Keep Jesus OUT of Education

THIS is why it is so important that religion be kept far away from the public school system. They not only want to inject their fantastic creationist silliness into the science curriculum, but if they ever get their way, they’ll determine who may and may not attend school in the first place.

A preschool student at a Catholic school in Boulder will not be allowed to return next school year because of what is going on at home.
The student’s parents are two women and the Denver Archdiocese says their homosexual relationship violates the school’s beliefs and policy.
….
The Archdiocese also told 9NEWS, “Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment.”

The only redeeming note in this pathetic example of just how fucked up people who believe they, and they alone, know what the magical sky wizard commands, is found among the staff:

School staff members, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are disgusted by the Archdiocese’s decision.
One employee said she could not believe a student will have to suffer because of his or her parents’ sexual orientation.

How anyone can argue that religion helps people be moral; that some sort of objective moral code comes from god is utterly beyond me.
Even granting that such a thing exists, it’s clear that those who most fervently believe in such a thing fall far short of living up to it.

Advertisements

83 Responses

  1. Don’t get me started on Catholic education.

    Because the parents are “sinners”, they abandon the child to the forces of Hell? Nice!

    And Just how can you legally expel a kid for something his parents do away from school property? Motherfucking control freaks to the power of 3!

    And what kind of fucking morons would pass up the chance to brainwash a young mind into their way of thinking because of the actions of their parents? Brilliant strategy, Einstein.

    Here’s an idea. Catholic schools should kick out EVERY sinner and every child of a sinner (aka everyone).

    • If they thought things through, they’d be atheists.
      As for the “legally” part, they’re a private school. They can pretty much do what they want.

  2. One reason is to avoid the trash mouth folks like you guys.

    First, I agree that it’s sad for the children. Sad that the ‘parents’ live an openly gay lifestyle in front of them. I’m sure the Archdiocese did this in consideration of the general good, rather than the individual. It has nothing to do with what the ‘parents’ are doing, it has to do with others observing this and thinking it’s normal.

    But this is not a public school. It’s a private Catholic school. It’s not up to you and me to decide.

    On another note, prove Darwinism. I’m waiting.

    • @ David

      Your judgment of what is good and/or normal is clearly poisoned by a belief system which rests on premises for which there is no evidence.

      Your own words demonstrate a clear and rather pathetic ability to ignore the facts and the truth. You say, “It has nothing to do with what the parents are doing,” but the ARCHDIOCESE WHO MADE THE DECISION SAY IT DOES.
      One supposes, since you can write, that you can also read. Try reading the article (and perhaps accepting the word of your religious cohorts) before you come in here and reveal yourself for a bigoted, biased, stunningly ignorant imbecile.

      Being a private Catholic school may give them the right to act in this shameful, egregious, immoral, backward, ugly and malicious fashion, but it certainly doesn’t make them right.

      Prove Darwinism? The mountain of evidence – from fossils to molecular biology – does just that. If you’re too lazy to examine it, too stupid to understand it and/or too dogmatically blind to accept it, that’s your problem. Don’t come in here spouting ignorance and making demands, you pissy little Jesus freak homophobe.

  3. Considering your ‘evidence’ of macroevolution, I don’t think you’re one to judge. The Archdiocese made a decision based on protecting the greater group. Your idea that what parents does doesn’t affect the child-that’s where the problem is.

    My morals are not based on my judgement, but on the creator’s. You say there’s evidence for Darwin’s theory, there is absolutely none. I can prove my creator’s existence without using a Bible. The First Law of Thermodynamics explains God.

    Believing in Darwinian evolution is ignorance. It meets none of the criteria of good science. In fact, evolutionists changed the criteria for scientific proof in the 60’s and 70’s because they couldn’t meet the existing ones.

    • No evidence for evolution? Well, David, you’re clearly either very stupid or very stubborn. Perhaps both. In any case, there’s just no point in having a debate with someone who takes such a stunningly ignorant position as that. Clearly you know nothing about science.

      There is no evidence for any creator, much less your specific god. I assume that you reject all other creation stories, correct? Hindu, Australian Aboriginal, Native American…none of those creation stories are true, in your view. And you reject all other gods – Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Baal…none of those gods are real, eh? But your god is real – proven by the 1st law of thermodynamics.

      LOL. Quite obviously you know less about physics than you do about science in general.
      The first law states that energy may change form but cannot be created or destroyed.
      First, in terms of evolution, the earth is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM, so the law does not apply locally. Energy comes from the sun.
      Second, in terms of proving god, the first law of thermodynamics has no application. That you think it does only demonstrates that you get your understanding of science from Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and the morons at the Discovery Institute.

      Now look. I don’t mind if you want to go through life intellectually stunted, blinded by dogma and too stubborn to examine the evidence or become sufficiently educated to understand it. You are welcome to your faith.
      But you can stop coming in here and exposing your muddled ignorance by posting (a) arguments that are beneath contempt and do not deserve response for their lack of accuracy in fundamental premises, and (b) allegations that are nothing more than poorly crafted and wrongheaded lies – straw men constructed in order to provide a facade of support for the same, tired, shopworn bullshit that myopic Jesus freaks, either too frightened or too stubborn to face facts, have been spewing for years.

      Go learn some real science. Stop shitting your unthinking D.I. garbage. If you were half as knowledgeable as you want to pretend to be, you’d know how stupid it makes you look. Thermodynamics, indeed.

  4. I’ll leave you with this. I can prove mine beyond reasonable doubt. You can’t. First law of thermodynamics proves God. The universe is a closed system. Since matter can be neither created nor destroyed by itself, nothing can exist without a first cause. That first cause is God. Second law of thermodynamics proves against evolution. Left to their own devices, everything is degrading. Not evolving.

    Let’s put it this way: If you’re right, and I’m wrong, when we’re dead, we’ll never know. But if I’m right and you’re wrong, we will both know for all eternity.

    • The depth and breadth of your insistent ignorance is truly stunning.
      You have no proof of anything, David. The argument you offer in support of a first cause, even if it were correct (it isn’t), does not assist in proving YOUR SPECIFIC god. It equally well supports ANY god.
      The first law of thermodynamics does NOT prove your god (or any god). The universe may not be a closed system – we don’t know. For many years, it was thought the universe was a static system – eternal and unchanging. Hubble put the end to that. Now, there appears to be evidence that our universe may be only one of many in a multiverse. We still don’t know.
      Nevertheless, in order for your “Nothing created or destroyed” ignorance to be remotely accurate, you must assume that there was nothing prior to the big bang. This is precisely the straw man you religious morons seem to cling to. No one claims that the universe was created from nothing. No one, that is, EXCEPT YOU BELIEVERS, who assert that god poofed it all into existence as an act of will. So, in point of fact, Captain Physics, your god violates the first law of thermodynamics.

      The VERY tired crap about the second law of thermodynamics disproving evolution is yet more ignorant bullshit from the mind of Kent Hovind and the imbecilic Discovery Institute. Look, David…there’s plenty of REAL science freely available on the internet. Even someone as stubbornly wrapped in dogmatic stupidity as you clearly are can find a plethora of links to literally tons of MATH and REAL SCIENCE that utterly debunks your foolish claim…and it really IS extraordinarily foolish.
      Let me try to explain it simply, since you missed it (or ignored it) last time: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise known an entropy, applies to CLOSED systems. The earth is not a closed system. Energy comes from the sun, thus you may not assert that evolution violates entropy.
      As for the universe being a closed system, WE DON’T KNOW. But the earth is most certainly NOT a closed system, and neither is evolution. That you think it is only, yet again, reveals the depth of what you don’t know…and that you’re too fucking stubborn to bother learning enough to realize how stupid you sound.

      Your closing retread of Pascal’s Wager is likewise weak. It presumes that your god both exists, and is the correct god. You have evidence for neither proposition.

  5. Avi, you just made my day.

  6. Yes, kick Jesus out, kick G-d out, kick ALL of this out, we are doing so ‘great’ ourselves.. Our kids just wonderful little kids that hate their parents, are disrespectful, graduate with an average of 69% now…

    Yes, NO G-D IN SCHOOLS! It didnt make sense, after all, to have the 10 commandments….No sense at all to let it be known to a child, to not steal, murder, etc..

    Look young man, you have lost ALL reason.

    The REASON there is massive Jew-hatred is because Jews have LOST their identity., this blog is a perfect example of a Jew that has went after a false god=LIBERALISM.

    BTW: One thing about Shiksas, they are great people, they will not like you all that much for being so self-hating. Most Skiksas come from Christian homes, where they teach that Jewish people are holy, so sorry that you hate that idea and hate G-d, because YOU AINT A JEW, kid, and any Shiksa with half a brain would not walk away from you, but RUN—-FAST, and I will be praying for HER, NOT you.

    • The Mad Jewess. Well, there seems to be a certain degree of self-awareness in your name.
      There’s no need for commandments from an imaginary god to know better than to steal and murder.

  7. Ow. That hurts with the yelling and the tantrums and knicker-twisted hysteria. Hey Mad Jewess- A little pissed your kid got only 69% and told you to go fuck yourself when you nagged him for the zillionth time? If you were my mother I’d hate you too! You are scared and angry because you, personally, do not contol the world around you. You are acting out some deep-seeded traumatised rage which is incapable of doing the one thing that could save you from a life of being in a state of perpetual irritation- relaxing. There’s nothing worse than an itch you just can’t scratch!

  8. Shit, Cousinavi. It sounds like David “Slipper Boy” Wornout of Ottawa Petfinder/ Frank Magazine fame has found your website.

    “The Archdiocese made a decision based on protecting the greater group.” – David

    Really? “Protecting the greater group” from what? Contact with children of homosexuals? Wow, they’re right up there with suicide bombers, Jihadists and Furries! Jesus fucking Christ! He’s just a fucking kid trying to go to school, not a terrorist! Did you know that you can sit in a classroom with a kid, or even bump the kid during a basketball game, and you won’t turn gay?

    And how does kicking a kid out of a school protect “the greater group” from anything? The kid still is out there alive and roaming free, ready to poison the minds of everyone he comes in contact with. Unless you believe that Catholic children represent a “greater group” and that keeping him away from Catholic children protects that superior class of people. If so, that wouldn’t make you the first Catholic who holds that opinion. Many Catholics act like they invented Jesus or something.

    So, if Catholicism was so fucking great and Catholic school operators were so fucking smart, why are they preventing the child from being exposed to the healing love and infinite wisdom of a Catholic education? Wouldn’t that be a BETTER way of combating the effects his evil homosexual parents? Instead, they deny God’s love to a kid and condemn him to an eternity of sin and suffering because of the actions of people he has no control over whatsoever. Holy Fuck!!!

    And I suppose, when thousands of Archdioceses spanning several centuries discovered priests ass-raping young boys under their care, they made “a decision to protect the greater group” by either ignoring it or transferring them to other churches to make sure even MORE boys got the love of Jesus up their assholes. Great call!

    The Catholic church has less than ZERO credibility when it comes to stands on homosexuality and it should really shut the fuck up about it. It’s not like there aren’t other anti-gay groups out there to pick up the slack for them. After a century or two of not ass-raping young boys and covering it up, maybe then they can start speaking out again.

  9. Cousinavi, I say there is, you say there isn’t. Prove it. And show your reasoning.

    sedateme: That the Church is made up of and run by men who are sinners ….
    [proposition true by definition; no evidence for underlying premise]

    …. just like you, in some cases worse, is no doubt. The credibility of the Church does not come from here on earth….
    [One would be hard pressed to imagine how it might be]

    The credibility of the Church comes from the divinity of Jesus…
    [No evidence to support the proposition that Jesus existed, less that he was “divine”]

    God said that you shall not commit adultery. Adultery = sex outside of marriage = between a man and a woman.
    [Some sort of compound logic here that is open to varying interpretations, among them:
    (a) Homosexuals can never engage in adultery because they cannot be married
    (b) Homosexuals always engage in adultery because they are not a male/female couple
    (c) Masturbation is adultery (with subclauses relating to rubbing out while married versus shaking hands with the bishop while single)
    All of this is representative of the sort of reasoning under which David suffers…like far too many weak thinking theists.]

    Therefore, homosexuals are committing mortal sins.
    [No evidence for the truth of this proposition or its underlying premises]

    We care about the person, and preach against the sin. Those priests who used their position to take advantage of children will meet their maker and suffer the wrath for eternity.
    [No evidence for the truth of this proposition or its underlying premises]

    If you think doing somthing (sic) to them here on earth makes any difference, you’re sorely mistaken.
    [Damages awarded in civil suits DO make a difference. Trying, convicted and punishing those who commit such crimes does make a difference.]

    [Avi]

    Bless you, Jewess.

    • @ David

      Yet further evidence of how poorly educated you are. Apparently you require that I prove a negative – a logical impossibility.
      At the same time, you appear to be ignorant of the requirement that to the claimant falls the burden. If you want to assert that a god (or your specific god) exists, then it’s up to you to provide evidence for the proposition.
      It’s no different than if you assert leprechauns, a new theory of gravity, that vaccines cause autism, or any other claim.
      But don’t come in here yammering that because I can’t prove unicorns DON’T exist, that they not only do, but that you know what they like to eat, you stunned fucktarded imbecile.

      Secondly, I DO NOT assert that there is no god. Merely that there’s no evidence for any god claims, and certainly none to support your specific god. The best you could manage was to reveal that you don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics any better than you understand the rules of logic.
      Why the hell can’t you accept that you have FAITH? Why do you insist on the utterly moronic position that there’s some sort of evidence for your sky wizard. Do you even understand the meaning of the word FAITH?
      You choose to believe in a state of affairs for which there is NO EVIDENCE. It’s okay…you’re allowed. But save the public displays of ignorance and a poor education.

  10. cousinavi, I’ve got to tell you, my head was hurting trying to follow David’s, um, arguement(s). The illogic of his comments was all over the board, even Venn diagramming didn’t help.

    I did jaunt over the TMJ’s blogsite. The fractured grammar, juvenile font and kidergarten colors were indeed impressive.

    I have similar discussions with a couple evangelical friends of mine. Very determined to demand proof of evolution, climate change, etc., but whoa, don’t ask for evidence/proof of their religious tenets…

  11. Well, my point was just that-you cannot prove a negative like that. But I can prove that God does exist, and without using things like the Bible. The laws of science prove that God exists. The fact that there is no proof of evolution, macroevolution, anyway, proves that God exists. I can prove it 20 ways, logically. Best you can do is say “You’re wrong.” Sorta like Mony Python’s Holy Grail.

    • @ David:

      Again, you are not being truthful or accurate.
      You CLAIM to have proof for god. You yammered about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. All you accomplished in so doing is demonstrating that you don’t know anything about physics…or science in general – this from your idiocy about macro-evolution. Macro-evolution, David, is simply micro-evolution over a much longer time scale. It is obvious to me (as well as anyone who has ever bothered to learn anything about science) that you (a) don’t know what you’re talking about, and (b) simply parrot your arguments from the Discovery Institute website and such intellectual luminaries as Ray Comfort.
      The laws of science have nothing to say about the existence of god, David. The absence of proof for one proposition is not proof of another, unrelated proposition (although that neatly lays out one of your favourite creationist arguments: “You can’t prove god DOESN’T exist, so therefore he does!” which is about as logical as saying, “You can’t prove reindeer can’t fly, so therefore Santa Claus exists!”
      Does it ever occur to you that you don’t believe in the thousands of other gods that humans have worshiped? Thor, Zeus, Amen Rah, Krishna… What is it that makes your god real, and all those other gods false, David? And, please, don’t say because your god told you so in the bible. If you sink to THAT level of circularity in argument, I’m gonna kick your stupid ass out of here.

      Additionally, while you keep repeating the lie, “All YOU can do is say I’m wrong,” that isn’t going to change anything. In fact, I have patiently explained to you how you fail to understand the laws of thermodynamics and why your thinking is in error. I have further attempted to instruct you on the requirements of logical reasoning and the requirements of cogent argument – lessons you persist in ignoring. It is becoming clear that you are either stupid, stubborn or both. In any case, you’re going to have to make an effort to behave with rather more intellectual rigor. A little more honesty would help, too.

  12. Holy fuck! You are stupid, David!

    So, if it doesn’t matter if we punish ass-RAPING priests in the here-and-now, then how can you possibly justify punishing a kid by throwing him out of school for something he didn’t do and has no control of. If the Catholic church believes God is going to take care of punishing kiddy-diddling priests, then why not let God take care of the kid whose crime is that he is the child of a person who likes to have consensual, sinful, sex?

    Actually, under that logic, why punish anybody for anything? God (your specific copyrighted version of God) is gonna do it for us! We might as well disband those expensive legal and penal systems. God can do it better and cheaper, albeit not necessarily faster.

    That the Church is made up of and run by men who are sinners, just like you, in some cases worse, is no doubt. The credibility of the Church does not come from here on earth. The credibility of the Church comes from the divinity of Jesus.” – David

    Wow. I’m sure you proof read that shit and yet you STILL posted it without a touch of ironic humour, didn’t you? (To your credit, you at least use decent grammar, which makes the David Wornout comparison even more applicable.)

    You say the Catholic church is made up and run by men (because people with vaginas ain’t worth shit) so we should forgive their fallible decision making process, even though they claim to be infallible. Yet, in the same breath, you say these very same men are credible purely because they belong to one of DOZENS of fan clubs dedicated to the memory of a guy born in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago?

    You are talking about the same church, fucktard. The same church that’s saying that homosexuality is such a sin that a kid who ISN’T a homosexual has to be kicked out of their school is saying that ass-raping clergy don’t need punishment for their sins. Just because the Catholic church thinks this is fine to cover the ass-rape of children and that its OK to punish children for somebody else’s sin, am I supposed to believe Jesus is OK with both actions?

    I was raised by members of a Jesus fan club and I disagree with both of the Catholic church’s actions mentioned. Perhaps, I just missed that lesson at Sunday school. But I’m not a Catholic, so I guess everything my inferior brand of Christianity taught me about Jesus is wrong. How can Jesus be so misunderstood by everybody EXCEPT this one organization full of paedophiles, the Catholic church (aka NAMBLA)?

    Martin Luther successfully broke the Catholic monopoly on Jesus fan clubs centuries ago, but somebody forgot to forward that stone tablet to the Catholics. They still think that Jesus’ alleged divinity gives makes them the definitive authority on God’s will and gives them a blank fucking cheque.

    Because there are many other Jesus fan clubs with alternative views, the Catholic church’s credibility now comes ONLY from their words, deeds…and misdeeds. When an organization covers up the RAPING OF BOYS for centuries, it has NO credibility when it comes to telling GROWN MEN not to stick their dicks up other WILLING men’s assholes, even IF they can quote Jesus. Even if Jesus is divine and did speak out against gays, the Catholic church has STILL lost all credibility on that issue.

    It would be like me telling other guys it’s wrong to cum in the faces of women and, because I’m a fan of Ron Jeremy’s son and because Ron Jeremy’s son is divine, I should be considered the definitive authority on cuming on women’s faces.

  13. You have no idea what you’re saying. Science, real science, proves God. Evolution is not real science. They, Darwinians couldn’t prove anything, so they changed the definitions to suit what they could say. Same with ‘global warming’. It’s nice of you to…well you know what? This ball of yarn is too screwed up to fix. I better just go get a new ball of yarn. You guys have my permission to stay messed up. As I said before-if you’re right and I’m wrong, nobody will know it after they’re dead. If I’m right and you’re wrong, you’ll regret it for all eternity. I’ll pray for you, anyway.

    • @ David

      Pascal’s Wager, again? And, again, you provide no evidence for anything you say. Just bald assertions: Science vs. REAL science (as if you know anything about either); Darwinians couldn’r prove anything [citation needed]; they changed science [citation needed]; global warming! [citation needed / oh not this shit again!].

      Run along, David. Your dogmatic, stubborn ignorance will be sorely missed.

  14. Funny how you know about Paschal’s wager, but still don’t see truth.

    Your stubborn idiocy will not be missed, either. FYI, when did evolution become a science? When has any premise of evolution been proven? Citation needed, indeed. Global warming(humanity-caused global warming, otherwise you’re speaking of natural climate change), citation needed, too. Peer reviewed would be best. Real science is based on facts. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, mathematics.

    • How can you possibly misspell Pascal? The C and H aren’t even close on the keyboard…nor are the H and A.
      When has any premise of evolution been proven?
      Are you serious?
      See the vast bulk of research in the field of molecular DNA. See the peas grown by Gregor Mendel. See vaccines. See blood typing, drug resistant viral strains, Darwin’s finches, fruit flies…in fact, the sheer magnitude of the evidence you obviously choose to ignore is shocking. How do you possibly justify being THAT ignorant about THAT MUCH?

    • Real science is based on facts. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, mathematics.

      And those disciplines prove god how, exactly? [citation needed]

  15. Hey David,

    A broken watch is correct twice a day. You may very well be right and STILL be a stupid fucktard at the same time. Until you are proven right or wrong (after death, when it’s too late) you still have to exist on this realm for however long you’ve got. Being a stupid fucktard who excuses stupid, wrongheaded, despicable or outright evil bullshit is going to hurt your chances of getting into Heaven, should such a place even exist.

    As I’ve mentioned above, your logic is often flawed and/or contradictory. It often boils down to “Catholics are always right because the Catholic God says so. And since I’m a Catholic, I’m right and your wrong.”

    Faith based logic is like playing roulette at a Vegas Casino, putting all your chips on number 17 and acting like you’ve already won.
    [bold and QFT- Avi]

    I expect you’re a damn sight better than most of your ilk, but that sure ain’t saying much. I’m willing to bet some of the stupidest people on the planet hold the sames views as you. Just writing coherently puts you well ahead of that pack. To be fair, the fact that there are so many drooling idiots out there tends to make the rest of us intellectually lazy. I’m guilty of that sometimes.

    Anyway, you still need to radically up your game to be taken as seriously as you take yourself. Until then, Cousinavi will rip your ass apart like a horny priest doing an altar boy.

  16. Sedateme- if you’re right about important things, then unimportant things don’t really matter, do they? Your thought that anyone in the Catholic Church has excused anyone else is where you are wrong. Forgiving someone for the humanness has nothing to do with their responsibility for their actions. What’s really wrong here is your understanding of what I’ve said. I could care less whether anyone thinks they’re smarter or better than me. What matters is that I’m a good man, and that I thank God for what I have, and live the way He taught us to live. I try and help some people see it, but you can lead an ass to water but it’s up to him to drink it. That’s fine…

    • @ David

      Good man? You’re judgmental, holier than thou, condescending, certain in the absence of evidence, false in your propositions about science, self-serving, self-important, nonsensical, contradictory, rather lacking in objective truth value and myopically hypocritical.
      Of course, that’s just MY perspective. God may see things differently.

