PDA

View Full Version : Boston Archdiocese - over 1000 little boys buggered



Shitoryu Dude
23rd July 2003, 16:45
Here we have a perfect example of what happens when an organization becomes an authority unto itself and considers itself above any law. Time to start prosecuting the church under RICO in my opinion.


Attorney General says church abuse scandal likely involved more than 1,000 victims
By Denise Lavoie, Associated Press, 7/23/2003 11:12

BOSTON (AP) Clergy members and others in the Boston Archdiocese probably sexually abused more than 1,000 people over a period of six decades, Massachusetts' attorney general said Wednesday, calling the scandal so massive it ''borders on the unbelievable.''

Reilly's report, the result of a grand jury investigation that explored whether church hierarchy should be charged criminally for turning a blind eye to allegations of abuse, said the archdiocese received complaints from 789 alleged victims in 45 cities and towns.

However, when other sources are considered, the attorney general said, the abuse likely affected more than 1,000 victims from 1940 until today.

Cardinal Bernard Law, who resigned last December, ''bears the ultimate responsibility for the tragic treatment of children that occurred during his tenure,'' Reilly said in the 91-page report. The cardinal, he said, was ''generally aware'' of abuse ''even before arriving in Boston'' as its archbishop in 1984.

''But by no means does he bear sole responsibility. With rare exception, none of his senior managers advised him to take any of the steps that might have ended the systemic abuse of children.''

Despite the attorney general's scathing remarks about the archdiocese's handling of the crisis, no charges are to be filed because child-protection laws in place while abuses were taking place were too weak.

A spokesman for the archdiocese did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The sheer number of abuse allegations documented by investigators in Boston appears unprecedented, even amid a scandal that has touched dioceses in virtually every state and has prompted about 1,000 people to come forward with new allegations nationwide in the last year.

Word had leaked out earlier in the week that church officials were unlikely to be charged, prompting a protest by alleged victims at Reilly's Boston office on Tuesday.

''How dare there be no indictments,'' said Kathleen Dwyer, 58, who said she was sexually abused by a priest at her church in Braintree in the early 1950s, when she was 7 years old. She was among two dozen protesters who demonstrated outside the attorney general's office.

One protester carried a sign that read, ''They let children be raped. Their punishment: NOTHING.''

The investigation did not uncover any evidence of recent or ongoing sexual abuse of children. But Reilly said the investigation didn't find any information that would explain the drop-off in recent complaints.

''Given the magnitude of mistreatment and the fact that the archdiocese's response over the past 18 months remains inadequate, it is far too soon to conclude that the abuse has, in fact, stopped or could not reoccur in the future.''

Church hierarchy were faulted for knowing about the abuse but doing nothing to stop it or prevent it even though they had direct knowledge of widespread abuse. Reilly blamed it on an ''institutional acceptance of abuse'' and a massive failure by the church's leaders.

''They chose to protect the image and reputation of their institution rather than the safety and well-being of the children entrusted to their care. They acted with a misguided devotion to secrecy,'' the report says in its conclusion. ''And they failed to break their code of silence even when the magnitude of what had occurred would have alerted any reasonable, responsible manager that help was needed.''

The report is the result of a 16-month investigation into the scandal.

Public outrage over the scandal which erupted over the past year prompted the state to enact a law making reckless endangerment of children a crime. Under the law, someone who fails to take steps to alleviate a substantial risk of injury or sexual abuse of a child can face criminal charges.

But during the time period when much of the abuse took place from the 1950s through the 1990s no such laws were on the books, and Reilly has said that prevented him from prosecuting church supervisors.

Law resigned as archbishop in December, after nearly a year of criticism over his role in allowing abusive priests to remain in parish work. Hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed against the archdiocese led to a flood of personnel files being released offering a shocking catalogue of misconduct by priests.

In addition to Law, at least eight other top officials in the Boston Archdiocese were subpoenaed by criminal investigators to answer questions about their handling of complaints against priests, including the Rev. Thomas V. Daily, now a bishop in New York City; the Rev. Robert J. Banks, now bishop in Green Bay, Wis.; and the Rev. John B. McCormack, now bishop in Manchester, N.H.

The archdiocese is facing more than 500 civil suits from alleged victims of clergy sex abuse. Church officials have repeatedly said they remain committed to working toward an out-of-court settlement.

larsen_huw
23rd July 2003, 17:06
But some of those molested were female.

