|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 17:22:34 GMT
I never mentioned duty of care; of which I am well aware as where I work routinely has 30-50, and sometimes more, children on-site. I am saying neither Sports Clubs or the BBC are claiming to be a Moral Arbiter or an instrument of a benevolent god - while the Church does both. All The Best The church can consider itself the grand poo bah of all it surveys …that doesn’t mean that it has more of a responsibility to children in its care than any other institution. Again, I have not mentioned duty of care, that is you; and it seem to me you are using as a smoke-screen to deflect justifiable criticism away from the church, the "ah but Sports Centres have a duty of care too" - well yes, but they've not been involved in protecting and enabling paedophiles on an industrial scale, for decades. You don't think there's even a hint of hypocrisy in pretending to be a moral arbiter, and then acting is just about the most immoral way imaginable? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Aug 14, 2024 17:23:08 GMT
I asked the question because when I posted that the church was complicit because it knowingly aided, abetted and enabled these vile practices for decades, you replied "No more than the BBC, children’s care homes, Boy Scouts , sports clubs , schools to name a few" which prompted me to question whether you don't think that the church has a far greater responsibility to the faithful than sports clubs and the media. I am asking if you hold the church harmless and I am suggesting that the church should be held to a higher standard than the BBC, because of its position of trust in your life. You don't have the same kind of contract with the BBC that you have with the church. What kind of contract do I have with the BBC and what kind of contract do I have with the church ? Your 'contract' with media is simply transactional but you entrust your very soul into the safekeeping of the church. It is your spiritual teacher and leader and your path to salvation, is it not? If you cannot trust your church to keep your children safe from harm in the house of god, if you cannot trust your church not to protect children's abusers, then I suggest your church is not living up to its claim as god's representative. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 17:30:00 GMT
The church can consider itself the grand poo bah of all it surveys …that doesn’t mean that it has more of a responsibility to children in its care than any other institution. Again, I have not mentioned duty of care, that is you; and it seem to me you are using as a smoke-screen to deflect justifiable criticism away from the church, the "ah but Sports Centres have a duty of care too" - well yes, but they've not been involved in protecting and enabling paedophiles on an industrial scale, for decades. You don't think there's even a hint of hypocrisy in pretending to be a moral arbiter, and then acting is just about the most immoral way imaginable? All The Best It’s not about you. I mentioned duty of care . The BBC , schools , children’s care homes and sports clubs have enabled paedophilia for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 17:34:23 GMT
What kind of contract do I have with the BBC and what kind of contract do I have with the church ? Your 'contract' with media is simply transactional but you entrust your very soul into the safekeeping of the church. It is your spiritual teacher and leader and your path to salvation, is it not? If you cannot trust your church to keep your children safe from harm in the house of god, if you cannot trust your church not to protect children's abusers, then I suggest your church is not living up to its claim as god's representative. The church has never lived up to its claim as god’s representative and even if it did , that would not be an excuse for institutions that do not have an equivalent claim to provide less protection for children . You are demanding that the church be what it never has been . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 17:43:09 GMT
Again, I have not mentioned duty of care, that is you; and it seem to me you are using as a smoke-screen to deflect justifiable criticism away from the church, the "ah but Sports Centres have a duty of care too" - well yes, but they've not been involved in protecting and enabling paedophiles on an industrial scale, for decades. You don't think there's even a hint of hypocrisy in pretending to be a moral arbiter, and then acting is just about the most immoral way imaginable? All The Best It’s not about you. I mentioned duty of care . The BBC , schools , children’s care homes and sports clubs have enabled paedophilia for decades. Are you aware of the very famous case of Boston Massachusetts? In that diocese just over 6% of all Catholic Priests were either receiving protected counselling by the Church after being found guilty by the Church of paedophilia or were on an internal Church "watchlist" because they were strongly suspected of paedophilia. Yet not one of those Priests had been defrocked, or reported to the police, or other relevant authorities; and in fact were moved from church to church to protect their identity, which had the effect of enabling further abuse. The BBC, Schools, Care Homes and Sports Clubs would need to have at least one case each a month, for a decade, to get close to the numbers of paedophiles protected by the Christian Church. Why keep defending it with weak whataboutery? The Christian Church is institutionally, of not doctrinally, protecting and enabling (and in some cases rewarding) paedophiles. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 17:45:24 GMT
Your 'contract' with media is simply transactional but you entrust your very soul into the safekeeping of the church. It is your spiritual teacher and leader and your path to salvation, is it not? If you cannot trust your church to keep your children safe from harm in the house of god, if you cannot trust your church not to protect children's abusers, then I suggest your church is not living up to its claim as god's representative. The church has never lived up to its claim as god’s representative and even if it did , that would not be an excuse for institutions that do not have an equivalent claim to provide less protection for children . You are demanding that the church be what it never has been .Yes, institutionally opposed to paedophilia. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 17:52:49 GMT
It’s not about you. I mentioned duty of care . The BBC , schools , children’s care homes and sports clubs have enabled paedophilia for decades. Are you aware of the very famous case of Boston Massachusetts? In that diocese just over 6% of all Catholic Priests were either receiving protected counselling by the Church after being found guilty by the Church of paedophilia or were on an internal Church "watchlist" because they were strongly suspected of paedophilia. Yet not one of those Priests had been defrocked, or reported to the police, or other relevant authorities; and in fact were moved from church to church to protect their identity, which had the effect of enabling further abuse. The BBC, Schools, Care Homes and Sports Clubs would need to have at least one case each a month, for a decade, to get close to the numbers of paedophiles protected by the Christian Church. Why keep defending it with weak whataboutery? The Christian Church is institutionally, of not doctrinally, protecting and enabling (and in some cases rewarding) paedophiles. All The Best I’m not the one using Whataboutery. I’m pointing out that paedophilia occurs in many other places than the church and that the other places have just as much duty of care than the church . You are the one waffling about ‘ gods representative’ . Any place where there is vulnerable children will attract adults who want to abuse those children . Paedophiles were/ are attracted to church schools for the same reasons that paedophiles are attracted to other places where there are vulnerable children . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 17:53:57 GMT
The church has never lived up to its claim as god’s representative and even if it did , that would not be an excuse for institutions that do not have an equivalent claim to provide less protection for children . You are demanding that the church be what it never has been .Yes, institutionally opposed to paedophilia. All The Best Christianity does not condone paedophilia. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 19:17:33 GMT
Are you aware of the very famous case of Boston Massachusetts? In that diocese just over 6% of all Catholic Priests were either receiving protected counselling by the Church after being found guilty by the Church of paedophilia or were on an internal Church "watchlist" because they were strongly suspected of paedophilia. Yet not one of those Priests had been defrocked, or reported to the police, or other relevant authorities; and in fact were moved from church to church to protect their identity, which had the effect of enabling further abuse. The BBC, Schools, Care Homes and Sports Clubs would need to have at least one case each a month, for a decade, to get close to the numbers of paedophiles protected by the Christian Church. Why keep defending it with weak whataboutery? The Christian Church is institutionally, of not doctrinally, protecting and enabling (and in some cases rewarding) paedophiles. All The Best I’m not the one using Whataboutery. I’m pointing out that paedophilia occurs in many other places than the church and that the other places have just as much duty of care than the church . And no one AT ALL has denied that. But what some of us have said is: as the Church claims to be a moral arbiter it is the height of hypocrisy for the church to act in such an immoral manner as to wilfully, and institutionally, protect paedophiles. And there is NO DOUBT AT ALL that the Church, both CoE and Catholic, has gone out of its way to protect paedophiles. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 19:18:35 GMT
Yes, institutionally opposed to paedophilia. All The Best Christianity does not condone paedophilia. And neither does it condemn it. But is has, at least for decades and probably longer, institutionally protected paedophiles. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 19:28:00 GMT
I’m not the one using Whataboutery. I’m pointing out that paedophilia occurs in many other places than the church and that the other places have just as much duty of care than the church . And no one AT ALL has denied that. But what some of us have said is: as the Church claims to be a moral arbiter it is the height of hypocrisy for the church to act in such an immoral manner as to wilfully, and institutionally, protect paedophiles. And there is NO DOUBT AT ALL that the Church, both CoE and Catholic, has gone out of its way to protect paedophiles. All The Best And there is little doubt that all the other institutions have gone out of their way to do the same . Why should a ‘ secular’ institution be any less accountable than a religious one ? Child abused occurs where vulnerable children are . The reasons why it occurs and why it is hidden is the same in all of the institutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 19:29:30 GMT
Christianity does not condone paedophilia. And neither does it condemn it. But is has, at least for decades and probably longer, institutionally protected paedophiles. All The Best It doesn’t condemn eating children or putting plums up your arse . That’s a worry eh? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 14, 2024 19:36:55 GMT
Christianity does not condone paedophilia. And neither does it condemn it. But is has, at least for decades and probably longer, institutionally protected paedophiles. All The Best That is not the religion that is those who think they are more religious and as such manage to have power over lesser mortals. Some who do this are good with good intentions others are bad and because power is involved it attracts the bad. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 19:48:49 GMT
And no one AT ALL has denied that. But what some of us have said is: as the Church claims to be a moral arbiter it is the height of hypocrisy for the church to act in such an immoral manner as to wilfully, and institutionally, protect paedophiles. And there is NO DOUBT AT ALL that the Church, both CoE and Catholic, has gone out of its way to protect paedophiles. All The Best And there is little doubt that all the other institutions have gone out of their way to do the same . Why should a ‘ secular’ institution be any less accountable than a religious one ? Child abused occurs where vulnerable children are . The reasons why it occurs and why it is hidden is the same in all of the institutions. I am not saying any organisation should be less accountable. I am saying that because the Religious one claims to be a moral authority, in a way that the BBC does not, there is a heightened level of hypocrisy, and so a justifiably heightened level of opprobrium. Especially given the special place the Church Of England has been given in UK Politics, with permanent seats in the Upper Chamber. Which is why this conversation started with me expressing the view that Religion / Faith is a personal matter, that there should be a full separation of Church and State, and that no Church or Faith Group should receive, either directly or indirectly, any money from the Public Purse. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 19:55:09 GMT
And neither does it condemn it. But is has, at least for decades and probably longer, institutionally protected paedophiles. All The Best It doesn’t condemn eating children or putting plums up your arse . That’s a worry eh? Only if institutionally the Church had demonstrated a persistent track record of Cannibalism or inserting plums up their arses. To my knowledge they have not done so. But they do have a demonstrable track record of protecting paedophiles, moving them around thus enabling more paedophilia, and even rewarding those they have reason to believe are actively engaged in paedophilia. Now, are you going to acknowledge those FACTS, or are going to opt for more diversionary tactics by reiterating a non-point about duty of care. I say it is a non-point because we are all agreed that all organisations carry an equal duty of care burden when it comes to safeguarding children; but you have continuously used a pointless "duty of care" argument to avoid admitting the Church's established track record on protecting and enabling paedophiles. All The Best |
|
