AJ
So then you say atheist soldiers who rape should be convicted.
"The military is a necessary institution for which the existence of is not reliant upon a set of unfounded claims, unlike the useless behemoth that is the Catholic Church."
Then the necessity of Defence is irrelevant to soldiers' being convicted. So the "useless behemoth" is also irrelevant. Belonging to any institution doesn't change a sex-crime. Protecting atheist soldiers' crimes does not make Defence a criminal organisation as theist priests' crimes don't make the Church criminal.
But Defence loyalty is just as poisonous as Church protection.
If a business has sex criminals in it does the business get closed down ?
I understand you want the Church dead , burnt and buried - OK but you are being extreme and terrifying in your crusade.

nicknamenick,

This this the last time I’ll answer silly questions. There rest will be ignored:

<<So then you say atheist soldiers who rape should be convicted.>>

Yes.

<<Then the necessity of Defence is irrelevant to soldiers' being convicted.>>

Of course.

<<So the "useless behemoth" is also irrelevant.>>

No, the "useless behemoth" remark was made in reference to the shutting down of criminal organisations, not convicting guilty individuals. Your comparison is invalid.

<<Belonging to any institution doesn't change a sex-crime.>>

No, but an institution systematically covering up sex crimes does change the nature of the institution. You’re confusing and conflating individual instances of crimes with the systematic covering up of them.

<<Protecting atheist soldiers' crimes does not make Defence a criminal organisation as theist priests' crimes don't make the Church criminal.>>

Actually, it renders them both criminal. But we need the military.

<<If a business has sex criminals in it does the business get closed down ?>>

If the sex crimes are being systematically covered up, then you would probably find that many people would want it shut down, yes. Yet, when a church does it, suddenly we need to take the time to get to the root of the problem. There is an unjustified double-standard there.

<<I understand you want the Church dead , burnt and buried - OK but you are being extreme and terrifying in your crusade.>>

Yes, I do want that. But more importantly, I want it to happen in its own time, without force, and because that’s was everyone decides should happen. There’s nothing “terrifying” about that.

Your expression of horror in response to my quite reasonable points is symptomatic of the unjustified taboo status that criticising religion has somehow earned itself. NathanJ’s presumption of hatred on my behalf was another example of this. It’s a sad state of affairs when criticising religion is so alien to us that it invokes a sense of horror in everyone.

A true theistic view gives meaning and purpose and moral order, to human existence. That order is recognized as a religious moral belief. Without such, criminality cannot be established as against another. All action under atheism or those not adhering to Christian moral principles is then acceptable. Such action is based in emotion rather than social well being. The unbelieving man says destroy your opponents: Christ taught, feed your enemy, give water to your enemy, pray for your enemy, seek the well being of your enemy.

Because theists believe the Universe has order, design and purpose, moral order, design and purpose is relevant.

"it renders them both criminal. But we need the military."
I'm not horrified at criticism of the Church as you can clearly see.
But Australian Defence and Catholic Church are both criminal ? We just need Defence so then...
wowee
no more can be discussed buddy

AJ Philips

<<Not even the most vocal atheists are demanding that believers stop believing.>>

This can apply to both sides of any discussion. It is not about myself involving discrimination, or about one person (and what actions they take).

<<You see, the goal is not to ban bad ideas like religion, it’s to promote enough rational thought so as to encourage those who hold bad ideas to abandon them>>

I was at one stage, a member of a Friends of the Library group. For some reason, very suddenly the Librarian, became rude, very dictatorial, put up silly arguments to why we couldn't undertake library activities and were told our group couldn't display group brochures anymore as there was no space to do so.

So wanting to maintain a friendly relationship (with the Library) the group committee put up with two and half years of difficulty. After the last three remaining members resigned, I lodged a formal complaint with the local council, very nicely, wanting change. Six months later, getting a reply I spoke to other staff. Later on when I found the Librarian was still being rude to others, I left the group.

So in terms of what the Librarian did, there was no rational thought, and the aim was simply to ban ideas, in terms of having a Friends of the Library group and see it discontinue, which it now does, that being non-operational.

So the intention was to see the group discontinue, weather (the Librarian) said it or not, which of course he didn't, for obvious reasons, like coming out looking disrespectful.

So one could argue, you, AJ Philips have simply used a lot of words here, on this post to suit your own self.

I won't do that though. In real life, discovery and change clearly needs to come from within ones one self. I would encourage you to think about that at some stage. I know what its like to put through difficulty from others and see so called "bad ideas" be forced to close down, because of the views of others.

nicknamenick,

Well? Don’t leave us all in suspense.

<<But Australian Defence and Catholic Church are both criminal ? We just need Defence so then...>>

So then… what?

What terrible conclusion have you presumed that I’ve come to in order to justify the “wowee” that follows? What is it about my reasoning that is so-o-o-o-o horrible that nothing more could possibly be discussed?

What is that dreaded little ellipsis implying, I wonder?

Let me guess. You think that I believe soldiers should get away with sex crimes because, once again, you’re confusing/conflating what I say about individual instances of crimes and the systematic covering up of them?

That’s it, isn’t it?

If you are that incapable of following what others are saying, then I’m done with you. I’m not wasting any more posts on you. You need to improve your comprehension skills, because that’s appalling. Nothing I have said has been complex.

--

NathanJ,

Your offensive ‘librarian’ analogy only goes to show that you aren’t listening to what I’m saying, and are deliberately interpreting what you do selectively choose hear in the most negative possibly light. Your analogy is invalid for three reasons:

1. I’m not being disingenuous about my motives.
2. I’m not placing unfair restrictions on anyone to force their hand in any way.
3. I’m not engaging in direct sabotage.

<<So one could argue, you, AJ Philips have simply used a lot of words here, on this post to suit your own self.>>

Well, there’s the mudslinging I referred to earlier. Nothing to actually address anything I’ve said, just offensive suggestions to justify your unwillingness to absorb any of it.

But at least you didn't appeal to the need for faith.

<<I know what its like to put through difficulty from others and see so called "bad ideas" be forced to close down, because of the views of others.>>

That’s why it’s important that bad ideas be shown to be bad - so they’re not just “so-called” anymore. I’ve done that, but you’ve ignored it. And for the second time now, no-one’s forcing anything.