However, i do love your blunt, in your face style of delivering information.

Could you imagine news presenters using a similar style, or better yet, get Harvey to present the news. Could you imagine the headlines. Maybe we should have a competition for the best Harvey stylee headline. On a seperate thread though, i don't wanna go hijacking this one.

(BTW, that's not sarcasm, i really do find you funny! ... in a good way!)

Cady Goldfield
23rd July 2003, 17:11
How come no nuns have been accused of similar crimes? Interesting.

Shitoryu Dude
23rd July 2003, 17:13
I wonder if we could extradite the pope and all the cardinals in Rome for conspiring to cover up multiple felony sexual assaults......? This information has been known to them for decades, they just tried to hush it up.

:beer:

aemon_
23rd July 2003, 17:53
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
I wonder if we could extradite the pope and all the cardinals in Rome for conspiring to cover up multiple felony sexual assaults......? This information has been known to them for decades, they just tried to hush it up.

:beer:

i think that would be a good idea.


later

Shitoryu Dude
23rd July 2003, 18:01
Nuns? Actually there have been a good number of scandals involving nuns over the years, though far fewer in number and with nowhere near the scope of the pervert priests. Nun sex scandals are typically for older adolescent girls or for basically acting as the wife of a priest. Books written by former nuns describe convents as being little more than gathering grounds for catholic lesbians.

No real documentation to back any of it up, so I guess it will remain as grist for the rumor mill for now.

:beer:

Chuck Munyon
23rd July 2003, 18:20
Grist for the rumor mill, not to mention the adult entertainment industry. Can't you just imagine?

Convent conquests: the story of a Catholic Lesbian.
CunNunLingus
Bad Habits.
Crucifriction.
Twisted Sisters.
Mother Superior Supine.
Deuteronomy 69
The holey spirit.
Cum-ba-ya.
And my personal favorite: Let's get naked together on our knees.

Vapour
23rd July 2003, 18:36
"Yet interviews with clergy, victims, and other professionals offer clinical and anecdotal evidence that challenge several popular perceptions related to clergy sexual misconduct:

* That most sex-abuse cases involving priests are pedophilic. In fact, only about one-third of priests who sexually abuse children are pedophiles (that is, they molest a prepubescent child). The rest sexually abuse adolescents, generally boys. The precise clinical term for their behavior is ephebophilia. Although few would dispute the fact that sexual violations against youngsters of any age are detestable, the distinction has important clinical implications related to prognosis and treatment. The term "pedophile priest" is an unfortunately memorable but often inaccurate appellation.

* That Catholic priests become sexually involved with adolescent boys, whereas all other religious authorities become involved with adult women. Stephen Rossetti says he's seen enough cases of Protestant clergy abusing minors and Catholic clergy abusing women to believe that it happens both ways. He uses the generally accepted estimate of 2 to 7 percent when speaking of Catholic priests who molest minors, and he points out that this is the same percentage as in the general population. That fact carries no comfort for survivors such as David Clohessy, a St. Louis political and public-relations consultant and national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP). "It doesn't matter whether just as many priests [abuse] as plumbers do," he says. "You can't take solace in that."

* That clergy misconduct involves only heterosexual men abusing women and children. According to social worker Melissa Steinmetz of the Holy Cross Counseling Group in South Bend, Indiana, sex abuse is not a males-only transgression. Because the feminist movement was largely responsible for awareness of sexual abuse, the original focus was solely on male perpetrators. But, says Steinmetz, experience has shown that some women, too, are guilty of abuse, especially of preadolescent and adolescent boys. "Probably there will always be more male sex offenders," says Steinmetz, but she notes that keeping the focus exclusively on male perpetrators does a disservice to the adolescent male victims of female offenders."

http://www.american-buddha.com/soul.betrayal.htm#SOUL%20BETRAYAL

Vapour
23rd July 2003, 18:44
Another Catholic Horror story.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/Ireland_abuse030126.html

Shitoryu Dude
23rd July 2003, 18:54
Yes, nothing like church sponsored and sanctioned slavery to keep the money rolling in.

We can add that the growing list of reasons why the church is a plague on mankind.

:beer:

Cady Goldfield
23rd July 2003, 19:32
My reason for posing the question is because I've heard dozens of horror stories from colleagues who went to Catholic schools and were emotionally or physically abused (whippings, etc.) by nuns. But, I'd never heard anything reported about sexual misconduct. That made me wonder whether the system protects nuns even more strongly than it does priests. Or, perhaps, that it just overlooks female clergy's transgressions altogether.

Shitoryu Dude
23rd July 2003, 21:00
I can think of a few reasons, which may or may not hold up under any scrutiny as they are just off the top of my head.

1) Many nuns are cloistered and so don't have much contact with the outside world to grant them access to victims.

2) It is easier in many respects to quit being a nun than it is to quit being a priest. They may just leave when the life no longer suits them.

3) It may be that being a nun is more attractive to those with vindictive, sadistic personalities more than closeted lesbians with a yearning for adolscent girls. Hence, terrorizing kids is more satisfying that sleeping with them.

4) From what I have read they usually strike up a relationship with another nun and live out a typical soap-opera lesbian life in a habit instead of blue jeans and Levi shirt.

5) Priests, being male, will typically seek out more variety than a woman would. More victims per offender.

6) It may be that the lesbian life of nuns is more a product of what is available to them than what they would choose. I've known a fair number of former priests and nuns who left the church to get married.

7) For those that are straight it may be that they are incapable of relating to men in a normal fashion out of a fear of intimacy. Thus, any teenage boys that do inflame their lust is safe from their predations.

8) Your typical teenage boy isn't going to bitch too much if a woman of even moderate attractiveness offers him a piece of ass after school when he should be cleaning blackboards. Instead of being traumatized, he'll just be very thankful for getting some and keep his mouth shut so it doesn't go away.

:beer:

ScottUK
23rd July 2003, 21:05
Crucifriction:D

I love E-Budo...

A. M. Jauregui
23rd July 2003, 23:03
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
My reason for posing the question is because I've heard dozens of horror stories from colleagues who went to Catholic schools and were emotionally or physically abused (whippings, etc.) by nuns. But, I'd never heard anything reported about sexual misconduct. That made me wonder whether the system protects nuns even more strongly than it does priests. Or, perhaps, that it just overlooks female clergy's transgressions altogether.

Back in the day, I was not what i consider physically abused but ended up on the reviving end of a ruler a few times. At the time it seems to hurt like hell but now a days I would hardly consider it more then a love tap - I know what real torture is...

As for nuns and sexual misconduct I only remember one occurrence. Some nun raped / molested / or did something along those lines a senior while I was a sophomore at the all girls high school that I went to. The punishment was that the nun was sent away to a retreat house basically in the middle of nowhere to live out the rest of her days - in other words sent to a church run prison.

From my experience most nuns are not lesbians... How they would get their carnal delights would be to take continuing education classes and pick up men or women of their liking and ability (a lot of nuns are ugly so I assume they can not be choosy).

Shitoryu Dude
23rd July 2003, 23:15
I rather think a church run prison is not quite the same as a state run prison. They can after all quit the church any time they want and go back to having a civilian life. Must not have been that bad to be in a convent in the middle of nowhere compared to a prison cell.

What they SHOULD have done is called the cops, hung her out to dry, and aided fully in her prosecution. Otherwise they lose all credibility.

:beer:

A. M. Jauregui
23rd July 2003, 23:50
I honestly do not know the conditions of church run “prisons“ for I have never been to one. As for the quitting statement, I do not see that as being an issue for most of the people in question as they are highly religious to begin with - crazy as it sound they are most likely not going to give up their faith as a get out of jail free card.

If I remember correctly, the statement that was given as to why the situation was handled internally was because there is a separation between church and state. I personally accept that, not because I do not think such conduct from clergy is above the law or should be handled by the church but because I enjoy how the clear boundary of separation between church and state that keeps the government from making a religion.

elder999
24th July 2003, 00:16
Originally posted by A.M. Jauregui

If I remember correctly, the statement that was given as to why the situation was handled internally was because there is a separation between church and state. I personally accept that, not because I do not think such conduct from clergy is above the law or should be handled by the church but because I enjoy how the clear boundary of separation between church and state that keeps the government from making a religion.

This is bull$hit. I don't know where you got it from, but that not only isn't "separation of church and state" means, but it isn't even accepted legal practice. Clergymen, Catholic and otherwise have been convicted of and sentenced for crimes throughout our country's history.

Inevitably, the Catholic church has been successful in covering up a history of deviant behavior by its clergymen through the implicit cooperation of the families of the victims and the victims themselves, and by shuttling malefactors from parish to parish, or into church sponsored "retreats," such as the Servants of the Paraclete, in Jemez Springs, NM-about 6 miles from my house,BTW.

