Looks like Pell can't hide :cool: :cool: :cool:

Ignoring the arguments as to whether religion has any validation or not, and returning to the issue of George Pell's knowledge of goings on in the 80s, 90s, and his apparent lack of interest in appearing before the Royal Commission. The reality is that the man has been travelling around the world for years - to and from Australia - as recently as 10 months ago - whilst claiming that he couldn't appear at the Commission. Now he's ordered to come, and suddenly he has a medical condition (diagnosed by his personal doctor at the Vatican, not by an independent doctor) that says he can't fly. Awww shucks, that's terribly inconvenience.

Should knock any chance of him being Pope out of the window though - what use is a Pope who can't travel around the world?

Edited by Benjamin: 22/2/2016 01:16:38 PM

This. If he has nothing to hide he'll come down and face the music

I'd say the Catholic Church can be a good organisation. Look at the likes of Father Chris Riley.

However, the harbouring of pedophiles is fucked.

You are such a fuckhead. You smear Pell by association, so why not left wing journalist Paul Bongiorno who lived with a pedo in Bendigo?

I am not sure that quoting my statement equates to your question about living associates, so I can only guess you are referring to Pell living with convicted kiddy fiddler Gerard Ridsdale.
Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of 'false equivalence'......?

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 22/2/2016 11:20:03 PM

Speaking of Ridsdale... Do we mention at this point that Pell attended court with Ridsdale throughout his trial, providing moral and spiritual support as Ridsdale plead guilty to committing almost fifty sexual assaults... And that during that same court case, the Catholic church refused to provide spiritual support to any of the victims of said assaults - making it a clear case of 'us vs them' rather than 'right vs wrong'.

Personally I would say that this was a clear case of the Catholic church, as an organisation, being about as evil as an organisation can be. I'd be interested to hear the defence to that argument.

The arguments generally consist of whinging about being targeted :lol:

If an organisation that was not religious had done what the catholic church has done (someone like the boy scouts etc for example), they would have been sued out of existence and their leadership jailed.

I mean, we still have the Vatican refusing to turn over documents to police, the church (particularly in the USA) changing their corporate structure specifically to limit the ability of asset seizure to pay for court awards (eg corporatizing individual diocese that can plead bankruptcy rather than putting all church assets at risk) - acting like a corporation, not a church.

The fact that priests were molesting kids is horrific enough, but by just moving them from diocese to diocese, and not reporting to police, or even just isolating them from children, the church exposed so many more children to the dangers of these sickos.

All this has taught me is that the church is a man-made institution, with nothing divine behind it. Like every other power structure, power corrupts.

The problem is, because this institution talks about a man in the clouds, they've been allowed far more leeway than any other institution to commit foul abuse, and then protect the abusers.

The hypocrisy of their actions, compared to their words, is absolutely breathtaking.

[youtube]fHRDfut2Vx0[/youtube]

This is what annoys me so much.

For some reason they're permitted to hide behind religion to absolve themselves of horrific crimes.

Society is worse off with the influence of out dated draconian laws.

You mean an organisation like the BBC that protected it's known pedophiles for years, and continues to do so? Or the ALP? Why did Gillards witch hunt deliberately exclude the judiciary and the legislative arms of government from the terms of reference?

Because there's BIG BIG problems nd knock on effects throughout Society if the extent of the judiciary 'behaviour' becomes known.

The Wilfully Ignorant Party is welcome to instigate a Royal Commission on such, while they can hang on to government.
In the meantime, your arm waving is noted

Wow . Just wow . Yes the bbc have fucked up but to somehow turn this into a right wing v left wing argument due to tour bias is shocking. As a catholic i want pell to come home and face the music if he has nothing to hide. But of course you will bitch about it like andrew bolt.

Something something "the devil was in me but I exorcised it amazingly just before this commission began" blah blah blah.

Religion is so ugh

Edited by redshirtwilly: 24/2/2016 08:42:44 AM

Religion has its problems but i hate it when people talk crap about people who are religous saying we're fucking idiots who belive in an imaingery beings. I have ny reasons why im religious and i dont need to justify my faith to people who automatically attack my choice

I don't think most people care what others believe on an individual level.

The issue is the consequences of what happens when they have power and influence on an organisational level.

For me, faith is a problem. Faith is believing in something without evidence. In fact, it is a requirement that evidence can't exist if faith is going to exist. Because if there was proof or evidence, it would no longer be faith.

That is an argument against rationality. And that is what is dangerous. If you have faith in benign things, well great.

But when someone has faith in something violent or destructive, it is extremely dangerous.

You can't use rationality or logic to persuade someone to change their mind about something they believe that has no basis in rationality or logic.

Andrew Bolt has chimed in on the issue? I need some laughs.
Got a link?

Oh really ? When i tell people im catholic i get called a kiddy fiddler and i should have myv3 kids taken away from me . My wife is muslim and the amount of crap she has to put up with is unbearable.. also im rational and have great logic . Just because im relgious doesnt mean im some sort of syncpoat. I argue , i question my religion to others who are also catholic.

twice in two weeks. And the last one was this week when he got into a heated argument with the writer of the story who happens to work for the hun and get his sources leaks to police attention

Well firstly, sorry to hear that you and your wife copped abuse. That is terrible regardless.

But in regards to the rationality question, can I ask how you are able to reconcile your rational and logical approach with the belief in the supernatural that religion requires? Not trolling, just interested to know.

That inability to reconcile rationality with the dogma of the church was one of the things that made me question religion in the first place.

Your belief doesn't indemnify you against the same criticism we level at other aspects of life. Face it, people cannot be expected to respect your faith if you publicly speak about it.

I hate the assumption that faith should be untouchable/beyond reproach. By this I don't mean calling you a kiddy fiddler for being catholic or a terrorist for being muslim. It means people whinging because their organization is attacked.

Lets face it, your faith is your faith. No one else understands it. No one can be expected to make the leap of faith to understand you.

Faith is by definition unreasonable. That's why it's called faith.

Faith can be critisized . Im all for every faith to be critisized. But theres criticism and theres personal attacks which i get constantly when i mention in a catholic.. play the ball not the man. Im critical of the church for being out of touch . And for years being cupable of covering up pedos.

You could always stop being a Catholic and show them you actually, really are critical.

Just keep the Faith bit, it's possible.

Edited by Back to top: 24/2/2016 05:15:40 PM

Most people take a criticism of their organisation (muslims in particular) as a personal attack. It's very difficult to be critical of any aspect of religion, religious texts or the religious organizations/churches etc. without it being taken as a personal attack.

I have no problem with people who are religious UNTIL they:
- claim that another religious group's beliefs are 'wrong' or 'inferior' to their own;
- claim that they have the right to do something, or be judged differently, because of their religion;
- deny scientifically proven information that contradicts what they have been taught from a centuries old text; and/or
- teach material which has been demonstrated to be false as if it were fact.

If the government tried to force a sick baby on a plane, why won't they do the same with a sick Cardinal?

Mutually exclusive situations.

-PB

Pt a) i would never do that as that'll be hypocritial of me
Pt c) science and religon can actually get along quiet well. I know plenty of religous people who work in the science field. Their faith doesn't define them in their jobs
Pt b)thats not a religious thing thats just being an asshole . Period
And lastly pt d) who are we to say what to them is false when they belive it to be true. Im not sayinf it is but to them its their truth and who are we to mock them about it? I get it if its coming from some fucked up right wing homophobic bastard who says padeophillia isnt bad. But some people just need that comfort in believing in something they cant explain