  17. What judgement have I made? I may be holy, or try to be, but I don’t think I’m holier than anyone. Not condescending either. I am certain of my evidence, whether you accept it or not. All those other things, your opinion doesn’t count. But I’m God-serving, put God above all things. And objective truth is exactly what it’s all about. There is only right and wrong. No shades of gray, when it comes to what’s important.

    • YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. At least, you certainly haven’t offered any here, despite numerous requests that you do so. What you have done is demonstrate a severely sub-standard comprehension of science, and yammer conclusion in the total absence of anything even remotely like evidence.
      You keep SAYING you have evidence. You never provide any.
      Please go read the definition of OBJECTIVE before you ever say that again.
      Everyone else sees gray. If you only see black and white, can you not understand how limited you are?

  18. I have provided the evidence. You keep saying that it’s not evidence. The very order of the universe proves an uncreated creator. You don’t accept that. Fine, show me otherwise. Truth is, that you cannot.

    You want me to show you? Here’s one of twenty different ways.

    Given: If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

    The universe exists, therefore there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.

    Therefore what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. We call that God.

    • I have provided the evidence. You keep saying that it’s not evidence.

      Please learn the difference between argument and evidence. They are different things.

      The very order of the universe proves an uncreated creator.

      No, it doesn’t.

      You don’t accept that. Fine, show me otherwise. Truth is, that you cannot.

      Please stop trotting out the old “You can’t prove god is not” as evidence that there’s reason to accept your unsupported proposition.

      You want me to show you? Here’s one of twenty different ways.
      Given: If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
      The universe exists, therefore there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
      What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.

      Three tautologies followed by an utterly unrelated conclusion offered without evidence. Don’t just toss in something like “bounded by space and time”…especially when you haven’t bothered to define them or explain how they relate to whatever the fuck you’re yammering about. This appears to be a really poorly framed version of the argument that any creator must exist outside of this universe, else how could it have created this universe?
      The problem here is that the premise presumes the universe was “created” by some external entity. The absence of a good explanation for the beginning of the universe is not a good reason to accept your fantastic proposition.

      Therefore what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. We call that God.

      You keep leaping from argument to argument. Ontological, teleological, first cause…back and forth. All soundly debunked arguments; none offering any evidence; none remotely approaching consistent. If you want to call the big bang…the collision between two branes, or the sum total of all matter and energy in the universe “god”, fill your boots.
      There is, however, absolutely NO reason to expect it cares about you, what you think, what you do, who you fuck, how you fuck them, what you eat, or what becomes of the emergent property I call self and you invest, in your unsupported wish thinking, with “soul”.

      /Jump back! Kiss m’se’f!

  19. Wait, what do you have against Mexicans? Jesus Jimenez is a great dude and NEEDs an education.

    Oh, you mean Jeshua.

    How can these people have a relationship with someone that they can’t get the name right?

    Yeah, I’ve got a relationship with him, he’s one of my wife’s family, and they’re all meshugga as hell.

  20. Sedateme- if you’re right about important things, then unimportant things don’t really matter, do they? -David

    You stupid, condescending, self righteous, fuck! And I say that not as an insult, but as a statement of the obvious.

    As an aside, I’m not trying to rob you of your Sky Daddy or disprove His existence. I have no idea and I think people waste their time making unprovable arguments ether way. So, keep your Sky Daddy. I don’t care. I also don’t care if your favourite colour is orange, or if you are also a member of the Marilyn Manson fan club. All I care is what you do because of it.

    I’m mostly just trying to get you to be less of a stupid, condescending, self righteous, fuck. Use the fucking brain God supposedly gave you and stop minimizing or justifying wrongdoing because somebody in the same Jesus fan club as you perpetrated it..

    As an example, let’s discuss these “unimportant things” that “don’t matter”. You know, like human life and the planet Earth, God’s supposed crowning achievements and gifts to us? But here you are basically saying, “Hey God, I’m going to sit back while people shit on your gifts and good works. You deal with it. I could give less of a shit because I know my ass is covered. That’s all that matters.”

    No, that’s not ungrateful at all! Nor is it condescending or selfish. And I’m sure that kind of thinking will get you past St Peter’s gate even faster when you are proven right.

    But if you’re so convinced of your rightness, why not just off yourself and be done with this trivial bullshit gift from God called life? Oh, yeah. Because that’s against the rules! Demonstrating your faith in the hereafter by killing yourself will prevent you from getting into Heaven. Meanwhile, not punishing, or even stopping, priests who rape children…well, “That ain’t no thang.” You put all your chips on #17 at the roulette table and know you’ve already won, so why sweat the small stuff? Let God deal with that other bullshit.

    Meanwhile, whether you’re right or wrong, those poor kids undeniably HAVE to live with it the rest of their lives, while the perpetrators MIGHT get punished…after death. But those victims having to live with it, that part is not “important” to you. At the very least, it’s not important enough to encourage somebody to do something about it or hold their inaction against them.

    “Your thought that anyone in the Catholic Church has excused anyone else is where you are wrong. Forgiving someone for the humanness has nothing to do with their responsibility for their actions.

    Really? Catholic Jesus must be rolling you guys some superior, A class, weed. I could touch on numerous examples, but I’ll just harp on this one -topic relevant- thing.

    The Catholic church has (at the VERY least) been enabling ass-rape for centuries while actively condemning homosexuality at the VERY same time. Not seeing how that harms their credibility as anti-gay spokespeople requires a voluntary lobotomy.

    “Homosexuality is a mortal sin. Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a guy’s ass I have to go fuck.”

    Catholics are the only people on earth who don’t see it that way. Is there some 11th Commandment I missed in my inferior non-Catholic upbringing? “Thou shall attack homosexuality by any and all means, except when it involves the ass-rape of children by men with white collars, because that is not gay.”

    Forgiveness does not mean letting them get away to perpetrate another day, which is exactly what the Catholic church did. Offenders were generally not reported or jailed or anything else that would have stopped them. They were usually just moved elsewhere, so they could fuck even MORE innocent, God fearing, boys. Denial, cover up and hush-money was (and arguably still is) church policy. That is NOT forgiveness. It is far closer to approval; conspiracy after the fact, if not outright conspiracy to commit.

    Well, unless “being human” is all about forcibly fucking youngsters up the ass. Or am I wrong about homosexuality. Because a guy fucking another guy up the ass does sound at least a little gay to me…even in prison, which is where the laws of all Western nations, which allegedly originated from “God’s Law”, would put rapists. Some Commandment about not fucking another man’s (female) property comes to mind. I’m sure there something in The Bible on how to deal with rapists.

    ” What’s really wrong here is your understanding of what I’ve said. – David

    No, I understand what you’re saying at least as clear as you are. So, unless you’re leaving something out, even my faithless brain can comprehend your message.

    A loving, homosexual, activity between committed adults (married in some countries!) is a sin according to Catholic God. As such, it’s just “being human” to unfairly deprive their children of Catholic educations. It is also their right, because Catholic education is special and should not be polluted by sodomites, even if its being taught by them.

    It is also just “being human” to fail to stop people under your watch from ramming their cocks up the asses of others without consent. It is always much easier to hunt down and attack the sodomy of outsiders than it is to police the sodomy from within your own ranks. I understand that. I just don’t accept it as an excuse. I also don’t expect God would look too fondly on it either, should He exist, especially if He hates gays as much as people claim. His employees sodomizing innocents in His house? The only sodomizing going on in my house is done by me!

    You’ve made yourself pretty clear, albeit, partially by your silence…the same kind of silence that allowed priests to continue to ass-rape boys for centuries.

    “I could care less whether anyone thinks (emphasis added by me) they’re smarter or better than me. What matters is that I’m a good man…and live the way He taught us to live.-David

    Once again, that self-righteous ego busts through your attempts to deny it, even within the same sentence.

    Besides, you’re posting comments on the Internet, you idiot. The main reason people post comments on the Internet is to show how much smarter they think they are. Who’s kidding who here?

    And, by all means, be a good man. That’s what I want to encourage. Abdicating your brain and eating bullshit P.R. sandwiches served up by collar wearing hypocrites is not a requirement, it’s an obstacle.

    Making excuses for fellow self-flagellators only enables wrongdoing.

    I try and help some people see it, but you can lead an ass to water but it’s up to him to drink it. -David

    Amen.

  21. Your interpretation of what I stated is wrong. What you think of what I said has no relevance to what I said. You’re an idiot and a jerk. Also, your understanding of the problem is ridiculous. It’s easy for you to point at the Catholic Church because she’s the biggest ship on the ocean, but other institutions have far more incidents of child abuse than does the Catholic Church. If you’d bend to see that, and acknowlege that it’s a problem of mankind, not just the Catholic Church, you might be a little bit credible. That is all.

    • You need to be a little more clear about to whom you’re replying, David.
      MY interpretation of your arguments is four square: You assert three common arguments for god – ontological, teleological and first cause. The ontological argument is circular and easily refuted. The teleological begs the question, and has been soundly dismantled for a few hundred years now. In support of the argument from first cause, you offer as evidence your mistaken interpretations of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This not only fails to support your argument (either for the existence of god, or in opposition to the fact of evolution) but shows a shockingly weak comprehension of physics.

      As for your undirected response to Sedate Me, would you do us both the courtesy of naming an organization with more incidents of child abuse than the Catholic church. I would suggest you avoid pointing to NAMBLA for two reasons:
      1. I think the raw numbers would still give the Catholics a victory by knockout
      2. I think there’s very likely a substantial degree of overlap between the two groups.

      You have an annoying predisposition for making bold claims with no explanation OR evidence to support them.

      Speaking of the Vatican, great news about the gay hookers operating in the Pope’s yard, eh?

  22. The fact is that nobody really knows, but fewer than 1 in 20 priests in the US and the world have been even accused, much less convicted. Statistics vary from 1 to 5 in a 100. That leaves the vast majority of priests as innocent. Incidents in US Public Schools vary from 3.5% to 50% of students being molested in school. Charol Shakeshaft, “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature,” U.S. Department of Education, 2004-JUN, at: http://www.ed.gov/
    Raw numbers lie, considering that Catholics are 1 of every 5 or 6 people in the world.

    • David…(sigh). Your understanding of statistics is no better than your comprehension of physics.

      Without digging any deeper than the face of it, the figures you offer compare the percentage of priests convicted NOT to the percentage of teachers convicted, but rather to the percentage of victims. I hope you can see that that’s an obvious case of comparing peaches to pedophiles.

      How many children did each priest molest?

      The figure “from 3.5% to 50%” is so damn broad that it’s meaningless. How many? Oh, somewhere between 2 and 650 at every school.

      How was “sexual abuse” defined? Some studies would include suggestive remarks, others would set it aside; some would include making a person uncomfortable, others would not.

      In any case, once again, the “evidence” you offer is meaningless.

      There are FAR more teachers than priests. I would suggest that a figure much smaller than 5% of teachers molest students. One significant difference is that when a teacher gets caught, they don’t get moved to another school where they can continue molesting students, which is apparently church policy.

      Your statement that “the vast majority of priests” are innocent is also meaningless. It could mean they haven’t been accused, charged or convicted. Nevertheless, the same words apply to teachers – the vast majority of them are innocent, so…yet again (and again and again) you are not making a cogent or rational argument, and what you think is evidence is irrelevant chatter.

      In any case, if you want to start tossing around unexplained numbers, try comparing victims to victims and perpetrators to perpetrators…or SOME damn thing that’s rationally connected to the argument you’re trying to make.
      If it’s now that teachers molest more kids than priests, absent some solid fucking evidence (you know…REAL evidence), I say you have your head stuck up your cassock.

    • Furthermore, David, you assert that between 3.5 and 50% of students are molested in school. By whom?
      Other students? Teachers? Janitors?
      In order for such a vast range of blithering nothing to be at all comprehensible, it needs to be tied to some information on who’s committing the crime. Unless you want to include all the attacks committed by Catholics, not just by priests. Or is it the crime scene that has you bug-eyed? Will you now argue that very, very few Catholic children are actually molested IN the church.
      Jesus…we’re going to have to work up a curriculum for you. Physics, statistics, biology, basic logic. I don’t know if you were ever molested, but your teachers certainly did you a disservice.

  23. If you cared to read the report, you’d know the answer. Or don’t. You think your opinions about me or anything else mean anything? I don’t. You have no basis for the blog you posted either. Did you bother to check out the facts of the story? I doubt it. Time for me to beam up. There’s no intelligence in this blog.

    • If you cared to provide a link to the report, instead of just to the DoE main page (where there appears to be no link to anything like what you’re talking about), I might.

      My opinion of you may not matter, David, to anyone (even me). My opinion of your argument, however, is directly relevant to this discussion. Your assertions contain no logic or evidence, lack cogency, consistency, and are constructed of nothing more than premises you haul out of your ass, which were in turn cobbled together based on the conclusions you’ve already reached, and (despite your insistence otherwise) utterly fail to support your position.
      Rather than emulate you and merely sputter, “You’re wrong! It’s not true!” I have taken the time and effort to patiently explain to you why your evidence is not evidence, your premises are really conclusions, your conclusions are not supported by what you offer as evidence AND your conclusions are not logically connected to your premises. None of this seems to have any effect. I can only conclude that you are either incapable of understanding these things, or you’re just too stubbornly dogmatic to consider them.

      The basis for the initial post – Keep Jesus Out of Education – is based, similarly, on a cogent argument. Here an educational institution is denying a place to a small child; a PRE-SCHOOL is kicking a toddler out because it disagrees with private, perfectly legal lifestyle choices of the parents.
      The reason given by the school – that they teach based on their religion and wish to avoid upsetting the child when he or she is told by the teacher that homosexuality is morally wrong – simply doesn’t hold up…and I’ll tell you why. The school admits Muslim toddlers as students. According to the Catholic church, Muslims (who most certainly do not accept Jesus Christ as the saviour) are sinners doomed to eternal hell.
      Now, as between my teacher saying, “Your two mommies are doing something wrong by loving each other,” and, “Your two mommies are going to hell where they will burn in a lake of fire for ever and ever,” which do YOU think might be more upsetting to a small child?
      For that matter, telling a small child that ANYONE is going to eternal hell for any reason is, in my opinion, despicable, contemptible behaviour bordering on child abuse. It presumes that children born to Catholic parents, while still too young to comprehend the dogmatic philosophical choice being imposed upon them, lack compassion and feeling for their fellow man; that they understand and agree (at the age of three and four years) that sinners deserve to go to hell and are nodding along with their teacher as they contemplate their eternal reward at god’s right hand.
      It not only presumes they lack the compassion to be literally horrified by such a proposition, it ignores that they are children and may well believe such ugly stories much the same way they believe in Santa Claus.

      Nevertheless, the stated reason for turning this child away is not only hogwash, it’s insulting hogwash – the sort of lie that implies the Catholic church (protectors of child rapists and celebrators of Hitler’s birthday) think we’re too fucking stupid to see through it.
      And, given that it’s obviously false reasoning, one might then wonder if the rather more obvious rationale for this decision isn’t just what it appears to be at first glance: Homophobia and the unmitigated desire to force their morality on everyone else…or punish them if they refuse to comply. So much for “Love the sinner – hate the sin,” eh?

      So what we have here is the Catholic church, so outraged that there are gay people in the world, insisting that they will refuse to provide educational services TO A TODDLER (a total innocent, no matter what her mommies do), in retribution against their private violation of an optional moral code (incumbent only on believers…who appear to fall far short of it themselves far too often to be taken seriously) to which they do not subscribe.

      Imagine what would happen were the church to get it’s filthy, gnarled hands on PUBLIC education. No child with any gay family member would be permitted to attend school. Which, come to think of it, would be rather a courtesy, since the school would be teaching that the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs and humans lived together, evolution is false, the earth is the at the center of the universe and the sun moves around it.

      In any event, the idea that a bunch of celibate old men wearing dresses can deny education to a child based on their fantastic delusions about virgin birth, transubstantiation, and a magical sky wizard is prima facie evidence for the argument that these brainless, lying, stealing, murdering, heartless fuckwits never be permitted to lay a finger on the way in which children are educated in a world that values truth and justice.

      So, David, I had a perfectly reasonable basis for the blog post.
      And, I think you’re right…it is time you beamed up. How surprising you depart with reference to another dramatic fiction with a cult-like following. Your phaser was set to STUNNED when you arrived.

  24. Your basis is wrong. What a private school does is its own business. It’s not a public school. As is often the case, sometimes activists use their presence in an organization to make a political statement. Such was the case with Sarah Palin’s daughter being pregnant out of wedlock, such was the case with McCain having a gay child.

    This has not been borne out yet, but possibly the point is to drive a wedge into the fundamental beliefs of the Catholic Church. If you don’t see at least the possibility of this, so be it. By the way, 1/6th of the world does not constitute a cult. More like a majority. 🙂

    • My recent post Keep Jesus OUT of Education drew a fair number of comments. One reader in particular, David, defended the decision by the archdiocese to deny a place to a small child because the parents were lesbians.
      He argued that the school, being a private Catholic entity, had the right to take this action (a point with which I legally agree but to which I morally object – more on that below)…
      https://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/jesus-preschool-redux/

      If you’re arguing that because Catholics have almost a billion adherents they are a majority, you need to buy a dictionary and look up majority. There are six BILLION people on this planet, David. Catholics are certainly NOT a majority. While they may outnumber any other specific faith claim, they are vastly outnumbered by people who, quite simply, think they have their head up their ass. In any event, even if they were the majority, that does not support the argument that anyone else ought to be obligated to submit to their ridiculous dogma.

      Definition of CULT:

      cult – noun
      1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
      2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
      3. the object of such devotion.
      4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
      5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
      6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
      7. the members of such a religion or sect.
      8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

      I have no idea what activists you’re talking about, nor how the presence of such persons relates to anything in my post or in this comment thread. Are you suggesting that the archdiocese are activists? That would seem to be rather a stretch.

  25. I’m talking about people with ideals which don’t agree with those of an organization infiltrating that organization with the purpose of creating a division, or with the idea that said ideals could be changed. The Catholic Church is against sex outside of marriage, period. A lesbian couple living together fits that bill. Having an open lesbian couple participating in a Catholic school suggests tacit approval of their lifestyle. If you don’t see that as a possibility, you are morally blind.

    When you spouted your ‘cult’ epithet, you weren’t using the 1st or 4th or 5th definition (Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism all fit those, as does vegitarianism) You were after #6, which is patently false. We’re all among you and live in the same world you do. And try and make it better. The Catholic Church is the largest religion on the planet, which is where the majority lies.

    • Being the biggest is NOT A MAJORITY. If you can’t manage to employ words using their plain meaning, I don’t how to deal with you, David.

      The idea that two lesbians who want their child to attend preschool are somehow infiltrators has to be one of the most batshit insane, paranoid, wingnut conspiracy theories I’ve ever heard. You’re grasping at straws in a vain effort to defend what is plainly indefensible.
      The lesbians were NOT “participating” in the school – they were sending their daughter to class. They no more participate in the school than I participate in dry cleaning when I send out my shirts. What the hell is with you and your tortured logic, anyway?

      Don’t tell me what I meant, you fatuous shit. READ MY WORDS. I don’t imply, beat around the bush, hint, or anything like it. When I have something to say, I say it. The Catholic church…the Catholic religion…meets many of the varying definitions of a cult. that’s just a simple fact. And you’re right, all the other organized religions do, too…and in that degree, they are cults.

      No one needs to be Catholic to make the world better. In fact, as between the ways Catholicism has made the world a better place and the ways it made the world a worse place, I submit the evidence is clear: Catholicism is a net loser and a clear and present danger. See condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa, abortion (specifically in the case of a pubescent girl raped by their father in Brazil!), gay rights, the previously referenced kissing of Hitler’s ass…shall I go on (and on, and on)?

      Having followers that outnumber any other specific faith claim does not prove the truth of the faith, the value of the belief system, or any other thing you would wish to connect to being “number 1”.
      Will you convert to Islam should the demographic shift? Or, to take a page from your conspiracy theorizing…was the Pope so very eager to team up with Adolph Hitler in order to make sure the Jews could never catch up?

      Stop being a dick, David. It’s getting very, very tiresome.

  26. Your interpretation of what I stated is wrong. What you think of what I said has no relevance to what I said. You’re an idiot and a jerk. -David

    You just figuring that out? You really ARE slow! But you’re still wrong. I am a jerk, a full fledged asshole most days, but I am only an idiot when I choose to be..and that’s almost always just for effect anyway.

    Also, your understanding of the problem is ridiculous. -David

    I’ll try to keep this as simple as I can and use as little profanity and as few sexual references as possible. (As short as possible? Nope. Sorry.) I’m guessing sinful speech seems to divert your attention from the actual topic at hand.

    Here is the story we are commenting upon (aka the problem at hand) which has very little to do with the silly “prove it” debate you and Cousinavi were having.

    This Catholic school tossed out a pre-school kid for something completely out of his control. They tossed the kid out PURELY because his mother is in a lesbian relationship. There was no mention of the couple making out on school steps, trying to advance a “homosexual agenda” at PTA meetings, recruiting or molesting students, or anything else that would interfere with Catholic school business as usual. It also seems they just were just doing it in their own home and not involving the school in any way other than sending their kid there for an education.

    Also, it was just ONE birth parent who committed the crime of gayness. There’s no word on the father. For all anybody knows, he could be as straight as an arrow, as Catholic as the Pope and condemn all gays straight to Hell. It could be him who wants the kid to go to school there.

    Now, read closely here because its the crux of what I’m saying…

    While I’m sure you disagree, I personally think it should be illegal. But even if it’s not, I am saying that kicking a kid out of a school for ANY activity a parent does in their private life that doesn’t directly affect the school is unacceptable and seems downright anti-American. It’s just plain wrong, even if homosexuality is a sin, to kick a child out for SOMEBODY ELSE’S homosexuality.

    Now, the lone justification for doing this is that the school is a Catholic private school and Catholics apparently have a right to discriminate against gays, because they consider it a sin. At that point, the organization’s history regarding the sin of homosexual conduct becomes VERY relevant.

    This same organization has had countless employees from a wide variety of its divisions (maybe even this school district) commit, not just the same “sin”, but a far, far nastier and darker version. Their actions were Illegal by the standards of both Catholic God, American law…and basic human decency. There aren’t too many activities that should be more reprehensible to a Catholic than what these priests did right on church property. In some cases, right IN schools and right IN churches.

