Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clearly Imran admits that he believes this too.

You know, if you want to prevent this, you really need to firm up your premisses, Imran.

This would prevent me from doing end arounds.

Your logic sucks donkey balls.

I've said marriages, as in the whole. Reading comprehension is essential.

Your attempts at end arounds is pathetic, as usual.

[Elok]

If I were one of the victims, I'd be even angrier that the only time this is 'news' is to take a cheap shot at the Pope. I mean hell, I'd have been living my entire life through it and the media doesn't give a **** about the abuse.

I think this calls for digging out the

Let's get this straight: You're saying Ratzinger should not be attacked because the victims would feel unloved when the guy who protected their attackers gets pressure put on him? And furthermore, pursuing sex-abuse cases, some of which are decades old at this point, is proof that the media doesn't give a **** about them? Because, you know, the only way to really sympathize is to focus relentlessly on the victims and assume the priests who raped them appeared out of the sky like lightning bolts...I'm sure they'd prefer endlessly reliving the incidents in interviews to seeing justice done, no doubt about that.

[Elok]

In other news, Chinese people who lost family members at Tienanmen Square are angry with U.S. Media for badgering the Chinese government about its ongoing denial of the massacre...

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's get this straight: You're saying Ratzinger should not be attacked because the victims would feel unloved when the guy who protected their attackers gets pressure put on him?

No, I'm saying that the victims were abused, some of them more than 50 years ago. And NOW the media decides that it's newsworthy? Are you honestly saying that they would feel 'loved' by this coverage? No. The ones who are still alive are used to being used by other people for their own purposes.

Where the **** were they back in the 50's and 60's and 70's? Oh that's right, no one gave a ****.

And furthermore, pursuing sex-abuse cases, some of which are decades old at this point, is proof that the media doesn't give a **** about them?

Yep. Where were they 50 years ago, when if they actually listened something might have been done?

Because, you know, the only way to really sympathize is to focus relentlessly on the victims and assume the priests who raped them appeared out of the sky like lightning bolts...I'm sure they'd prefer endlessly reliving the incidents in interviews to seeing justice done, no doubt about that.

How is it justice to go after Papa Ratzi, and not, say, the priest who actually committed the abuse? Oh wait, that would admit that the media SCREWED UP! Damn. Talk about your coverup.

[Ming]

Where the **** were they back in the 50's and 60's and 70's? Oh that's right, no one gave a ****.

Well... Ratzinger certainly didn't give a **** about the victims... He only cared about protecting the church and the bad priests.

How is it justice to go after Papa Ratzi, and not, say, the priest who actually committed the abuse? Oh wait, that would admit that the media SCREWED UP! Damn. Talk about your coverup.

Yep... blame it on the media... just more smoke and misdirection. It's obvious where the coverup was. It's obvious who screwed up. It's justice to bring out the facts, and in this case, show who was responsible for covering it up. There is more than enough blame to go around here.

And sure, they are picking on Ratzinger simply because of his position now. Because it shows what kind of person he was in the past... and it's important to show how "leaders" have responded in the past to presure situations. People in power are fair game, because they do HAVE POWER.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, some people were trapped in unhappy marriages, but marriage isn't easy.

You have no idea. Women were regularly beat and cheated on and men could just leave them whenever they wanted to, but women could not leave men.

[Kidlicious]

As a personality trait I like strong women. Always have. That doesn't mean that I don't also think they should submit to their husbands.

Man, you are in for a surprise.

[Kidlicious]

It's more because they are naturally physically weaker (on average) than men.

Physical strength has little to do with the way things play out. Women have very real power when they decide to use it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Physical strength, though, is a reason women were kept in subservient positions. Because if they tried anything, they could be beaten down without recourse throughout much of history.

[Kidlicious]

Physical strength, though, is a reason women were kept in subservient positions. Because if they tried anything, they could be beaten down without recourse throughout much of history.

Whenever people fight for their rights they can always be beat down. It's no different with men.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The history of violence against women and the accepted nature of it is far different than simply "people fighting for their rights"

[Ben Kenobi]

Well... Ratzinger certainly didn't give a **** about the victims... He only cared about protecting the church and the bad priests.

Hey, big words from the guy who said that the authorities needed to get involved here. Why aren't you getting upset that the authorities were informed and they chose to ignore everything and did nothing, back in the 50s and 60s? If they had acted then, they could have prevented many children from being molested. Instead they did nothing, and you are still fixated on Ratzinger, who wasn't informed until 1996, over 40 years after everything had occurred.

And sure, they are picking on Ratzinger simply because of his position now.

Exactly. The media would never have reported this story because they don't give a **** about the victims. It's only newsworthy because they are trying to smear the Pope. Don't they ever get tired of this same old bull****, over and over again. They tried it with the other story, and then the truth got out. They try again with a different story, and the truth is getting out.

Because it shows what kind of person he was in the past... and it's important to show how "leaders" have responded in the past to presure situations. People in power are fair game, because they do HAVE POWER.

Oh. Does that mean that the priest who actually abused these BOYS gets a pass for 50 years from the media?

[Ben Kenobi]

Man, you are in for a surprise.

Kid, how long did you know your wife before you two got hitched?

[Ming]

Hey, big words from the guy who said that the authorities needed to get involved here. Why aren't you getting upset that the authorities were informed and they chose to ignore everything and did nothing, back in the 50s and 60s? If they had acted then, they could have prevented many children from being molested. Instead they did nothing, and you are still fixated on Ratzinger, who wasn't informed until 1996, over 40 years after everything had occurred.

Gee... I thought we were talking about Ratzi... please point out where I said the authorities should get a pass. I didn't.

Exactly. The media would never have reported this story because they don't give a **** about the victims. It's only newsworthy because they are trying to smear the Pope. Don't they ever get tired of this same old bull****, over and over again. They tried it with the other story, and then the truth got out. They try again with a different story, and the truth is getting out.

I don't care what the media gives a damn about. It is newsworthy because it is the Pope. Just like it would be if it was the President, or somebody else in power. It shows the person's character, or in this case, the lack of.

Oh. Does that mean that the priest who actually abused these BOYS gets a pass for 50 years from the media?

Again... the media is the media. The media reports the story that they think people will be interested in.
The fact that a priest molested somebody in the past is really not anything new since it happened alot and doesn't surprise anybody. The fact the Pope in his past covered it up is news.

You can harp all you want that the press is picking on Ratzi, but guess what, he put himself in this position by doing what he did. Complaining or pointing at the media is just a smoke screen. It doesn't change what Ratzi did.

[DinoDoc]

Well, you can start a "now-dead civil authorities thread" to excoriate them, but

What was Ratzi supposed to do in this case if the civil authorities filed to act? This one seem like a wierd case to excoriate the Catholic Church over. I'm sure that there are better ones that could be found.