|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 19:58:18 GMT
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 I repeat..any organisation can claim that it is anything it wants but that doesn’t alter the fact that paedophilia will occur within that organisation and be hidden in that organisation for the same reasons as it occurs in any other . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 20:07:02 GMT
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 Well having sex with pre pubescent children is probably more popular than eating them and putting plums up your arse is just a waste of food . Nevertheless the fact remains that none of them are condoned by Christianity unless you insist that anything not mentioned in the Bible is condoned by Christianity. In that case all of them are condoned and anything else not mentioned l |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 20:07:36 GMT
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 I repeat..any organisation can claim that it is anything it wants but that doesn’t alter the fact that paedophilia will occur within that organisation and be hidden in that organisation for the same reasons as it occurs in any other . So you are denying the Church's track record on protecting and enabling paedophiles. A track record that is not only established as a matter of fact, but also as a matter of law. Stop defending paedophilia. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 20:08:19 GMT
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 Well having sex with pre pubescent children is probably more popular than eating them and putting plums up your arse is just a waste of food . Nevertheless the fact remains that none of them are condoned by Christianity unless you insist that anything not mentioned in the Bible is condoned by Christianity. In that case all of them are condoned and anything else not mentioned l And here we go again, defending paedophilia if it is carried out by the church. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 20:12:33 GMT
I repeat..any organisation can claim that it is anything it wants but that doesn’t alter the fact that paedophilia will occur within that organisation and be hidden in that organisation for the same reasons as it occurs in any other . So you are denying the Church's track record on protecting and enabling paedophiles. A track record that is not only established as a matter of fact, but also as a matter of law. Stop defending paedophilia. All The Best Where did I defend paedophilia? If you repeat that lie I will report it . Play nice . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 20:13:37 GMT
Well having sex with pre pubescent children is probably more popular than eating them and putting plums up your arse is just a waste of food . Nevertheless the fact remains that none of them are condoned by Christianity unless you insist that anything not mentioned in the Bible is condoned by Christianity. In that case all of them are condoned and anything else not mentioned l And here we go again, defending paedophilia if it is carried out by the church. All The Best Reported . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 20:16:43 GMT
I will not tolerate being accused of defending paedophilia.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 20:19:52 GMT
I will not tolerate being accused of defending paedophilia. The instead if finding ways to prevaricate with whataboutery just condemn it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 20:20:54 GMT
I will not tolerate being accused of defending paedophilia. The instead if finding ways to prevaricate with whataboutery just condemn it. All The Best We need to let the mods deal with this . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 20:24:21 GMT
The instead if finding ways to prevaricate with whataboutery just condemn it. All The Best We need to let the mods deal with this . Well, what is that? Four refusals to condemn it? If there had been one iota of condemnation in your posts for the Church's actions in protecting and enabling paedophiles I could never have made such an accusation. But there just wasn't; there was whataboutery, evasion, refusal to accept established facts. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 14, 2024 20:27:35 GMT
We need to let the mods deal with this . Well, what is that? Four refusals to condemn it? If there had been one iota of condemnation in your posts for the Church's actions in protecting and enabling paedophiles I could never have made such an accusation. But there just wasn't; there was whataboutery, evasion, refusal to accept established facts. All The Best We need to let the mods deal with this . This is third accusation of defending paedophilia. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 14, 2024 21:26:33 GMT
Mod Notice
This thread is locked as the last 4 pages are some petty argument about the Church and pedophilia.
Admit you are never going to agree and move on.
|
|