It is only recently that we have seen these cases coming to light-though they have been spoken of and joked about since the church mandated celibacy in the 11th century, when Pope Gregory VII banned clerical marriage, a reform that was set in stone a century later.
(Yeah, the Pope could say tomorrow that priests could marry, and priests could marry....go figure.)

As for separation of church and state,the right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

-- The First Amendment

In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state. Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."

Shitoryu Dude
24th July 2003, 00:17
I'm equally worried about religion trying to make a government.

One thing that has struck me as quite incomprehensible over the years is how the catholic church holds itself above the laws of any and every country. They claim that their churches are off-limits to the police, that the confessions they hear are privileged information - they think they are immune to prosecution by temporal authorities. Church members act as if they are members of a shadow government that only existed in places that they conquered and have rights and authorities that they have not enjoyed for centuries. It is high time that churches are taxed as the corporate money-making machines they are and listed as lobby groups. The provide services which you are obligated to pay for - believe me, no church provides anything for free.

Not only should we withdraw our ambassador from the vatican, I would no longer recognize it as a country and force it's members to get a real passport if they want to come to this country. I would send accountants and IRS investigators by the gadzillion to audit their US holdings to exacting lengths and start prosecuting for fraud, dispensing psychological advice without a license, conspiracy to cover up sex crimes, slander, defamation of character, libel, perjury, and obstruction of justice. The church is without a doubt the most corrupt organization to ever exist and is guilty of genocide, slavery, fraud, and crimes against humanity.

:beer:

elder999
24th July 2003, 00:30
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
I'm equally worried about religion trying to make a government.

One thing that has struck me as quite incomprehensible over the years is how the catholic church holds itself above the laws of any and every country. They claim that their churches are off-limits to the police, that the confessions they hear are privileged information - they think they are immune to prosecution by temporal authorities. Church members act as if they are members of a shadow government that only existed in places that they conquered and have rights and authorities that they have not enjoyed for centuries. It is high time that churches are taxed as the corporate money-making machines they are and listed as lobby groups. The provide services which you are obligated to pay for - believe me, no church provides anything for free.

Not only should we withdraw our ambassador from the vatican, I would no longer recognize it as a country and force it's members to get a real passport if they want to come to this country. I would send accountants and IRS investigators by the gadzillion to audit their US holdings to exacting lengths and start prosecuting for fraud, dispensing psychological advice without a license, conspiracy to cover up sex crimes, slander, defamation of character, libel, perjury, and obstruction of justice. The church is without a doubt the most corrupt organization to ever exist and is guilty of genocide, slavery, fraud, and crimes against humanity.

:beer:

I also worry about religion establishing government.

It's another reason I don't like Bush.

I only have to look to the northwest, to Utah-a state that is pretty much run by a religion-to see what happens when religion begins to run government. This also happens throughout the "Bible Belt" on a county by county basis, though I doubt that there is anywhere that shuts down completely on Sundays anymore.

As for your sweeping indictment of the Catholic church, Harvey, they ARE a shadow government. The sanctity of the confessional has been broken, however. Like celibacy, it's not so much a matter of dogma , but discipline, and is subject to the individual priest's discretion. If he wants to rat someone out to the cops, he can-it isn't even a sin.

I don't know about taxation and the rest of it. What applies to one organization would apply to all churches, and some of them are pretty much what they say they are, and not nearly as wealthy as the Catholic church...no matter what crimes they may or may not be guilty of.

Do you really think Indians should pay a sales tax on peyote for ceremonies?

A. M. Jauregui
24th July 2003, 01:32
Oh I know all about the Constitutional foundation of the separation of church and state. But like some of my views in this thread and in others show, I balance between the letter of the law and its spirt. On the issue of church and state I tend to go with spirt more then letter. In my opinion they should be as separate in all aspects as life and death.

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm) is a wonderful site that I a few of my former student have mentioned to me that will cover all of one’s needs on the subject.

When will I learn to keep my head out of these religious / political / Harvey started threads.
*j/k Harvey*

Shitoryu Dude
24th July 2003, 02:12
Aaron - from my viewpoint (atheist) all religions are pretty much on the same level as telephone psychics. It's not your fault your parents had you indoctrinated, but once brainwashing is done at a young age it is damned hard to break. I just hope that one day you'll have an epiphany and come to dark side with Tony and me.

