| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"= Vox Populi ©" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2004 11:32:35 AM |
| Object: |
Re: To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
muhammad (***** be upon him) fourteen hundred years ago
Muhammed was a disgusting pedophile and those who spread
his teachings are more disgusting
than him:
Comment: When Muhammed was about 50 years old he had dreams
of marrying a child, Aisha, who
was only about 4-5 years old. How do we know this? Muhammed
lived about 570 A.D. to 632 A.D.,
he became 62 years old. Hadith tells us that when he first
slept with Aisha she was only nine
years old, and that she then remained with him for the last
nine years of his life. 62-9=53,
so Muhammed was 53 years old when he first slept with the
9-year old child Aisha, who played
with dolls... When he dreamed of marrying her she was six
years old, or younger, so Muhammed
was about 50 years old then. Why would a 50-year old man
want a young child?
"...The Prophet (Muhammed) said to her (Aisha), 'You have
been shown to me twice in my dream.
I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to
me). 'This is your wife.' When I
uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If
this is from Allah, it will be
done.'"
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 5:58:235)
When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father,
for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was
improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad
brushed aside Abu Bakr's
reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him
to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR
I7:18].
"The Prophet (Muhammed) married her (Aisha) when she was
six years old and he consummated his
marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained
with him for nine years (i.e.,
till his death)."
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64)
The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact
that at that time Aisha had
contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her
hair. Aisha was then socially and
psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact
that she was still given to her
toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and
her playmates behave as would the
children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].
"Narrated 'Aisha: 'I used to wash the traces of Janaba
(semen) from the clothes of the Prophet
(Muhammed) and he used to go for prayers while traces of
water were still on it (water spots
were still visible).'"
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 1:4:229)
Comment: This hadith shows that, in contrast to what some
people claim, the relationship
between the old man Muhammed and young Aisha was more than
the "father-daughter" kind.
"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the
presence of the Prophet (Muhammed), and
my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's
Apostle used to enter they used to
hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join
and play with me."
(Hadith: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)
Comment: I'm not sure what the word "enter" refers to
here...
"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's
Apostle (Muhammed) said to me,
'What type of lady have you married?' I replied, 'I have
married a matron'. He said, 'Why,
don't you have a liking for the young virgins and for
fondling them?' Jabir also said: Allah's
Apostle said, 'Why didn't you marry a young girl so that
you might play with her and she with
you?'"
(Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17)
Comment: Muhammed obviously prefered girls so young that
they were still playing, i.e. he
prefered children, and he seemed surprised that his friend
Jabir bin 'Abdullah didn't.
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume,
Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 :
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a
baby. However he should not
penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man
penetrates and damages the child then he
should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however does not count as
one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be
eligible to marry the girls sister. [...]
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she
would begin menstruation at her
husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father
marrying his daughter so young will
have a permanent place in heaven. How it all began ( a long
time ago in the isolated deserts
of Arabia) :
Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your
guilt. What a corruption of
"fitrah" ( human nature).
What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What
are we who daily avow our undying
love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly
oppresses its youngest and brightest ?
According to izlamic and western scholars, izlam is the
fastest shrinking religion in the
world today, losing roughly 6 million per year.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our
priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada.
So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994
.
|
|
| User: "Don W. McCollough" |
|
| Title: Re: To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
27 Jul 2004 01:37:15 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last 30-40 years.
Bet you can't.
So where do your fictitious numbers come from.
Imagination? Perhaps you have something in common with the Bible
believers after all.
muhammad (***** be upon him) fourteen hundred years ago
Muhammed was a disgusting pedophile and those who spread
his teachings are more disgusting
than him:
Comment: When Muhammed was about 50 years old he had dreams
of marrying a child, Aisha, who
was only about 4-5 years old. How do we know this? Muhammed
lived about 570 A.D. to 632 A.D.,
he became 62 years old. Hadith tells us that when he first
slept with Aisha she was only nine
years old, and that she then remained with him for the last
nine years of his life. 62-9=53,
so Muhammed was 53 years old when he first slept with the
9-year old child Aisha, who played
with dolls... When he dreamed of marrying her she was six
years old, or younger, so Muhammed
was about 50 years old then. Why would a 50-year old man
want a young child?
"...The Prophet (Muhammed) said to her (Aisha), 'You have
been shown to me twice in my dream.
I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to
me). 'This is your wife.' When I
uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If
this is from Allah, it will be
done.'"
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 5:58:235)
When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father,
for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was
improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad
brushed aside Abu Bakr's
reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him
to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR
I7:18].
"The Prophet (Muhammed) married her (Aisha) when she was
six years old and he consummated his
marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained
with him for nine years (i.e.,
till his death)."
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64)
The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact
that at that time Aisha had
contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her
hair. Aisha was then socially and
psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact
that she was still given to her
toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and
her playmates behave as would the
children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].
"Narrated 'Aisha: 'I used to wash the traces of Janaba
(semen) from the clothes of the Prophet
(Muhammed) and he used to go for prayers while traces of
water were still on it (water spots
were still visible).'"
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 1:4:229)
Comment: This hadith shows that, in contrast to what some
people claim, the relationship
between the old man Muhammed and young Aisha was more than
the "father-daughter" kind.
"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the
presence of the Prophet (Muhammed), and
my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's
Apostle used to enter they used to
hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join
and play with me."
(Hadith: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)
Comment: I'm not sure what the word "enter" refers to
here...
"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's
Apostle (Muhammed) said to me,
'What type of lady have you married?' I replied, 'I have
married a matron'. He said, 'Why,
don't you have a liking for the young virgins and for
fondling them?' Jabir also said: Allah's
Apostle said, 'Why didn't you marry a young girl so that
you might play with her and she with
you?'"
(Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17)
Comment: Muhammed obviously prefered girls so young that
they were still playing, i.e. he
prefered children, and he seemed surprised that his friend
Jabir bin 'Abdullah didn't.
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume,
Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 :
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a
baby. However he should not
penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man
penetrates and damages the child then he
should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however does not count as
one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be
eligible to marry the girls sister. [...]
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she
would begin menstruation at her
husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father
marrying his daughter so young will
have a permanent place in heaven. How it all began ( a long
time ago in the isolated deserts
of Arabia) :
Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your
guilt. What a corruption of
"fitrah" ( human nature).
What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What
are we who daily avow our undying
love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly
oppresses its youngest and brightest ?
According to izlamic and western scholars, izlam is the
fastest shrinking religion in the
world today, losing roughly 6 million per year.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our
priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada.
So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
27 Jul 2004 02:30:34 AM |
|
|
"Don W. McCollough" <letters@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:67468b.0407262237.4b579dfa@posting.google.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last 30-40 years.
Why the time limit? Christianity has been around for almost 2000 years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Don W. McCollough - perverted child-molester apologist .............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
27 Jul 2004 06:17:43 PM |
|
|
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert
too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last
30-40 years.
Bet you can't.
So where do your fictitious numbers come from.
Imagination?
You sick perverted closetted pedophile ...
By Laurie Goodutuin
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Abuse by priests found to be rampant
Survey provides frameworkfor examining Catholic crisis
The sex-abuse crisis that engulfed the Roman Catholic Church during the past 12
months has spread to nearly every American diocese and involves more than 1,200
priests, most of whose careers span a mix of church history and seminary
training.
These priests are known to have abused more than 4,000 minors over the past sax
decades, according to an extensive New York Times survey of documented cases of
sexual abuse by priests through Dec. 31,2002.
The survey, the most complete compilation of data on the problem available,
contains the names and histories of 1,205 accused priests. It counted 4,268
people who claimed publicly or in lawsuits to have been abused by priests,
though experts say there are surely many more who have remained silent.
But the data show that priests secretly violated vulnerable youth long before
the first victims sued the church and went public in 1984 in Louisiana. Some
offenses date from the 1930s.
This has been going on for decades, probably centuries, said Richard K.
OConnor a former Dominican priest who say he was one of 10 boys sexually
assaulted by three priests in a South Bronx N.Y., parish In 1940, when he was
10. It was just that all of a sudden the caught us.
The data, together with extensive interviews with priests abuse victims church
historians, psychologists and experts on sexual disorder, suggest that although
the problem involved only a small percentage of priests, it s deeply embedded in
the culture of the Catholic priesthood. Many priests began seminary training as
young as 13, and all of them spent years being groomed in an insular world In
which sexual secrets and transgressions were considered a matter f6r the
confessional, not the criminal courts.
The Times survey counted priests from dioceses and religious orders who had been
accused by name of sexually abusing one or more children. It determined that
1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 had been accused of abuse.
But the research also suggested that the extent of the problem remains
hidden. In dioceses that have divulged what they are complete lists of abusive
priestsunder court orders or voluntarily the percentages are much higher.
In Baltimore, an estimated 6.2 percent of priests ordained in the past
half-century have been implicated in the abuse of minors. In Manchester, N.H.,
the percentage is 7.7, and in Boston, it is 5.3.
The Times data include only cases in which priests were named, and many bishops
have released only partial lists of accused priests, or refused to identify any.
In those 12 months, as the scandal exploded throughout the church, 432 accused
priests have resigned, retired, or been removed from ministry.
Because in the nearly 20 years since the problem surfaced the U.S. bishops have
refused to cooperate with researchers who sought to initiate studies, the
Times study offers the fullest picture possible of the extent of sexual abuse
within the church. These are among the other findings:
·Half of the priests in the database were accused of molesting molested one
minor, and l6 percent are suspected of having had five or more victims.
· Eighty percent of the priests were accused of molesting boys. The percentage
is the opposite for lay people accused of abuse; their victims are mostly girls.
While the majority were accused of molesting teen-agers only, 43 percent
were accused of molesting children 12 and younger. .
The Boston Archdiocese, which has received the most scrutiny in the news
reports last years, did have the most accused priests94but not the worst problem
proportionally. More than a dozen other dioceses had a higher rate of accused
priests when taken as a percentage of their active priests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don W. McCollough" |
|
| Title: Re: Vox Populi .... Bigoted anti-authoritarian with no proof.............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
29 Jul 2004 10:00:23 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<CoBNc.62$%O5.7852@news.uswest.net>...
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert
too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last
30-40 years.
Bet you can't.
So where do your fictitious numbers come from.
Imagination?
You sick perverted closetted pedophile ...
Vox. I don't believe in God. Nor do I accept the word of the bible as
being any more than the words of men.
But your "statistics" are *****. The *survey* used to get these
numbers is a survey of *priests* and not "victims." Besides, any
wahoo can claim they were molested by a catholic priest. Those polls
are meaningless. What is critical, is that these accusations are
provable.
You cannot prove to me that 1000s of priest are/have been molesters.
I dare you.
I want you to show me numbers on the exact numbers of priest
*convicted*, not just accused of molestation. How many can you come
up with? A few dozen?
The number of 1200 that these poll derives is from the polling of
catholic priests themselves. And the questions ask priests whether or
not they know of somebody who has been accused ( not convicted ) of
molestation. So out of the 11,000 or so U.S. priests, 1 in 5 respond
that they *know* of some priest that has been accused of molestation.
Apparently priests don't lie.
So the poll uses these responses to extrapolate that 1200 priests must
be molesters.
I don't deny that there are molesters among catholic priests. I just
do not believe that these priests are in any way huge. And that 1 out
of 10 priests at any time is a child molester, is a ridiculous number.
The Supreme Court has now shielded priests against older *accusations*
of molestation. So your numbers will never be able to be proven.
All you're doing is smearing a lot of devoutly religious men by the
actions of a few.