    And yet, members in positions of authority knew about it and covered it up in a way that allowed it to continue for generations. Even when the news started reaching the public, the official policy was to deny and minimize. Few, if any, participants were punished by this organization that loudly proclaims that even consensual, legal, adult, participation in this sin is a serious evil and not to be condoned. And yet, the Catholic church’s actions condoned it though inaction that resulted in countless more homosexual child-rapes by its own employees.

    I want to stress that ain’t even talking about the straight-orientated sexual abuse, the physical abuse, cultural genocide or anything else that happened under the Catholic school umbrella because I was trying to keep it ultra-relevant to the topic at hand. Those Catholic sins are best left for another day.

    When you consider this school’s action within the Catholic church’s historical context, EVEN assuming consensual homosexual acts are on par with boy-rape as sins, (which is insane in its own right) no remotely rational person can say kicking out this NON-homosexual student doesn’t at least push the limits of organizational hypocrisy. In addition, no sane or rational person can say that an organization with such a history of unchecked abuse must be taken seriously by the general public when it publicly condemns all homosexual activity.

    Back to making it ultra-simple again:

    Whereas…

    A) Inaction on a longstanding practice of (highly criminal) sinning that caused serious suffering to countless people.
    B) Abrupt action on a non-sinner because of somebody else’s (legal) sin that only hurts themselves.
    C) The Catholic church is currently in no position to be taken seriously when it talks tough on homosexuality.

    A+B =C

    And yet, David, from what you’re saying, and especially what you AREN’T (ie doing this was wrong, stupid, self-defeating or EVEN just right but embarrassing given the historical context) you continue to minimize both A and B and continue C by calling it “human weakness”. You claim that homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes. I don’t believe it, but my arguments have been made accepting your premise that it is a sin. I did that to demonstrate that the alleged sinfulness of homosexuality is completely irrelevant to the Catholic church’s credibility on the matter, even IF they are right about everything.

    They can quote the Bible all they want and nobody outside the Catholic church (and some inside) will take them seriously, RIGHT OR WRONG. Anything short of having God Himself coming down from Heaven, holding a press conference and saying, “The Catholic church is the only legitimate spokesman for my position on homosexuality and, as such, I give them a free pass to ass-rape all the young boys they want.” will not change that fact for decades.

    “It’s easy for you to point at the Catholic Church because she’s the biggest ship on the ocean, but other institutions have far more incidents of child abuse than does the Catholic Church. If you’d bend to see that, and acknowlege that it’s a problem of mankind, not just the Catholic Church, you might be a little bit credible. That is all.” -David

    Not that it matters at all (beyond a Catholic sense of self-importance), but it isn’t the biggest ship on the ocean. It may be the biggest Christian ship on the ocean, but what matters is that while the crew has been bull-horning announcements about about the evil of homosexuality above deck, it’s been “full-ass-ramming-speed-ahead!” below deck for much of the voyage. (Ass-pirates!)

    Just because I tried to stay on-topic, I don’t feel the need to mention or acknowledge the obvious and irrelevant fact that “But everybody else is doing it too”. It’s true. Such things occur in all segments of human society, especially where there are power imbalances. But so what if Catholicism aren’t the only ass-rape game in town? My failure to drag the rest of them into my already painfully long posts doesn’t excuse any other child-ass-raping going. I could bring up Roman Polanski too, but that would be irrelevant and only muddy the waters.

    However, since you insist, perhaps it’s appropriate to bring up Catholic school’s main rival, the vastly inferior public school system, and how it handles boy-rape. Despite being forced to welcome homosexuals (and all kinds of other deviants and genetically imperfect people) inside their gates as teachers and students, generally speaking, most boy-rapists are reported by the school to legal authorities and, depending upon the legal outcome, are suspended/fired and jailed. So to are most reported instances of straight teacher-student rape and straight or gay teacher-student underage consensual intercourse. I suspect even teacher-adult student consensual intercourse is at least heavily frowned upon. No matter what your measure, there’s no need to count anal penetration stats to know that public schools compare favourably to how Catholic schools have dealt with boy-rapists. Rarely are perpetrators quietly transferred to other schools and allowed to continue while people within the public system work on forgiving them their human failings.

    In conclusion, to make it ultra-simple again, I am only making a few claims;

    1) It’s wrong to kick somebody out of school for something they didn’t do, especially when…

    2) The same organization routinely failed to so much as fire employees for similar, but far more reprehensible, sexual activity. And considering this hypocrisy and abdication of responsibility with regards to the safety of children…

    3) It is not unreasonable to question why such an organization continues to have a “right” to practice discrimination in this way, or maybe even why they get to run schools at all, when other organizations are fully capable of educating children.

    4) You can’t claim to be a good person, or claim that homosexuality is wrong, if you don’t clearly say men in white collars ass-raping-boys was wrong and should be punished while they are still here on earth and that the Catholic church looking the other way was wrong. (It’s not that I think you’re saying the opposite, just that you seem to be going out of your way to avoiding saying so, perhaps as a lingering form of collective denial.)

    If you still don’t understand this, next time, I will attempt to illustrate this using a method you should be able to comprehend…a parable.

  27. Excellent timing there.

    I love that memo mentioned in the links.

    What other place of work could an employee hear cries for help from a room, go inside, see a fellow employee with his dick up the ass of a crying young boy, then go report this to the management and have the manager say “Let’s see. Da policy manual here sez nuttin bout going to the fuzz. It sez we’s to call head office in Rome. They’ll send a fixer out, just like Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction, to make the problem disappear. He’ll remove all da evidence, sew da boy’s asshole back up and shuffle the employee off to Buffalo. It’ll be like it never happened. Capiche? So, fuhgeddaboutit.”

  28. First, cousinavi, I don’t have to deal with any of it. I know my chuch is made of sinners. That explains a lot. By the way, so is yours.

    Now, Sedateme, First, the kids didn’t get ‘kicked out’ of anything. The decision was not to re-enroll them. A private school has the right to choose whom it will teach. Second, while not stated, it appears that the children were enrolled this year under false pretenses. It’s not one ‘parent’ that’ s gay, it’s both. The Archdiocese has a duty to correct the wrongs when they are discovered. Lastly, direct quote from the Archbishop: The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are ‘bad,’ or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ. He added people with a different understanding of marriage and family life “have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.”

    The pastor of the school stated this: “The issue is not about our not accepting ‘sinners,’ ” he said. “It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that.”

    Whether you agree or not doesn’t matter, for that matter, my opinion doesn’t matter either. Ultimately, it’s what God thinks that matters.

    • Asshole.
      What if it were the toddler’s second cousins?
      AS IF that it’s “both parents” instead of one is a distinction that carries ANY significance or weight. Could you be more willfully blind? Could you be more stunningly obtuse?
      News now about a homosexual prostitution ring being run out of the Vatican. News now about the Pope’s brother covering for a pedophile and shipping him off to another parish to abuse more children. Reports are that the former Cardinal Ratzinger HIMSELF knew about it at the time.
      And you…and the archdiocese…have the fucking nerve to yammer lies in justification for blatant hatred and discrimination.
      Hypocritical pieces of shit. ALL gay couples say their relationships are OK. The church need not agree with it, and no one is forcing them to do so. No one is forcing them to take their disapproval out on a small child either, you ignorant, myopic, contorting fuckwit. The lengths to which you will go to defend and justify what is nothing more than pathetic, discreditable, ignorant behaviour – actions that could not more directly contradict the teachings of Christ if your imaginary Lamb were standing before you saying, “Don’t do this,” if they tried.
      Meanwhile, ass-fucking orgies are conducted within the Vatican, and Pope Ratzinger protects child rapists.
      You sick, demented, twisted bit of delusional shit.
      Fuck you and your imaginary god.

    • “Enrolled under false pretenses”?
      WTF does that mean?
      The PRETENSE is so that their toddler may attend preschool, you fucking moron.
      There’s no conspiracy to infiltrate the Catholic church with the 3-year-old children of gay parents, you dipshit.
      False pretenses, indeed.
      Keep stretching. Sooner or later you’re gonna tear something and let some light in.

  29. Your anger and self-righteousness are funny. I hope you don’t believe everything you read in the news.

    The pretense was that they know that the Catholic Church values sanctity of marriage, and opposes homosexuality. So a woman brings her kids in to enroll them. Possibly lies on the application. When the truth is found, the wrong is righted.

    You’ll have to prove your allegations. With evidence, not news stories.

    What they did is justifiable. They said “We’re not willing to accept someone into this group who disagrees with our rules.”

    It’s a shame it affects the kids, but it’s not the end of the world. There’s other schools they can go to.

    By the way, keep it up and God will show you his mercy-giving you a one way ticket. Just like any other non-repentant people. I hope you enjoy it there.

    • How Christian of you to wish me well in hell.
      I can see you do well with the ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ bit of your bullshit theology.

      The parents are not attempting to join any group. Not the church, not the preschool, not a goddamn thing. They want to send their CHILD to SCHOOL. “Possibly lies on the application,” you say. So, while telling me that researched news articles, confirmed by criminal investigations, multiple witnesses (including from within the church) are insufficient to form an opinion; despite THIS story being a mirror fucking image of many, many examples of the same sort of child rape cover-ups for which the church has been sued into bankruptcy in America, I should just say, “Oh well…we don’t really know what happened.”
      MEANWHILE, you INVENT hypothetical circumstances (“POSSIBLY lies on the application”) in order to justify the church taking their disapproval of homosexuality out on an innocent child.
      What about the kids of heterosexual Catholics who have gay aunts and uncles? Can they attend? What if they spend weekends with their gay aunt or queer uncle? Does that make a difference? Is it only blood relations, or is being related to a fag by marriage sufficient justification to deny a child access?
      The ugly sorites argument you uncork by trying to justify your hate; by hiding your repressed ass-raping priests behind the hem of Jesus’ skirt, is sickening. The sooner you delusional fairy tale freaks are exposed for the lying, filthy, hateful thieves and con artists you are, the better.

    • Oh…and by the way…as regards your threat of eternal hell…
      YOU keep it up, and I’ll show you MY mercy with a one-way fucking ticket. Different destination. I hope you have health insurance.

    • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8567144.stm

      The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland says he will only resign over claims he helped cover up sex abuse if he is asked to do so by the Pope.

      Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings in the 1970s where two abused teenagers signed vows of silence over their complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth.

      Fr Smyth was a notorious sex offender jailed in the 1990s for child abuse.

      “There was no cover up, I believed those people. I brought what I heard to the bishop,” Cardinal Brady said.

      The complaints of abuse were investigated by Cardinal Brady in his capacity as secretary to the bishop of Kilmore in 1975.

      Cardinal Brady said he had been following his bishop’s orders and there were no guidelines for dealing with such investigations at that time.

      NO GUIDELINES. Well, nice to see that the church is developing GUIDELINES on how to deal with flagrant violations of both secular AND god’s law (whatever the hell the later might be…it seems to change as a matter of convenience).

    • My anger and self-righteousness are funny? I’m angry because you holier-than-thou fuckwits cover up child rape, permit it to happen again and again, take your homophobia out on children, lie, cheat, steal, murder and do all of it behind a smug, smiling facade of “We follow the word of god”, and YOU think that’s funny.

      I think your lack of anger and faux righteousness are fucking pathetic. Shameful, disgusting, repulsive, reprehensible. How fucking dare you condescend to me when you defend the sexual abuse of children, and the punishment of children for the “sins” of the parents? You ought to be strung up. You’re too dogmatic to think, too stupid to learn, and perfectly willing to stand by and do nothing while YOUR brethren commit the most heinous crimes imaginable.
      “I was only following orders from my superiors.”
      Hmm…where have we heard that before?

    • By the way, keep it up and God will show you his mercy-giving you a one way ticket. Just like any other non-repentant people.

      And THAT’S what I really hate about the stupid lie you call your faith. Heaven is CHOCK FULL of child rapists who repented. Hell, on the other hand, is full of decent people who simply rejected your stupid religion.
      And that makes perfect sense to you.
      If there were such a thing as your god, I would expect – being omniscient – he understands why I wouldn’t step foot inside any church that lets YOU in.

      With all those innocent aborted babies, those who died during delivery, child cancer victims…you know, all those little sinless babies who must be in heaven…I guess all the REPENTANT child rapists must think heaven is…well, heaven.

    • The Great Catholic Cover-Up
      The pope’s entire career has the stench of evil about it.
      By Christopher Hitchens

      Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way … restrained by a perpetual silence … and everyone … is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” (Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

      Not content with shielding its own priests from the law, Ratzinger’s office even wrote its own private statute of limitations. The church’s jurisdiction, claimed Ratzinger, “begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age” and then lasts for 10 more years. Daniel Shea, the attorney for two victims who sued Ratzinger and a church in Texas, correctly describes that latter stipulation as an obstruction of justice. “You can’t investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10, the priest will get away with it.”

      The next item on this grisly docket will be the revival of the long-standing allegations against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder of the ultra-reactionary Legion of Christ, in which sexual assault seems to have been almost part of the liturgy. Senior ex-members of this secretive order found their complaints ignored and overridden by Ratzinger during the 1990s, if only because Father Maciel had been praised by the then-Pope John Paul II as an “efficacious guide to youth.” And now behold the harvest of this long campaign of obfuscation. The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil – a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice-and speedily at that.

  30. Let’s take them back to front-Christopher Hitchens is your source, that you expect Catholics to believe?? Not. His first paragraph that you quote has at least 10 errors in it. Not worth reading further.
    Next rant-the fact that they repented is what is important. It’s the unrepentant that go to hell. You think repentance, true repentance, is unimportant? There’s your problem.
    Third rant-it’s becoming increasingly obvious that what you think isn’t important, and has no bearing on the original post you made.
    Fourth rant-Why don’t you check out how everyone and his brother reacted to those kinds of problems in 1975? Stop looking at things from today’s perspective. At the time, when the problem came to light, the treatment was extended psychological counseling, and movement out of the environment.
    Fifth rant-I didn’t threaten you at all. I warned you. Heed it or don’t.
    6th rant-You don’t know what “Judge not lest ye be judged” really means. And yet you do it yourself. Good…FYI, when you try to enroll in a private school, you have to meet criteria set forth by the school. Grades, uniforms, conduct. You agree that your children will live up to them. You also submit yourself in some way to those same rules. These parents did not. You don’t follow the rules, you don’t get to play the game. You don’t like the rules, go play somewhere else.
    I would submit how hard-line the church is about this problem. Let the lesbian ‘parents’ renounce their lifestyle and live a celibate lifestyle, complete with not living together. I guarantee you that the church will change it’s stance and allow the children to get their educational requirements there. There is no problem in the Catholic Church with people who have an attraction to the same sex. The problem is when they have sex outside of marriage-Church’s definition applies here-1 man and 1 woman.

    Now go have a drink and calm yourself down…

    And by the way, Benedict XVI was correct-the church is not beholden to the state. They report to a higher authority.

    • How predictable. Attack the source – Hitchens – but ignore the plethora of facts with which he impales your filthy record.

      2nd point: As I said…the repentant, no matter what they’ve done, are welcome in heaven. Child rapists, murderers, thieves. But anyone who merely refuses to accept your fairy tales promulagted in the total absence of evidence – people like Nobel Peace Prize winner, holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter Elie Weisel – they’re off to the eternal fire. If that’s your theology, no wonder it’s withering.

      3rd point: I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. Not surprising – trying to maintain cogency under a blanket of contradictory imbecility like Catholicism must, almost by nature, force incoherence.

      4th point: Yeah…the church has totally changed the way it deals with the issue of child rape by priests. No more shifting the blame, shifting the priests, in-house counseling for victims. Nice to see the modern church behaving so morally. /sarcasm

      5th point: If you don’t think telling me (paraphrase) “Change what you think and say or roast in hell” ISN’T a threat, then you don’t understand the meaning of the word. Once again, hiding behind your imaginary lamb. It isn’t YOU that makes the threat, it’s your god. You’re just the messenger.
      Well, it isn’t me that threatens you. It’s my foot. I’m just the messenger, you contorting, disingenuous fuckwit.

      6th point: I know precisely what “Judge not lest ye be judged” means. In fact, I’d wager dollars to donuts I know more about your stupid book of fables than you do. I’ve read it from the Pentateuch to Revelations, complete with margin notes. That you think YOUR interpretation of the meaning of any select scripture is THE interpretation only reveals how stunted and limited your thinking is. In point of fact, I doubt YOU have any original thoughts on the matter. You merely parrot what your priest told you.

      7th point: The only people who have to follow the goddamn rules of the school are the students and staff. I notice you ignore the question: What if the student has gay aunts? Queer uncles? Homosexual second cousins? At what point does remoteness prevent the church from exercising their hatred?
      The church has no problem with same sex attraction, only sex outside of marriage? THAT’S your argument? Then, pray tell, why did the church go to such lengths to KEEP GAY PRIESTS IN THE FOLD? Why did the church send them off to other regions TO MOLEST OTHER CHILDREN? Apparently, the church only has a problem with gay sex outside of marriage when it’s engaged in by NON-CLERGY, you hypocritical asswipe.

      As for the church not being beholden to the state, I have news for you, Junior…have a peek at the civil judgments that bankrupted the American branch of the Catholic church. Watch what happens in civil court in the years to come throughout Europe. Yeah…big news for you, you stunned cunt: Your church is going to be served originating notices, and be dragged into CIVIL COURT where your god is meaningless. And if you think the state has no authority, well…you just fucking WATCH. I’ll fucking SHOW you authority. Benedict had his head up his ass…among other things. In THIS case, sadly, there is no higher authority. Were there, you might well feel more apprehension about making the arguments you so arrogantly make. WERE there a hell, your reasoning would take you there.

      Now go suck a cock and calm yourself down, you reprehensible defender of putrid slime.

  31. I trust Slate and Christopher Hitchens about as much as I trust the National Enquirer. The article is full of mischaracterizations and lies. What you fail to realize is that priests are sworn to secrecy in the confessional, just as we have lawyer-client privilege. The Spanish Inquistion is different from the Inquisition that became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Too many errors to even go further. If Ratzinger was the confessor to these priests, he is bound not to say anything, just as a priest cannot divulge a murderer. The best he can do is suggest to the confessing priest a course of action to avoid doing this again. You might not like it, that’s the way it is.
    2nd, Elie Weisel, no, Eric Hunt, maybe. We don’t pretend to know who’s actually in hell.
    3rd, Your incoherence and irrationality
    4th The Church does deal with her ‘bad’ priests, whether you like it or not.
    5th If you think a warning is a threat, stop putting oil in your VW Beetle.
    6thYou’ve read the Bible have you? Have you tried to understand what you’re reading? Have you read Sirach? Baruch?
    And finally, when you enroll your children in a private school, you’re just as much beholden to the rules of the school as your children. It’s just that simple.
    And news for you, the Catholic Church is not bankrupt, and any money diverted to victims of child abuse is just less charitable donations to go to the poor. But if you think anything on earth can destroy the Catholic Church, you may want to think again.

    Buh-bye!

    • The church is asset rich, but cash poor…read fucking cash BROKE. They’ll be asset broke soon enough. Too much ass raping and the bills are coming due.

      No one is talking about the confessional, you twisting git. Keep ignoring the facts and ginning up phony circumstances to justify despicable wrongs. We’re talking about the willful cover up of crimes against children and the enabling of further crimes. As if every single breath that ever mentioned the sexual abuse of children occurred sub rosa. Have you noticed that every time you post here, you dig yourself into a deeper level of contortion in defense of the indefensible?

      You DON’T pretend to know who’s going to hell? How fucking disingenuous can you possibly be?
      Your entire fucking theology is BASED on telling people who is and who isn’t going to hell.
      How to be saved and how to be doomed.
      Do you really think you can say things that obviously false and get away with it? Apparently so…and par for the Catholic course. Lies, lies and goddamn lies.

      Yeah…the church DEALS with their bad priests. They cover up their crimes, ship them off somewhere new, and then cover up their new crimes.

      The Wisdom of Ben Sira.
      Listen, fuckwit…I need not (though I have) canvass any deeper into your ridiculous scriptures in order to demonstrate that your faith claims are inherently contradictory, constructed on bigotry and hate, and serves a church that promotes and protects murderers, thieves, child abusers and the worst sort of exploitation.
      I actually read Hebrew. Do you?
      No, you read…if you read at all…translations. I rather expect you merely parrot crib sheets – the Cole’s Notes version – of the insipid crap you call scripture (and which the Protestants, your bothers in Christ, call heresy).
      Shove your heavily edited, redacted, translated scribblings up your ass, you filthy Papist.

      And when I enroll my children in private school, the school does not acquire ANY goddamn right to tell ME what to do beyond paying the fucking tuition.
      You quite obviously fail, in dramatic fashion, to comprehend the extent to which authority extends on the basis of operating a fucking PRESCHOOL. Of course, you also seem to think that the church need not answer to secular law. Pay attention, you fucking moron…there’s an object lesson coming your way courtesy of the courts of Ireland, Holland, Germany and Spain. You can kiss what little cash you’ve got goodbye, and you can get ready to sell some shit on EBay, too.

      Your contention that monies paid in civil judgment merely takes away from charity to the poor is one of the most myopic and ugly little things to spill out of you in this entire shaming discussion. AS IF the Catholic Church gives to the poor anything like a decent chunk of the money it steals from the gullible. Witness the dying in Mother Teresa’s hospitals, lying on straw mats, beset by flies, as that scamming little Albanian dwarf traveled the globe giving absolution to Papa Doc Duvalier! As IF the reprehensible Catholic church were not hoarding riches stolen from Jews sent to the camps and willingly…greedily…hoarding VAST wealth, real estate, art, precious metals. The depth and breadth of your willful blindness would shame to tears any decent man. You, most obviously, fall short of decency.

      What will destroy the Catholic church is patently obvious: Ass raping priests and an eager willingness to protect them.
      Clearly god’s work in action.

  32. 1. you’re wrong. 2. you’re wrong. 3. You’re wrong. 4. You’re wrong. 5. Greek. Which is where the Old Testament Canon came from. 6. You’re wrong. 7. Again you’re wrong. 8. Once again, wrong. 9. You don’t know what you’re talking about. 10 You’re an idiot.

    I guess we’re done.

    • DAVID: 1. you’re wrong. 2. you’re wrong. 3. You’re wrong. 4. You’re wrong. 5. Greek. Which is where the Old Testament Canon came from. 6. You’re wrong. 7. Again you’re wrong. 8. Once again, wrong. 9. You don’t know what you’re talking about. 10 You’re an idiot.

