAN >> <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> writes >>> In article <1giqr594p2c4c7pvnumq0430sj0oc6nq34(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:27:02 -0500, James Nagler >>>> <jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:13:31 -0400, tony cooper >>>>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, the word "Catholic", in this context is capitalized as a proper >>>>>> noun. To write "catholic" is a sign of ignorance of the language and >>>>>> not an indication of approval or disapproval of the religion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When catholics and all other christians learn to respect and honor the >>>>> belief systems, Gods, and Goddesses of all other cultures by also >>>>> capitalizing their Gods and Goddesses, perhaps they'll eventually earn the >>>>> respect to have their title capitalized again some day. They have zero >>>>> respect for anyone else on the planet so they deserve zero respect in >>>>> return. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should cut off one of your wife's breast with a rusty knife >>>>> while she is still alive and play a game of stick-ball with it so we can be >>>>> more "christian". >>>> >>>> Your contribution is appreciated. Whenever I think some of the other >>>> posters here are hopelessly ignorant, along comes someone like you to >>>> make them look like Mensa candidates by comparison. >>>> >>>> >>> And some here think you are an arrogant prick! >> >> I would not say that. He just will not admit to himself that it is his >> own Church that is one of the main single sources of pedophiles globally >> and the institution, including his own church covers it up. >> >> I don't think you could find any other organisation that has such a high >> number or percentage of pedophiles and child abusers. > > Masons? Try NAMBLA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association I guess the have 100% among their membership. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Ray Fischer on 8 Apr 2010 22:33 mmyvusenet <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> escribi� en el mensaje de >noticias:E65nIjAMNYvLFA8V(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> In message <824s2sFflrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, mmyvusenet >> <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> writes >>>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> escribi� en el mensaje de >>>noticias:ctyR9hAgVPvLFAOQ(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>> In message <8242klF5f2U1(a)mid.individual.net>, mmyvusenet >>>> <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> writes >>>>> >>>>>That may sound very nice, but that is not according to the Bible: >>>> >>>> Which Bible? >>>> >>>> There are several. Also there were several councils of Bishops who horse >>>> traded what was in and what was out. The Eastern Orthodox Church lost >>>> and quite a few books were missing. I have seen churches that are over >>>> 1000 years old. That have freezes and carvings of "Bible stores" that >>>> are from Books of the Bible that are no longer in the modern Bible. >>> >>> >>>The verse is in any version of the Bible. >> >> How do you know that? You have the older ones from before the councils >> where they changed it? >> >> But the Bible is the word of man not the word of god. > >But for a true Christian the Bible is the Word of God, So sayeth the priests. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: tony cooper on 9 Apr 2010 00:12 On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:46:42 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> Duck, I'm curious--has anybody collected statistics on what the Church >> does with these molesters that it "protects"? I can think of several >> options available to it that would have them begging for a life >> sentence in a Federal prison. > >I can only speak for the various State Departments of Justice >maintaining records and the FBI management through the National Crime >Information Center (NCIC) along with the Combined DNA Index System >(CODIS) and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System >(IAFIS). > >In California I can only think of a handful priests who have been >prosecuted convicted and imprisoned for these crimes. I know of two >from the San Francisco Diocese, and I believe there was at least one or >two from the Los Angeles Diocese. The stats on arrests and convictions will be lower than they would be for other crimes because many of the accused are dead by the time the revelations are made. Many priests are no longer in the state where they were when the molestations took place. Many are not still in the active priesthood, but in some retirement facility in another state. A large percentage of the people claiming to have been victims are making the claim twenty or thirty years after the incidents. They are adults in their 20s and 30s revealing that they were molested when they were grade school children. No one's doubting the claims or the guilt of the priests, but the cases are not easily prosecutable. The State's Attorney in one state isn't all that interested in attempting to extradite a old man now living in another state for something that occurred 20 years ago. Even if the state does try to prosecute, they usually have a one-on-one crime without a witness. As a former policeman, I'm sure you understand that the prosecutors don't like to take on cases they are not sure they can win. Most non-Catholics are not aware that priests (in the US) are transferred from parish to parish and state to state. They may spend years in one parish, but they can expect at least one or more transfers during their active years. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 9 Apr 2010 01:10 On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:02:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> It is this sort of denial that has protected the Catholic clergy from >> prosecution for years. If the congregations has said "stop!" and called >> the Police it would have stopped decades ago. > >Agreed. >...and those guilty of the cover up, and enabling are every bit as >criminally liable and should be prosecuted along with the molesting >priests. Where do the various District Attorneys and prosecutorial staff of your state fit into this? We know that there have been criminal child molestations by Catholic priests. We know that there have been cover-ups of these crimes by Catholic officials. We know that the prosecutor's office can bring charges even if the victim of the crime does not. In fact, the prosecutor's office can bring charges even if the victim does not want charges brought. Why are the courts not busy trying these criminals? I have stated, in another post, some reasons that successful prosecutions would be difficult, but is maintaining a successful track record of convictions a legitimate reason for failing to attempt to prosecute? You and I agree that those who are guilty of participating in the cover-ups should be prosecuted. But is failure to attempt to prosecute known criminals not as equally reprehensible? Isn't it a form of cover-up for prosecutors to decline to bring charges simply because they don't think they have a good chance of winning or because it would be too costly? Even if the prosecution fails to win, the public exposure of the individuals is at least some form of punishment. Putting those now-unnamed participants in the cover-ups on public trial would be a step forward. As it is, the prosecutorial staffs are turning the same blind eye that members of the church are. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris H on 9 Apr 2010 03:35
In message <4bbe62ab$0$19545$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. <contact(a)this.ng> writes > >"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >news:7eLohXNGvfvLFAI9(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> In message <4smrr55nakpjs5d7lubbacjns2hc8d6c8k(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >> >>>Pornography is the representation of sexual acts in writing or visual >>>form for the purposes of sexual excitement. >> >> Not just that. It is anything obscene in literature or art. > >?? >Could you clarify, please? Read the OED >Do you mean "obscene" *without* the depiction of sexual acts? Yes >Like, say, desecration or blasphemy? No. The problem there is many would say the religion desecrated or blasphemed against was obscene to start with. >I don't understand your objection to the above dictionary-definition of >"pornography". The one I quoted was the OED. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |