The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rome has no monopoly on child abuse > Comments

Rome has no monopoly on child abuse : Comments

By Xavier Symons, published 15/11/2012

While the Roman Catholic Church has to answer for its deficiencies on child abuse, that shouldn't allow others to escape scrutiny.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
.

Dear George,

.

“Preconceived hatreds and emotions are not a good guide to … actually to anything, especially a rational debate”.

With all due respect, I am not sure you are right there, George.

My Concise Oxford Dictionary indicates that "hatred" is a "strong dislike of or strong aversion to".

I think that such feelings could be quite conducive to debate, particularly as they are likely to provoke the rightful "indignation" of the person having such feelings.

Forgive me for being pedant, but, according to my dictionary, "indignation" means "anger excited by supposed meanness, injustice, wickedness, or misconduct".

Certainly, debate is an intellectual exercise but feelings of "strong dislike" and "indignation" may be an excellent source of motivation for engaging debate and a "good guide" throughout.

Indifference, on the other hand, would be, in my opinion, a poor guide from start to finish.

Need I add that religious dogma and blind faith leave little room for the "rational debate" you seek and obviously value, as I think we all do on this forum.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 16 November 2012 8:01:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does bother me that the Catholic Church seems to be trying to deflect attention. My local priest, and the chaplain of the Catholic school at which I work, is a truly remarkable man who - to the best of my knowledge - is beyond reproach in the wonderful things he does with and for our kids. That church leaders seem desperate to adopt the role of "victim" sullies his reputation as well.

That said, it is true that the Catholic Church is not alone here. The most notable sex abuse scandal I can recall in this region comes from an Anglican school. We once had a Governor-General - an Anglican bishop - who was discredited and ended up resigning because of his role in covering up sex abuse within that church.

Is it just churches? Or is it endemic in a broader group of organisations - possibly all organisations - that actively engage with children in the name of "welfare"?

Cardinal Pell needs to suck it up, cooperate with the investigation and put on a public display - backed by actual action - of ensuring that these atrocities and their cover-ups are stamped out for good. Past wrongs cannot be undone. They must, however, be acknowledged and addressed. I suspect it is impossible to prevent all future wrongdoing in any organisation that employs fallible human beings. But measures must be taken to ensure that the fallible fall and their victims do not. The Catholic Church presents itself as a bastion of morality. It needs to start being just that.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 16 November 2012 9:16:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

.
This is war, Otokonoko. We Christian soldiers are fully mobilized behind the cross, with a single intent: DEFEND THE CHURCH AT ALL COST.

Please do not distract us.

It's not the moment to talk about innocent child victims, past or present.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Forget about the atrocities and the cover-ups. You have to choose who's side you're on.

The investigators can't hurt us. We just have to out-smart them.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Don't worry about Cardinal Pell. He's got his orders straight from the Pope himself.

He knows what he has to do.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Everything will be all right, Otokonoko. Just fall in line behind us

and sing the refrain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTJMQ38bnoY - (all together !)

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all in Australia,
One in hope and doctrine, one in paedophilia.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 17 November 2012 2:01:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I was not referring to any kind of debate, but to rational debate, where a detached view and analysis - as much as a debater is capable of it - and rational arguments have a better chance of arriving at insights into the positions of others, than emotions, indignation, hatred and other “excellent sources of motivation”, whether they arise from “religious dogma and blind faith” (whatever you mean by that) or from other one-sided views.

The preceding two posts are a good example. If you really think that your response to Otokonoko is on the same rational level, providing insights into the topic under consideration at the same level, as his original post, then we just have to leave it at that, agreeing that we have different ideas of what constitutes a rational debate.
Posted by George, Saturday, 17 November 2012 3:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

"The preceding two posts are a good example. If you really think that your response to Otokonoko is on the same rational level, providing insights into the topic under consideration at the same level, as his original post, then we just have to leave it at that, agreeing that we have different ideas of what constitutes a rational debate".

Not at all, George, I am sure you have no difficulty recognizing that my post, which you refer to, is a parody, a type of satire.

I consider that the technique employed also has its place in a rational debate.

But perhaps you are of a different opinion and I would welcome your views on this.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 17 November 2012 4:43:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

>>I consider that the technique employed also has its place in a rational debate.<<
That only confirms what I wrote above that we have different ideas about what constitutes a rational (in distincion to, say, derogatory) debate.

>>But perhaps you are of a different opinion and I would welcome your views on this.<<
What do you think the reaction on this OLO would be if in a debate on, say, the existence or not of God, somebody offered as rational argument a parody or satire on the Atheist Foundation of Australia or some other institution (or world view) carrying the word ‘atheist’ in its name? Irrespective of the reaction, it would hardly be accepted - and that not only by atheists - as a viable contribution to the debate.
Posted by George, Saturday, 17 November 2012 8:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy