Same-sex marriage ‘will see return to Catholic persecution’

83

More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing concerns that same-sex marriage will threaten religious freedoms in a way that was last seen during centuries of persecution of Catholics in England.


In the letter published in the Daily Telegraph, the priests claim that same-sex marriage could even lead to Catholics being excluded from some professions, such as teaching.

The letter, signed by 1,054 priests as well as 13 bishops, abbots and other senior Catholic figures, raises fears that the simple acts of practising or speaking about their faith will be severely limited.

They go so far as to compare David Cameron’s proposed changes to the meaning of marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to divorce Catherine of Aragon sparked centuries of upheaval between church and state.

Their fear is that Catholics who believe in the traditional meaning of marriage would effectively be excluded from some jobs – in the same way that Catholics were barred from many professions from the Reformation until the 19th century.

It said: “After centuries of persecution, Catholics have, in recent times, been able to be members of the professions and participate fully in the life of this country.”

Written By: The Guardian
continue to source article at guardian.co.uk

83 COMMENTS

  1. What a silly sword to throw themselves on. Gay people are what… 6% of the population? So if half of them want to get married that’s 3% of the population. Who cares about 3% of the population? I wish being obscure were a form of protection and not basis for persecution.

    I’m starting to feel left out. There are way more atheists and people who actually oppose marriage as chattel slavery and want to see the institution destroyed. These gays are stealing our thunder! Plus, they are validating marriage by making it about love and pragmatism, and that’s totally against the plan. Now by protecting gay rights we wind up fighting for this arcane tradition of contractual obligations and state involvment over personal matters.

    Wait a minute… the Nazi Pope’s been running the long con the whole time! He the snakiest bastard since the Borgia!

  2. “I am very anxious that when we are preaching in church or teaching in our Catholic schools or witnessing to the Christian faith of what marriage is that we are not going to be able to do it, that we could be arrested for being bigots or homophobes.”

    Sounds good to me. Advice: Change with the times or end up as pariahs.

  3. Damn, Do those Catholics (and other Christians) love to scream persecution. The bedrock of their religion was the myth of religious persecution before 311 CE–a myth promulgated by their leaders and later used as an excuse to begin persecutions of their own. So if we do manage to burn 1,000 priests at the stake for preaching against same-sex marriage you know what we would have to call it?

    A start.

  4. In reply to #2 by SupérNova:

    Great News :)
    They fear us :D

    As they should. As far as I can tell from news reports, gay people have unlimited powers and can call down fire and brimstone and all sorts of natural disasters. Why aren’t we catering to them yet? And can they give me a pony?

    Seriously though, can’t they see the irony in this? They’re committed to excluding people but talk about how unfair it would be if they themselves were excluded from something?

    • In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

      I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

      I’m almost embarrassed to say it: even protestants can be right, sometimes.

      • In reply to #81 by OHooligan:

        In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

        I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

        I’m almost embarrassed to say it: even protestants can be right, sometimes.

        Too late to edit , so I reply to myself:

        even protestants can be right, sometimes. But for the wrong reasons.

  5. So now we have lists of people who believe specific things about the future? That’s interesting, as is the nature of their fear. The “last time” they’re comparing this to was when people were literally executed for being Catholics. I can’t see how gay people getting hitched will cause that. I mean, maybe if there was a “one marriage, one execution” scheme, but I don’t see it getting through the Commons to be honest. Frankly, something that crazy would only get the go-ahead if there’s an economic argument of some kind for it. Creating jobs for executioners? I don’t know.

  6. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    If you think this is just Catholic bashing, take a look at [Damian Thompson's blog on the Daily Telegraph] (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100197878/gay-marriage-after-todays-letter-in-the-telegraph-the-catholic-church-really-is-at-war-with-the-government/#disqus_thread)

    Currently 3000 comments and counting. Mostly between non-believers and the pious of all delusions..

  7. In a typically brilliant flash of “Catholic Logic” the priests have managed to connect two absolutely separate issues and actually think that their stance makes sense. (Or an issue and a non issue)

    AND,
    @ Dagenbeg…. Get them to stop acting like petulant children and making insensitive and bigoted claims and perhaps they will be represented less frequently on this site. Until then, we (I) have the right to comment and criticize.

  8. “Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship.” Really? I don’t see why that should worry them. The last I checked, legislation restricted people from raping children, but that never stopped the Catholic Priests. “Their fear is that Catholics who believe in the traditional meaning of marriage would effectively be excluded from some jobs” Yeah, I can’t keep track of the number of times where I’ve been asked at a job interview, “Now, before we consider hiring you, do you believe in traditional marriage?” Sarcasm Really, Catholic persecution because gays might be able to marry? What utter madness, there will be no persecution of Catholics if gays marry. Their preventing gays marrying, on the other hand, IS DEFINITELY persecution.

  9. It’s official: catholics will say anything to get their way, but are running out of things to say. The best part, though, is people aren’t buying their excuses anymore. And yet they keep sputtering this “getting sympathetic attention by playing the hurt child” white noise, and they’re pretending it still works. It’s like, even THEY know it doesn’t work anymore. But they keep doing it cause there really is nothing else they can do at all. The last refuge of a cowardly liar, and a scoundrel.

  10. “I am very anxious that when we are preaching in church or teaching in our Catholic schools or witnessing to the Christian faith of what marriage is that we are not going to be able to do it, that we could be arrested for being bigots or homophobes.”

    Um, you are bigots and homophobes. That’s sort of your thing. This was fine back in the day, when everyone was bigoted and homophobic, but times have changed and you just haven’t. There seems to be an obvious solution to you guys’ concerns that you’re going to be persecuted, and that is to, you know, stop persecuting other people maybe? If you stop picking on the gays, hand over all the nonces and the Jewish gold and other treasures you’ve accumulated in your centuries-long campaign of dickishness, and consider making an apology for being a blight on human advancement, love and hope for your entire existence, p’raps people will start liking you. Who knows, you might even get to go to that Heaven place you’re always banging on about.

    Love and kisses.

  11. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    Stick around a little while, you will see plenty of bashing of protestants, muslims, and other religions as well. BTW, normally I would say you have a bit of a point, I’m an atheist but I find all the dumb jokes at the expense of religious people that are a regular feature of this site to be a bit tiresome as well. However, the “my freedom to discriminate against people is being trampled on!” case that the Catholic hierarchy is trying to make is so ridiculous I’m in agreement with the mockers and jokers on this one, that’s the only response it deserves.

  12. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum

    What are you talking about? Protesant? That makes exactly zero sense. This site is against ALL bad ideas. Catholicism is just one of them. Have you even taken the time to see any of the other articles on this site? Just about every other major relgion is mentioned here. So, you know, stop trollin’.

  13. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    I hate the Jews.

    No, but I do hate Judaism because they mutilate babies to appease their war god, as they destabilize geopolitical order with racist beliefs about being “chosen” and possessing an extra soul. Mohammed was a murderous pedophile, perhaps as prolific as the Catholic priests sheltered by their AIDS-spreading Nazi Pope.

    I think the most reviled thing here is homeopathy. They reeeally hate homeopathy. It’s funny. They’re all, “it’s just fucking water”, and then there’s no argument and nothing more to say, and they do it every week. It’s a stitch. You should lurk moar.

  14. In reply to #15 by ArmchairCat:

    I guess they’d better get used to the idea of teaching the marriage “controversy.”

    Well yeah! After all Allah permits but four wives and no same sex couples!

    Was there some other “controversy”?

  15. “It’s all very worrying” said a spokesman for Keep Marriage Racist this morning. “If we allow people of different ethnic groups to intermarry then racists might be prohibited from certain jobs, like teaching. This is clearly unacceptable”.

    There has been much anger from the racist community over the issue in recent weeks, culminating in the delivery of an open letter to Downing Street, signed by over a thousand prominent anti-semites, black-bashers and people who don’t think orientals drive well. The Minister for Culture has, however, reassured racists that no confirmed place of bigotry will be forced to marry mixed-race couples against its will and there will be no effect on how tolerant teaching on the subject has to be in school lessons.

  16. In reply to #21 by Cartomancer:

    “It’s all very worrying” said a spokesman for Keep Marriage Racist this morning. “If we allow people of different ethnic groups to intermarry then racists might be prohibited from certain jobs, like teaching. This is clearly unacceptable”.

    There has been much anger from the racist community over the issue in recent weeks, culminating in the delivery of an open letter to Downing Street, signed by over a thousand prominent anti-semites, black-bashers and people who don’t think orientals drive well. The Minister for Culture has, however, reassured racists that no confirmed place of bigotry will be forced to marry mixed-race couples against its will and there will be no effect on how tolerant teaching on the subject has to be in school lessons.

    What a typical response, and not what I expect from this forum. I’m not a racist myself but nor do I approve of old-fashioned anti-racist parodies like this one. It smacks of laziness on the part of the contributors. Racists are such an easy target. Just because they’re stupid and evil is no reason to condemn them for it.