Besides, there are many "gay" priests who have no business being
priests at all. What they are doing representing God and religion I
do not know. Gay catholic priests...go figure.
And for you suggest that I'm a pedophile. Well ***** YOU *****!
You're wrong about that too.
Admit it, you just hate anything authoritarian and religious and you
want to believe that more priests are guilty of pedophilia than
actually are.
My offer for you to prove that large numbers of priests are molestors
is still good.
Just don't provide ***** statistics.
By Laurie Goodutuin
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Abuse by priests found to be rampant
Survey provides frameworkfor examining Catholic crisis
The sex-abuse crisis that engulfed the Roman Catholic Church during the past 12
months has spread to nearly every American diocese and involves more than 1,200
priests, most of whose careers span a mix of church history and seminary
training.
These priests are known to have abused more than 4,000 minors over the past sax
decades, according to an extensive New York Times survey of documented cases of
sexual abuse by priests through Dec. 31,2002.
The survey, the most complete compilation of data on the problem available,
contains the names and histories of 1,205 accused priests. It counted 4,268
people who claimed publicly or in lawsuits to have been abused by priests,
though experts say there are surely many more who have remained silent.
But the data show that priests secretly violated vulnerable youth long before
the first victims sued the church and went public in 1984 in Louisiana. Some
offenses date from the 1930s.
This has been going on for decades, probably centuries, said Richard K.
OConnor a former Dominican priest who say he was one of 10 boys sexually
assaulted by three priests in a South Bronx N.Y., parish In 1940, when he was
10. It was just that all of a sudden the caught us.
The data, together with extensive interviews with priests abuse victims church
historians, psychologists and experts on sexual disorder, suggest that although
the problem involved only a small percentage of priests, it s deeply embedded in
the culture of the Catholic priesthood. Many priests began seminary training as
young as 13, and all of them spent years being groomed in an insular world In
which sexual secrets and transgressions were considered a matter f6r the
confessional, not the criminal courts.
The Times survey counted priests from dioceses and religious orders who had been
accused by name of sexually abusing one or more children. It determined that
1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 had been accused of abuse.
But the research also suggested that the extent of the problem remains
hidden. In dioceses that have divulged what they are complete lists of abusive
priestsunder court orders or voluntarily the percentages are much higher.
In Baltimore, an estimated 6.2 percent of priests ordained in the past
half-century have been implicated in the abuse of minors. In Manchester, N.H.,
the percentage is 7.7, and in Boston, it is 5.3.
The Times data include only cases in which priests were named, and many bishops
have released only partial lists of accused priests, or refused to identify any.
In those 12 months, as the scandal exploded throughout the church, 432 accused
priests have resigned, retired, or been removed from ministry.
Because in the nearly 20 years since the problem surfaced the U.S. bishops have
refused to cooperate with researchers who sought to initiate studies, the
Times study offers the fullest picture possible of the extent of sexual abuse
within the church. These are among the other findings:
·Half of the priests in the database were accused of molesting molested one
minor, and l6 percent are suspected of having had five or more victims.
· Eighty percent of the priests were accused of molesting boys. The percentage
is the opposite for lay people accused of abuse; their victims are mostly girls.
While the majority were accused of molesting teen-agers only, 43 percent
were accused of molesting children 12 and younger. .
The Boston Archdiocese, which has received the most scrutiny in the news
reports last years, did have the most accused priests94but not the worst problem
proportionally. More than a dozen other dioceses had a higher rate of accused
priests when taken as a percentage of their active priests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Don W. McCollough - perverted child-molester apologist .............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
29 Jul 2004 11:14:19 AM |
|
|
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<CoBNc.62$%O5.7852@news.uswest.net>...
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable
by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert
too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last
30-40 years.
Bet you can't.
So where do your fictitious numbers come from.
Imagination?
You sick perverted closetted pedophile ...
Vox. I don't believe in God. Nor do I accept the word of
the bible as being any more than the words of men.
But your "statistics" are *****.
Sez you ...
The *survey* used to get these numbers is a survey of *priests* and not
"victims."
Imagine that, surveying the PERPETRATORS and asking them how
many children they raped, sodomized, molested. Seems the numbers,
if anything, would be skewed on the *low* side in such a survey.
Besides,
....your lying again.
any wahoo can claim they were molested by a catholic priest.
Including those that were. You really are a pig-ignorant *****,
aren't you. You just claimed in your pathetic denial in the preceding
paragraph that the survey was of the MOLESTING PRIESTS themselves.
Those polls are meaningless.
Sez you ... why are you in such denial? Did the priest play with
your little hynie when you were left in his care as a child?
What is critical, is that these
accusations are
provable.
What's critical is that you've been shown to be a
lying ignoramus.
You cannot prove to me that 1000s of priest are/have been
molesters.
I dare you.
You're an imbecile, the proof of the PRIESTS themselves confessing
to such systemic sexual abuse is there for all to see, that an abject
moron like yourself continues to deny it simply illustrates your profound
psychosis. You really were molested as a child, weren't you sicko ...?
I want you to show me numbers on the exact numbers of priest
*convicted*, not just accused of molestation. How many can
you come up with? A few dozen?
So, if there is no "conviction", then the crimes/acts never happened, right?
There was no conviction of your rape as a child, so should we
conclude it never happened?
I don't deny that there are molesters among catholic
priests. I just do not believe that these priests are in any way huge.
Funny that ... since the PRIESTS THEMSELVES admit and confess
that it is in the 1000s .... and of course the PRIESTS THEMSELVES are
backed up by the actual VICTIMS ... imagine that.
And
that 1 out
of 10 priests at any time is a child molester, is a
ridiculous number.
Sez the ridiculous denier of fact.
The Supreme Court has now shielded priests against older
*accusations* of molestation. So your numbers will never be able to be
proven.
So then the rapes/molestation never happened, right?
All you're doing is smearing a lot of devoutly religious
men by the actions of a few.
Yeah, a few 1000 paedophiles, rapists and perverts ...
Besides,
.... your lying again.
there are many "gay" priests who have no business
being priests at all.
Ahhhh, now your homophobia calls to "blame the gays", eh?
What they are doing representing God and
religion I do not know.
Did "god" create them ?
Gay catholic priests...go figure.
God's will ... go figure.
And for you suggest that I'm a pedophile. Well ***** YOU
*****!
That's is what you fantasize about doing to children, isn't it Don ...?
Fucking their tiny little assholes while they scream in pain ... just
like they did to you when you were a child.
You're wrong about that too.
Get some help you sick perverted freak.
Admit it, you just hate anything authoritarian and
religious
"authoritarian and religious"?
You claimed earlier, probably another lie, that you:
"...don't believe in God. Nor do I accept the word of
the bible as being any more than the words of men."
and you want to believe that more priests are guilty of pedophilia
than actually are.
Nope, there are no more pedophile molesting priests than
there actually are ... that would be an irrational statement best
left to imbeciles like you.
Keep in mind that the PRIESTS THEMSELVES admit and confess
to 1000s of cases.
My offer for you to prove that large numbers of priests are
molestors is still good.
Already done.
Just don't provide ***** statistics.
Here are some statistics that aren't *****:
By Laurie Goodutuin
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Abuse by priests found to be rampant
Survey provides frameworkfor examining Catholic crisis
The sex-abuse crisis that engulfed the Roman Catholic
Church during the past 12
months has spread to nearly every American diocese and
involves more than 1,200
priests, most of whose careers span a mix of church
history and seminary
training.
These priests are known to have abused more than 4,000
minors over the past sax
decades, according to an extensive New York Times survey
of documented cases of
sexual abuse by priests through Dec. 31,2002.
The survey, the most complete compilation of data on the
problem available,
contains the names and histories of 1,205 accused priests.
It counted 4,268
people who claimed publicly or in lawsuits to have been
abused by priests,
though experts say there are surely many more who have
remained silent.
But the data show that priests secretly violated
vulnerable youth long before
the first victims sued the church and went public in 1984
in Louisiana. Some
offenses date from the 1930s.
This has been going on for decades, probably centuries,
said Richard K.
OConnor a former Dominican priest who say he was one of 10
boys sexually
assaulted by three priests in a South Bronx N.Y., parish
In 1940, when he was
10. It was just that all of a sudden the caught us.
The data, together with extensive interviews with priests
abuse victims church historians, psychologists and experts
on sexual disorder, suggest that although
the problem involved only a small percentage of priests,
it s deeply embedded in
the culture of the Catholic priesthood. Many priests
began seminary training as
young as 13, and all of them spent years being groomed in
an insular world In
which sexual secrets and transgressions were considered a
matter f6r the
confessional, not the criminal courts.
The Times survey counted priests from dioceses and
religious orders who had been
accused by name of sexually abusing one or more children.
It determined that
1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 had
been accused of abuse. But the research also
suggested that the extent of the problem remains
hidden. In dioceses that have divulged what they are
complete lists of abusive priestsunder court orders or
voluntarily the percentages are much higher.
In Baltimore, an estimated 6.2 percent of priests
ordained in the past half-century have been implicated in
the abuse of minors. In Manchester, N.H.,
the percentage is 7.7, and in Boston, it is 5.3.
The Times data include only cases in which priests were
named, and many bishops
have released only partial lists of accused priests, or
refused to identify any.
In those 12 months, as the scandal exploded throughout the
church, 432 accused
priests have resigned, retired, or been removed from
ministry.
Because in the nearly 20 years since the problem surfaced
the U.S. bishops have
refused to cooperate with researchers who sought to
initiate studies, the
Times study offers the fullest picture possible of the
extent of sexual abuse
within the church. These are among the other findings:
·Half of the priests in the database were accused of
molesting molested one
minor, and l6 percent are suspected of having had five or
more victims.
· Eighty percent of the priests were accused of molesting
boys. The percentage
is the opposite for lay people accused of abuse; their
victims are mostly girls.
While the majority were accused of molesting
teen-agers only, 43 percent
were accused of molesting children 12 and younger. .
The Boston Archdiocese, which has received the most
scrutiny in the news
reports last years, did have the most accused priests94but
not the worst problem proportionally. More than a dozen
other dioceses had a higher rate of accused
priests when taken as a percentage of their active priests.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a
deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by
learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don W. McCollough" |
|
| Title: Re: Don W. McCollough - perverted child-molester apologist .............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
01 Aug 2004 07:05:00 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<Dl9Oc.26$7g7.21476@news.uswest.net>...
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<CoBNc.62$%O5.7852@news.uswest.net>...
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable
by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert
too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last
30-40 years.
Bet you can't.
So where do your fictitious numbers come from.
Imagination?
You sick perverted closetted pedophile ...
Vox. I don't believe in God. Nor do I accept the word of
the bible as being any more than the words of men.
But your "statistics" are *****.
Sez you ...
The *survey* used to get these numbers is a survey of *priests* and not
"victims."
Imagine that, surveying the PERPETRATORS and asking them how
many children they raped, sodomized, molested. Seems the numbers,
if anything, would be skewed on the *low* side in such a survey.
Besides,
...your lying again.
any wahoo can claim they were molested by a catholic priest.
Including those that were. You really are a pig-ignorant *****,
aren't you. You just claimed in your pathetic denial in the preceding
paragraph that the survey was of the MOLESTING PRIESTS themselves.
What? Before you can start calling me names, you should read a book
called "How to Lie With Statistics."
This survey proves that accusations against Catholic priests exist and
that dioceses were aware of, and kept records of, those accussations.
It does nothing to prove those accusations are true instances of
molestation. You, irrationally, think that all these accussations
have been proved.
And any survey that asks dioceses to give the number of priests who
openly admit to specific instances of child molestation or wholesale
child abuse is easily reduced to absurdity.
Those polls are meaningless.
Sez you ... why are you in such denial? Did the priest play with
your little hynie when you were left in his care as a child?
Again, this is reduced to absurdity. I assure you, I would not be in
denial. If I had been molested by a catholic priest I would state it
forthright. Your conjecture is not proof of me being in denial. And
you certainly cannot prove to anybody that I have ever been molested
by a catholic priest.
What is critical, is that these
accusations are
provable.
What's critical is that you've been shown to be a
lying ignoramus.
I have not lied about anything. I am just skeptical that the large
numbers of instances of child molestation that you assume to be true
are true. I don't deny that there are/have been child ( e.g. boy)
molesting priests. I don't deny that some of the priests were chronic
child molestors either.
Let's look at one of these surveys.
The survey (or a similar one) states as fact;
***Through Monday, 84 of 195 U.S. dioceses had reported claims - with
1,413 clergy accused of abuse since 1950. Tens of thousands of priests
worked in those dioceses during that period.***
2.32 (all dioses) x 1,413 (ideal sample of accusations) would equal
3108 priests accussed of molestation over a 53 year time span.
Averaged over 53 years, that would mean 58 priests a year on average
have been accused of "abuse" and/or molestation.
We *must* then know
1) average career of a priest and 2) total amount of priests that
existed between 1950-2003. The articles that I have read about
"molesting" priests don't provide these numbers.
Lets assume that the average career of a priest is 40 years. This may
be low or high, I don't know. That would mean that we would have 53
(years) / 40 (average career) x total number of priests.
Taken from another survey regarding AIDS and catholic priests, the
number of total active priests in the US is estimated at 46,000.
Let's assume this is true. Over the average careers of all priests
there exists 1.35 x 46,000 = 62000 career years in total belonging to
active priests between 50'-04'.
Numbers of incidents of reported "abuse" in correlation the total
number of career years for priests would be 62000/3108 equalling
approximately 20 (i.e. 19.95) years per each accusation.
That means that these molestation numbers could hold true if any
priest is merely accussed of molestation *once* over a 20 year span of
his career.
The question is, how reasonable is it that within 20 years of being a
priest that 1 accusation of abuse be made against him?
Of course, the priests that have many accusations against them are
most likely the ones guilty of misdeads. Does the survey you use to
disparage all priests give these numbers? No, they don't. One priest
in so many ( i.e. a high number) could be solely responsible for the
molestation accusations and thier veracity.
Lets say that one priest is responsible for 10 molestations (or
complaints) in the span of his 40 year career. If this trait is
characteristic of all priests, then the significant total number of
accusations would be 3108 / 10 = ~ 311 instances of actual abusive
priest out of the total number of priests over 53 years.
So it could be true that 311 (instance of chronically abusive priests)
/ 3108 (total number of instances of reported abuse)
311/3108 x 100 = .67 priests out of 100, or roughly 1 out of 133
priests were/are guilty of real molestation.
==== Or maybe, they are only guilty of acts that parent/victims
perceived/interpreted as abuse. One thing that works against truly
religious priests is thier naivete concerning social mores, and thier
irrational (i.e. faithful) belief that they are acting innocently.
====
And this is only if every single instance of reported abuse was actual
abuse.
In reality, the less times over his career that a priest is accused of
abuse the less probablity that that priest is guilty. But no survey
that I read calculates this probability, because then they would have
to provide actual numbers of proven abuses by priests over the last 53
years.
And I have not even begin analyzing the relationship of the surveyed
accusations to the actual amount of criminal charges brought against
priests in US criminal courts since 1950.
BUT, I challenge anybody to do the research to come up with the number
of priests actually brought to trial for specific criminal acts. From
the little research that I have done the number of priests facing, or
who were facing, criminal charges that can be proven in a court of law
is *substantial* less than the wholesale prima facie Catholic priest
slandering that surveys which people like you are using for proof that
catholic priest are rampant child abusers.
You cannot prove to me that 1000s of priest are/have been
molesters.
I dare you.
You're an imbecile, the proof of the PRIESTS themselves confessing
to such systemic sexual abuse is there for all to see, that an abject
moron like yourself continues to deny it simply illustrates your profound
psychosis. You really were molested as a child, weren't you sicko ...?
Again, this argument is reduced to absurdity. The actual number of
priests confessing to molestation is significantly less than the
number of priests facing criminal charges for molestation and so on.
I want you to show me numbers on the exact numbers of priest
*convicted*, not just accused of molestation. How many can
you come up with? A few dozen?
So, if there is no "conviction", then the crimes/acts never happened, right?
There was no conviction of your rape as a child, so should we
conclude it never happened?
I don't deny that there are molesters among catholic
priests. I just do not believe that these priests are in any way huge.
Funny that ... since the PRIESTS THEMSELVES admit and confess
that it is in the 1000s .... and of course the PRIESTS THEMSELVES are
backed up by the actual VICTIMS ... imagine that.
And
that 1 out
of 10 priests at any time is a child molester, is a
ridiculous number.
Sez the ridiculous denier of fact.
Show some numbers then. How many priest per diocese over a 53 years
span were child molesters and proven so by 1) thier own admission 2)
solid proof in a
court of law, or 3) or by attempts on thier lives by thier enraged
victims. And because someone retires after being accused of
molestation, that doesn't mean they are guilty of anything.
Or any such evidence that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court has now shielded priests against older
*accusations* of molestation. So your numbers will never be able to be
proven.
So then the rapes/molestation never happened, right?
All you're doing is smearing a lot of devoutly religious
men by the actions of a few.
Yeah, a few 1000 paedophiles, rapists and perverts ...
Besides,
... your lying again.
there are many "gay" priests who have no business
being priests at all.
Ahhhh, now your homophobia calls to "blame the gays", eh?
Come now. You asked for the fight. You should at least bring a
bottle of water and some boxing gloves to the ring.
Since you hate priests so much, aren't you aware that there are
similar surveys given to Catholic priests themselves which indicate
that 15% of all Catholic priests by thier *own admission* are
homosexuals; eventhough homosexuality is disparaged in the Bible.
You're the one hell bent on believing these surveys are indictable
evidence. And first person surveys are slightly more reliable than
surveys regarding criminal accusations right?
Or how about the research which shows that 80-85% of the victims of
molesting priests are coincidentally *boys*?
Or the surveys which show that catholic priests are 4X more likely
than the general population to die of AIDS?
There *is* some funky stuff going on amoung Catholic priests. I don't
deny that there are child molestors and AIDs infected homosexuals
posing as priests. But I do not buy into the vindictive slandering of
Catholic priests that is vogue amoungst secular humanist and
non-catholics who are looking to $ue the church for whatever they can
get.
And I will not disparage the careers of a lot of very religious and
pure hearted priests based on the actions of a few criminals who
somehow finagled thier way into priesthoods so they could be close to
small children in order to molest them. Or people who joined the
church to discredit it. These people are a perversion of the
priesthood and are neither the consequence nor the evidence of leading
a devout life.
Though, that probably what you want us to cynically believe eh?
What they are doing representing God and
religion I do not know.
Did "god" create them ?
Gay catholic priests...go figure.
God's will ... go figure.
And for you suggest that I'm a pedophile. Well ***** YOU
*****!
That's is what you fantasize about doing to children, isn't it Don ...?
Fucking their tiny little assholes while they scream in pain ... just
like they did to you when you were a child.
You're wrong about that too.
Get some help you sick perverted freak.
Admit it, you just hate anything authoritarian and
religious
"authoritarian and religious"?
You claimed earlier, probably another lie, that you:
"...don't believe in God. Nor do I accept the word of
the bible as being any more than the words of men."
and you want to believe that more priests are guilty of pedophilia
than actually are.
Nope, there are no more pedophile molesting priests than
there actually are ... that would be an irrational statement best
left to imbeciles like you.
Keep in mind that the PRIESTS THEMSELVES admit and confess
to 1000s of cases.
My offer for you to prove that large numbers of priests are
molestors is still good.
Already done.
Not.
You've just cut and pasted somebody's opinion without doing the
necessary research to back up some of the outrageous claims. Most of
it is insinuation. The numbers are not as significant as you want us
to believe.
Ever listen to Art Bell on Coast to Coast A.M.? On any night a dozen
or two people will call up the show claiming to have been abducted by
grey aliens with big black eyes and slight builds. We have yet to get
any real good pictures of these aliens, but thousands of doctors are
making a bundle giving psychotherapy to the victims. And most people
believe it.
Much of what is challenging the Vatican with these recent molestation
scandals is similar in origin.
If you're going to be a cynic, then you should look first deep and
hard at the darkness in the soul of the modern American.
That's most likely why the SCOTUS put a brake to the Catholic priest
bashing.
Just don't provide ***** statistics.
Here are some statistics that aren't *****:
By Laurie Goodutuin
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Abuse by priests found to be rampant
Survey provides frameworkfor examining Catholic crisis
The sex-abuse crisis that engulfed the Roman Catholic
Church during the past 12
months has spread to nearly every American diocese and
involves more than 1,200
priests, most of whose careers span a mix of church
history and seminary
training.
These priests are known to have abused more than 4,000
minors over the past sax
decades, according to an extensive New York Times survey
of documented cases of
sexual abuse by priests through Dec. 31,2002.
The survey, the most complete compilation of data on the
problem available,
contains the names and histories of 1,205 accused priests.
It counted 4,268
people who claimed publicly or in lawsuits to have been
abused by priests,
though experts say there are surely many more who have
remained silent.
But the data show that priests secretly violated
vulnerable youth long before
the first victims sued the church and went public in 1984
in Louisiana. Some
offenses date from the 1930s.
This has been going on for decades, probably centuries,
said Richard K.
OConnor a former Dominican priest who say he was one of 10
boys sexually
assaulted by three priests in a South Bronx N.Y., parish
In 1940, when he was
10. It was just that all of a sudden the caught us.
The data, together with extensive interviews with priests
abuse victims church historians, psychologists and experts
on sexual disorder, suggest that although
the problem involved only a small percentage of priests,
it s deeply embedded in
the culture of the Catholic priesthood. Many priests
began seminary training as
young as 13, and all of them spent years being groomed in
an insular world In
which sexual secrets and transgressions were considered a
matter f6r the
confessional, not the criminal courts.
The Times survey counted priests from dioceses and
religious orders who had been
accused by name of sexually abusing one or more children.
It determined that
1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 had
been accused of abuse. But the research also
suggested that the extent of the problem remains
hidden. In dioceses that have divulged what they are
complete lists of abusive priestsunder court orders or
voluntarily the percentages are much higher.
In Baltimore, an estimated 6.2 percent of priests
ordained in the past half-century have been implicated in
the abuse of minors. In Manchester, N.H.,
the percentage is 7.7, and in Boston, it is 5.3.
The Times data include only cases in which priests were
named, and many bishops
have released only partial lists of accused priests, or
refused to identify any.
In those 12 months, as the scandal exploded throughout the
church, 432 accused
priests have resigned, retired, or been removed from
ministry.
Because in the nearly 20 years since the problem surfaced
the U.S. bishops have
refused to cooperate with researchers who sought to
initiate studies, the
Times study offers the fullest picture possible of the
extent of sexual abuse
within the church. These are among the other findings:
·Half of the priests in the database were accused of
molesting molested one
minor, and l6 percent are suspected of having had five or
more victims.
· Eighty percent of the priests were accused of molesting
boys. The percentage
is the opposite for lay people accused of abuse; their
victims are mostly girls.
While the majority were accused of molesting
teen-agers only, 43 percent
were accused of molesting children 12 and younger. .
The Boston Archdiocese, which has received the most
scrutiny in the news
reports last years, did have the most accused priests94but
not the worst problem proportionally. More than a dozen
other dioceses had a higher rate of accused
priests when taken as a percentage of their active priests.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a
deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by
learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cbreitel" |
|
| Title: Re: Vox Populi .... Bigoted anti-authoritarian with no proof.............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
29 Jul 2004 01:47:19 PM |
|
|
In response to Mr. Don W. McCollough's claims, I would like to offer
the following opposing points. I guess I should start by saying that I
once had a nightmare in which Mr. McCollough was free to convince
drossy geeks that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better
their lot in life besides joining him. When I awoke, I realized that
this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, Mr.
McCollough maintains that libidinous, patronizing jerks should be
fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Perhaps it would be best for
him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe
that he frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of
freedom. But one need only look at what he is doing -- as opposed to
what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. While it is
essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to put an end to
bloody-minded interventionism, Mr. McCollough's vassals argue that
trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. These are the same
boisterous underachievers who pit race against race, religion against
religion, and country against country. My views, of course, are not
the issue here. The issue is that we must understand that all of the
anxious sighing, longing, and hoping of his heart is directed to a
time when churlish, delusional recidivists can equip prolix, merciless
pettifoggers with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking
missiles. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and
cogent a message as possible. Isn't it historically demonstrated that
Mr. McCollough's initiatives serve only to safeguard his own power and
privilege?
Trumpeted so many times, Mr. McCollough's politics have begun to feed
on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents
not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to eavesdrop on all types
of private conversations. If Mr. McCollough is going to make an
emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument.
Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of
reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe his
irrational viewpoints. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently
voluminous for me to explain that Mr. McCollough's methods of
interpretation are not witty satire, as he would have you believe.
They're simply the perfidious, unruly ramblings of someone who has no
idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.
All kidding aside, Mr. McCollough claims that he is always being
misrepresented and/or persecuted. Predictably, he cites no hard data
for that claim. This is because no such data exist. He has bid adieu
to objectivity, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his secret
police. He is differentiated from your average callous usurers by
virtue of the fact that he wants to inaugurate an era of footling
cynicism. Has Mr. McCollough ever considered what would happen if a
small fraction of his time spent trying to use both overt and covert
deceptions to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is,
but as he wants you to see it was instead spent on something
productive? That is, what will be the outcome of his quest for world
hegemony? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally
came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as evil in the
abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of people like Mr.
McCollough. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my
views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently
answer by saying that Mr. McCollough can't fool me. I've met quixotic
vandals before, so I know that Mr. McCollough says he's going to
demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement any day now. Is
he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider
that this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way.
Contrast, for example, Mr. McCollough's invectives with those of
unpleasant blowhards, and observe that there is no contrast. I, by
(genuine) contrast, take the view that this is not Nazi Germany or
Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to bring about a
wonderland of anti-intellectualism. Not yet, at least. But I overheard
one of Mr. McCollough's slaves say, "Advertising is the most veridical
form of human communication." This quotation demonstrates the power of
language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic
discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to bring the communion
of knowledge to all of us. Mr. Don W. McCollough's witticisms defy
common sense. There, my ranting is finished.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don W. McCollough" |
|
| Title: Re: Vox Populi .... Bigoted anti-authoritarian with no proof.............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
31 Jul 2004 04:19:31 AM |
|
|
(cbreitel) wrote in message news:<74317df6.0407291047.4578867e@posting.google.com>...
In response to Mr. Don W. McCollough's claims, I would like to offer
the following opposing points. I guess I should start by saying that I
once had a nightmare in which Mr. McCollough was free to convince
drossy geeks that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better
their lot in life besides joining him. When I awoke, I realized that
this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, Mr.
McCollough maintains that libidinous, patronizing jerks should be
fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Perhaps it would be best for
him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe
that he frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of
freedom. But one need only look at what he is doing -- as opposed to
what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. While it is
essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to put an end to
bloody-minded interventionism, Mr. McCollough's vassals argue that
trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. These are the same
boisterous underachievers who pit race against race, religion against
religion, and country against country. My views, of course, are not
the issue here. The issue is that we must understand that all of the
anxious sighing, longing, and hoping of his heart is directed to a
time when churlish, delusional recidivists can equip prolix, merciless
pettifoggers with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking
missiles. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and
cogent a message as possible. Isn't it historically demonstrated that
Mr. McCollough's initiatives serve only to safeguard his own power and
privilege?
Trumpeted so many times, Mr. McCollough's politics have begun to feed
on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents
not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to eavesdrop on all types
of private conversations. If Mr. McCollough is going to make an
emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument.
Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of
reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe his
irrational viewpoints. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently
voluminous for me to explain that Mr. McCollough's methods of
interpretation are not witty satire, as he would have you believe.
They're simply the perfidious, unruly ramblings of someone who has no
idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.
All kidding aside, Mr. McCollough claims that he is always being
misrepresented and/or persecuted. Predictably, he cites no hard data
for that claim. This is because no such data exist. He has bid adieu
to objectivity, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his secret
police. He is differentiated from your average callous usurers by
virtue of the fact that he wants to inaugurate an era of footling
cynicism. Has Mr. McCollough ever considered what would happen if a
small fraction of his time spent trying to use both overt and covert
deceptions to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is,
but as he wants you to see it was instead spent on something
productive? That is, what will be the outcome of his quest for world
hegemony? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally
came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as evil in the
abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of people like Mr.
McCollough. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my
views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently
answer by saying that Mr. McCollough can't fool me. I've met quixotic
vandals before, so I know that Mr. McCollough says he's going to
demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement any day now. Is
he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider
that this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way.