So, to me, all churches are companies. Every single last stinking one of them. They provide services such as marriages, funerals, bad marital counseling, pop psychology from the bronze age, etc. in exchange for 10% of your gross salary plus whatever else they can stiff you for in the name of additional services that theoretically should be free but never are. In addition, they demand that as a member your children also be indoctrinated so that they have a steady influx of customers once you die. Its like Amway, only without the products that are actually useful around the house when you fork over your cash.

Some religions are more benign than others, but all of them do us the disservice of perpetuating myths and misinformation. People would do much better relying on themselves rather than the big invisible guy in the sky that does nothing except demand more money via Sunday morning con artists.

:beer:

Vapour
24th July 2003, 05:48
Originally posted by A.M. Jauregui
Oh I know all about the Constitutional foundation of the separation of church and state. But like some of my views in this thread and in others show, I balance between the letter of the law and its spirt. On the issue of church and state I tend to go with spirt more then letter. In my opinion they should be as separate in all aspects as life and death.

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm) is a wonderful site that I a few of my former student have mentioned to me that will cover all of one’s needs on the subject.

When will I learn to keep my head out of these religious / political / Harvey started threads.
*j/k Harvey*

You don't know about the separation of church and the state. You are extremely misinformed if you think separation of church and state entitle church to run separate judiciary. I'm also afraid that this is exactly how Catholic Church teach their kids in their religious school.

The principle was fundamental to modern democracy because it is extremely bad idea to mix the *function* of church and state. Therefore as much as it is a bad practice to let state to act as religious organization like in Iran, it is equally bad to let Catholic church to run judiciary of its own. I don't know how you failed to realised this but this kid of stuff is the exact reason why abuse by priests/nuns has been going on undetected/unpunished for decades. It is equivelant to let corporation to handle sexual harrasement suits by themself. It is truly medieval and it is Catholic church who is violating the spirit of separation of church and state.

As you seems to be a Catholic so it may be hard to realised this but Catholic Church is *not special* nor it should be treated as such.

Assuming that what you said was how the Catholic Church teach about constitutional issue, and possibly certain historical matter, now I'm not even sure whether it is good idea to let religious organisations to run education let alone judiciary.

If you bothered to read my link about Catholic jail = slavery operation, it states "Incredibly, the last Magdalene laundry to shut down was in 1996."

Shitoryu Dude
24th July 2003, 06:43
I'm always amazed when I hear about the church running its own "courts" and dispensing "justice". These proceedings have no legal standing and are actually hindrances to the enforcement of justice. While they may serve for settling internal matters within the church, when a member breaks the law these eclesiastical courts are not a legal alternative to the laws of the land. Why does the church keep acting as if they are not bound by law? Church members are still citizens and members of the society they live in - they do not exist outside of it and legally are accountable to societies in which they dwell.

The next time the church decides to deal with a felony "internally" the whole lot of them need to be arrested for obstructing justice and conspiracy.

The other thing that bugs the crap out of me is the "sacrament" of the confessional. Sorry, but your medeival method of controlling populations by having them tell all their dirty secrets to you does not get any special treatment in my book. I fully support the imprisonment of priests who refuse to tell the police what they know about criminal activities that are revealed to them. Not only is it immoral to stand by and do nothing except advise them to pray, but they are again obstructing justice and likely endangering the lives of others.

:beer:

A. M. Jauregui
24th July 2003, 08:13
Should not have touched this thread with a 10 foot pole.


Originally posted by Vapour
You don't know about the separation of church and the state. You are extremely misinformed if you think separation of church and state entitle church to run separate judiciary. I'm also afraid that this is exactly how Catholic Church teach their kids in their religious school.

I simply think that it would be best to separate all religions from the current US government as much as possible. I really hated Reagon for God seemed to be every other word out of his mouth. Bush does it as well but not to the same extent. God has very little to do with just about any subject especially politics.

I do not want the proverbial pendulum to swing too far in either direction. Religion run by the state or a government run by religion - both do not sound too appealing in my book. I base my thinking on the subject from my previous education but also from my current at a non denominational university...


Originally posted by Vapour
The principle was fundamental to modern democracy because it is extremely bad idea to mix the *function* of church and state. Therefore as much as it is a bad practice to let state to act as religious organization like in Iran, it is equally bad to let Catholic church to run judiciary of its own. I don't know how you failed to realised this but this kid of stuff is the exact reason why abuse by priests/nuns has been going on undetected/unpunished for decades. It is equivelant to let corporation to handle sexual harrasement suits by themself. It is truly medieval and it is Catholic church who is violating the spirit of separation of church and state.

I equate it more to letting other nations govern themselves. Can one still prosecute crimes done by foreign nationals or clergy - sure I did not mean to imply otherwise.


Originally posted by Vapour
As you seems to be a Catholic so it may be hard to realised this but Catholic Church is *not special* nor it should be treated as such.

I am not religious in the slightest. Never really a true believer. And even while a student at a catholic high school I never really thought of it as a place other then a well (privately) funded school. (see my above statement)


Originally posted by Vapour
Assuming that what you said was how the Catholic Church teach about constitutional issue, and possibly certain historical matter, now I'm not even sure whether it is good idea to let religious organisations to run education let alone judiciary.

I certainly do not represent the catholic church. What I say should only be taken as my personal opinion. As for keeping parochial schools, I would let it be for if there is truly something wrong with them eventually people will boycott and thereby eliminate their usefulness.


Originally posted by Vapour
If you bothered to read my link about Catholic jail = slavery operation, it states "Incredibly, the last Magdalene laundry to shut down was in 1996."

I never look at your links and barely ever read your posts. Sorry.

Vapour
24th July 2003, 12:56
Ecclesiastical court existed in medieval europe and that is one of primary institutions the principle of separation of church and state intended to prohibit.

Therefore, to use this principle to support such institution goes not only against letter of the principle but the spirit of the principle not to mention the historical process in which such principle emerged. If this is your personal opinion, you are misinformed. I still suspicioun that pre modern European history not to mention the whole idea of standard of empirical proof in science and history is not something Catholic Church would teach impartially.

elder999
24th July 2003, 14:23
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Aaron - from my viewpoint (atheist) all religions are pretty much on the same level as telephone psychics. It's not your fault your parents had you indoctrinated, but once brainwashing is done at a young age it is damned hard to break. I just hope that one day you'll have an epiphany and come to dark side with Tony and me.


Not likely, Harvey, but my God isn't exactly short of cash, either. While my parents may have had me indoctrinated, you'd be surprised at the extent to which my beliefs have diverged from, well, at least my mother's. It was all pretty good to my Dad, but he was special.



So, to me, all churches are companies. Every single last stinking one of them. They provide services such as marriages, funerals, bad marital counseling, pop psychology from the bronze age, etc. in exchange for 10% of your gross salary plus whatever else they can stiff you for in the name of additional services that theoretically should be free but never are. In addition, they demand that as a member your children also be indoctrinated so that they have a steady influx of customers once you die. Its like Amway, only without the products that are actually useful around the house when you fork over your cash.

Agreed. Churches are companies, or some sort of business entity. Almost any organization has to be to function in our society.



Some religions are more benign than others, but all of them do us the disservice of perpetuating myths and misinformation. People would do much better relying on themselves rather than the big invisible guy in the sky that does nothing except demand more money via Sunday morning con artists.

This is just not entirely true. Not all of them perpetuate "myths and misinformation," or even rely on the "big invisible guy int he sky."
More importantly, the Constitution says that people have a right to be as stupid as they want to be about this.

It doesn't say churches can't be taxed, though.

Or that they can't be held criminally liable.

The government has actually ruled that a few organizations that claimed to be religions were not, and even treated some of them as criminal organizations, and may even do the same for the Catholic church (whose crimes are more and more in the open-anyone reemeber that Vatican financing scandal that involved the Mafia about 20 years ago?)

Chuck Munyon
24th July 2003, 16:50
Ana, allowing the Catholic Church to run its own sexual judiciary as a means of maintaining church and state is like saying that Protestants now have a right to try other protestants for drug charges. The point is that no matter what CHURCH you belong to, the STATE gets to try you in a court of law. If a hospital administrator found out a doctor was abusing kids and simply shuffled him to a geriatrics practice and said "problem solved," how would that look? Especially if that geriatrics practice was right next to the PEDIATRICS practice. These are essentially the practices that you are saying should be protected under the first amendment.

Hang em' all, I say.

And Aaron, I agree with you that not all religions are malignant. But the ones that aren't allow for a great deal of personalization (my favorite is the Society of Friends or Quakers, followed closely by Buddhism). Anything with a dogmatic organization scares the heck out of me.