h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

azahar, please read what I say more carefully! I said, specifically, that I have *never* used the pill! When I was married I wanted children (and not out of vanity, that's a nasty accusation... I know you didn't make it, but someone did.)
Second, I am *not* a Catholic! Just because I am trying to defend them against the crashing waves of bigotry, doesn't make me Catholic any more than defending the interests of Palestinians in the media, or Chinese immigrants in NZ makes me either Arab or Taiwanese!

Adele:

"The Church has never acknowledged its complicity [in the Holocaust], because that complicity is a lie!"

I'm afraid given your known and unapologetic use of lies to support your arguments, I tend to instinctively believe your opposition on this one. You just can't be trusted.

However, I've looked for myself...

"See the albushra website (Palestinian Christians) for the facts."

This is a bit like saying "See Google for the facts" - there's no link from the albushra.org website to anything about Catholic complicity in the Holocaust. Please learn to post proper links. Here are a few (and I've tried to make them links to websites that aren't as blatantly, obviously partisan and biased as albushra - and that include Catholic sites!):

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~hns/articles/1998/102998a.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1141/n21_v34/20449160/print.jhtml
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=7172

Astonishingly, Adele seems to be the one closer to the truth here for once. Catholic "complicity" in the Holocaust seems to be limited to vague claims of failure of the Papacy to condemn outright, rather than, as one might have supposed, actual collaboration in any organised way by Christians. Indeed, a short search on Google will turn up many Jewish sites praising Catholics who shielded and protected them from Nazi oppression, particularly in the predominantly Catholic Poland. There you go...

"the instance of child abuse by priests amounts to fewer than 1% of priests."

Allow me to repeat that, using the SAME statistic expressed in absolute terms:

"there are fewer than 4000 Catholic priests abusing children".

Now - does that make everyone feel better? Doesn't that make you trust your priest?

The RATE is irrelevant anyway - even if it were 0.001%. The Church is getting it in the neck because of the way it *responds* to the allegations.

If a SCHOOL receives allegations of sexual abuse against a teacher, they suspend the teacher, get them away from contact with kids, and tell the police, so that the matter can be investigated properly.

If a CHURCH receives allegations of sexual abuse against a priest, case after case shows that the POLICY is to respond by moving the priest to another parish, pressurising or bribing the complainant to keep quiet, and never informing the police.

If this had happened once, in one church, in one country, it would be perhaps explainable as a forgivable lapse - church officials are only human, after all. But it's happened, to my certain knowledge, several times each in the US, England, Ireland, France and Australia. We're not talking here about "mistakes" - we're talking about a POLICY of the Catholic church, to cover up possible cases of child abuse and conceal allegations from the proper authorities. The Church clearly sees itself as above the law in this matter.

"Hoo would be hysterical"

A small point here sweetie: men do not, indeed, cannot, become "hysterical", any more than we can menstruate. Gaze at the word "hysterical" for a moment, consider how much it looks like the word "hysterectomy", and ask yourself if you think that's a coincidence. Then learn some etymology.

"if any other body paid out $$ to *women* who claimed abuse, on their unsupported word"

Men are accused every year of rape on the unsupported word of women. Due to the way the law is biased in favour of women, they don't even need to be found guilty to have their lives ruined, while the women hide behind legally guaranteed anonymity.

"but no doubt that's good enough for him when it's men claiming to have been abused by priests."

Absolutely not. Do not, please, presume to project your inadequacies onto me.

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is that the case should be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".

The standard of proof in civil trials - where compensation is sought - is that the case should be proven "on the balance of probabilities". This is a much weaker standard, and is therefore easier to satisfy. If a priest is accused and it's his word against one other, then one must weigh up the credibility of the complainant against that of the priest. But if there's MORE than one credible complainant - and in some of the cases I've followed there have been DOZENS - the priest is likely to have a hard time convincing a judge that he probably didn't touch ANY of those kids.

That is how the courts work, and it's the same for men and women - except of course in the numerous cases we've already mentioned where the law is biased in favour of women.

If you don't like the courts operating that way, you could always go somewhere like Nigeria...

H.

Adele,

<>

Sorry, I read that as meaning that you were taking the pill.

And I was obviously wrong in assuming you were Catholic.

az

Hoo,

In fact men *can* become hysterical. Yes, the origin of the word hysteria (from Greek husterikos, from hustera, womb) referred to a belief at the time that disturbances in the womb caused hysterical behaviour. But now the word generally refers to any frenzied emotional state, especially of laughter or crying, in either men or women.

az

Adele,

Just wondering, since you weren't taking the pill, how you felt it had any effect on your right to decline sex. As I'm sure you know, the pill needs to be taken for a month before it becomes effective. And so any man demanding that you go on the pill would have had to wait a month to have condom-less sex with you anyhow. And no, I'm not being glib, I'm honestly curious.

Pre-aids I used to stay on the pill even when I wasn't in a relationship - just in case. So that I could be in charge of contraception for myself. I actually found that being on the pill gave me more freedom to choose when and if I wanted to have sex. I didn't need to worry about whether there were any condoms in the house or panic if one happened to break.

Since I had a hysterectomy a few years ago (so hey, I no longer become hysterical, Hoo ) I obviously no longer need to worry about birth control but I still keep a packet of condoms in my night-table drawer for personal protection against Aids and other STD's, which I think all sexually active women should do. I've never believed that it was solely the man's responsibility to supply the condoms.

az

For a start, very few men manage to live up to the Scout motto

That too!

az

"Be prepared"...?

Or "Do your best"?

Well, I was thinking of the former, but now you mention it.

They may as well, as long as they're prepared and all . . .

az

That's 'Cubs do your best'.

More like 'On my honour I promise to do my duty...' perhaps.

F

I would have used the word testerical, azahar, but I was afraid Hoo would accuse me of getting the word wrong - I did not coin testerical, but I think it's quite good, and *so* applicable to *some* males I know!

F

Adele, I did not directly accuse you of having chidren for vain reasosns, I did not even give this as the only possible reason some here may have done the same as you and spawned off spring. I Also mentioned biological urges, but I could have also mentioned pressure from relatives, the need to "stabilise and cement a relationship" as other possible reasons why people want children.

These are possible reasons some, none or all of them might apply to you but I did not and am not saying that any do.

"Testerical"!

Excellent! I am definitely using that word in conversation as soon as possible.

H.

LOL

marking

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/21/national1339EDTO606.DTL

oops. That other link didn't work. Try this one - the NY Times may ask you to register first, but it's free.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/politics/21CND-ABOR.html?hp


az