Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, they are not. Wall of separation, no? It cuts both ways.

[Elok]

No, they are not. Wall of separation, no? It cuts both ways.

If this were true, you'd think they'd advertise it more: "Priests can't get speeding tickets," etc. Then they'd attract more people, stop having to settle for kiddy-rapists.

[Asher]

No, they are not. Wall of separation, no? It cuts both ways.

You are ****ing awesomely retarded.

[BlackCat]

No, they are not. Wall of separation, no? It cuts both ways.

Ben, stop being a bigger idiot than you currently have dispalyed. The church is similiar to a union, mafia gang, or a knitting group of elderlys. They have to abide to laws just that anybody else have to.

[BlackCat]

I think the RCC and the state are separate entities. The state should not be telling the church what to do and vice versa.

This is where you fail. The RCC has no right to be above the law. The RCC isn't anything else than an interest group and has to abide to public laws.
There are only one place where this isn't so, and that is in the vatican state - on the rest of the world, the RCC has to bow down.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

No, they are not. Wall of separation, no? It cuts both ways.

Well then, I guess we should take no action against Imams who support terror, or preachers who embezzle from their own congregants. Wall of separation, no?

Or is that only for Catholics who commit crimes?

[Ming]

So if the law of the land forbade Catholic priests altogether, priests who came should be subject to such a law?

Frankly... YES. If the State doesn't want Catholic priests, that's their decision. Some countries don't have freedom of religion. Priests could still practice their faith, but at their own risk. But that's not what we have been talking about. We are talking about RAPE of US citizens... they are responsible for their actions and subject to the laws of this land, NOT the church.

So you believe the media when they say this is a Catholic problem? No, it's not. It's a people problem. You are aware that the incidence isn't any greater in the Catholic church than it is for other denominations?

Sure... all professions have this problem. The problem is that the Catholic Church covered it up for years, giving the molesterers a chance to do it again. The story Asher provided shows yet another example where the church didn't keep an offender away from children.

Why are you using a single case where the system broke down to claim that your positions are correct? It's no different.

It's not ust a single case... This went on for years.

Even if it were only 3 years, and he was released into the general public, whereas in the CC they would be kept out of the public altogether?

Again... no proof of that... but we do have proof that it doesn't always work that way. And again, if it wasn't a cover up, why didn't the church mention the little fact that they were moving a criminal into their parash... the members were not told of the potential risk... real nice. At least I can look up who the convicted molesterers are in my community.

You are using one case to explain your post. If one point is insufficient proof for you, then one case is insufficient proof for me.

Whatever... you ignore facts and make up your own.

Do you have evidence that most of the priests in fact reoffend after they are relocated? This would be rather essential to your contention that this is a widespread problem.

Many did reoffend based on the study done by the Church, which you claimed was bad research.
If you aren't going to look at research done by the Roman Catholic church, you will just ignore anything that doesn't support your point of view.

Like anything it takes time. Now, my question for you, is will you accept that it is not business as usual and commend the church for taking action? As far as I can see, you believe the Church can do no right. What would it take to convince you otherwise?

I won't commend the church for doing what it should have done years ago, and only did because they got caught. I'm still not convinced that they are doing their best.

All I'm saying is the law that the priest is held to (ecclesial) is more valid than the secular law. Ergo, priests ought to be disciplined by the higher and not the lower law.

In your faith... FINE. But guess what, not everybody believes in your faith, and that's why we have the state. If a religion claimed that human sacrifice was the way to go, I don't think they should be allowed to drag kids off the street and kill them. Just like I don't believe that the RCC should protect child rapists from the state. It's only a higher law to YOU, not for the state.

Actually, no I'm not. I've attached a picture showing that the average molester in GA served about 2 years up until the last few years.

http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/CSO.pdf

Gee... one state out of 50... what were you saying about a single example...

They are exempt from quite a few laws that don't really apply to them. Labour laws, marriage laws, etc. If any other profession had a requirement barring their members from marrying this could not happen. I am saying that it's only recently that the laws were any different between the two organisations.

They aren't exempt from marriage laws, they have a personal vow not to get married, and what other laws are covered under "etc". You just keep making stuff up.
Last time I checked, they don't get a pass for raping children.

They are subject to the laws of the land, it's that simple. Why should they be subject first to God's law when there are many people in the state that don't believe in your god. The fact they are a member of a religious cult doesn't exempt them from man's laws in this country.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well then, I guess we should take no action against Imams who support terror, or preachers who embezzle from their own congregants. Wall of separation, no?

Or is that only for Catholics who commit crimes?

Isn't that already the case? I thought Imams already had diplomatic immunity. You can't even make fun of them in cartoons.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, stop being a bigger idiot than you currently have dispalyed. The church is similiar to a union, mafia gang, or a knitting group of elderlys. They have to abide to laws just that anybody else have to.

Jefferson didn't see fit to divide knitting groups or unions from the state. Maybe you should go talk to him about his grevious omissions.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is where you fail. The RCC has no right to be above the law. The RCC isn't anything else than an interest group and has to abide to public laws.

So what you are saying is that while the Church should have no say in the affairs of the state, but the state should control the affairs of the Church? That state law always trumps church law?

[DaShi]

So what you are saying is that while the Church should have no say in the affairs of the state, but the state should control the affairs of the Church? That state law always trumps church law?

Yes

[Zevico]

It is not a crime for a person to refuse to report a crime of rape. Likewise it is not a crime for Church officials to refuse to report such a crime. And, in the absence of specific legislation, corporate bodies such as the Church cannot commit crimes. However I think it is unethical and somewhat negligent for Church officials to refuse to report crimes or suspected crimes to the police when they become aware of them. It does not inspire confidence in the competence of Church officials. It may also be negligent to send them off to other parts of the country to 'recover.'

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Isn't that already the case? I thought Imams already had diplomatic immunity. You can't even make fun of them in cartoons.

So yes, your bull**** answer implies that you do in fact think that Catholic criminals deserve special treatment simply because they're Catholic. Thanks.

[Ben Kenobi]

So yes, your bull**** answer implies that you do in fact think that Catholic criminals deserve special treatment simply because they're Catholic. Thanks.

All I need to know. So the wall of separation is really very thin.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frankly... YES. If the State doesn't want Catholic priests, that's their decision. Some countries don't have freedom of religion.

Remember, we are talking about countries like England, not so long ago. Personally, I don't want that situation coming around again, and the recent hostility doesn't inspire confidence that religious rights will be respected by an administration which has no respect for the constitution.

Gee... one state out of 50... what were you saying about a single example...

First it was one case. I showed that not only was I right, I actually understated the problem. Feel free to find numbers from other states that contradict the GA numbers.

Priests could still practice their faith, but at their own risk. But that's not what we have been talking about. We are talking about RAPE of US citizens... they are responsible for their actions and subject to the laws of this land, NOT the church.

I would agree, except the state doesn't seem all that interested in protecting their citizens.

Sure... all professions have this problem. The problem is that the Catholic Church covered it up for years, giving the molesterers a chance to do it again. The story Asher provided shows yet another example where the church didn't keep an offender away from children.

And that case was already brought up earlier in the thread. It was the result of a breach in policy, not the other way around. I don't believe there's any concrete evidence of a cover up by a church that has actually exceeded the reporting standards as requested by the authorities. So, I await your praise for the Church for what they have done today, not bringing up their failures from 30 years ago.

Again... no proof of that... but we do have proof that it doesn't always work that way.

What? That the priests reoffend? Their recedivism rate is much lower than in the general population by the current government's policies which are ineffective at treating child molestors. Clearly the church is doing something right.

And again, if it wasn't a cover up, why didn't the church mention the little fact that they were moving a criminal into their parash... the members were not told of the potential risk... real nice. At least I can look up who the convicted molesterers are in my community.

I wasn't aware that they attached names to those listings. Doesn't that violate your own laws wrt to privacy? They don't even tell you what they did.

Many did reoffend based on the study done by the Church, which you claimed was bad research.
If you aren't going to look at research done by the Roman Catholic church, you will just ignore anything that doesn't support your point of view.

I have looked at all the links. Why is it everyone assumes that because I personally disagree that I didn't actually look at the sources?

In your faith... FINE. But guess what, not everybody believes in your faith, and that's why we have the state. If a religion claimed that human sacrifice was the way to go, I don't think they should be allowed to drag kids off the street and kill them.

What if they drag kids off the street and send em to afghanistan where they blow themselves up? Do you believe that's right?

They are subject to the laws of the land, it's that simple. Why should they be subject first to God's law when there are many people in the state that don't believe in your god. The fact they are a member of a religious cult doesn't exempt them from man's laws in this country.

Because I believe that God's law trumps man's law. Where does their law state that child molestation is ok? I don't see it.