Mike : My supposed stereotyping

[Guest guest]

> So what's your point. I'm sure sexual abuse happened in

Catholic > Children's home, just as I'm sure it does in orphanges run

by the Church of > England. I don't think any one group is exempt

from

this despicable act.

Well, seeing it happened in 2 out of 7 women interviewed (from

different homes) that seems a remarkable coincidence if it were a

rarity. as it happens, I dont think it a rarity, it seems to happen

in

Xtian, and especially Catholic, institutions all the time. There was

a 60 minutes documentary abt child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy

throughout a while diocese, up to the Bishop I think - in New

England,

I believe. I think sexual deviance is actively promoted by the

sexually repressive anture of the religion and the prohibition

against

sex by priests, which prevents them from a healthy sexual expression.

> BTW, attacking a person's religion seems a long way from the

purpose

of this > group.

I wasnt attacking a *person's* religion, I was simply attacking a

religion - no personal element. I acknowledged at first it might be

offensive to Catholics if we have any, and they could have skipped it

if they wanted - and you are the ast person who should be saying what

the purpose of this group is, imo.

> It is very insensitive to members who may be Catholic.

Who need you to protect them of course. If you ain't Catholic, jam it.

> Do Buddhists, Jews or Moslems have to worry that next week someone

can > sterotype them?

Well, if I hear they've been abusing children, then I will attack

them

yes. With its " spiritual " basis, Nazism could be fairly called a

religion. Have a problem with attacking that? AA's a religion too.

Ever heard of free speech? why the hell should religions be let off

criticism?

>

> If there is one thing I detest more than any other is sterotyping

by

group.

I dont believe I was stereotyping - I simply pointed out that

children

had been sexually abused in confessionals by priests. I didnt even

say

it was commonplace, merely that it had happened, which is a fact. You

interpreted it as me saying every priest did, which I did NOT say. So

am I supposed to avoid stating a FACT, that priests have sexually

abused children in confessionals, because you interpret that as

saying

they all do? I might suppress my opinions occasionally out of

politeness, but I'm damned if Im going to avoid stating FACTS. Then

we

really will have fascism.

> If you feel the need to attack Catholics I'm sure there is a

newsgroup Pete > where Catholic bashing is the primary purpose.

No, I was attacking Catholicism, not Catholics, and you ate the last

person to say where ppl should be expressing their views. Have a

guess

why I laid it on so quickly with you when you showed up. Becuawe I

had

ben to alt.recopvery.religion and seen religious ppl promoting

religion on it!

>

> It's funny but Catholic Bashing is also a big event at AA meetings

too. How > sad?

Never one Ive been to and its totally against their Traditions of

course - but if you want to be a Thought Police, do it there.

> Does everyone have to have someone to feel superior to, to gain

their own > self worth.

Well I dont, even if you do. I do feel superior to hypocrite child

molesters though.

P.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Hear! Hear!

Doug.

http://www.geocities.com/bouglaf

>From: watts_pete@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Mike : My supposed stereotyping

>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:24:02 -0000

>

>

>

> > So what's your point. I'm sure sexual abuse happened in

>Catholic > Children's home, just as I'm sure it does in orphanges run

>by the Church of > England. I don't think any one group is exempt

>from

>this despicable act.

>

>Well, seeing it happened in 2 out of 7 women interviewed (from

>different homes) that seems a remarkable coincidence if it were a

>rarity. as it happens, I dont think it a rarity, it seems to happen

>in

> Xtian, and especially Catholic, institutions all the time. There was

>a 60 minutes documentary abt child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy

>throughout a while diocese, up to the Bishop I think - in New

>England,

>I believe. I think sexual deviance is actively promoted by the

>sexually repressive anture of the religion and the prohibition

>against

> sex by priests, which prevents them from a healthy sexual expression.

>

> > BTW, attacking a person's religion seems a long way from the

>purpose

>of this > group.

>

>I wasnt attacking a *person's* religion, I was simply attacking a

>religion - no personal element. I acknowledged at first it might be

>offensive to Catholics if we have any, and they could have skipped it

>if they wanted - and you are the ast person who should be saying what

>the purpose of this group is, imo.

>

> > It is very insensitive to members who may be Catholic.

>

>Who need you to protect them of course. If you ain't Catholic, jam it.

>

> > Do Buddhists, Jews or Moslems have to worry that next week someone

>can > sterotype them?

>

>Well, if I hear they've been abusing children, then I will attack

>them

>yes. With its " spiritual " basis, Nazism could be fairly called a

>religion. Have a problem with attacking that? AA's a religion too.

>Ever heard of free speech? why the hell should religions be let off

>criticism?

> >

> > If there is one thing I detest more than any other is sterotyping

>by

>group.

>

>I dont believe I was stereotyping - I simply pointed out that

>children

>had been sexually abused in confessionals by priests. I didnt even

>say

>it was commonplace, merely that it had happened, which is a fact. You

>interpreted it as me saying every priest did, which I did NOT say. So

>am I supposed to avoid stating a FACT, that priests have sexually

>abused children in confessionals, because you interpret that as

>saying

>they all do? I might suppress my opinions occasionally out of

>politeness, but I'm damned if Im going to avoid stating FACTS. Then

>we

>really will have fascism.

>

> > If you feel the need to attack Catholics I'm sure there is a

>newsgroup Pete > where Catholic bashing is the primary purpose.

>

>No, I was attacking Catholicism, not Catholics, and you ate the last

>person to say where ppl should be expressing their views. Have a

>guess

>why I laid it on so quickly with you when you showed up. Becuawe I

>had

>ben to alt.recopvery.religion and seen religious ppl promoting

>religion on it!

> >

> > It's funny but Catholic Bashing is also a big event at AA meetings

>too. How > sad?

>

>Never one Ive been to and its totally against their Traditions of

>course - but if you want to be a Thought Police, do it there.

>

> > Does everyone have to have someone to feel superior to, to gain

>their own > self worth.

>

>Well I dont, even if you do. I do feel superior to hypocrite child

>molesters though.

>

>P.

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com