Contrast, for example, Mr. McCollough's invectives with those of
unpleasant blowhards, and observe that there is no contrast. I, by
(genuine) contrast, take the view that this is not Nazi Germany or
Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to bring about a
wonderland of anti-intellectualism. Not yet, at least. But I overheard
one of Mr. McCollough's slaves say, "Advertising is the most veridical
form of human communication." This quotation demonstrates the power of
language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic
discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to bring the communion
of knowledge to all of us. Mr. Don W. McCollough's witticisms defy
common sense. There, my ranting is finished.
Out there is La-La-Land eh? All words, no gravity.
Or did a grade school ( e.g. English ) teacher at St. "Whatever" once
inappropriately touch you in that "special place?" :-)
If so, my apologies for broaching this tender subject and sending you
into a emotional tizzy.
But really, you gotta learn forgiveness. Once you forgive
trespassers, you will discover that there is no need to rant and rave
via prolix diatribes all over usenet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Vox Populi .... Bigoted anti-authoritarian with no proof.............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
31 Jul 2004 10:24:38 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2004 02:19:31 -0700, (Don W.
McCollough) wrote:
Mr. Don W. McCollough's witticisms defy
common sense. There, my ranting is finished.
Out there is La-La-Land eh? All words, no gravity.
Or did a grade school ( e.g. English ) teacher at St. "Whatever" once
inappropriately touch you in that "special place?" :-)
He said nothing about being sexually molested.
If so, my apologies for broaching this tender subject and sending you
into a emotional tizzy.
Your lie appears to be that he is angry because he was molested.
Yet you totally ignore his reason for disliking you. Why? is it
because you can`t defend your self from the truth? This is so common
for those that claim to be christians, then abuse those that trusted
them.
But really, you gotta learn forgiveness. Once you forgive
trespassers, you will discover that there is no need to rant and rave
via prolix diatribes all over usenet.
Sure just forgive those that claim to be christians, and forget it,
don`t bother warning other potential victims.
Your type of christians are real big on others forgiving you, most
are self righteous bigots, that are unforgiving.
This statement of yours tactfully admits that he is telling the
truth. And demands, doesn`t ask for, or beg forgiveness, demands it.
Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those that tresspass
against us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Don W. McCollough - perverted child-molester apologist .............To HELL with the babykilling troops! |
27 Jul 2004 09:59:05 PM |
|
|
Don W. McCollough wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:<MmaNc.23$vV6.14058@news.uswest.net>...
Mashida wrote:
"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by
syllable to lecherous pedophile
The "god" of the Holey Babble was a child-raping pervert
too ...
as are 1000s of xtian Priests ...
Prove that even 100 molesting priests existed in the last
30-40 years.
Bet you can't.
So where do your fictitious numbers come from.
Imagination?
You sick perverted closetted pedophile ...
By Laurie Goodutuin
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Abuse by priests found to be rampant
Survey provides frameworkfor examining Catholic crisis
The sex-abuse crisis that engulfed the Roman Catholic
Church during the past 12 months has spread to nearly every
American diocese and involves more than 1,200 priests,
most of whose careers span a mix of church history and
seminary training.
These priests are known to have abused more than 4,000
minors over the past sax decades, according to an
extensive New York Times survey of documented cases of
sexual abuse by priests through Dec. 31,2002.
The survey, the most complete compilation of data on the
problem available, contains the names and histories of
1,205 accused priests. It counted 4,268 people who claimed
publicly or in lawsuits to have been abused by priests,
though experts say there are surely many more who have
remained silent.
But the data show that priests secretly violated vulnerable
youth long before the first victims sued the church and
went public in 1984 in Louisiana. Some offenses date from
the 1930s.
This has been going on for decades, probably centuries,
said Richard K. OConnor a former Dominican priest who say
he was one of 10 boys sexually assaulted by three priests
in a South Bronx N.Y., parish In 1940, when he was
10. It was just that all of a sudden the caught us.
The data, together with extensive interviews with priests
abuse victims church historians, psychologists and experts
on sexual disorder, suggest that although the problem
involved only a small percentage of priests, it s deeply
embedded in the culture of the Catholic priesthood. Many
priests began seminary training as young as 13, and all of
them spent years being groomed in an insular world In which
sexual secrets and transgressions were considered a matter
f6r the confessional, not the criminal courts.
The Times survey counted priests from dioceses and
religious orders who had been accused by name of sexually
abusing one or more children. It determined that
1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 had
been accused of abuse. But the research also
suggested that the extent of the problem remains
hidden. In dioceses that have divulged what they are
complete lists of abusive priestsunder court orders or
voluntarily the percentages are much higher.
In Baltimore, an estimated 6.2 percent of priests
ordained in the past half-century have been implicated in
the abuse of minors. In Manchester, N.H., the percentage
is 7.7, and in Boston, it is 5.3.
The Times data include only cases in which priests were
named, and many bishops have released only partial lists of
accused priests, or refused to identify any.
In those 12 months, as the scandal exploded throughout the
church, 432 accused priests have resigned, retired, or been
removed from ministry.
Because in the nearly 20 years since the problem surfaced
the U.S. bishops have refused to cooperate with
researchers who sought to initiate studies, the Times
study offers the fullest picture possible of the extent of
sexual abuse within the church. These are among the other
findings:
·Half of the priests in the database were accused of
molesting molested one minor, and l6 percent are suspected
of having had five or more victims.
· Eighty percent of the priests were accused of molesting
boys. The percentage is the opposite for lay people
accused of abuse; their victims are mostly girls.
While the majority were accused of molesting
teen-agers only, 43 percent were accused of molesting
children 12 and younger. .
The Boston Archdiocese, which has received the most
scrutiny in the news reports last years, did have the most
accused priests94but not the worst problem proportionally.
More than a dozen other dioceses had a higher rate of
accused priests when taken as a percentage of their active
priests.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our
priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada.
So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