      From THREE DAYS AGO:

      Rather than emulate you and merely sputter, “You’re wrong! It’s not true!” I have taken the time and effort to patiently explain to you why your evidence is not evidence, your premises are really conclusions, your conclusions are not supported by what you offer as evidence AND your conclusions are not logically connected to your premises. None of this seems to have any effect. I can only conclude that you are either incapable of understanding these things, or you’re just too stubbornly dogmatic to consider them.

      Never let it be said, however, that I ducked an argument…especially one offered in point form.

      1. You’re a delusional fuckwit.

      2. You have your head jammed up the Pope’s ass.

      3. You actually believe the bible is the inerrant word of god – as if anyone needed more proof that you’re stupid.

      4. You defend child rapists and those who protect and enable them.

      5. Greek? Don’t be ridiculous. Aramaic, then Hebrew.

      The Hebrew Bible (Hebrew: תנ”ך‎ acronyms for תורה נביאים כתובים) is a term referring to the books of the Jewish Bible (Tanakh) as originally written mostly in Biblical Hebrew, with some Biblical Aramaic.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

      But…even granting your lie…do you read Greek?

      6 – 9. It really sucks to have your ass handed to you in public, huh? Don’t feel bad, David…I’m FAR better educated, better read, and just a whole helluvalot smarter than you. Of course, I have another large advantage – I’m not gobbling the Pope’s cock and his slate of bullshit lies.

      10. One of these days…and it comes to most…you’re going to realize that you’ve wasted your life believing a bunch of horse cock bullshit that brought you nothing, cost you money, and forced you to associate with and defend people who sexually abuse children. Sadly, I won’t be there to see the look on your face.

      You were done the moment you walked in here. It’s just taken you all this time to figure out that you’re over matched and decide to run away. Now fuck off (again), you pathetic apologist for child raping, lying thieves.

  33. Ever the sweet, toLLLLerent Jew, eh, Avi?
    Poor David has toLLLLLerated you for over a week. Now you are angry b/c he is leaving, what a spoiled brat.

    • When you and David, like stray dogs being fed, keep coming back for another beating…to MY place…over and over and over and over again, it is I who displays tolerance. What you display is obsession and a stubborn inability to recognize when you’re being shamed; slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.
      Not at all surprised that you get it backwards, given the degree of intellect you have expressed in your comments, posts, and the party pack of neon colors you seem to require to compose a sentence.
      I’m not angry he’s gone. A little disappointed you’re back, though. I don’t expect you to learn any lessons – you lack the capacity – but I would have thought licking your wounds would take more time. Now run along, you racist whore, the text color selection tool on your blog is feeling neglected.

  34. Cousinavi is letting YOU into HIS private school, even though you clearly don’t meet his standards or follow his philosophies..(OK, so he abuses you too, but at least he hasn’t ass-raped you) And, unlike the Catholic church, he is not subsidized by the government via not having to pay property tax on his extensive property holdings.

  35. Oh Bla Bla Bla.
    You cannot come up with ANYTHING good, just the same old Marxist NAZI crap full of defamation.
    LOSER.

    • Marxist Nazi? How, exactly does that work?
      Look, you brainless, racist, ignorant embarrassment to DNA…while I understand how much you need the attention, you bore me. Go find somewhere else to play. You lack the game for VNV. Fine…I’m a loser. You win. Now just go away.

  36. I haven’t been beaten. Not at all. I just know when I’m talking to a brick. Your idea of tolerance sucks. Tolerance means attempting to understand the other person’s point of view. I haven’t seen any of that. But I’m doing as Jesus said-shake the dust from your sandals, turn your back and walk away.

    • …and yet you KEEP COMING BACK.
      You SAY, over and over again, “I’m done now. I’m walking away.” But you KEEP COMING BACK.

      And, of course, the stunning degree of hypocrisy in the other half of your comment goes right over your head.

      Get thee behind me, Satan.

  37. “Now, Sedateme, First, the kids didn’t get ‘kicked out’ of anything. The decision was not to re-enroll them. -David”

    I was waiting for you to bring that infantile word-game up, but I wasn’t sure you’d stoop to that. RE-enrolment, by definition, means that they were enrolled before, which means the school previously found them acceptable, which makes this whole thing all the more ludicrous. Did the rules change at the Catholic church? What the fuck? It took centuries to admit the Earth travelled around the sun! How am I suppose to believe the school changed their mind on this kid while still in pre-school?

    Oh, but I guess we must assume they enrolled under “false pretences”, because the Catholic church is incapable of making a mistake. Was the kid 20 and trying to get into pre-school? If that’s the case, I agree that would count. Did they misspell the kid’s middle name? Assuming you ain’t making shit up (a link or two would be nice) you seem to claim info here that isn’t included in the story. And, of course, we shouldn’t trust the news or any written publication…other than The Bible, which God himself wrote. (Didn’t David Koresh say the same thing to his people?)

    Has the Vatican issued a set of talking points for all good Catholics to recite regarding this story, perhaps? Apparently, they’re really good at making press releases that excuse and minimize their actions. I guess it’s all the experience they got from defending the countless ass-rapes of young boys…which isn’t remotely gay at all, it’s just a “human failing” that needs to be forgiven. But having a gay parent? (Exactly how did they determine that they were lovers and not just Kate & Alllie style roomies anyway?) No, having a gay parent is a sin that prayer can’t solve. It requires immediate action!

    But you said the kid had 2 gay parents. Is his dad gay too? Or is that a recognition that the non-blood related lesbian is a legitimate parent? Wow, that would mean you broke at least 2 Catholic taboos in one sentence! I’m saving you a good seat in Hell, David.

    So, because you’re Catholic and, as such, know the absolute truth about everything, maybe you could tell me what excludes people from having access to this superior Catholic education that needs to be kept from the general public? What would I see on the application form? If, as you say, we are all sinners, (I can certainly agree with you on that claim!) what sins are acceptable and what are deal-breakers? What is the magic formula? Or is that a Catholic Trade Secret known only to the Pope, 12 Cardinals and Colonel Sanders? And are these the rules for all Catholic schools? If not, why not and how can that be justified beyond the standard, Catholic, “Because we own the copyright on God” claim? God’s rules are consistent and unchangeable, aren’t they? So Catholic school entry rules must be to, right?

    Specifically, do you actually have to be Catholic? If so, how often to you have to go to Mass? How much do you have to put on the collection plate? Does this private club that doesn’t pay public tax allow niggers, spics, kike’s or the dirty Irish in? How about people who earn under $250,000 a year? Kids whose parents have genetic diseases? Children of people with tattoos or piercings? Quadriplegics? People who lisp? How about any child of a person who has ever watched a Kevin Smith film?
    Just what is the criteria that lets some sinners in and keeps others out?

    Needless to say, I’m sure any kid with a learning disability doesn’t get in and D students probably don’t get re-enrolled. God forbid that God would allow a retard to drag down one of His school’s test scores! Imagine if Catholic school test scores weren’t the highest in the city. It might harm their claim on superiority!

    And if its about marriage…Catholic definition of marriage as opposed to legal marriage because places like Canada recognize gay marriage (maybe good Catholics should leave Canada to avoid it’s acceptance of sin?) …are the children of single parents from divorce, pre-marital sex or even virgin births rejected? How about any parent who’ve ever had sex outside of marriage? And, because we’re all sinners, what about the multitudes of other sins? Or are sex-sins of a student’s relatives the only ones that count?

    What about greed, gluttony or pride? Applying those Deadly Sins alone should wipe out at least 3/4 of the kids. The mere act of a private school that picks and chooses families smacks of prideful, elitist, social climbing, materialism. I figure anybody going along with this might as well make out with another chick or dude…unless the rules on greed & gluttony & pride have changed. But if the rules on greed & gluttony & pride have changed with the times, then why not the homosexual rule?

    And how does the school know about the sins? Does every Catholic school have a full-time staff of private detectives spying on the private lives of students and their relatives, just to make sure the school isn’t condoning some sin or other? Are secret cameras in every Catholic bedroom?

    It’s this kind of elitist, sanctimonious, hypocritical but still Holier-than-thou, bullshit that gives Catholicism a bad name. How so many Catholics can have this superior attitude and actually think it helps their religion or helps their personal entry into Heaven is beyond logic.

    “The Archdiocese has a duty to correct the wrongs when they are discovered.” -David

    Correct. He is obliged to cross out “father’s name” on the form and enter the 2nd mother’s name in its place. Then the form would be correct. But it’s only a minor transgression. It’s not like sending boy-raping priests to new territories full of fresh ass-meat, or anything. I mean, just because there are criminal sins being committed doesn’t mean God expects you to call the cops. That would be a crazy over-reaction.

    And yes, I can understand client-doctor/lawyer/priest/shrink confidentiality. But shrinks, the job most like priests, can be forced to cough up confessions of illegal activity in certain circumstances, especially where the public is at future risk…like, say, predatory homosexual-paedophile rapists.

    But who’s kidding who here? Like any good mafia lawyer, the church has engineered it so that everything about the ass- raping priest flows through “professional privilege”, so that it doesn’t have to admit what’s going on.

    The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are ‘bad,’ or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ. – the cock gobbling Archbishop trying hard to justify his action

    Yes, children of gay parents are not loved any less by God, just the sanctimonious, judgmental, haters that send their kids to Catholic schools. And that’s why we must show God’s love to this child by kicking him out as if HE did something wrong. For his own good, we need to deprive the kid most in need of it the chance to learn why homosexuality is wrong.

    Because it’s wrong, if we didn’t kick this kid out for being connected to homosexuality, we’d look like hypocrites…as opposed to when we failed to punish boy-raping priests, which I might add, is not remotely gay at all and isn’t covered under the sex outside of marriage clause. But we can’t ignore this kid like we ignored boy-raping priests. Priests rape in the shadows, lesbian couples walk around in broad daylight where all other parents can see. Parents who see them would either drown us with complaints, or even worse, they might see these two women acting like ordinary parents and learn to accept them as fellow human beings. That would be the worse sin of all. Either way, there ain’t no vaseline that’s gonna make this one slide by with less pain!

    The pastor of the school: “The issue is not about our not accepting ’sinners. It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that.”

    The church’s position is to love the sinner but condemn the sin. (See: “Why we allow the mafia to participate in the church”) Unless that statement is complete bullshit, it’s what makes this decision wrong. Kicking the kid out is meant to punish the parent for engaging in lesbianism. It is meant punish the sinner who may or may not even see it as sin. But in the end, it only punishes a completely innocent child who doesn’t even know what’s going on.

    You either stand up and say, “We hate fags!” or you actually love the sinner anyway. If that claim means anything, you should view a homosexual more like you view an alcoholic, or anybody with a self-destructive problem. Because homosexuals aren’t going to steal all your communion wine or pawn a golden cross to pay for booze. You can actually let a few lesbians walk around with a reasonable expectation that they won’t go down on a nun in front of everybody. Their “sin” takes place off church property, so you can be free to extend your love on church property…if you actually meant it and aren’t completely full of shit.

    As such, a far more reasonable approach to this problem would have been to let the kid in providing…

    1) They can pay the tuition, which should be based on a non-profit, self continuation of the school basis and not that of a greedy, prideful, exclusive club that will launder their sins for them.

