Hate. Filled. Heart.

(h/t to [redacted]. I don't have a facebook account.)

Apparently, the new Catholic answer to the overwhelming evidence of decades (if not centuries) of abuse, the abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent children, covered up as an institutional imperative, to the point where one can only assume that the leadership of the RCC came to the rather odd conclusion that the organization exists purely to pander to pedophiles is . . . man, that was some sentence . . . seriously, that was alliterative there at the end . . . the abuse is all made up by the Gay Agenda^tm . to punish the Church for supporting Prop 8.

Yes, that's right. Priests didn't sexually molest an entire generation of Catholic children, and religious leaders of every description don't regularly abuse their authority and their followers, it's just those dirty gays and their stranglehold on our culture. The hierarchy of the Church didn't do everything possible to keep those priests from facing repercussions, it's just the Gay Agenda^tm again.

Man, when your religious beliefs require that you view hundreds of victims of childhood sexual abuse as shills for a nonexistent agenda, you are officially fucked. You have no morals. You have no soul. You're a shell, spewing nonsense from your hate filled heart.

Good luck with that.

[name removed because i'm the better person] I believe that Bishop Eddie Long is being falsely accused of sexual abuse because of his strong public objection of the homosexual lifestyle. Let's not judge him. We don't know what proof will be given. Instead, lets pray for justice for the Bishop. I believe this to be just another attack against the children of God who speak out against evil in the world.

20 hours ago · View Feedback (5) Hide Feedback (5) · Flag

• [another asshat] likes this.

·

[conspiracy theorist] You know, it's really interesting that you mention that, because a FB friend of mine who is strongly pro-homosexual (and also admits to being a homosexual) posted a link "proving" that Bishop Long actually committed sexual abuse. That's a really good point you make there!

6 hours ago

• 
  

[asshat] You know...that they are attacking him and accusing him of this tends to lend credence to the fact that their organizations using the Catholic name ARE indeed as fake as the Bishop reported.

5 hours ago

[original name removed. i'm still the better person] Rennie, I sure hope your fb friend got his link "proving" that Bishop Long is guilty of committing sexual abuse from reliable resources. If he is guilty then he needs to pay the price . A man is considered innocent until proven guilty but I would'nt go around accusing when I know that every word that comes out of my mouth will be judged by God.

4 hours ago

• 
  

[yet another asshat] I don't remember where he got the link, but the same source that provided the "proof" also provided a news story a few months ago reporting that a high school here in Mississippi was unfair for not allowing a lesbian girl to bring her girlfriend to the prom. That much I DO remember.

You know, I have to wonder something. If one of their children came home and said that the priest molested them, would they say, "Oh, honey, stop lying for the Gay Agenda^tm."? I think not.

Also, some research shows that

More than 100 reports in the scientific and professional literature, involving more than 35,000

subjects, indicate that rapists, child molesters, incestuous parents, and sexually motivated

murderers are typically very conservative in their sexual and social values and sometimes more

religious than average—suggesting that in many cases traditional sexual morality is a

contributing factor in sexual abuse rather than a deterrent.

Yeah. It's not the Gay Agenda^tm, it's your agenda, asshats.

Roman Polanski =/= a Priest

roman polanski, pedophile, pedophilia, catholic, church, christian, persecution, priest,
At first glance, mathew archbold's whinge that Roman Polanski proves our persecution against Christians seems reasonable.

Just for a moment I want you to imagine that Roman Polanski was a priest. Frightening, yes?

But for the sake of my point imagine that he's a priest who drugged and raped a thirteen year old.

Imagine he's a priest who fled to France so as to avoid punishment for his crime. Imagine that he flaunted his freedom in America's face for decades.Now imagine that Roman Polanski as a priest was apprehended by the police after all those years. Now, imagine what the media would be saying.

There's one little problem with this: the Catholic Church demands that we view, and treat, priests differently from producers (and everyone else on the planet).

Priests are special, we are told. Priests hold special moral authority, directly from God, we are told. Priests are better than the rest of us, which is what allows priests to teach us, admonish us and absolve us of sins. (I grew up Catholic before all the scandals. This is exactly how Catholics used to view priests.)

You can't have it both ways, my dear mathew. Either priests are special, which makes their crimes special, or they're not special, don't have the ear of God and don't have the right to tell anyone anything. You can't stand there and tell me that I'm not a good person because I voted for Obama, and then turn around and say, "but Roman Polanski did it, too!"

Atheists Shouldn't Be Allowed to Vote

conservative, republican, obama, abortion, prochoice, priest, catholic, voter, atheism, atheist,
George W. Bush once famously said that atheists (probably) aren't citizens of the US, and certainly aren't patriots.

Now Euripides puts for the notion that atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote. Well, Edmund Burke apparently said it, but according to Euripides:

Edmund Burke is considered the father of conservatism. He spoke and wrote during the 18th Century during a time of great political upheaval in Europe and in the Americas. His views, though dated according to his own time, can still shed light on the conservative impulse and lead us to understand what it means to be conservative and to stand for conservative values.

I take this quote from a speech he gave, entitled Reflections on the French Revolution. This appears in the book, The Works of Edmund Burke.

When the people have emptied themselves of all the lust of selfish will, which without religion it is utterly impossible they ever should, when they are conscious that they exercise, and exercise perhaps in a higher link of the order of delegation, the power, which to be legitimate must be according to that eternal, immutable law, in which will and reason are the same, they will be more careful how they place power in base and incapable hands. In their nomination to office they will not appoint to the exercise of authority, as to a pitiful job, but as to a holy function; not according to their sordid, selfish interest, nor to their wanton caprice, nor to their arbitrary will; but they will confer that power (which any man may well tremble to give or to receive) on those only, in whom they may discern that predominant proportion of active virtue and wisdom, taken together and fitted to the charge, such, as in the great and inevitable mixed mass of human imperfections and infirmities, is to be found.

This is a lengthy quote but one well worth reading and understanding. Here's the basic idea: When electing a person into political office and giving him political power, we should only elect someone through our own careful thought and moral wisdom and choose leaders who have active virtue and wisdom.

I would think that we would all agree that in the 21st century United States that politicians are not performing some sort of holy function, for a whole host of reasons that should be immediately obvious to the casual observer. I'm sure this was an acceptable, and perhaps even a true, remark in the mid 1700s, but times, they have a changed.

Although if mid 18th Century thought still prevails in the conservative movement, that would explain a lot. It would certainly explain the GOP attitudes toward minorities and women.

At the risk of being pedantic, a risk he's always willing to take let me break this down step by step. Burke first considers those of us who put people into power. voters. one word. i am indeed the queen of pithy. We have a duty and responsibility to rid ourselves "of all the lust of selfish will." 18th century prose is good for some pretty amusing turns of phrase. Electing someone to power must not be a selfish act, not one based on our own lust for power. We are to act without selfishness, for the good of the whole. In other words, instead of asking "What can this candidate do for me?" we should, instead ask "What can this candidate do for the country?"

and here we have the basis of conservatism: convincing people to vote against their self interest. it amazes me to see people who have no chance of ever making 250k a year (it would take me over 10 years to make that amount), getting all up in arms about a tax on wages over 250k. here's a clue: rich people didn't get rich by raining it down on the rest of us.

as for single issue voting, like abortion, when are people ever going to get that issues are never that simple? example: the local bishop declared that any catholic who voted for obama must confess and be absolved before they can take communion again. the reason? obama is prochoice. a local priest was "relocated" because he gave an interview to the paper in which he stated that he voted for obama to reduce abortions. the priest's logic? 8 years of republican control of the country had not reduced abortions one whit, so clearly, voting republican doesn't solve a thing. he then did some research (i know!) and discovered that abortions are closely tied to the economy. the economy goes up, abortions go down and vice versa. so, he voted for the candidate he believed most capable of repairing the economy in order to reduce abortions.

Getting rid of lust and selfishness is a tough task, impossible, actually. no one is entirely selfless. no one is entirely without greed (the use of "lust" in this situation). and that's a good thing. trust me, if you don't look out for yourself, no one else is going to. see: caregiver burnout. one in which, according to Burke, religion plays a significant role. wait for it. As he states, "without religion it is utterly impossible they ever should [be rid of lust and selfishness]."

a) no one is ever rid of lust and selfishness. b) one can reach nonmalignant levels of lust and selfishness without religion or god. c) he just stated, in a rather roundabout way, that atheists shouldn't vote. one shouldn't vote out of lust and selfishness. one cannot remove lust and selfishness without god. atheists do not have god. ergo . . .

Here is a key to conservatism that atheists suck?, belief that we should serve a higher purpose than our own base lusts. gee, i think that, too. without god. it's called the common good, asshat, and you don't need god for it. well, maybe you do. For "when they are conscious that they exercise,...the power, which to be legitimate must be according to that eternal, immutable law god, in which will and reason are the same, they will be more careful how they place power in base and incapable godless hands."

here we have it, the key to conservatism: vote for the best interests of rich people the country, and godgodgodgodgodgodgod atheists suck!