  17. The religious whining about an attack on their freedom must be one of the most conspicuously perverse pieces of logic imagineable. Religions which insist among their hard to fake acts of commitment; suffering, mindless incantations and academic high treason, genital mutilation, abstinence from the very things that make us human, dictates diet, clothing fibres and with whom and how we may copulate in order to kiss the hand of our cosmic gaoler for eternity on bended knees, know fuck all of the meaning of freedom.

    How many of these fupping priests I wonder are under 60 years of age?

  18. Carto and Katy,
    I see that you both are purposely missing the point! As a founding member of “Keep Marriage Racist” I object to your pigeonholing all racists as being bad and evil. This is truly painting with a broad brush. The truth of the matter is that mixed couples are making babies that blur the line between the races and we at KMR are having a hard time identifying who to hate.

  19. In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

    Carto and Katy,
    I see that you both are purposely missing the point! As a founding member of “Keep Marriage Racist” I object to your pigeonholing all racists as being bad and evil. This is truly painting with a broad brush. The truth of the matter is that mixed couples are making babies that blur the line between the races and we at KMR are having a hard time identifying who to hate.

    I’ve been accused of being anti-racist on this site in the past so I’d like to take the opportunity to point out that some of my best friends are racists.

    And Catholic racists, at that!

    Anvil

  20. Perhaps someone could explain to me why I should care one way or the other about what the Catholic Church thinks about leagalised prostitution between people of the same sex? Whatever else it is or isn’t, marriage is about property and property rights. Ask any divorcee.

    Oh sorry I forgot the RCC doesn’t allow divorce ! DOH !

    Strange how the real world carries on without Holy Joe’s advice / orders, even among Catholics!

  21. Priests claim that interracial marriage could even lead to Catholics being excluded from some professions, such as teaching. They fear that the simple acts of practising or speaking about their faith will be severely limited.

  22. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    I have to agree. As a five-year-old, because I attended a catholic school, I was subjected to stone-throwing and chanting from the local children as I walked from the bus stop to my front gate . Occasionally when I wasn’t accompanied by a sibling, I had wet my pants in my terror by the time I reached home. The hatred I see on this site reminds me that things don’t change all that much.

    I too, joined this board because I’m an atheist. I respect rational debate and science. I’m not keen on joining a hate-filled echo chamber.

  23. One sentence says it all.

    “Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship.”

    Truth about marriage. Catholic truth.

    What about Islamic truth, or Hindu truth, or dreamtime truth, or any other bloody minority truth that has absolutely no connection to any kind of rational, provable truth whatsoever.

    I automatically call any religious truth a lie. I might change my mind given sufficient evidence, but no one has managed that so far.

    Come back George Orwell, Newspeak is alive and well, and living in the minds of Catholic shamans.

  24. In reply to #30 by currerbell:

    I too, joined this board because I’m an atheist. I respect rational debate and science. I’m not keen on joining a hate-filled echo chamber.

    Currerbell, I don’t hate Catholics, I married one.

    When Catholic priests say really stupid things I am going to lambast them.
    When they protect sexual predators, and victimise the victims of that predation I will express my disgust.
    I believe they are lying, thieving control freaks. Just as I believe southern baptists are lying thieving control freaks, or calvinists or mormons or orthodox jews or islamists or high caste hindoos. I am against lying, thieving control freaks, reguardless of which primitive tribal superstition they damage their brains with. Same goes with lying thieving politicians and lying thieving conmen.

    This thread is about catholic stupidity. If you want to see us in full flow take a look at what we say about the the more extreme islamic atrocities, like female genital mutilation or shooting schoolgirls in the head.

  25. I love to see a good variety of opinions on this subject matter (sarcasm). It is quite shocking that all of you seem to get away with caricatures frequently on this forum. Therefore it is my goal and intention to deprive all of you who consistently get away with it’. I’m a Catholic, and before I am hassled with “do you really believe in X” I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home. This idea that Catholic priests have the market on molesting children is just ridiculous, and not at all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics. Given this is a forum about reason and science, I thought I would bring all of you up to speed on the facts, and not what you want to believe.

    That is the first point. Second point, if Catholics or anybody whose religion conflicts with a certain type of lifestyle, why (as some users on here suggested) think that justifies lynching and killing Catholics/other people who are in opposition to it. Perhaps a joke, but not one that I take very lightly, particularly when atheists claim the moral high ground (scoffs).

    I have much patience for intelligent, rational agnosticism and atheism like that of Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche or let’s say Jean Paul Satre. They took their atheism seriously, and their conclusion was: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?” The modern atheists like Richard Dawkins, although a very intelligent man and one I do appreciate intellectually makes a documentary called “sex, death and the meaning of life”? Is it some inside joke that I’m not getting? How can dyed-in-the-wool atheists’ have any meaning in life whatsoever. We all make our own meaning, you say? Then you become your own God, by pleasuring your own ends and being very selfish. It is all about “me, me, me!” That is the humanist philosophy, many people can argue with me and tell me of their great deeds, and their giving to charity. Sure, not saying non-believers cannot do good works, its the question of why that boggles me. Also, Richard Dawkins knows very well that Atheists just like Christians and other people can be very selfish.

    I am not wanting to preach, sure all of you have heard everything I’ve said before, but for the sake of bringing well needed balance to this forum, I feel like I was obligated to do this. Maybe I might stick around and I could in the future be in agreement with all of you on a different article. I think that Catholic priests who have molested children should be locked up forever, they should not get away with anything. I am not here to defend that at all. And any priest who has protected them, should also be sharing the same prison cell.

    But quickly moving on to the gay issue. Marriage is a religious construction, why would gay people want anything to do with a church they so love to hate? Even if its not at a church, to me its a little ironic. If any of you knew anything about the current law, civil unions and most governments in the west have gay marriage already, calling it ‘civil partnerships’. This gives gay people the same rights as married people. It amazes me that I’m a heterosexual, not even seeking this information directly and I even knew that this has happened discreetly, behind closed doors. Marriage has naturally been ordered toward the procreation and education of children. Homosexuals will not ever naturally have children on their own.

    This moves me to the next issue which is: injecting a third party into the child’s life, which to me is probably the most crucial. I honestly don’t care what two consenting adults do with their own genitals. Furthermore, if you are going to deprive a child of a mother or father they may never know or meet, I’m sorry but I am totally against that, that is wicked and selfish. The union between same sex couples is intrinsically sterile. Therefore, they must circumnavigate natural ways of procreating by using artificial means or employing surrogates.

    Lastly, on a more personal note: I don’t claim to ever have the moral high ground in my own personal affairs. As the expression goes “do as I say, not as I do”.

    [PREACHING REMOVED BY MODERATOR - SEE TERMS OF USE]

  26. Currerbell,
    I also am married to a Catholic. There is no hate here on my part. Simply pointing out when someone is wrong and making a little fun is not hate. I do not have the time nor inclination to hate any one. Again, say stupid shit publicly and get called onto the carpet for it. All denominations…. even stupid atheists.. Stay a while and allow it to bear itself out.

  27. One final thing I forgot to add. I don’t condone gay bashing, gay bashing is detrimental to the psychology of an individual. Gay people are just like you and I. Human beings, created in the image of God. I love my neighbor, therefore I love gay people just as I love heterosexual people. There are some terrible heterosexuals or who sexually assault their intimate partners (most sexually assaults, again – occur in a dwelling with an intimate partner, not in a dark alley). Similarly, there are some terrible homosexuals who try to infect others with HIV.

    I am not tossing up an idea of homosexuals versus heterosexuals, I am simply making the point that ‘marriage’ already exists for gay people, it isn’t called marriage because it would otherwise confuse religious doctrine which has been set in place for many centuries. Does the time aspect make it right? Of course it doesn’t, but if each one of you so loathe the idea of religion and churches, why even get into this when there is a preexisting alternative? It sounds like wanton stirring and wanting to have cake all to yourself. Let the ‘religious idiots’ have their traditions, and you have your own, instead of ramming down a lifestyle that some people don’t fancy. This is defined as reverse-discrimination by the way.

  28. This is the typical behavior of a bully when his victim finally starts to successfully fight back against their depredations. We (gays, atheists, secularists, etc.) need to keep (metaphorically) punching these diseased old perverts until they don’t have the will left to get up again. It has gotten to the point (some time ago IMO) where you cannot call yourself a loyal Catholic anymore and be a part of modern civil society unless you have Biblical levels of cognitive dissonance at work in your mind. Recent polling suggests that a lot of Catholics realize this and are leaving the (Un)Holy Roman Church in droves out of disgust at the policies of that disgusting nest of vipers.

    “Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship.

    It is meaningless to argue that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the opposite view at the same time.”

    You can teach whatever you want, just don’t expect the taxes of decent citizens to bankroll your bigotry. Of course if you tell demonstrable lies about gays, atheists, secularists, etc, like we all know you do already, because you have no true counterpoints to us, we start getting into the territory of slander and hate speech and we aggrieved parties have recourse to the law to make you pay for your lies. Even though I prefer reasoned debate to demolish your claims, you have a long history of incorrigibility and recent history shows that the only real way to get your attention is to take your money.

    The Catholic hierarchy should just shut up and be glad they weren’t extirpated after World War II, for their complicity with every single fascist regime of that terrible time in our history, as they should have been.

    I’m waiting for the day, hopefully in my lifetime, when the Catholic Church’s political clout has been diminished to the point where it will be politically possible for the Italian Prime Minister to simply order the Italian Police to enter the Vatican City, to seize their entire secret archives and to make them available to the prosecuting authorities in every nation on Earth. I suspect that the already horrific extent of the child abuse/rape we know of will pale in comparison to the filth lurking in that gilded cesspit. Even if most of the perpetrators are dead by then, it will likely be the final nail in the Holy Roman coffin.

  29. In reply to #33 by Joransson:
    >

    I have much patience for intelligent, rational agnosticism and atheism like that of Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche or let’s say Jean Paul Satre. They took their atheism seriously, and their conclusion was: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?”

    You obviously have never read any Nietzsche. He did not say that nor anything close to that. What he did say is controversial because he wasn’t the most unambiguous philosopher. He loved language and was more interested in writing inspiring prose than in being absolutely clear and unambiguous. In some ways, he was going with his prose for the same type of poetic, mythic, writing as the major religious texts. But while I’m at it, I may as well give my interpretation, I think Nietzsche would actually agree very much with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. What Nietzsche described was how the human race would be different once we started to look to science not just to explain the natural world but the world of human ethics and values as well. IMO that is what he meant by the “new man” or uber mensch a man who applied science even to questions of psychology and philosophy.

  30. In reply to #36 by Joransson:

    I am not tossing up an idea of homosexuals versus heterosexuals, I am simply making the point that ‘marriage’ already exists for gay people, it isn’t called marriage because it would otherwise confuse religious doctrine which has been set in place for many centuries. Does the time aspect make it right? Of course it doesn’t,

    That is pretty much the core issue. Is it right for society to start giving gay people who want to get married the same rights as straight people? You can’t just assume the answer you want, which is what you did there. You are correct that this is a change in established culture. The question is, is this fair? There have been similar changes in US history. For example I remember the civil rights movement when I was a kid in the 1960′s. People made similar counter arguments to yours. “This is the way its always been” “Change will upset many existing religious and social institutions” Preachers preached against civil rights although to be fair the majority of the leadership for civil rights were also Christians. In any case, there was no just reason to deny black people equal rights. The question is how is this case different? Why shouldn’t gay people have the same rights as straight people? In our society the rights of people to discriminate are always out weighed by the right of people to equal treatment before the law.

    And I have a question for you: Why do you care? I’m asking this in all seriousness I would really like an answer because I honestly can’t understand it. Why does it bother you what people that you never need to know nor interact with socially do? If your religion doesn’t like gay people then by all means ban them from your church. If you think gay sex is evil then don’t have any gay sex. But why do you even care otherwise?

  31. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    But quickly moving on to the gay issue. Marriage is a religious construction, why would gay people want anything to do with a church they so love to hate?

    Whoa, hold on a second. You may legitimately ask that of gay atheists, and if these were the only ones your church insisted couldn’t get married you might have a point. But there are plenty of gay people who were raised Catholic, who don’t hate the church, and want nothing more for it, their god and their community to recognise the love they have for their partner. Unless you’re under the impression that every gay Catholic has chosen his or her sexuality as an expression of contempt for God.

    It’s an old question, and one I’m sure you’re familiar with, but do you think homosexuals choose to be that way? And if not, isn’t God responsible for making them the way they are? It seems a bit of a mean thing for Him to do, to create someone a certain way and then condemn them for it in His book of rules.

    I would also say in response to your argument that gay people already have civil marriage and should be satisfied with that, well, black people in the American South in the 1950s used to have their own drinking fountains. Should they have kept quiet about that? The water was the same.

    ~

    Maybe I might stick around and I could in the future be in agreement with all of you on a different article.

    I hope so; this site does get a bit self congratulatory at times and when theists do show up it’s usually not for long. Don’t just quote scripture though in making your arguments or the mods will delete your posts. You need to leave doctrine at the door. Just some friendly advice from a dyed-in-the-wool atheist who despite this terrible affliction manages to find some meaning in her life and is quite comfortable living with the knowledge that she’ll have to spend eternity being separated from God. The Christian/Muslim/Jewish one anyway; I’m on quite friendly terms with Zeus. The old guy has promised me a place in the Elysian Fields when I pop off.

    Take care.

  32. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    But quickly moving on to the gay issue. Marriage is a religious construction, why would gay people want anything to do with a church they so love to hate? Even if its not at a church, to me its a little ironic.

    Indeed, it’s not always a church. For example, in Australia, twice as many people now get married by civil wedding celebrants than by religious ministers. Yet only one in four Australians identified as being non-religious in the latest census.

    Both civil and religious wedding celebrants, in Australia, must undergo Government Certification in order to legally register a marriage with the Department.

    How is it a religious construct again? Which religion?

    If any of you knew anything about the current law, civil unions and most governments in the west have gay marriage already, calling it ‘civil partnerships’. This gives gay people the same rights as married people. …

    If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and is legally recognised as being rather like a duck in everything but name, then just maybe it’s time to simply start calling it a duck.

    Civil partnerships have most of the legal rights as registered marriages, but they are not identical.

    … It amazes me that I’m a heterosexual, not even seeking this information directly and I even knew that this has happened discreetly, behind closed doors. Marriage has naturally been ordered toward the procreation and education of children. Homosexuals will not ever naturally have children on their own.

    Fertility is not a criteria for marriage. It is in no way restricted to people who can, have, or intend to, breed without medical intervention. Or even just breed.

    It is basically just two people unrelated by blood living together in a genuine domestic relationship wishing to have their relationship recognised by law and society.

    The criteria is love. This is why we don’t follow the Biblical instruction to force pregnant women to marry their rapists, for example.

  33. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    I find it to be anti-equal but it favours antiing the ones who ask for it most. Catholic leaders put their own foot in their own mouth; we just mock the shoes.

  34. In reply to #18 by old-toy-boy:

    Quite right too,
    Teachers should not be arrested for being for being catholic, They sould be arrested for being bigots or homophobes. Does the catholic church have a problem with that?

    When there is no evidence to accept you choose what to believe. All religions are a choice and Catholics, who follow this line of bullshit, choose to be mocked and persecuted.

  35. In reply to #20 by crookedshoes:

    old toy boy — Why teachers??? No one should be arrested for having an opinion (or a religion). Arrests should be for people who have broken a law.

    Is psychological abuse a crime? Remember, if you answer incorrectly you will be burned alive and tortured forever.

  36. In reply to #30 by currerbell:

    In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    I have to agree. As a five-year-old, because I attended a catholic school, I was subjected to stone-throwing and chanting from the local children as I walked from the bus stop to my front gate . Occasionally when I wasn’t accompanied by a sibling, I had wet my pants in my terror by the time I reached home. The hatred I see on this site reminds me that things don’t change all that much.

    I too, joined this board because I’m an atheist. I respect rational debate and science. I’m not keen on joining a hate-filled echo chamber.

    We throw words and not at children, just opened mouthed morons. You’ll probably find the stone throwers were those blasted Protestants. Bloody religion. I had my fair share of push the atheist, growing up. I would ask for a good argument, never got one, there isn’t one.

  37. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I love to see a good variety of opinions on this subject matter (sarcasm). It is quite shocking that all of you seem to get away with caricatures frequently on this forum. Therefore it is my goal and intention to deprive all of you who consistently get away with it’. I’m a Catholic, and before I am hassled with “do you really believe in X” I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home. This idea that Catholic priests have the market on molesting children is just ridiculous, and not at all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics. Given this is a forum about reason and science, I thought I would bring all of you up to speed on the facts, and not what you want to believe.

    That is the first point. Second point, if Catholics or anybody whose religion conflicts with a certain type of lifestyle, why (as some users on here suggested) think that justifies lynching and killing Catholics/other people who are in opposition to it. Perhaps a joke, but not one that I take very lightly, particularly when atheists claim the moral high ground (scoffs).

    Stop right there, who suggested lynching and or killing Catholics?

  38. “More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing concerns that peodophile priests are still at large within the Catholic Church, are being hidden from prosecution and there seems no end in sight to this evil…”

    Oh, wait…

  39. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I love to see a good variety of opinions on this subject matter (sarcasm). It is quite shocking that all of you seem to get away with caricatures frequently on this forum. Therefore it is my goal and intention to deprive all of you who consistently get away with it’. I’m a Catholic…

    You are reinforcing a stereotype with this self-indulgent wall of text, this string of cliches, invalid arguments, and false statements.

    , and before I am hassled with “do you really believe in X” I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home. This idea that Catholic priests have the market on molesting children is just ridiculous, and not at all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics. Given this is a forum about reason and science, I thought I would bring all of you up to speed on the facts, and not what you want to believe.

    Do you really think we are that mistaken? We know that stuff. You don’t see our objection, when the Pope himself is involved with child rape? Wow.

    I have much patience for intelligent, rational agnosticism and atheism like that of Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche or let’s say Jean Paul Satre.

    Awww… you’re just saying names you’ve heard

    They took their atheism seriously, and their conclusion was: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?”

    Yup, just saying names you’ve heard.

    The modern atheists like Richard Dawkins, although a very intelligent man and one I do appreciate intellectually makes a documentary called “sex, death and the meaning of life”? Is it some inside joke that I’m not getting?

    Yes, basically. The first episode was about sex, the second was about death, and the third about the meaning of life. Did you watch it? If not, that’s why you don’t understand it.

    How can dyed-in-the-wool atheists’ have any meaning in life whatsoever.

    It is based on what we know, not what we hope to be true. It is building one’s house on the rock. It is very enriching and I recommend it. You know that spooky feeling you get when contemplating the great mysteries? Imagine if you didn’t pretend to have the answers. It’s pretty intense when you can’t just say god is the answer.

    We all make our own meaning, you say? Then you become your own God, by pleasuring your own ends and being very selfish. It is all about “me, me, me!”

    That’s your imagination. That’s not what really happens,

    That is the humanist philosophy,

    Please say something true. That’s a false statement, a vicious lie.

    many people can argue with me and tell me of their great deeds, and their giving to charity. Sure, not saying non-believers cannot do good works, its the question of why that boggles me.

    Then you are a frightening person with no intrinsic moral compass. Moral behavior is its own reward. No prize is needed. Seriously, you are a very scary person. I worry about how you treat people.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    Right, moral behavior is its own reward. No prize is needed. Do you have graven images? Do you work on the Sabbath? Is it immoral to not worship your jealous god?

    By the way, your god did have a wife during Judaisms henotheistic period, her name was Asherah… I guess she got the house cuz we all know how the kid wound up.

    I am not wanting to preach,

    Too late

    sure all of you have heard everything I’ve said before,

    Then you are just being self-indulgent.

    but for the sake of bringing well needed balance to this forum, I feel like I was obligated to do this.

    I stand corrected, you are also suffering from at least a mild messianic-complex that you think you are a savior.

    Maybe I might stick around and I could in the future be in agreement with all of you on a different article. I think that Catholic priests who have molested children should be locked up forever, they should not get away with anything. I am not here to defend that at all. And any priest who has protected them, should also be sharing the same prison cell.

    Including the Pope? Would you want that?

    You’re not distinguishing yourself in any way. Are you against puppy torture too? How are you moral?

    But quickly moving on to the gay issue.

    Too late

    Marriage is a religious construction, why would gay people want anything to do with a church they so love to hate?

    Please take an anthropology class. That is a false statement. Atheists get married all the time. How does that happen?

    Even if its not at a church, to me its a little ironic. If any of you knew anything about the current law, civil unions and most governments in the west have gay marriage already, calling it ‘civil partnerships’. This gives gay people the same rights as married people.

    False. I had the same false assumption too, until I researched it for five minutes. Fortunately, I never spoke about the subject without researching it. You are speaking from imagination.

    It amazes me that I’m a heterosexual, not even seeking this information directly and I even knew that this has happened discreetly, behind closed doors.

    That’s a really weird sentence. If you felt gay-attraction, would you fight that feeling, try to be otherwise?

    Marriage has naturally been ordered toward the procreation and education of children. Homosexuals will not ever naturally have children on their own.

    So sterile or non-breeding heteros should not get married or have sex?

    This moves me to the next issue which is: injecting a third party into the child’s life, which to me is probably the most crucial. I honestly don’t care what two consenting adults do with their own genitals (however, God does actually care and all of us will be accountable for what we have done in our lives). Furthermore, if you are going to deprive a child of a mother or father they may never know or meet, I’m sorry but I am totally against that, that is wicked and selfish. The union between same sex couples is intrinsically sterile. Therefore, they must circumnavigate natural ways of procreating by using artificial means or employing surrogates.

    So you are against adoption for sterile couples? Is it just the gay ones? There is data on the well-being of children in gay families. You don;t have to rely on your imagination. The data is in opposition to your imagination.

    Lastly, on a more personal note: I don’t claim to ever have the moral high ground in my own personal affairs. As the expression goes “do as I say, not as I do”.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    Sin is a primitive pre-morality concept. As a meta-ethical assertion, it is absurd, something like a physical tainting. This is how Original Sin works, as we were all animalcules in Adam’s testicles at the the time of the ‘apple’, “present in his loins” we must use blessed water to wash away the taint. Sin is arbitrary and can include fashion and diet restrictions. Morality is objective and based on creating a better world and diminishing suffering. Sin is an interesting artifact, but morality is useful in our daily lives. It’s why we do good things for no reward.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    I suffer witches to live, which is a sin. You speaking ill about homosexuals is immoral. That’s a problem, not graven images. Girls kissing is a sin, but not immoral. Being so complacent and attempting to diminish outrage concerning the rape of children is immoral.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    Indeed, and clearly some more than others. You believe you are preferred by god, that you will go to Heaven and I to Hell. You think you are superior. Maybe you did not think that out, but that’s the implication. You are superior.

  40. In reply to #35 by crookedshoes:

    Currerbell,
    I also am married to a Catholic. There is no hate here on my part. Simply pointing out when someone is wrong and making a little fun is not hate. I do not have the time nor inclination to hate any one. Again, say stupid shit publicly and get called onto the carpet for it. All denominations…. even stupid atheists.. Stay a while and allow it to bear itself out.

    My Mum married a Catholic. So did my Dad.

    As for the posters here who see echo chambers of hate, and justification for killing and lynching of Catholics?

    Evidence, please.

    I can see nothing more than the mocking of stupidity, ridicule of the ridiculous, and slight parody.

    Hatred?

    Show me the hate.

    I also don’t need to be brought up to speed on the disgraceful worldwide systematic rape of children by an organisation that sought to hide this hideous abuse. If you want facts – not what you want to believe, but facts – then read the Ryan report.

    And finally, if your religion conflicts with the idea of same sex marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex – and keep you nose out of other peoples bedrooms.

    You want to see hatred then go to Uganda and see what hatred your views can engender.

    Hate the Catholicism, not the Catholic.

    Anvil.

  41. Here goes an inevitable outcome of an attempt to bring religion even into the 20th century, the catholics and other religious nutters scream persecution and then have the barefaced cheek to compare David Cameron to Henry 8th. As much as I would like to see these nutters genuinely persecuted, they think that persecution means people not agreeing with their own way of life and i hope this ‘persecution’ continues indefinitely.

  42. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I love to see a good variety of opinions on this subject matter (sarcasm). It is quite shocking that all of you seem to get away with caricatures frequently on this forum. Therefore it is my goal and intention to deprive all of you who consistently get away with it’. I’m a Catholic, and before I am hassled with “do you really believe in X”

    Of course you believe (through indoctrination) in a RCC version of a god – How else would you be reading comments through bias spectacles, and reaching conclusions using “faith without evidence”?

    I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home. This idea that Catholic priests have the market on molesting children is just ridiculous, and not at all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics.

    Yep! Dredged up “faith blinkered” conclusions and strawman assumptions substituting for “evidence”.

    Given this is a forum about reason and science, I thought I would bring all of you up to speed on the facts, and not what you want to believe. That is the first point.

    You had better research some facts and stop making up your own then!

    Second point, if Catholics or anybody whose religion conflicts with a certain type of lifestyle, why (as some users on here suggested) think that justifies lynching and killing Catholics/other people who are in opposition to it.

    This is the classic backside-first thinking of “faith thinking” (Described by Pope Pius IX as “right-reasoning”)

    Where are all these alleged atheists who suggest lynching and killing Catholics?? This is pure backwards ad-hom exaggeration attacking people making rational criticism of Catholic bigotry and misconduct!

    The killing lynching and murder of people with differing moral views is (and historically was) widely carried out in theist dominated countries where Catholic, Evangelical, and Moslem sects attack gays and people from other religions. It is the curse of tribalistic people wearing “faith” blinkers.

    Perhaps a joke, but not one that I take very lightly, particularly when atheists claim the moral high ground (scoffs).

    That sounds like the usual hypocrisy directed at those taking a moral stance!

    I have much patience for intelligent, rational agnosticism and atheism like that of Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche or let’s say Jean Paul Satre. They took their atheism seriously, and their conclusion was: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?”

    You have no idea about humanist objectives in having a worthwhile happy, one and only life, living in harmony with others???

    (“My God, offers eternal paradise so why not just kill yourself and enjoy it as jihadists do ?” )

    • Looks like more backwards thinking projected on to atheists!

    How can dyed-in-the-wool atheists’ have any meaning in life whatsoever.

    You really show the congregational sheep’s dependence on being spoon fed life objectives and dogmas in place of thought-out moral codes.

    We all make our own meaning, you say? Then you become your own God,

    I’m afraid your thinking is so heavily “god-saturated”, that you have no concept of numerous moral philosophies beyond your spoon-fed Catholic dogmas.

    by pleasuring your own ends and being very selfish. It is all about “me, me, me!”

    That is the humanist philosophy, many people can argue with me and tell me of their great deeds, and their giving to charity.

    You clearly have no idea about humanist philosophy, but may have heard derogatory drivel about it – directly or indirectly -from priests.

    Sure, not saying non-believers cannot do good works, its the question of why that boggles me.

    That is the problem with dogmatists. They have no concept of how to behave cooperatively unless spoon-fed directions from dogmas.

    Also, Richard Dawkins knows very well that Atheists just like Christians and other people can be very selfish. [Quote of redacted comment removed by moderator]

    I don’t know about Finland, but the figures for the USA prison population is as follows!
    rationalresponders.com/forum
    Catholics seem to be the number one offenders!

    31.4% – Catholic

    28% – Protestant

    19.7% – None/Refused/Other

    7.6% – Muslim/Islamic

    2.5% – Native American

    1.5% – Rastafarian

    1.4% – Jewish

    1.39% – Church of Christ

    1.1% – Pentecostal

    1.1% – Moorish

    0.9% – Buddhist

    0.7% – Jehovah’s Witness

    0.6% – Adventist

    0.4% – Orthodox

    0.3% – Mormon

    0.2% – Scientology

    0.16% – Atheist

    0.12% – Hindu

    0.12% – Santeria

    0.01% – Sikh

    0.009% – Bahai

    0.007% – Krishna

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    If you had critically studied historical evidence , you would know that bible stories are mythology, which may or may not have moral or factual content.

    I am certainly not perfect, and quite often sin.

    ..and can be repeatedly “forgiven” by priests at confession, rather than making amends to the parties you have wronged!

    The 10 commandments are not there for God’s benefit. Does God have a wife for you to cheat with, or a mansion to rob from?

    Historical records suggest there is some doubt about this! – old.richarddawkins.net/articles/607398-fertility-goddess-asherah-was-god-s-wife-edited-out-of-the-bible
    There is no doubt about the palatial collection of treasures in the Vatican!

    Of course not, it is for our benefit. It is a benchmark or a guideline of how to have good relationships with other people. If you lie, steal, cheat, kill, you will not have many friends, this I promise you.

    I think atheists, Humanists and people from many political and social cultures know that, without reference to Catholic dogmas.

    I think that Catholic priests who have molested children should be locked up forever, they should not get away with anything. I am not here to defend that at all. And any priest who has protected them, should also be sharing the same prison cell.

    S what is your problem with this forum highlighting that issue and calling for that action. The “superior morals” of the Catholic establishment in numerous countries, seems to have no problem with actively covering up and opposing this action.

    But quickly moving on to the gay issue. Marriage is a religious construction,

    No it isn’t! People have been pairing up since before they evolved into people just as many animals do today.

    why would gay people want anything to do with a church they so love to hate?

    This is backwards again! The question is, “Why would gay people want anything to do with a church WHICH HATES THEM?”

    Marriage has naturally been ordered toward the procreation and education of children.

    While marriage formally endorses pair-bonding, which gives a secure background for children, the preoccupation with procreation is a Catholic dogma which perverts many issues which should be dealt with rationally in term of human objectives and standards of life.

    (however, God does actually care and all of us will be accountable for what we have done in our lives).

    As the neurorological evidence is that “gods” exist only as delusions in the brain, they die along with the human body, so any philosophical constructs dependent on the “authority” of gods, are fraudulent.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    “Sin” is only a problem in as far that the indoctrinated will try to irrationally impose their unevidenced dogmatic views on others, while side-tracking the real issues of abuses of humans.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    Human problems need scientific evidence caring communities and rational planning. Know-it-all dogmas only contribute obstructive ignorance, which messes up many people’s lives.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    There are no eye-witness accounts or historical records of ANYTHING said by ANYONE called Jesus! NT Bible myths were made up by early Xtian sects and Roman bishops.

    [Quote of preaching removed by moderator]

    I am sure the god-dominated brains of the indoctrinated, want their conscious minds to have a servile relationship with the subconscious little god in their brains.

  43. Why are ALL journalists so crap?

    They NEVER ask the most obvious questions.

    In this case, why didn’t the journalist ask any of the 1000 signatories how they could possibly justify their concern that they might face discrimination in employment, when they delight in discriminating against non-catholics in employment in their state funded schools, etc?

  44. Alan4,
    i worked in a prison for 13 years and never never once for one minute of one day did I sit with an atheist. Every murderer, every rapist, every child molester was religious. I would also like to go on record as saying that in no way am I extrapolating this info and hating any one or any group. Just a matter of fact.

    • In reply to #58 by crookedshoes:

      Alan4,
      i worked in a prison for 13 years and never never once for one minute of one day did I sit with an atheist. Every murderer, every rapist, every child molester was religious.

      Imagine how much worse they’d have been if they were atheists!!!!

      Er, I was being Ironic.

  45. just not enough hyperbole for my liking. how about something like “expecting christians to behave as civilized human beings is exactly the same as throwing them to lions except if anything worse because history will remember throwing christians to lions as an act of persecution based on religious belief as oppose to remembering a few bigots who drew attention to themselves at taxpayers expense, therefore a double blow. in fact like throwing 1 christian to 2 lions. really mean ones.” Erik Pickles, have that one on me

  46. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    Marriage is a religious construction

    So there’s your mistake right there. It was hidden in all the waffle. Marriage in most western countries I know (US, UK, Australia certainly) is an act of government. We can argue about it’s history if you wish but currently it’s an act of government. The government decides who can get married and who can perform marriages. Currently in a lot of countries including my own the laws of the government discriminate against homosexual couples by not allowing them to be married. I’ve never seen anyone give a sensible reason why this should be so it should stop. Once the discrimination has stopped those who are authorised by governments to perform marriages should obey the rules.

    Michael

  47. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I honestly don’t care what two consenting adults do with their own genitals (however, God does actually care

    So one of the many things I don’t understand is the following. There must be say 2 billion heterosexual couples in the world having sex say once a week (ok I’m old). That’s about 250,000,000 acts of heterosexual intercourse each day. Surely after watching all that and ticking it off in the big book He would be pleased to see something a little different, just to break the sheer bloody monotony of it all ?

    Of course this might explain why he is so keen that we have less of it.

    Michael

  48. Joransson, you say:
    “I honestly don’t care what two consenting adults do with their own genitals (however, God does actually care”…

    How do you justify “knowing” god when your own faith says that god is unknowable? And, if you do not care, why are you going to such lengths to demonstrate that you do care?

    Your actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear your words.

  49. We are back to the old Roman Catholic tradition of posing as victims. Will gay marriage cause persecution of Roman Catholics? What about space exploration? What about the AIDS vaccine? What if this year rains more than last year? It’s amazing at what extent the hysteria, manipulation and propaganda of the clergy of the RCC can reach just to create fear and get them to ban gay marriage.
    Can you imagine Roman Catholic clerics being excluded from some professions, such as teaching because of gay marriage?!?!?! If this was to be true, I myself would marry a man, and the world would be a much better place without these morons holding teaching positions.

  50. The problem with Joransson.

    well, my pals, especially Alan, seem to have unpacked the errors of Johanson before I even woke up this morning. But I’m a late sleeper.

    From his misunderstanding of Camus to his complete failure to comprehend life and morality without sky fairies, he demonstrated an idealogy which, as he admitted, has been disassembled hundreds of times on this site. Wonder why he felt he needed to mention it. So just a few thoughts.

    “The 10 commandments are not there for God’s benefit.”

    The first four do not seem to have any relevance to benefit human behaviour. If they were actually coined by god, a concept I find absolutely silly, they would benefit only god. How could the prohibition against graven images benefiit humanity. Instead, it seems designed to obtain obedience of the masses. So I wonder who wrote it . . . ?

    I wanted to correct his misunderstanding of civil unions as opposed to marriage. I hate to admit it, but there was a time in my life when I thought homosexuals should be satisfied with civil unions, as long as they had the same rights as married people. But this is toleration–a most misunderstood concept. Toleration necessarily implies secondary status. That is, if we agree to tolerate your behaviour, we assign secondary status to you. You do not have a place equal to the rest of us in the hierarchy.

    “It is all about “me, me, me!” That is the humanist philosophy.”

    Fancy that, a criminologist who does not understand the first thing about humanist philosophy. Not really surprising, is it?

    “The point is, when there is a creator, he has already defined our value for us: created in the image of God”

    As a Catholic, Joransson is not required, nor even encouraged, to actually read the Bible. If he had (I have), he could not have said anything as blitheringly stupid as the foregoing.

    “Marriage is a religious construction”

    No. Simply wrong–so much so that it needs no more elucidation.

    JHJ

  51. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I love to see a good variety of opinions on this subject matter (sarcasm).

    As Oscar Wilde said “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence”. Using sarcasm as a literary device requires a reasonable knowledge of the subject matter being addressed. Expressing good sarcasm involves many things, not least understanding the many brain processes required to recognise when it is being used. Especially when attempting to link sarcasm to disgust. Inverse pitch obtrusion doesn’t cut it on an internet forum for example, and I’m not sure I get your use of the word “sarcasm” in closed brackets on this occasion. Perhaps you can elaborate?

    It is quite shocking that all of you seem to get away with caricatures frequently on this forum. Therefore it is my goal and intention to deprive all of you who consistently get away with it’.

    Ah yes…the apologist here to educate. I like the word “caricature”, especially when it is used accurately. Just about every religious person is a caricature. Catholics are particularly so.

    Caricature: exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics.

    I’m a Catholic, and before I am hassled with “do you really believe in X” I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home.

    Well, your statistic is a bit of a generalisation and coming from a science background you should know better. “something like”?…”give or take”?…of the 90% you cite, how many are assaulted in their own home by priests?

    This idea that Catholic priests have the market on molesting children is just ridiculous,

    There’s a strawman fallacy straight away. Who says Catholic priests have the market? They do seem to have the market in getting away with it through cover-up though.

    …and not at all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics.

    Yep, ya wanna try employing a wee bit of that ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics you standby…oh, and cite your sources. Anyway, regardless of the ‘whataboutery’, you, like so many apologists before you, attempt to employ in obfuscation. The complaint isn’t that the RCC has more than it’s fair share of institutional paedophiles compared to other institutions, it really has, it is more to do with the systemic defending, cover-up, conspiracy and even the indulging of the sick feckers that gets peoples goats up here. The fact that they are allowed to hide behind a religion and position of trust while carrying out the vileness is what is at the centre of the debate. And we know it goes to the very top. Surely you must see that if an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, Universe creating deity was really in control, it wouldn’t happen.

    Given this is a forum about reason and science, I thought I would bring all of you up to speed on the facts, and not what you want to believe.

    So where are these facts? That 90% of molested children know their assailant? That it happens in their own home? Strewth….am flabbergasted. The Church is off the hook then.

    But if you really want to get up to speed on what is going on in the mind of the paedophile priest…read some proper research stuff on the subject…. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199895670.001.0001/acprof-9780199895670

    That is the first point. Second point, if Catholics or anybody whose religion conflicts with a certain type of lifestyle, why (as some users on here suggested) think that justifies lynching and killing Catholics/other people who are in opposition to it.

    Spoiiinggg!!! Did anyone suggest the wholesale advocacy of lynching and killing Roman Catholics? Unlike the wholesale advocacy of an eternity of turmoil and suffering for those who don’t see it the Catholic way? Or perhaps we should have called for the creation of an “Atheist Inquisition”….good examples to be followed there with your boys in the “Spanish Inquisition”….that’s sarcasm BTW.

    There are of course those that advocate the lynching and killing of Catholics, but they can be found among the fellow Christian brotherhood. And fellow religionists whose faith was modelled quite a bit on Christianity, those Muslims.

    Perhaps a joke, but not one that I take very lightly, particularly when atheists claim the moral high ground (scoffs).

    First, you’ve yet to show it to be even a marginal Atheist attitude, joke or otherwise. Then you need to show that Atheists claim the moral high ground. You are so fallacious it’s hard to sort anything reasonable from your post so far. Anyone can make stuff up ya know.

    I have much patience for intelligent, rational agnosticism and atheism like that of Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche or let’s say Jean Paul Satre. They took their atheism seriously, and their conclusion was: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?”

    Bollocks!

    Camus opposed nihilism…he followed the philosophy of Absurdism…

    “One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the Absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest.”

    Was Nietzsche a Nihilist?…nope, I don’t think he was. He wrote a lot about it for sure, but that’s not the same.

    Even the Existentialist Sartre didn’t come to the conclusion: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?”

    Nor did any of your examples actually top themselves. What was that about facts and research?

    The modern atheists like Richard Dawkins, although a very intelligent man and one I do appreciate intellectually makes a documentary called “sex, death and the meaning of life”? Is it some inside joke that I’m not getting? How can dyed-in-the-wool atheists’ have any meaning in life whatsoever. We all make our own meaning, you say?

    What is your “meaning of life”? I don’t mean your “meaning of death”…your faith, religion and god, I mean why do you feel the need to live?

    Then you become your own God, by pleasuring your own ends and being very selfish.

    You mean like abusing children? Or telling which humans are entitled to marry which humans for example?

    It is all about “me, me, me!”

    No, that is you. In your projecting you can’t see it, but your ultimate goal is to get to a place by any method necessary…if arse licking does it, okay, if being a bigot does it, okay…whatever it takes. Now that is all about your endgame….me, me, me…and that is selfish. SELFISH: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.

    That is the humanist philosophy,…

    No it isn’t…what ignorance you display. What happened to your facts “all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics.”?

    …many people can argue with me and tell me of their great deeds, and their giving to charity. Sure, not saying non-believers cannot do good works, its the question of why that boggles me.

    There’s your problem right there then…you need a “why” for everything. You’ve just admitted your “why” to the whole forum, you are arse licking browny points for the big reckoning day. How selfish is that?

    Also, Richard Dawkins knows very well that Atheists just like Christians and other people can be very selfish.

    Yes, but not because of their Atheism though.

    [Quote of redacted comment removed by moderator]

    Oh FFS….is Finland a crime free state? If not, how many of those committing crimes are Atheist? What relevance does it have on the price of eggs?

    BTW, I’d be careful on what is said on that subject, it could be slanderous and I think there is something in your rules about bearing false witness.

    I’m sure most of you will use the old argument “ahh, yes – but if you are only doing good to please your Sky Daddy then you aren’t moral at all”.

    Aye…we are so transparent aren’t we?

    The point is, when there is a creator, he has already defined our value for us:

    The point is, that is just not an evidenced based assertion and one of many flavours of religious conjecture. But it is still irrelevant, you are still doing whatever good you do for your own selfish ends.

    …created in the image of God,….

    But no one can define that image so how do ya know? Check out Igtheisim.

    Jesus instructs us all to love him and our neighbor (most important laws recorded in scripture).

    No he didn’t.

    We as human beings have a capacity to manipulate our neighbor often. This can be to do with finances, sex, other kind of negotiations etc.

    Funny though, it is the religious and religions that is doing most of this manipulation.

    I am certainly not perfect, and quite often sin.

    Nothing is perfect…sin is a made up concept to control the gullible…it works too.

    The 10 commandments are not there for God’s benefit.

    There isn’t 10 commandments….there is 613, if ya believe in the nonsense. No one seen the 10 commandments because Moses didn’t lead an Exodus out of Egypt. Even if you believe he did, the myth goes that he smashed them to smithereens, so there is only yarn to say what was supposed to be on the stone plates brought down the mountain..

    Does God have a wife for you to cheat with,…

    Well a don’t now about cheat with in the biblical sense…but if you believe in Yahweh, then you have a wee problem… http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.htm

    …or a mansion to rob from?

    I’m nearly sure that I was told about the “Lords House” and the “House of God”….they were certainly well looted throughout human history, all the gods houses.

    Of course not, it is for our benefit.

    Your benefit ya mean.

    It is a benchmark or a guideline of how to have good relationships with other people.

    No it definitely is not. The Golden Rule is far superior….so much better that it was plagiarised by the gospel writers…make ya wonder why given the rules the cult already had.

    If you lie, steal, cheat, kill, you will not have many friends, this I promise you.

    Well that is not strictly true is it? I mean, your God certainly did and your great friends with him.

    I am not wanting to preach, sure all of you have heard everything I’ve said before, but for the sake of bringing well needed balance to this forum, I feel like I was obligated to do this.

    It’s been a while, and yes, you are preaching, but it breaks up the boredom. I’m not sure you’ve brought any balance though, you haven’t said much of substance.

    Maybe I might stick around and I could in the future be in agreement with all of you on a different article.

    Yes, why not, you’ll probably agree when it’s Scientology on the receiving end of ridicule…or perhaps the Mormons…or the Muslim lunatics.

    I think that Catholic priests who have molested children should be locked up forever, they should not get away with anything.

    There now. Agreement already.

    I am not here to defend that at all. And any priest who has protected them, should also be sharing the same prison cell.

    That’s twice now…keep going.

    But quickly moving on to the gay issue. Marriage is a religious construction, why would gay people want anything to do with a church they so love to hate?

    Oh dear. I thought we had ya on the turn for a moment. Marriage is not a religious construction. You should try the basics in that research idea you promote so well and stop repeating the mantra or making stuff up… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    Why would you suppose all gay people so love to hate their church? You appear a proper homophobic. Google is your friend…. http://www.dignityusa.org/category/site-index-terms/lgbt-catholics…. as Alan has said already, you have it ass-backwards.

    Even if its not at a church, to me its a little ironic. If any of you knew anything about the current law, civil unions and most governments in the west have gay marriage already, calling it ‘civil partnerships’. This gives gay people the same rights as married people. It amazes me that I’m a heterosexual, not even seeking this information directly and I even knew that this has happened discreetly, behind closed doors.

    But you haven’t a clue have you? Instead of writing that nonsense, why not actually find out the facts. The “current law” where? Marriage equality is not universal. There are parts of the world where being gay is a death sentence so if you knew anything about the current laws you’d know you are talking more rubbish.

    Marriage has naturally been ordered toward the procreation and education of children. Homosexuals will not ever naturally have children on their own.

    Two heterosexual 90 year old’s won’t either, would you deny them the right? What about two disabled heterosexual folk who can’t have intercourse, are they denied? The “Homosexuals will not ever naturally have children on their own” canard is a red herring with more holes than a sieve. Give it up.

    This moves me to the next issue which is: injecting a third party into the child’s life, which to me is probably the most crucial. I honestly don’t care what two consenting adults do with their own genitals (however, God does actually care and all of us will be accountable for what we have done in our lives).

    So you do care. This is a circular argument that can’t even stand up in scripture. Cherry-pickers-R-Us methinks. You haven’t proved the premise god yet. Then you’d have to prove the premise the god Yahweh. Then you’d have to prove the Catholic god Yahweh. Finally, you have to explain why everyone who is not a Catholic should give a fuck about your Catholic god Yahweh. Stop imposing your nonsense on those of us who are not interested in following your nonsense.

    Furthermore, if you are going to deprive a child of a mother or father they may never know or meet, I’m sorry but I am totally against that, that is wicked and selfish.

    Yet your god does it thousands of times daily. Your Church promotes dogma and doctrines that promulgates just such a situation for thousands. The irony, it stings.

    The union between same sex couples is intrinsically sterile. Therefore, they must circumnavigate natural ways of procreating by using artificial means or employing surrogates.

    The union between sterile different sex couples is intrinsically sterile. Therefore, they must circumnavigate natural ways of procreating by using artificial means or employing surrogates.

    Lastly, on a more personal note: I don’t claim to ever have the moral high ground in my own personal affairs.

    No, and ya shouldn’t, because you are far from having any moral ground, period.

    As the expression goes “do as I say, not as I do”.

    Can’t you see a problem with that expression?

    [Quote of, and responses to, preaching removed by moderator]

    Anyway…a don’t expect a response, it’s usually fire and forget from the apologist. Replies are for fence sitting lurkers who might just glean something from the discourse.

    Apologies for the length, there was a lot to rebuke.

  52. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    As are most of us. I’m just as opposed to every other religious group.

    If Catholicism gets more attention in these fora, its probably because it is the largest religious group in the world

    and one of the most outspoken

    and one of the most unwittingly hilarious

    and because it deserves it

    and because its fun

  53. Amos, so nice to see you here with your gloves off. Though, you’ve described it as ham-fisted in the past, it is nothing of the kind.

    Sadly, our catholic friend who showed up here to provide some “balance” was just doing a drive-by. He implied that atheists don’t read , while demonstrating that he was unfamiliar with the writings he referred to, suggested that without Yahweh, the only reasonable thing left for non-yahweh affilliates to do is to kill ourselves and nattered on about marriage, tradition and pro-creation, and put the cherry on top with his reference to “lifestyle choices”. Then, he buggered off.

    Now, it’s possible that he’ll return in a few days (or even any minute) to take up the conversation again and I hope I am wrong. I really do. I hope he’ll consider the responses as there have been so many thoughtful ones that appeal to the evidence.

    But I’ve learned to be resigned to the fact that most theists who show up here show up to say, “Idiot atheists. You are attacking caricatures.” without providing any clarity on the subject and then bugger off, having no desire to learn anything from the conversation.

    Every now and then, I’m struck by how exausted Richard Dawkns must be from responding to the same ignorant crap that is repeated ad nauseum and I am deeply grateful that he has taken on this battle with such integrity.

    I am also grateful to people like you and JH and Cartomancer and Alan4 and scores of other people who enthusiastically participate in scrutinizing all of our assumptions and who show up with evidence and reason so that we can all make progress.

    And I’m slightly more annoyed every time with people who haven’t bothered to consider that their assumptions might be flawed and who just show up and blurt out the same old nonsense for the kazillionth time and believe that this provides some sort of “balance” to the discussion. . But that doesn’t usually turn out so well, I’ve discovered. If he does return, I’m wrong and will be happy to apologize.

    But this notion that “balance” means blurting things out without bothering to scrutinize your own positions on a subject and then disappearing without taking the responses into consideration demonstrates the laziest kind of thinking.

  54. I think I fell in love with you, Katy… But, of course, we could never marry, it might offend the Catholics, or lead somehow to their persecution…. Wouldn’t want that on my conscious…

    In reply to #12 by Katy Cordeth:

    “I am very anxious that when we are preaching in church or teaching in our Catholic schools or witnessing to the Christian faith of what marriage is that we are not going to be able to do it, that we could be arrested for being bigots or homophobes.”

    Um, you are bigots and homophobes. That’s sort of your thing. This was fine back in the day, when everyone was bigoted and homophobic, but times have changed and you just haven’t. There seems to be an obvious solution to you guys’ concerns that you’re going to be persecuted, and that is to, you know, stop persecuting other people maybe? If you stop picking on the gays, hand over all the nonces and the Jewish gold and other treasures you’ve accumulated in your centuries-long campaign of dickishness, and consider making an apology for being a blight on human advancement, love and hope for your entire existence, p’raps people will start liking you. Who knows, you might even get to go to that Heaven place you’re always banging on about.

    Love and kisses.

  55. In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home.

    I am not sure about the figure you give since you supply no provenance for it, but I would accept that the majority of abuse is by guardians and carers.

    This idea that Catholic priests have the market on molesting children is just ridiculous, and not at all matched up with the ‘proper’ scientific research and statistics.

    Abuse can occur in any organisation, even those with robust safeguarding procedures. When it comes to abuse within the Catholic church reading the literature would seem to indicate that:

    1. The safeguarding procedures in the church were not robust

    2. The major difference between abuse in the church and other organisations is that in the former there were systemic cover ups by the hierarchy of the church together with attempts to circumvent the civil law.

    Second point, if Catholics or anybody whose religion conflicts with a certain type of lifestyle, why (as some users on here suggested) think that justifies lynching and killing Catholics/other people who are in opposition to it.

    Firstly, there is an intimation in your statement that being gay is a lifestyle choice. Now since you want to make claims about evidence can I suggest that you actually take the trouble to look at papers on the subject which show that homosexuality has a biological basis.

    Secondly, I would oppose anyone who suggested killing Catholics because of their faith and I hope that others would to.

    They took their atheism seriously, and their conclusion was: “No God, why not just kill yourself and end it?”

    Having said that you seem to have no qualms about atheists killing themselves. This doesn’t look like a consistent position to me.

    How can dyed-in-the-wool atheists’ have any meaning in life whatsoever. We all make our own meaning, you say? Then you become your own God, by pleasuring your own ends and being very selfish. It is all about “me, me, me!”

    A straw man of such huge proportions it could contain an infinite number of Edward Woodwards.

    That is the humanist philosophy, many people can argue with me and tell me of their great deeds, and their giving to charity.

    No, this is your definition of the humanist philosophy, but it doesn’t seem to be the one that people who are humanists espouse – http://humanism.org.uk/humanism/. Again, a straw man.

    Marriage is a religious construction,

    Except it isn’t. You really ought to do some research on the topic, especially what it was conceived to be pre-Christianity and in medieval times.

    If any of you knew anything about the current law, civil unions and most governments in the west have gay marriage already, calling it ‘civil partnerships’. This gives gay people the same rights as married people.

    Except it doesn’t, it isn’t recognised as marriage outside the UK.

    Marriage has naturally been ordered toward the procreation and education of children.

    So the marriage of people who do not intend to have children, are unable to have children or marry after the woman has her menopause is not marriage using your argument.

    This moves me to the next issue which is: injecting a third party into the child’s life, which to me is probably the most crucial. I honestly don’t care what two consenting adults do with their own genitals.

    Then you disagree with your own church, the hierarchy of which seem to think it is a “sin”.

    The union between same sex couples is intrinsically sterile. Therefore, they must circumnavigate natural ways of procreating by using artificial means or employing surrogates.

    And this is wrong because? And please don’t claim “natural law”, since this as an idea, is completely fallacious.

  56. In reply to #72 by Ignorant Amos:

    OKCancelIn reply to #71 by epeeist:

    In reply to #33 by Joransson: I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home.I am not sure about the figure you give since you supply no provenance for it, but I would accept that the majority of abuse is by guardians and carers.

    There seems to be a bit of confusion on this point by the criminologist who is all about facts and statistics. As you will be aware, the subject is a bit more complicated than the RCC apologist would like it to be. Misquoting the data methinks.

    Myth: Children are usually sexually abused by strangers.
    Fact: 85 – 90% of children who are sexually abused are sexually abused by someone they know.

    Source: http://www.childmatters.org.nz/58/learn-about-child-abuse/myths-and-realities

    Anyone that know anything about the sexual abuse carried out by Catholic clerics, know that much of it is by the family priest who holds a position of trust with the family of the abused ergo not a stranger. They also carry out much of the abuse in the victims own home or just did the grooming in the family home and took the kids away to carry out the dastardly deeds. Like that piece of human excrement Father Brendan Smyth who was facilitated in his actions by his superiors and whose paedophilia brought down a government. No wonder the subsequent Irish governments became wary of the RCC.

    “His[Smyth] favoured tactic was to befriend his victims’ families and gain their trust. Once he had adopted the persona of a “friendly uncle”, he was able to bring them away on trips and abuse them, sometimes in his car, other times at an hotel, a cinema, a boathouse and an abbey.”

    Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/paedophile-priest-brendan-smyth-a-monster-who-targeted-the-vulnerable-14720913.html#ixzz2I8xH7wloHelp with formatting click hereXFormat TextHeaders#H1 Header##H2 HeaderText styles*For italic***For bold**ListsUnordered*Item 1*Item 2Ordered1.Item 12.Item 2MiscellaneousImagesFormat:Alt TextExample: rdf richardLinksExample: GoogleMore help on markdown home page

  57. In reply to epeeist:

    Apologies for the formatting balls-up….don’t know what happened there. It should have read something like:-

    In reply to #71 by epeeist:

    In reply to #33 by Joransson:

    I want to suggest to you that coming from a criminologist background and having studied extensively at university in this field for more than just a couple of years, most sexual assaults (something like 90% give or take) against children occur in their own home.

    I am not sure about the figure you give since you supply no provenance for it, but I would accept that the majority of abuse is by guardians and carers.

    There seems to be a bit of confusion on this point by the criminologist who is all about facts and statistics. As you will be aware, the subject is a bit more complicated than the RCC apologist would like it to be. Misquoting the data methinks.

    Myth: Children are usually sexually abused by strangers. Fact: 85 – 90% of children who are sexually abused are sexually abused by someone they know.

    Source: http://www.childmatters.org.nz/58/learn-about-child-abuse/myths-and-realities

    Anyone that know anything about the sexual abuse carried out by Catholic clerics, know that much of it is by the family priest who holds a position of trust with the family of the abused ergo not a stranger. They also carry out much of the abuse in the victims own home or just did the grooming in the family home and took the kids away to carry out the dastardly deeds. Like that piece of human excrement Father Brendan Smyth who was facilitated in his actions by his superiors and whose paedophilia brought down a government. No wonder the subsequent Irish governments became wary of the RCC.

    “His[Smyth] favoured tactic was to befriend his victims’ families and gain their trust. Once he had adopted the persona of a “friendly uncle”, he was able to bring them away on trips and abuse them, sometimes in his car, other times at an hotel, a cinema, a boathouse and an abbey.”

    Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/paedophile-priest-brendan-smyth-a-monster-who-targeted-the-vulnerable-14720913.html#ixzz2I8xH7wloHelp with formatting click hereXFormat TextHeaders#H1 Header##H2 HeaderText stylesFor italicFor boldListsUnorderedItem 1Item 2Ordered1.Item 12.Item

  58. In reply to #69 by susanlatimer:

    Sadly, our catholic friend who showed up here to provide some “balance” was just doing a drive-by. He implied that atheists don’t read , while demonstrating that he was unfamiliar with the writings he referred to, suggested that without Yahweh, the only reasonable thing left for non-yahweh affilliates to do is to kill ourselves and nattered on about marriage, tradition and pro-creation, and put the cherry on top with his reference to “lifestyle choices”. Then, he buggered off.

    I shouldn’t hold your breath on a return. There was an evangelist preacher on mission in Uganda here a couple of weeks ago. The usual stuff. I’ll get back with answers, I’m busy at the moment. If I had a Euro for every time an apologist pitched up here with the same old rhetoric I’d be doing okay. They are par for the course, but we owe it to those that are the unsure fence sitters to engage the same old, same old when they do sway in with their balderdash. I doubt I will very rarely influence the dyed-in-the-wool deluded to apply some rational and critical thinking, it’s more about the lurkers. Go and investigate the right way of things as best ya can I say. Don’t take any ones word on what is said. Look into it for oneself, it’s amazing how relieving the truth really can be.

  59. I’ve read again the letter extract signed by more than 1,000 Roman Catholic clerics and I’m stunned, I can’t believe what they’re saying. The letter is a tribute to cynicism, arrogance and manipulation. The RC religion is the only one in the world who knows how to make the most of their dead. It’s been more than two thousand years living off the proceeds of their martyrs whose numbers have been far lower than the victims caused by this Church throughout History. Despite having caused many deaths and torture, the Church always considers itself the victim, and that’s what these clerics are doing with their letter: they sell pity in order to achieve their goals; in this case to ban gay marriage.
    The RCC has spent a great deal of History persecuting and denying the rights of others- and still does- now is pretending to make us believe that its own rights are in jeopardy:

                          "Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship"
    

    In other words, gay marriage must be banned because it doesn’t fit into the idea of what marriage is to the RCC. By the same logic we could ban Geology (and Biology and Astronomy) because it does not fit into the idea that the world is only 10,000 years, which is what Evangelicals and other creeds believe; this could unleash a persecution against Evangelicals- if the logic of the letter is applied.

    What the Catholic Church, really fears is that legislative changes, together with scientific knowledge, can make people more impermeable to religion, whether Roman Catholic or others, and start to take an interest in more rational options, instead of the stupidities of religion. I think rationalist associations ought to get better organized to stop that madman called Nazi Ratzi (the Pope, if someone didn’t understand). Unfortunately we’ll hear more from him and his Church.

  60. In reply to #75 by Odalrich:

    Despite having caused many deaths and torture, the Church always considers itself the victim, and that’s what these clerics are doing with their letter: they sell pity in order to achieve their goals; in this case to ban gay marriage.

    I think the 1000 priests in the article were being ‘nation’ specific in their letter. They are referring to the persecution of Catholics by England post reformation and the Henry VIII fall out with the Pope over his hanky panky, ironically, over procreation and marriage. Successive monarchs since, with a few exceptions, have persecuted the Catholics in most parts of Great Britain in one way or another. So putting the letter into context, they are referring to a return of the persecution the Catholics received under British laws in the past. that said….they are still talking shite by the way.

    So be it if the new laws allowing an already persecuted section of society to have the same rights as the rest, impinges on a fucked up, cherry picked, out of date dogma. Their self perceived persecution will be self inflicted, they will get over it or suffer for it. Either way it will force change for the better in my opinion.

  61. More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing concerns that same-sex marriage will threaten religious freedoms in a way that was last seen during centuries of persecution of Catholics in England.

    This is just the usual:-

    “We are above the law of the land, will break the law if it conflicts with our mindless dogma, and look for sympathy playing the persecuted martyr when we are prosecuted for our illegal activities” – (If the cover-ups and campaign of propagandist lying fail)!

  62. A: Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from God, not from some farcical survey of opinion

    B: That’s revolting. Regardless, can’t we just get married like everyone else? Yourselves excepted, of course.

    A: Come and see the fabulousness inherent in the system! Come and see the fabulousness inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!

    B: Bloody bigot

    A: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn’t you?

  63. In reply to #6 by Danganbeg:

    I am here because I am an atheist. However, this site seems to be just an old-fashioned, very typical protestant anti-catholic forum.

    And how is that? You realise that every religion feels it’s being persecuted more than all the others, right?

  64. Excuse me…but this sounds a little too irrational and paranoid. If you start making connections like these, it’s time for you to consider giving a call to a mental health professional. You do not need to fear things that have absolutely nothing to do with you.

Leave a Reply