    2) They understand the kid will be taught all kinds of Catholic bullshit that will probably identify them as sinners. Teaching as many kids as possible right from wrong is what Catholic education is supposed to be all about. It’s much better than just letting them stumble through life completely unaware of theirs sins until they die and are cast into Hell. I thought saving souls was the Catholic church’s business. In this case, they’re just writing them all off, kid included.

    3) No making out on school/church property or at school/church functions. I would think any chance to win a kid over would be worth having a few lesbians waiting for their kids in the parking lot or attending the occasional play or garage sale. Preventing them from doing that crosses the line into hating the sinner. Parents routinely send their kids to school and have no involvement with it whatsoever.

    4) No matter what we say about your moms, God loves you, kid. Come on in and learn!

    If I were in this position, I would consider it my mission to SELL Catholic education, not DENY it to willing participants, like some stupid, self-defeating, snobby, elitist-fellating fuck who wants to keep these parents out because they HATE homosexuals, as opposed to their sin. Letting children of lesbians in is certainly no worse than letting children of mafia killers in, and the church has a long history of doing that.

    By kicking the kid out, the lesbian’s’ “sins” will continue as if nothing happened and that child will grow up accepting it. He will never get an opposing viewpoint. He needs Catholic school more than any other kid at that school. But this bad decision condemns him too.

    Whether you agree or not doesn’t matter, for that matter, my opinion doesn’t matter either. Ultimately, it’s what God thinks that matters. – David

    You’re opinion doesn’t matter? Well, if I believed you actually meant that, I’d be easier on you. But you claim your opinion is God’s, which matters, so your really saying the opposite.

    Funny enough, God told me that I’m right. If you got a problem with that, we’ll settle it the good old fashioned Christian way. You raise an army. I’ll raise an army. And we’ll let God choose sides on the battlefield. Sure, a lot of innocents will be harmed, but that’s just the price of proving you have God’s favour, isn’t it?

    “By the way, keep it up and God will show you his mercy-giving you a one way ticket. Just like any other non-repentant people. I hope you enjoy it there. -David

    Non repentant? I don’t see a DROP of modesty or apology (and barely any logic) in any of your posts. I DO see a fuck of a lot of pride and vainglory. At this rate, you and I will be roomies in Hell. Better hope I don’t decide to ass-rape you.

    I reserved a room in the blue cage-like thing. I’ll be waiting.

    • Are you serious? A blog post from a Catholic citing another blog post from a Catholic believer as evidence?
      THAT’S your evidence. You might as well just stop with, “…because I said so!”

      Considering the effort to which you clearly went to dig up an utterly untrustworthy source to buttress your defense of Pope Ratzinger, I shant bother to simply suggest that you google “Cardinal Ratzinger sexual abuse” and read any of the 152,000 results.

      Oh…btw…I noticed an interesting thing about the blog post to which you so eagerly link. The FIRST comment is from a totally random visitor named Sister Maureen Paul Turlish. I bet that’s a coincidence. Just some family decided to name their daughter Sister.
      What did you name your brother’s girl? Denise.
      And the boy? Denephew.

  38. Thats right, you ARE A MARXIST NAZI.
    Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx, how novel, a Nazi and a Jew that wrote the Communist Manifesto.
    Left Wing=NAZIS

    BTW Avi, you are WEAK.

    David, why waste your time with this FREAK?
    Come to my Blog, I love Catholics, I even wrote a post for St. Pattys Day, screw this Character Assassinating piece of SHIT.

    • What is it about abused dogs keeps them coming back?
      Nazis are left wing? Yeah. Okay.
      In addition to exposing yourself as a filthy racist, you now demonstrate that you, quite literally, don’t know left from right.
      Yes, David. Go visit the Mad Jewess. Bask in the cancerous glow of her neon sentences. Both of you. Go stroke the ever lifting shit out of each other. Just stay the fuck out of here. Pretty please. Watching you eviscerate yourselves…obsessively spilling your ignorance in public…is actually becoming embarrassing. I like to think I draw a better class of counterpoint.
      Which, I guess, really is the point after all. I don’t care that you shame yourselves (really…not even a little bit), but it’s reaching the point where you embarrass me. I deserve better opponents…better argument…better thinkers.
      So it comes to this: PLEASE fuck off.

  39. “Tolerance means attempting to understand the other person’s point of view. I haven’t seen any of that.

    Really? Because in everything I wrote, I operated upon the assumption that homosexuality is a serious sin. Much of what I wrote even accepted the concept that Catholics have a right to run private schools that exclude people.

    Most of what I had to say revolved around the (lack of) logic behind the actions, the hypocrisy required, and how bad it makes the church looks to most sane people.

    And yet, despite accepting premises I find very offensive, I can’t so much as get a peep out of you about being able to see how an organization with the Catholic church’s perceived track record on boy-rape (even IF it’s DEAD WRONG) can kick out a kid for a parent’s “sin” of homosexuality and NOT look bad in the public eye. You just think parsing words and saying “We’ve got a right to discriminate” will change opinion and that any opinion other than yours is Godless.

    Again, it is not unreasonable for anybody, perhaps even a good Catholic with a function brain, to see this action as pushing the limit a bit too far.

    And regarding that link….Holy Mother-fucking fuck!!!

    I can’t believe that link. If anything, it actually makes the situation look worse! I’d be embarrassed to link to that!

    That Akin clown somehow managed to make the church and the Pope look worse on this front than they already did. He should be rewarded with an excommunication, not quoted as a defence of the church.

    the bishop of Essen (or someone) came to Cardinal Ratzinger and said, “There’s a priest from the diocese of Essen who has committed sexual improprieties and needs to receive counselling. Can you put him up in a rectory while he is given psychological therapy in Munich…And what if it turns out he did know that the sexual improprieties involved children?? -Aikin

    He is claiming Ratso KNEW the nature of what was going on and maybe even the priest’s exact crime, and he just let him move in without informing the police. Who cares if it was one of his priests, some other Cardinal’s priest or the janitor from a Boston cathedral? If I were harbouring an active paedophile, even for the purposes of curing him with my therapy sessions, I’m pretty sure that excuse wouldn’t wash with the cops, even if I cured him. I would have wound up in jail also.

    At that time (1980) it was commonly thought that paedophiles could be cured through psychological counselling.”

    Was this bozo even alive in 1980? Nobody was claiming that active paedophiles should be allowed to run free because all they needed was some therapy. Paedophile-rapists got arrested and sent to prison.

    In 1980, most people felt that child rapists, particularly man-on-boy rapists, should be sexually mutilated and/or put to death because GAY rape was even MORE offensive than raping young girls.

    In fact, while it was changing, few at the time distinguished homosexuality from paedophilia. If you were gay, most people assumed you wanted to have sex with young boys. It’s amusing how the Catholic church now conveniently uses this modern separation to excuse its past crimes from the sin of consensual adult homosexuality, which is to be treated more harshly than they treated child rapists BEFORE this separation was widely accepted.

    What these folks were actually suggesting was that mutilation or death was not the punishment of choice and that, with extensive therapy, many of these paedophiles could be RELEASED FROM PRISON AT THE END OF THEIR SENTENCES with a vastly reduced risk of re-offending. That was the argument.

    It seems the Catholic church thought they could just hold hands with the guy and cut out the whole embarrassing “prison” part.

  40. Statement by lesbian parents of children kicked out of Catholic preschool: “There are divorced parents, children of parents born out of wedlock, non- Catholics, and non-practicing Catholics. Their eligibility has not been questioned.”

    Yep…hypocrisy. Count on the Catholics for selective enforcement. The only core values they have are matters of circumstance and convenience, none of which are solid enough to rein in their own despicable behaviour.

  41. It took me a while, but I found the lesbian couple’s whole statement…here is most of it:

    We are normal people. We have two children, a nice house, and a dog. We both hold professional jobs in the community. You would likely pass us on the street and not take much notice. We work hard, and enjoy spending time with our family, travelling, and being outdoors. What makes us different is that we are a lesbian couple. We are not activists by nature. You have never seen us at protests or marching in parades. …We live in a liberal community, where we have always felt safe, comfortable, and accepted.

    We went to enroll our oldest child in kindergarten at Sacred Heart of Jesus School, and were told that our children would not be welcome to continue their education there long term because of our sexual orientation. This came as a shock to us because our children had been attending preschool at Sacred Heart for three years. We had been open about our family situation from the start, and had always felt welcomed by parents and teachers.

    We were told that families and students need to uphold church doctrine in order for children to be admitted. We were also told that our children would feel uncomfortable when taught about the “family unit”, and teachers might feel too intimidated by their presence to teach church beliefs.

    Our answer to this is that there are many families that do not live their lives according to church doctrine. There are divorced parents, children of parents born out of wedlock, non-Catholics, and non-practicing Catholics. Their eligibility has not been questioned. There seems to be a subjective rating system of which some sins are more unacceptable.

    We have never sought approval from the church of our relationship and we would never ask that the school modify its teachings to accommodate our family. We are not threatened by our children hearing different points of view on any issues. Perhaps our biggest objection to the School’s decision is that we think that it is wrong to punish a child for who the child’s parents are. We do not think that this reflects what Jesus would have done. Jesus said, “bring the children to me.”

    Some have suggested that we enrolled our children at Sacred Heart to make a political point. This could not be further from the truth. We were both born and raised in the Catholic faith. One of us went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and the other attended a prestigious Catholic University. Our children’s grandmother and aunt were catholic school teachers for many years. Furthermore, our children are Catholics. They have both been baptized, and we take them to church regularly at Sacred Heart. When we were allowed to have our children baptized (as recommended by the 2006 document ‘Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care’), we made a promise to raise our children in the Catholic faith. We now feel like our attempts at fulfilling this promise are being undermined by the Church itself. Although we do not see eye to eye with the Catholic Church on the issue of gay and lesbian relationships, we value what a Catholic education can offer our children from an academic, religious, and moral standpoint. As parents, our number one priority is and always has been the well-being of our children. We would never intentionally seek to further our own political beliefs at their expense.

    It is easy to have ideas and opinions when they are abstract. When you meet the real people you are judging, you sometimes see things differently. We never intended consciously for our family to be active gay rights advocates, but by living happy, successful lives it appears that is what we have become. ” – The Colorado lesbians

    Sounds shockingly like what I was imagining all along. Except for the fact that they like sensible shoes, they are probably little different than any other parents there. They are Catholic “legacies” who want the same for their kids, even if they are no longer technically welcome by the Vatican because they grew up to be sinners, which supposedly we all are.

    The kids were in school for 3 years, but only NOW does the couple’s homosexuality become an issue. Why the change?

    Was the school just hard up for students then and are now full, so can afford to start kicking out undesirables? Did some of the extra-homophobic parents threaten to cut-off their donations? Did the archdiocese just figure out homosexuality was frowned upon by the church?
    No matter what the case, it’s another example of arbitrary application of church rules, especially regarding homosexuality, and only serves to make the church look bad.

    I have a hunch that when the bottom is gotten to, it may all boil down to some petty, personal, gripe, like somebody bought a condo another parent was interested in, or somebody went to a party wearing the same dress, and the other parents decided to play the “homosexual card” at the church to get them tossed out.

    • Hat Tip to Sedate Me. Excellent research – brilliant comment.

      Flippant question: I like sensible shoes. Am I a lesbian?

  42. Well, if you like sensible shoes and having sex with women, I’d say you’re about halfway there, 24/7 Mr Bitch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: