Contraception, Corona, and Unimpeachable Dogma

That the rapists of the Church have managed to evade the long arm of the law seems to be a badge of honor for some of these defenders of the faith.

looks like the game is who can have the highest number of sex abuse cases and how long can you go without getting caught.

highest racked up by a single priest is 280 cases. his bishop must be really proud to able to allow that priest to get that score.

alot of the sex offenders have died as "holy" men even before the public got a whiff of the abuse.

I'll stick my neck out and say JPII can be implicated and he got off easy, now Ratzy is left to get the backlash.

"I'll stick my neck out" yeah you do that since you have a penchant for sticking your neck out for idiotic advocacies anyway.

like you stick your neck out defending a bogus doctrine, pedophiles and corrupt clerics, therefore proving yourself deluded fool every single time?

Dick you make it so easy.

hahahaha!

he's the only who seems to find comfort in historical lectures, none of which serve any purpose on a fruitful debate. his attitude and approach is so typical of what i see and hear of priests, who retract to their abyssmal dogma whenever they are confronted by horrendous facts, in which none of us in the modern world GIVE A SHIT, at all.

poor dboncan.

//"I'll stick my neck out" yeah you do that since you have a penchant for sticking your neck out for idiotic advocacies anyway. //

You mean like trying to bully skeptic's groups with lawsuits because they released a video showing the world how inanely stupid your cause is?

Or how about claiming in all sincerity that there is a gay agenda to the APA's removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder back in 1973?

Please go on Dickie – we're learning so much from your example about stupid advocacies 😉

The gay agenda is not the topic it is Res Tani's lies. Now I have not seen a single one of you so-called intelligent and tough talking FF's address it. As long as you keep changing the topic we will not progress.Sent from my iPhone

It is really sad that many priests have died free men with the help of the Roman Catholic Church, which supposedly fights evil. I guess hiding priests and evidence from the law isn't evil. Good thing there is justice in the afterlife. That is, unless they were able to have a secret confession with a priest before they died. Loophole!

and under the oath of the sacrament of confession they can never tell anyone about it, they are more than willing to take that secret to their graves.

crimen solicitationis provided further loopholes.

Evaded Bercero… that is a rather stupid remark considering that there are court cases all over. I think your blinders are on!

and we pointed that is a mere fraction of the cases being covered and decades too late.

did you not read that? of course not! your reading comprehension is pathetic.

Maybe you'll get your fix after this:Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as “pedophiles” are actually guilty of molesting young children.You were saying…?Sent from my iPhone

fix? please, pathetic apologetics is still that… pathetic

let's see: you cut n paste from 10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia i suppose, how original of you http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/f…
well there goes the credibility of that statement.

however you still insist on skimming the issue, the anger of people is directed at the rampant and systematic cover up and protection of rapists orchestrated from the very top of the Vatican hierarchy,

to the likes of you, the image of the church is more important than the rights or lives of its victims. nice of you to consistently make a conscious effort to ignore that fact. despite being repeated to you so many times.

maybe you should post a study why they do that, instead.

and to quote a wonderful song by tim minchin

And the fact remains that if you protect a single kiddie fucker
Then pope or prince or plumber you're a fucking motherfucker

in other words: if protect pedos then you are just as bad as they are. got that pedo-lover?

So you were saying?

EXTREMELY RARE????

from whose point of view, the roman catholic church's?

against all the updated links shoved down his throat, this son of a bitch won't stop at nothing to save the roman catholic church's ass, for if the Conspiracy of Silence was a drug, you'd be in rehab by now.

1. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabu…
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10407559
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/priest-s…
4. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-priestscanda…
5. http://tor.id.au/

as a freethinker, im starting to accept the fact that people like you can only be convinced if one of your children are butt-fucked by catholic priests, priests that you defend like a rabied dog.

Tsk Tsk Tsk what language and the nerve to call me an SOB. All that rage might give you a stroke.Hey complain to Philip Jenkins he did that study who by the way isn't even Catholic!. At least I am honest enough to post A STUDY, your “updated links” are news articles only… And we know how reliable the media is. LOL Who is being an ass now?Sent from my iPhone

and yet again ignores the fact that people are angry at the church hierarchy for protecting rapists rather than bring them to justice.

//At least I am honest enough to post A STUDY, your "updated links" are news articles only… And we know how reliable the media is. LOL Who is being an ass now?//

in defense to the lady. i noticed you cut n pasted from an article from http://www.catholiceducation.org and anything similar. and yet scorn her for posting actual news sources.

since you believe that such sites are a legitimate source of information. pardon me while i rofl as my irony meter goes of the scale.

//Hey complain to Philip Jenkins he did that study who by the way isn't even Catholic!. //
Philip Jenkins is a Catholic-turned-Episcopalian

and hello hello, he also says the bible is more violent than the qran. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…

interesting, i need to read up on his books.

Excuse me but that thing I got from that website is excerpted from a book by Philip Jenkins which I have and have read… it does not change that fact that what I posted was a study rather than a news-bit…. so please if you're going to defend someone please make some sense!

you should take your own advice dick. which obviously you don't

you still have not addressed why the church would protect: pedo, ephebos and rapists before protecting children.

and besides that culture of raping has been around for centuries and the church has done a bang up job of concealing it. and a pathetic job of fixing it and people are angry at that little fact you constantly ignore.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/07_…

"The institutional church has never responded, as an institution, in a pastoral manner to abuse victims. They've been defensive. They've been highly destructive to the people in the litigation process. The only reason the victims have gone to court is because the church system, the bishops and their staffs, were unwilling to respond in an effective way to men and women, young and old, whose lives have been devastated by clerical sexual abuse."

"The bishops are well-organized. They have vast amounts of money to pay for advertising campaigns and expensive lawyers and lobbyists, which the victims do not have. And they're using it"

and don't blame my secularism for that, nor the site's leanings. the book where they get the excerpts is written by 2 actual CATHOLIC priests and a mental health practitioner.

want to make yourself look like a fool for the nth time dick?

Victims have been emotionally unable to disclose their abuse at the hands of clerics simply because of the church-instilled fear of divine retribution against them for saying anything negative about a priest.

The reasons for bishops' and priests inaction may be that so many of them themselves are sexually active.

Four times as many Catholic priests and religious are involved with women they are involved with children, and nearly three times as many are involved with adult men.

Priests who abuse minors are part of a much larger group, an anonymous network of clergy who are aware of each other's sexual proclivities, behaviors, and activities and are capable of blackmailing each other.

It is now an undisputed fact that sexual abuse by priests is neither simply a current aberration nor a passing phenomenon: It has deep systemic roots.

all of these come from a CATHOLIC priest. reality bites doesnt it? now we wait for some inane apologetic excuse or a juvenile respone.

//Evaded Bercero… that is a rather stupid remark considering that there are court cases all over. //

Most of these have been going on as far back as the 60s, and they're only getting attention now because your church was being threatened by the authorities to come clean.

If your church was so righteous as you claim it to be, it wouldn't have taken the authorities of the US, Ireland, and a handful of other countries in Europe to convince it do get things done – it would have punished its priests out of its own accord.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYo…

How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?Sent from my iPhone

"How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?"

The sexist homophobe thinks effeminizing a name/person is funny/insulting. How amusing. o.0

because this is what he does best….

TALO ANG PIKON, remember? <3

Red is already fine with being ponified – he'd probably considered being called a woman an honor, since it'd make us a shoe-in for the women's month activities 😉

The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins,Pedophiles and Priests).Sent from my iPhone

//The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. //

Dickie, trying to say it's not pedophilia doesn't change the fact that it's rape.

Besides, your shell game was already exposed last year – you're obviously citing the “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010” report by the USCCB.

The report's already been called out for its dodgy statistics and half-truths, one of which was intentionally classifying pedophilia as sexual abuse of victims that ten years old or younger at the time, despite the fact that the DSM sets the cutoff age at thirteen, just to say that its priests did not commit pedophilia.

Miranda Hale has the complete takedown here: http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/05/24/a-worthless-…

Nope that's from a book by Philip Jenkins and for the last time I will ask you to refer to me by my username. I wont ask you again Sent from my iPhone

//Nope that's from a book by Philip Jenkins and for the last time I will ask you to refer to me by my username. I wont ask you again //

And once again, Dickie, claiming that it's not pedophilia doesn't get the church off the hook for protecting rapists.

//I wont ask you again.//

Is that a threat?

actually he already did threaten you.
//You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!//

ahh violence, the last refuge of the incompetent.

//You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy//

You know where my facebook profile is, Dickie – a man your age should be able to figure that out.

And seriously, what's a 40 year old dentist like you doing acting like a drunk 15-year old homophobic jock?

once you mention my age/place of work and call me by nickname, then yes I do feel personally threatened. I have asked you many times in the past, as I have always practiced, to leave any personal references out, so yes if I am pushed, I push back!

//once you mention my age/place of work and call me by nickname, then yes I do feel personally threatened.//

If you're so threatened, then why did you post your personal data here in the first place?
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/23/ten-co…

[Your a smart guy you can figure that out

Ricardo Boncan
Suite 119 MAB St. Luke Medical Center phone 632 7231071

6065 Palma St. Makati City phone 632 8966914

Sent from my iPod ]

If my PI got posted there it is still not a warrant for anyone to use it at their discretion, I have asked you many times to limit your responses to the topic as well as address me as my username. I asked Ron de Vera the same thing in the past and he complied readily. I accord you the same civility which i expect to be accorded as well. When someone continues to do so in spite of being asked not to, I interpret that as threatening. So now that we are clear on that please comply. That is my last word on this matter.Sent from my iPhone

//If my PI got posted there it is still not a warrant for anyone to use it at their discretion, I have asked you many times to limit your responses to the topic as well as address me as my username.//

If you don't like people referring to you by your name, then don't post it online, doofus.

You're 40+ Dickie. You're old enough to know how the net works – you even run a blog.

//I asked Ron de Vera the same thing in the past and he complied readily.//

Well I'm not Ron, and unlike him, I have a far lower tolerance for assholes.

Deal with it.

//When someone continues to do so in spite of being asked not to, I interpret that as threatening.//

Thank you for pointing out that you're paranoid; we kinda knew that when you started blabbering, but at least you're aware of it.

//I accord you the same civility which i expect to be accorded as well. //

What makes you think I'm not according you the level of civility I think you deserve?

You've ceaselessly defended the actions of a church that protects rapists, lied in our face about the investigations regarding this, and have publicly declared your disdain for the gay community, while hiding it under the guise of "Mental disorders."

And when you are called out for being a bigot, what do we get? Statements like this:

[You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy]

Seriously? Your idea of an intelligent response is resorting to thinly threats of violence? You're not a man worth respecting in any way, Dickie.

And even while you whine about being offended (do you think we give a fuck that you're offended?), you still think you can get away with statements like these:

[How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?]

Like I said, if you're butthurt, cry me a river. That's not stopping me.

You're not worth my time anyway. I have no time for cowards who hide under the kirt of anonymity and hurl invectives while doing so. Say what you will when you have an exchange with me but you watch your step because the moment you threaten me or my family again, I will do something about it.

//Say what you will when you have an exchange with me but you watch your step because the moment you threaten me or my family again, I will do something about it. //

Yeah, because as everybody knows, harsh language and ridicule are two of the most dangerous substances on earth.

Dickie, get off the fucking high horse – the only one here who even thinks your family is being threatened is you, and you're using it as an excuse to pretend you have a right to threaten people with violence.

Grow up.

as per ron de vera's claims:

when dboncan is pushed into a corner, one of three things happens:

1. He threatens to use physical violence (Check!)

2. He manages to change the subject or accuses the other party of it (Check!)

3. The thread comes to an abrupt stop (Check!)

maybe because he thinks that his real name and position and contact number and place of residence can scare the hell out of us. from what i see, this is just a display of arrogance.

Now show me your data which shows that Sweden has below than average child sex abuse rates than the rest of the world.Sent from my iPhone

[Now show me your data which shows that Sweden has below than average child sex abuse rates than the rest of the world.]

First, show us proof that homosexuality has a direct, contributing link to sexual abuse in a country, since you were so keen to blame gayness on your church's child molestation.

Talo ka naman. You asked me about Sweden…and I showed you data that seual child abuse in Sweden is in fact higher than the rest of the world… what lower are you talking about? Did you even read the paper! here let me quote it to you again:These figures suggest that during the 1990s a child in Sweden, possibly the most secularised country in Europe, was between 10 and 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than an American Catholic was by his priest. Even making allowances for the considerable margin of error that must be built into these figures, it's clear that what went on in US Catholic churches was terrible but rather less terrible than what went on at the same time in many other places whereCatholicismwas not involved. If the US Catholic church is a hotbed of child rape, Sweden is an awful lot worse. (Just to be clear here, I think the idea that Sweden is a dangerous country for children is entirely absurd.)”and this is from a secular source <a href="http://!http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/may/21/child-abuse-catholicism-johnjayinstitute!http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/may/21/child-abuse-catholicism-johnjayinstitute<br />”First, show us proof that homosexuality has a direct, contributing link to sexual abuse in a country, since you were so keen to blame gayness on your church's child molestation.”This is your proof… an extensive study by Philip Jenkins ( a non-Catholic) in his docu-book:The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins,Pedophiles and Priests).Do you understand this?

The fact is you guys don't want to admit the data on homosexuals in the priesthood being responsible or the majority of the abuse cases because it goes against you LGBT advocacy! But no matter how you look at the data it's what it is. The John Jay report says this:”The study listed the main characteristics of the sex abuse incidents reported. These included:– An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.”This means that the abuse is homosexual in nature!

Ah, there's the report I was referring to earlier 😉

Thank you Dickie.

Dear readers, a complete takedown of the John Jay Report Can be found here, at Miranda Hale's blog:
http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/05/24/a-worthless-…

Some of her more salient points:

//1. One of the most egregious aspects of this report is that the researchers arbitrarily redefine “pedophilia” as sexual abuse of victims that were ten years old or younger at the time, despite the fact that the DSM sets the cutoff age at thirteen. Defining it as “ten years old or younger” allows the researchers to make claims like:

[ Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as “pedophile priests” (3).]

and:

[It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as “pedophile priests,” pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent (10).]

… whereas if they had stuck to the DSM‘s guidelines (age thirteen or younger), most of the priest-abusers could legitimately be called “pedophiles”, as ”[m]ost sexual abuse victims of priests (51 percent) were between the ages of eleven and fourteen, while 27 percent were fifteen to seventeen, 16 percent were eight to ten, and nearly 6 percent were under age seven” (10). In other words, if the researchers had used the DSM‘s guidelines, the percentage would jump from 22% to almost 73%.

Arbitrarily changing the age from thirteen to ten was a very sleazy and duplicitous move, and, unfortunately, many media outlets will most likely report the “5%” and “22%” figures without explaining the study’s authors’ arbitrary redefinition of “pedophilia” (see this CNN story for an example). “Pedophilia” is a word that evokes strong feelings in many people, and, without this explanation, most media consumers will be left with the impression that the Church’s sex abuse crisis isn’t nearly as horrible or widespread as they had previously thought.

Frustratingly, the researchers do not explain why they chose to redefine “pedophilia”, saying only that: “[f]or the purpose of this comparison, a pedophile is defined as a priest who had more than one victim, with all victims being age eleven or younger at the time of the offense” (34).//

___________________________

Even then, they found no relationship between homosexuality and child abuse, as some blinkered Catholic apologists might repeatedly desire to pull out from the study.

And the study does NOT tackle why church leaders chose to protect said pedos….sorry i mean rapists.

If you cherry-pick enough from the John Jay report, I'm sure you can find that it says that dinosaurs live among us dressed in pink tutus and stetsons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rns-exclusive…
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?ent…
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-…
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/ind… http://ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/p…

"In fact, the John Jay report notes, the incidence of sexual abuse began to decrease in the late 1970s, at a time when–according to the study–the number of homosexual priests was rising. Thus the report finds that an increasing acceptance of homosexual priests was associated with "a decreased incidence of abuse–not an increased incidence of abuse.""
— CatholicCulture.org

"the researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors — a finding that undermines a favorite talking point of many conservative Catholics. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report states."
— David Gibson, cited by Fr. James Martin in America: The National Catholic Weekly

There is no evidence that either celibacy or homosexuality is to blame for the Church's child rape problem.

But, this is all to be distracted from the true crime of the Church, which is the systematic cover up of the rapes.

For women, seven countries reported prevelence rates above 20%: Australia (37.8%), Costa Rica (32.2%), Tanzania (31.0%), Israel (30.7%), Sweden (28.1%), the United States (25.3%) and Switzerland (24.2%).The generally much-lower rate for males may be partially inaccurate; under-reporting may be particularly prevalent because of the “possibility of greater shame and the fear that they will be labeled as homosexual (if the aggressor was another man) or weak (if the aggressor was a woman), which may combine with the fact that they are more often accused of having provoked the abuse.”Sent from my iPhone

obviously there was an intent of hiding it. how does the “sin” of some churchmen (2-5-3%) worldwide, discredit authentic Catholic teaching? You are arguing a strawman!

didnt we talk about this before? thick headed as usual.

ok lets take it slow now who wanted to hide it?

bishops, cardinals even reaching up to the pope. 5% bitch please thats the church leaders right there 🙂

those are not just a few churchmen. dick.

and judge them based on their teachings, not by their actions. seriously? you are as deluded as they get. if church leaders cannot follow their own doctrine then it is bullshit.

again "do as i say, not as i do" is not a good excuse.

off topic… I was talking about Red Tani's BS article. He is such a coward hiding behind the skirt of his FFt website and posting lies and defamatory articles without addressing critiques.

//obviously there was an intent of hiding it. how does the "sin" of some churchmen (2-5-3%) worldwid//

i was replying to that. the BS excuse it is just small number of the clergy who have "sinned" should not reflect on their teachings.

I noticed "off topic" seems to be your best defense mechanism.

got more BS apologetics you want to apply?

off topic ka pa rin

as i said your best defense mechanism. 😉

you're doing a sucky job as an apologist.

What can I do if you're off topic. As an apologist, I stick to the topic at hand… you want to argue something else, start thread or write an article that I can take apart otherwise take a number!

really? everyone here agrees it is on topic. and you know well what post i responded to. its kinda cute you keep trying to weasel out of it, in a futile attempt to save face.

and as an apologist you suck. again avoid silly comments if you can't defend it,else we'll call you out on your idiocy. you should know this by now.

you, yet again, failed to defend your church. as it stands it is proven your church is a corrupt, morally bankrupt institution. The going-ons in Europe and current events can attest to that.

//how does the "sin" of some churchmen (2-5-3%) worldwide, discredit authentic Catholic teaching? You are arguing a strawman! //

You're the one arguing the strawman. The crux of the matter is that the Church conspired to hide its sex offenders through its own system of rules and legalese. For instance, the various priests who molested kids in Ireland and the United States wouldn't have gotten far had it not been for intervention from the Vatican itself – your church's very seat of power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_crimes_and_the_V… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-159…

Since your so fixated in the abuse scandal I have only one thing to say and I gave said it before: the guilty priests should be punished and the seminaries purged of Homosexuals and psychologically disturbed individuals because it is a proven fact that most of the clergy sex offenders are homosexual priests who were wrongly admitted to the priesthood.Sent from my iPhone

//the guilty priests should be punished and the seminaries purged of Homosexuals and psychologically disturbed individuals because it is a proven fact that most of the clergy sex offenders are homosexual priests who were wrongly admitted to the priesthood.//

The sad fact, Dickie, is that these gay priests you are so willing to throw under the bus are more man than you can ever hope to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge

And if you're to pin these incidents on homosexuality, then explain why we're not seeing similar reports of sex-abuse in gay-tolerant societies, like Sweden?

“Are more man than I would ever hope to be? ” who is the one acting like half a man?you are the one hiding behind your anonymity after all. You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!Sent from my iPhone

//You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!//

You've got a family to worry about Dickie, so I'll decline. Maawa ka naman sa mga anak mo.

Now your threatening my family? Say that to my face you cowardSent from my iPhone

//Now your threatening my family? Say that to my face you coward//

No, I am simply saying that accepting your immature challenge to a fistfight [You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!] would be pointless.

And if either of us ended up being injured in that act of stupidity, you stand to lose more, since you're a family breadwinner.

I may be an asshole, Dickie, but I'm not a monster.

Sweden you say? Did you even bother doing research on child sex abuse in Sweden? Here:http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Lalor-McElvaney.pdfSent from my iPhone

Your Joke About Swedenhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/may/21/child-abuse-catholicism-johnjayinstitute”So in 1992, when the worst was over, the rate was 15 incidents of reported abuse per 100,000 confirmations. By 2001 it had dropped to of 5 incidents of abuse per 100,000 confirmations in the Catholic Church. There was a similar drop in American society as a whole but less steep and from a consistently higher rate.<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>For comparison,the Swedish figuresfor reported sex crimes against all children under 15 was 142/100,000 children in 1992, and 169/100,000 in 2001.<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>These figures suggest that during the 1990s a child in Sweden, possibly the most secularised country in Europe, was between 10 and 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than an American Catholic was by his priest. Even making allowances for the considerable margin of error that must be built into these figures, it's clear that what went on in US Catholic churches was terrible but rather less terrible than what went on at the same time in many other places whereCatholicismwas not involved. If the US Catholic church is a hotbed of child rape, Sweden is an awful lot worse. (Just to be clear here, I think the idea that Sweden is a dangerous country for children is entirely absurd.)”<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>What were you saying about Sweden again? LOL<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>Sent from my iPhone

^ Coding fail.

Send from my 3DS

EXACTLY…………..

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1987_12…

"Confronted with complaints that priests have molested children, some Catholic dioceses have responded by attempting to discredit those who made the allegations. Catholic officials and their attorneys have sought to seal court records, attacked newspapers and impugned the motives and even the sanity of those who have brought complaints against priests. Church officials say that dioceses and archdioceses in the United States are autonomous when it comes to dealing with priests who molest children and that in dioceses where mistakes were made, it wasn't because of a lack of sensitivity, but a lack of education on how to handle the issue." – bishopaccountability.org

– THESE THINGS HIT CLOSE TO HOME. Have you ever wondered why the Philippines is a breeding ground for corruption? And then we boast of being the capital of Catholicism in Asia. Eeew!

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1987_12…

Catholic Officials Strike Back at Charges of Child Abuse

By Carl M. Cannon
Mercury News Washington Bureau
San Jose Mercury News
December 31, 1987
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1987_12…

– I was more than a year old by the time of this publication, with the country barely coping with the aftermath of Marcos' tyranny. That's understandable; those in power were still trying to make a new Constitution. However, other countries such as the US are going in leaps and bounds trying to punish pedophile priests in their area; their laws have grown fangs and claws to protect the welfare of American children. But how does our own country fare in the Justice meter? ZERO. The reason?

Filipinos are being kept fanatically ignorant of such cases. 491 years in the making.

Homosexual acts are disordered we are not talking a out the old testament and I have no interest in talking about that, I am interested in how you FF's defend the lies your boss purveys. Stop skirting the issue and man up to the discussion.

//Homosexual acts are disordered we are not talking a out the old testament and I have no interest in talking about that, I am interested in how you FF's defend the lies your boss purveys.//

Then show us where Jesus disses homosexuality.

And yet here She stands after 2000 years! Go figure huh. You can't imagine how many people, dynasties, governments have said that about the church and are now all 6feet under.Sent from my iPhone

Hi DBoncan. When you say "and yet she stands after 2000 years," is that meant to refute Okeechobeeman's statement about the Church's fallibility? Are you saying that longevity is tantamount to infallibility?

Yes it does in a sense because she was referring to impeccability and not infallibility. The only reason for the church's longevity is the gift of infallibility to her magisterium. I have shown in fact that despite the human failings of many who have ruled the church she has survived. I can't discount those saints who have lived and led heroic lives.Sent from my iPhone

//I can't discount those saints who have lived and led heroic lives.//

Let us all remember Thomas More, who heroically burned several people at the stake.

[The only reason for the church’s longevity is the gift of infallibility to her magisterium.]

Have you seriously considered, investigated, and conclusively ruled out human gullibility?

if he believes in following that logic then…

Hinduism is credited to be the oldest surviving religion clocking 5,000 years old

dick's argument is invalid. all hail krishna! 3,000 years jebus' senior!

ooh don't forget one of the 10 ten worst britons in history is St. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury for all the pointless political upheavals and subsequent deaths he has caused.

Infallibility and impeccability go hand in hand and both produce a false, oftentimes twisted, sense of perfection. Infallibility is something that is adopted and not given. Many regimes adopted the doctrine of infallibility a recent one
being Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, which gave him a god-like status.
Establishments that adopt this doctrine are inherently dictatorial

That's your perception and opinion which does not take into consideration the basis of this doctrine both from 2000 years of sacred tradition and scripture as in the case of the Catholic church. Your analogy is too simplistic as dictators do not claim infallibility by virtue of anything more than their rise to power which finds no continuity from dictator to dictator.Sent from my iPhone

//That's your perception and opinion which does not take into consideration the basis of this doctrine both from 2000 years of sacred tradition and scripture as in the case of the Catholic church. //

Classic courtier's reply. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

The Vatican was a very powerful entity. Some kings were made only with its blessings. The fear of excommunication also ruled the minds of every Catholics. Fear was its greatest asset. We can see this in our own country right now.
If your are defending your faith in Jesus Christ then I will defend it with you. But if your are defending your loyalty and devotion to a foreign entity, the Vatican and its arm the Roman Catholic Church, then you are on your own because this is indefensible and unforgiveable. It is an affront to our ancestors who sacrificed greatly to rid our country of foreign control. It is an insult to our people who had been treated like lost children by these foreigners for 400 years or so.

I don't know where you get your info but in all my years as a Catholic, never once has any fear of punishment ever driven me to support the Church. If any i is the love for Christ and his mandate to proclaim all truth to the ends of the earth! Your understanding of what it means to be excommunicated is a bit distorted. You make it seem that the Catholic Church is a power to contend with… heck she does not even have any temporal powers! Nope no coercion here.

But they do have plenty of power. In the old days kings would bow down to the Pope and beg for papal blessings and support. Today in the Phil alone the Vatican has great influence on governmental policies not just spiritually but financially as well. Every Filipino president MUST be a catholic or the people will not vote for him or her. Estrada, Arroyo, Marcos, etc, these brave symbols of Filipino morality had to have the backing of the church. Historians suspect that the Catholic church was behind the execution of Dr. Jose Rizal because they found that Dr. Rizal was too smart and too brave to be an indio and too daring to accuse the church of imperfection. The catholic church is very powerful in the Phil and this is undisputable.

Like what government spiritual and financial policies for example are under the direct influence of the Vatican? Please elaborate.

First it is important to know what type of organization the Roman Catholic Church is:
1. It employs a lot of people worlwide (priests, bishops, etc). The number of bishops alone is about 3,000. These people do not absolve sins and save souls for free. They have everyday needs just like we less perfect people do. They are paid for their services. They also have health insurance coverage and pensions when they retire. Alas they too get sick and get old. The Vatican needs billions of dollars to pay for all of these. The coins you put in the basket at Sunday mass or the rosaries you buy cannot pay for these.

(On a side note, I suspect that the reason for the celibacy requirement is to keep the expenses low. 10,000 priests who get married all of a sudden and have kids will surely triple, quaruple, googuple, the RCC expenses.)

In the Phil, and other countries, the RCC acts like a corporation with non-profit religious status, thus tax-exempt. The RCC needs revenue just like any other business to stay afloat.

2. The Vatican controls a big chunk of the Philippine economy…

We must put an end to Filipino submissiveness to these foreigners and it is the duty of every Filipino to accomplish this for the sake of the future of our country. Your faith in Jesus can never be attacked by anyone (a smart atheist respects other people's beliefs while a dumb atheist engages in religious arguments knowing full well that he can never win). I'm not your enemy, dboncan, and I am impressed by your fighting spirit. We need Filipinos like you on our side, your people's side, to elevate us, promote a pure Filipino identity that we can be proud of, and to gain self-respect
as well as respect from our Asian brothers and sisters. We need to rid our country and rid our lives of anymore foreign control and there is a very peaceful, respectable way to do this that will also prove to be financially beneficial to our country.

invalid argument.

besides how many revisions and schisms did it go through. for such an infallible church why the need to change so much?

and despite all the schisms, wars and heresy; what's bringing it down is the sex abuse scandals. really look at the west and why they call it a cult nowadays.

in media we call that a "capone"

That's because you are confused as to what infallibility means and erroneously attribute it to impeccability.Sent from my iPhone

Still being an illogical hypocrite.

Dropping terminal case, now.

*yawn*

So Ron you have finally given up reason and decency and decided to be petty… As I thought deep down its all pretension!Sent from my iPhone

I will never give up on reason and decency. But I have given up on you.

You still don't get it and I don't think you ever will.

…terminal case.

Meanwhile, just a few posts up:
//Someone here needs attention! Hellooo anyone??//
//Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!//
//Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?//
//KSP kawawa naman talaga… ok here it is, okay ka na?//

So where's your reason and decency? Well, aren't you the darnadest hypocrite.

Like I said, illogical hypocrite.

…terminal case.

The hypocrite is the one who starts it and blames it on the one who sees it to it's conclusion. Next time you want to be treated decently treat people thesame.Sent from my iPhone

"The hypocrite is the one who starts it and blames it on the one who sees it to it's conclusion" – LOL, is this how the dboncan dictionary defines hypocrisy?

"Next time you want to be treated decently treat people the same." – said the person who also said the following:

"Someone here needs attention! Hellooo anyone??"
"Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!"
"Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?"
"KSP kawawa naman talaga… ok here it is, okay ka na?"

Like I said…

illogical…

hypocrite…

…terminal case.

Ron, Ron, Ron… when you can't show evidence of your allegation that I use religious arguments, you now play the ad hominem game… changing the issue once again. Typical flip flopping!

ROTFL Wow! Amazingly clueless. Whatever you say, dude.

Lemme see, I'll just cut and paste this:

"All that blabbering doesn't change the fact that you are an illogical hypocrite"

same-same: Ron, Ron, Ron… when you can't show evidence of your allegation that I use religious arguments, you now play the ad hominem game… changing the issue once again. Typical flip flopping!

Why are you still replying? Are you trolling or what? Any more that you say won't change what people on this thread think about you:

An illogical, hypocritical drone of the Catholic Church.

So anyways, do not make this thread any longer. You can't seem to understand our arguments and we think you are a hopeless bigot. That's established. Just quit it. If you reply to this giving a litany of hoo-haas, then you're just making yourself a bigger sore loser than you already are.

Nope, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocri…
Hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
According to exchanges you had in this article, you fit the definitions snugly.

I predict any of the following:

1. He will question the validity of your source or throw in his own biased source
2. He will come up with a long-winded litany that has no direct relation whatsoever to your argument
3. He will throw in a red herring
4. He will throw in ad hominems
5. He will ignore this thread

Like I said, illogical hypocrite.

Ugh, this is getting too repetitive, I'm starting to annoy myself ^_^

6. He seems to be trigger-happy flaunting his iPhone, like the rest of us are drooling over it.

7. and I will post ponies, or talk about how lame the iPhone is 🙂
http://www.google.com/nexus/

//The hypocrite is the one who starts it and blames it on the one who sees it to it's conclusion. //

The hypocrite is the one who thinks that because people are calling him out for his tripe, he gets a free pass at being a douchebag.

Yes she stands after 2000 years the reason being she owns so much land that people rely on. In the Phil alone the Vatican at one time was the largest land owner. I think the biggest reason that the RCC still stands for so long is because the faithful could not tell the difference between faith in Jesus Christ and membership to the RCC anymore. Filipinos have a lot of faith in Jesus Christ that they are actually the ones who bring Jesus into the Roman Catholic Church. We Filipinos SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between Faith in Jesus and being a subject of the Vatican.

And yet it never made the Philippines a better place even after 400 years or so. Our main source of "moral values" never made our country the most morally upright people in Asia. Instead it made Filipinos the most loyal subjects of the Vatican, a foreign entity. You are a great example, dboncan. You are very loyal to the RCC, to the Vatican. But is it your faith in Jesus that you are defending, or is it your membership to the RCC? The two are really very different concepts.

I admire your conviction. We need people like you to take charge of the future of our people. Unfortunately you are on the other side. You are the kind of dedicated people who give the Roman Catholic Church a moral footing. This is because the Roman Catholic Church was never built on a moral foundation. It hijacked the ministry of Jesus Christ and turned it into an empire. It’s time for us Filipinos to dedicate our lives for the future of our people and to stop relying on the Roman Catholic Church, on foreign entities like the so-called Holy See, to think for us

I am on the other side if what?Sent from my iPhone

You are on the side of the foreigners – the Vatican, the pope, The Roman Catholic Church.

I am Catholic first… as far a I am concerned, being Catholic is universal not foreign. I think your mixed up.

Have you ever identified yourself as a Christian first? Catholics will always say "I'm a Catholic". I have never heard them say "I'm a Christian." The Catholic Church is a foreign denomination of Christianity. It is run and led by foreigners, mostly Italians. The pope is a German. Jesus Christ is a universal entity. If you want to call yourself "universal", you call yourself "Christian." It is very clear. No mix up.

My friend until Martin Luther started the protestant revolt, the Christian church had always been the CAtholic Church. The word Catholic was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in 108AD as he was being led to Rome to be martyred. The Church then started in the middle east and spread through out the world therefor it' universality… there is no such thing as it being a foreign church. The term Christian as a title for Catholics was never questioned until fundamentalist protestants started hurling anti-Catholic tirades. It would be an advantage on your part to know church history before drawing conclusions.

//The Church then started in the middle east and spread through out the world therefor it' universality… there is no such thing as it being a foreign church.//

We call that the crusades Dickie, and while you may celebrate it, people tend to despise that time period for the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians on both sides, all committed in God's name.

//The term Christian as a title for Catholics was never questioned until fundamentalist protestants started hurling anti-Catholic tirades.//

You mean until people realized that their brand of crazy wasn't the sort of crazy the Catholic Church wanted for its cabal.

//My friend until Martin Luther started the protestant revolt, the Christian church had always been the CAtholic Church. //

And let us all remember that Luther's original reason for leaving the church was because of the blatant corruption that had worked its way into the RCC's system, which included paying for indulgences to have one's sins forgiven.

Someone here needs attention! Hellooo anyone??

poor knowledge of christian history ahoy!

what ever happened to the dboncan i know and love? At least before you were giving arguments for the people here to scrutinize, no matter how stupid and senseless it may be. Now you're just being petty

//At least before you were giving arguments for the people here to scrutinize, no matter how stupid and senseless it may be. //

That was before we pointed out that the sources he copy-pasta'd from, like the Family Research Council, had a track for lying.

Yup so what's your question? I made my point regarding Red Tani's article and the fabrications therein which NO ONE bothered to address and instead chose to talk about the same old debunked staple of clergy abuse etc…

You people are smart and willing to achieve your goals in this discussion. But are you proud enough Filipinos and do you appreciate our ancestors and our founding fathers? The issue here is the persistent influencing of these foreign-run churches to dominate our everyday lives. For one thing, it's time for us Filipinos to accept that Jesus and the Virgin Mary never looked like what we see in the pictures. It's time we realize that we Filipinos are very capable of running our own lives as Filipinos and do not need directions from these foreign churches. If we accomplish this we will gain dignity and respect from our Asian neighbors. This could also be the birth of a national identity that we can be proud of. Who knows, it might even lead to our prosperity. We need intelligent Filipinos like you to start this movement.

Foreign-run churches?… LOL last time I checked, Archbishop Tagle is a Filipino. I am a proud Filipino but God's servant first!

You are very smart, dboncan. Use that intelligence and energy to elevate your people. Let us gain dignity for ourselves and the future of our country. These archbishops are paid products of these foreign churches.

I see so church-stooge first, filipino second got it.

Why not be like religious Ireland and vatican-host Italy? their country and people first, sucking up to the vatican is dead last.

Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!Sent from my iPhone

and yet here you are. coming back with flawed arguments just to be made fun of.

and still trying to get our attention, with whiny juvenile and downright bully tactics. and you complain when we don't take you seriously.

Seriously, dboncan, why do you come here with that attitude? What is your mission?

Obviously, you have no intention of winning us over nor of listening to our reasoning with an open mind. You don't have anything positive and productive in mind whenever you come here. I attempted to win you over with my article using logic but nothing good came out of that because you didn't have an open mind and were so arrogant to even refuse to learn basic LGBT terminology. Yes, I said arrogant.

All you do is contradict us and challenge us to a debate with no intent of resolution. Why?

If you want to contradict us for the sake of contradicting us, at least improve your grasp of logic and logical debate because you always end up embarrassing your self when you resort to such language and threats of violence. I mean, "Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!", or "just say where and when buddy!" Seriously????? Seriously???

And if contradicting us is your only mission, then you are a shame to your shepherd because he asked you to help us rejoin your flock, not to exchange insults with us and threaten us with violence.

So you see, if you use violence, if you don't use logic, if you act contrary to what you preach, then this makes you a violent illogical hypocrite.

Is that how you want us to perceive you? Oh, please prove me wrong.

In the meantime, big thanks for bringing in site traffic.

An afternoon full of love and peace!

rondevera

He still will not acknowledge that his assertion that homosexuality was the cause of the Church rapes has been debunked even by Catholics themselves who, unlike some, have maintained a spirit of charity, in its original sense. Accusing someone of dishonesty while being abjectly intellectually dishonest and unreasonable, that is his essence as a commenter.

in short a close-minded hypocrite.

ARROGANT

He takes pride in displaying his vast knowledge of Catholic literature, history and dogma, and thinks that we get intimidated by it. Nice try. But why don't you go out in the streets of your city and see if any of those are applicable to modern life.

Ron is your goal in life site traffic?… big deal it just reinforces the point that many of you here are KSP. I started by criticizing the article above these comments regarding the lies in Red Tani's article on contraception and without refuting me, everyone starts injecting idiotic, off topic issues like clergy abuse, LGBT and for heaven's sake an atrocious take on Martin Luther. Really??? That's what this FFt society is all about? No wonder!… to top it, all the acerbic language and seeming threats which I actually face head on, only for you to make it an LGBT issue. There must be something amiss with you people… so you're happy for the site traffic… well woop di doo!

Ron, let me make this clear, when someone I have asked in the past persists on touting me by making hints that he knows where I work, what my age is and claims to know that I have a family, I consider that a threat. Now I do not take threats to my person and my family sitting down. Men, yes, Real Men and even women do not take threats sitting down. I wanted to take his threat to it's conclusion and find out how far he was willing to take this. I have been very impersonal with my dealings with everyone here and you know that. The decorum I have maintained up until this idiot overstepped his line, has been very civil. Ron de Vera, you have had a discussion with me and you know that.I criticized the article of Tani above hoping that someone knowledgable would be able to discuss with me my critique of that work… apparently, for this group, this is too much to ask for. What in my critique of Tani's article was illogical.., Ron de Vera please point it out?

ILLOGICAL: "Ron is your goal in life site traffic?" – no valid logical basis.

ILLOGICAL: "all the acerbic language and seeming threats which I actually face head on, only for you to make it an LGBT issue" – I used my LGBT article as an example when I said I tried logical reasoning with you, I didn't actually turn this discussion into an LGBT issue.

ILLOGICAL: "What in my critique of Tani's article was illogical" – asking me to prove something I did not claim. It's not your critique that's illogical. It's you, in general.

HYPOCRITE: "Men, yes, Real Men and even women do not take threats sitting down" – According to which doctrine? Men and women are supposed to turn the other cheek.

HYPOCRITE: "Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?" – using crass and provocative language instead of preaching and helping others understand the word of their god.

Ugh, this is getting boring. *yawn*

If I stop responding, I don't mean any disrespect. It just means I've declared this a terminal case and I've completely lost interest.

A happy day to everyone! 🙂

rondevera

…and you wonder why people do not take you seriously

//Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!//

This from the 40-year old man who brags that each message is sent from his iPhone.

We get it Dickie – you're too fucking stupid to use a Galaxy. You have my sympathies.

Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?

awwwww…did the scary dude hurt your itty bitty feelings?

Why do you like dudes?

Wow…with that I can say now in full confidence that you are extremely and utterly hopeless

//LOL last time I checked, Archbishop Tagle is a Filipino.//

Who takes his orders from the Vatican, which is recognized as an independent state in Europe.

//. I am a proud Filipino but God's servant first! //

So you admit that in times of war, you'd serve the Vatican first over our own nation.

Don't we have laws for treason? XD

KSP kawawa naman talaga… ok here it is, okay ka na?

How do you serve god, dboncan? God is the creator of all things, big and small. How do you serve someone who is that powerful? Do you cook him breakfast? Do you wash his feet? Do you clean his bedroom? Who is this god that you serve? Could it be the Roman Catholic Church? Is the RCC god now? We are not your enemies, dboncan. We are all Filipinos and we should work together to elevate our people and gain respect from the rest of the world. Think about it.

Respect can only come via a proper reasoned discussion of issues and not by personal attacks or acerbic language. I have always tried to maintain a certain amount of civility in my discussions trying all the time to stay within the topic at hand. It is this lack of respect and lack of decency in language that makes civil discourse like these counter-productive. Before you presume to know how I live my faith and what the Church teaches, I suggest you study it first. It appears to me that you have a tremendous amount of misconceptions about it.

You are absoulutely right, dboncan. We will never achieve anything by slamming each other. Those of you who were involved in this comment stream please refrain from personal attacks. We should treat each other respectfully so that we can gain respect from each other and achieve something. I'm not your enemy, dboncan, and not an enemy of anyone here. My intention will be very clear and it is not personal. I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a few days old, never had a chance to make a choice about it. I was expected to serve god and live the rest of my life as a good catholic, a good servant of god. But I came to thinking who is this god that I was to serve? The answer became very clear to me—the "god" I was to dedicate my life to was the establishment, the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Holy See, a foreign entity. I realized that "serving god" was synonymous with "serving church." But this issue is not about me. It is about the purpose of the Vatican in our country. What is it? What are they hoping to accomplish? To save Filipino souls? Can anyone tell me?

on the top of my head the salvation of souls is secondary to 1) money and 2) political clout

1) if they don't care about money why are they horrified at the idea of being taxed? or that they have billions in investments that they guard so enviously.

2) if they claim they respect the laws, why do they bend the rules, protect rapists and get offended if the laws are made for the benefit of everyone, including the people they hate (LGBTs)?

and why are they unhappy that countries like ireland closed their vatican embassy. given the fact the vatican offers no economic trade, defense treaties or political exchange.

ANOTHER THING.

Why do they openly threaten our president with excommunication? Such display of egotism is synonymous with spiritual terrorism, which acts to instill fear and blind obedience amongst the Filipino people. The CBCP is shameless.

The way I see it, the RCC in the Philippines has two faces. One is a religious face and the other a business face. The religious face is what we see all around us but the business face is veiled and not too many Filipinos can see it nor willing to look at it. The Vatican has been in the Phil for well over 400 years now and throughout these centuries it amassed a staggering wealth– a "gold mine" which they themselves never expected in the start. This "gold mine" consists of agricultural lands, entire municipalities, rental properties usually around churches, and schools—lots of catholic schools. Some of you probably even attended those catholic schools.

actually the most staggering is their billions in investments in PHILEX despite their anti-mining stance.

for a non-profit org they sure have alot of private businesses – tax free

Basti,

I'm reading a very scandalous website right now, which details the sex abuse cases in the united states during the 1970's, and there was one line there that made me lose sleep:

"Beyond the criminal indictment, the Lafayette Diocese and a number of insurance companies have, in out-of-court settlements, already agreed to payments of at least $4.2 million to families of nine of Gauthe’s victims in Vermilion Parish. Plaintiffs attorneys Raul Bencomo and Paul Hebert refuse to confirm or deny the amounts or terms of the individual settlements. Eleven additional suits have been filed by other victims for claims of approximately $114 million. But these claims represent only a minority of victims. "

I wonder where our offerings and donations go…………

The Vatican owns so much land (someone estimated at more than 50%) in the Phil that they practically owned half the country. They of course invest again for more hefty returns. And they don't pay taxes! This is where the religious face comes in. The RCC needs to keep on saving souls and absolving sins in order to keep the classification as a non-profit, thus exempt from taxes. Donations that you put in the basket at Sunday mass is only for you to feel good. Confessions, communions, baptisms, eucharist—it's all a ruse. This is not only happening in our country but even in Italy. The Italian govermnment is now taxing the Vatican on its businesses (Google "Italy Ends Vatican Tax Exemptions").

If you're really interested and sincere about you're questions, go to my blog site and lets talk http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/. As it stands this isn't the place where a respectful exchange can be had. Thanks

//If you're really interested and sincere about you're questions, go to my blog site and lets talk http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/ //

Dickie, you'll always be a sanctimonious bigot – changing the venue won't make you any less vile.

//As it stands this isn't the place where a respectful exchange can be had. Thanks//

Says the man who resorts to misogynistic jabs and homophobic remarks.,

Are you a homosexual? Just asking.

No.

"Are you a homosexual? Just asking."

What is your point in asking him this question? Just asking.

Curious, because from my experience, many homosexuals I encounter in arguments become very personal and very wordy. In fact many times they don't practice any restraint in their words. That a good enough explanation for you?

//because from my experience, many homosexuals I encounter in arguments become very personal and very wordy.//

Interesting. I guess basing from your experience…you are a homosexual? Just asking.

This one you're doing is a good example…

ooohhh…trying to save face huh? not gonna work. And oh, from my experience, when bigoted people lose an argument, they tend to give lousy talking points…what you're doing is a good example

[Curious, because from my experience, many homosexuals I encounter in arguments become very personal and very wordy.]

Most people tend to become flustered when you're trying to justify that something is wrong with them just because your religion says so.

At what point in my entire discussion with anyone in this site did I ever bring up religious reasons for saying that homosexuality is unnatural or disordered… please show me when I brought up a religious argument.

"please show me when I brought up a religious argument."

Right here:

Twin_Skies: And while you're at it, explain why the Church has yet to come up with a justifiable excuse for promoting discrimination against the gay community.

dboncan: Because homosexual acts is a sin and that is not an excuse that is clearly stated in scripture! The Church would be inconsistent if she didn't say so.

So we've already got 'illogical' and 'hypocrite' covered. Now which one should I add, 'liar' or 'inconsistent'?

I said in my arguments against homosexuality. What you cited was an answer to a query about what the church teaches so obviously I would answer it that way since it pertained to why the church views it as a sin.Try again!Sent from my iPhone

Wow. You are amazing. Clap clap clap!

If the Church views it as sin and you say that you are "God's servant first!" , doesn't it follow that whatever arguments you bring forth are aligned with what your church says and do not contradict your church's teachings?

How can you say that "a person's totality is what a person is… i.e. his nature as a human being" and "I am…God's servant first!" yet detach yourself from the teachings of your faith at your convenience?

I don't understand how you can say your arguments are not based on your religion when you made the following claims in one breath: "Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that. She also recognizes it as a disordered orientation."

I document everything, dboncan. There's more where that came from. Meanwhile, you are just reinforcing my belief that you are an illogical hypocrite:

ILLOGICAL; You follow a set of rules given to you by someone you've never met. You follow it based on faith, not empirical evidence. That is illogical. We've all been illogical at one point or another. Don't act like it's such a bad thing.

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20: 28-29

HYPOCRITE; You act contrary to the teachings of your faith. With the way you've been behaving and the language you've been using…

"Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?"
"Say that to my face you coward"
"they will lie to their teeth and distort and defame just like this article. I call this moral whimpery!"

…you have not been living out two of your seven virtues, patience and kindness.

Christians should honor the purpose of speech by using our mouths to praise God and leading others to obey the Lord through faith in Jesus Christ. Every word we speak should be “gracious” and “seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6)

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Eph. 5:4)

Shame on you.

The problem with you Ron is that your so bigoted against Catholics that whenever you encounter one who can argue frombiology, natural law, philosophy, ethics and even quoting the UN's declaration which you admitted did not support your position, it throws you off. I never argued with you in terms of it bring a sin or it's scriptural implications. You're the one trying to shoehorn your own assessment of me to it.. So which means after all your ranting below, you can't. Dont change the subject re the threat. I was not the one who made it personal. I was putting him in his place. The problem with you people is that you think you can make it personal and hide behind anonymity thinking that people who feel threatened will take it sitting down. Well buddy Christianity also says that I can fight back righteously if it is to defend myself so don't pretend to quote scripture to me falsely when you know very well that your comrades started it. It's what we call LYING! A simple question should have had a simple reply unlike your short dissertation below which by the way makes utter nonsense.Sent from my iPhone

All that blabbering doesn't change the fact that you are an illogical hypocrite :p

Not the discussion per se, but you've attempted it in prior exchanges:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/09/to-the….

[I will end it on this note. You might be interested to see this link" http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02%5D

Dickie, you cited the Family Research Council more than once to justify why homosexuality was in any way wrong – the FRC is a well-known anti-gay think tank with connections to the US Catholic Church. You don't get any more religiously motivated than when you decide to source them.

So your answer is NO thank you for submitting to that. If you label the FRC as anti homosexual then you are right but that's not what you said, you said HATE group. There is a difference. I asked you to show me a single legal complaint, decision or statement by the US Government that classifies the FRC as a hate group…. You could not. Your analogy is really so bad so what if they have ruws with the church, Amnesty International where Ron works was founded by Catholics and had ties with the church too, does that mean its a lackey if the church? What kind of arguments are these.!?Sent from my iPhone

No, not good enough. But you fit snugly into your own negative stereotype.

If you don't like my honest answer then that's your problem.

🙂 Aw, come on. Just because I don't like it, it doesn't mean someone has to have a problem.

Let go of the negativity!

Cheers! 🙂

Oh by the way, there are threads here waiting for your response. Maybe we should focus on those instead of blowing up this new thread. Just a thought. 🙂

EXACTLY…. Indeed, a lot of threads waiting for his reponse.

At any rate, I think this exchange has outlived its usefulness a long time ago…

Right.

When one senses an argument one can't win, best to close the conversation. Good strategy.

Homophobe? you might be gay.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-quest…

psych mode: so dick, is the reason you are homophobic is because you are inherently gay yourself and you cover that up by hating them?

and is the reason your obsession with manliness is to cope and satisfy your gay urges?

based on observation, just asking.

This is another example, who would bother to be so petty as to even look for these kinds of articles… so yes, pettiness also.

Why sodefensive? its a legitimate question

dboncan: The venue doesn't matter. A respectful exchange can be had anywhere so long as both parties are capable of it.

//Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?//

– Where's civility in this remark you made just a day ago?

/I have always tried to maintain a certain amount of civility in my discussions trying all the time to stay within the topic at hand.//

Liar.
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/27/contra…

[How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?]

Which is exactly why this country needs another Luther to save us from religious mysticism, idolatry, blind obedience, spiritual terrorism and moral corruption. All our Asian neighbors are well on their way towards the 21st century and here we are, worshipping saints and debating wether condoms are right or wrong. This website has a lot of debunking to do, turning over false beliefs and superstition for the improvement of the lives of millions of Filipino readers. Count me in. <3

it is true the most advanced asian nations are downright non-religious: S. Korea, Japan, China, Singapore.

yet the poorest nations are the ones fanatically devout.

What troubles me is the pervading CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE and CULTURE OF INDIFFERENCE that lingers in the Philippines. Why do I say so? I've been reading an american website that's sure to give dboncan a heart attack. it gave detailed accounts of the sex abuse amongst catholic priests in the 1970's, and the acts were horrifying! silence and indifference in the hierarchy feels just like home.

bishops, nuns, altar boys, seminarians (in the US) and the rest of those in the order kept their lips sealed, and conveniently ignored the fact that their brothers were raping boys as young as 10 or 12. what broke the hearts of the parents was that, they couldn't understand why the church did not turn those rapists into the hands of the law, and opted to RE-ASSIGN those pedophiles instead to another diocese. THE CHURCH WAS MORE CONCERNED TO SAVE THEIR ASS THAN PROTECTING THE WELFARE/SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN THE LAND. thus, the trail of broken boys and shattered lives continued. but some parents decided to fight, caring less if they bring down the roman catholic establishment so long as they get justice.

i guess the very reason why dboncan is getting bloody with his arguments and rabidly defends the roman catholic faith, is becoz HE CAN'T STAND OUR GUTS. we speak out. we challenge dogma. we question. we doubt. we fight.

There was actually a certain Filipino priest who tried to establish an independent church in the Phil modeled after the Anglican Church. I think his name was Father Aglipay. He tried to do this after the revolution thinking that he would be successful now that the Spaniards were gone but he was wrong. The Vatican was very powerful in the Phil even then and this priest did not succeed–mostly because his fellow Filipinos did not support him.

Martin Luther, on a trip to the Vatican, saw that the palatial structures of the Holy See were a contradiction to the miserable lives of the majority of the faithful. The cult of the Indulgences, which promised eternal salvation in exchange for monetary donations, made Luther puke.

Up until now, I am waiting for the Roman Catholic Church or anyone here who KNOWS CHURCH HISTORY, to kindly present an updated and reliable source of the Church's explanation (apology) for such an atrocious time in their history.

Except that Luther was never in Rome nor the Vatican nor was there any account of him puking. His rebellion was against the abuse of indulgences which was “sold” by some idiotic Dominican priest who thought he was doing the Church a favor. Besides in 1521, the year Luther rebelled, the “palatial” structure which you said Luther saw, called St. Peter's, was under construction and was barely started in 1546. You don't need a new “apology” for this “atrocious time” in history or why this happened, we Catholics ourselves find it atrocious and own up to it… all you have to do is look at the Catholic Encyclopedia to know that nothing is being covered up. But this only shows that in the history of the Church, there are normal idiotic people who existed, as now. In a sense, this proves the doctrine of “original sin” which states that we are Princes' behaving like monkeys.Next time though it would be nice to get your facts straight regarding Luther. For your own guidance:One method employed to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica was the granting of indulgences in return for contributions. A major promoter of this method of fund-raising was Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, who had to clear debts owed to the Roman Curia by contributing to the rebuilding program. To facilitate this, he appointed the German Dominican preacher Johann Tetzel, whose salesmanship provoked a scandal.[22]A German Augustinian priest, Martin Luther, wrote to Archbishop Albrecht arguing against this “selling of indulgences”. He also included his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”, which came to be known as The 95 Theses.[23] This became a factor in starting the Reformation, the birth of Protestantism.

Elaborate lecture, short in substance.

Time and time again, your plethora of "facts" stop at lip service. No one's interested in it. Spare us the history lesson and give us a link that offers RCC's defense regarding its atrocious era of indulgences.

"Except that Luther was never in Rome nor the Vatican nor was there any account of him puking." – HYPOCRITE

You got the nerve to invert metaphor to what's literal, but in the sense of on-point debate, you have no face.

//Except that Luther was never in Rome nor the Vatican nor was there any account of him puking.//

And I don't distinctly remember Jesus ever endorsing discrimination against gays.

If it's universal, then why did it take more than 1500 years for it to reach the Philippines?

Jesus Christ is a "universal" entity because he is the object of all Christian denominations. The Roman Catholic Church, despite the use of the word "catholic', is just another denomination. Allah and Muhammad are "universal" entities because they are the objects of all Muslim denominations. As it turned out, Twin_Skies, the earth is actually not flat and ships were able to sail across the oceans and not fall off into the abyss.

just for the sake of clarification

//Allah and Muhammad are "universal" entities because they are the objects of all Muslim denominations//

uhh no, Allah is just another possible name for Yahweh or Jehova. along with Christianity and Judaism, it is one of three denominations of Abrahimic religions. and all three have divided into more denominations over that past millenia. – and every single one will claim they are the one-true-religion.

and all three originated somewhere in the vicinity of jerusalem/mid-east, therefore all three religions are a foreign concept.

each of them settled in their respective seats of power. Judaism in Jerusalem, Islam in Mecca and Catholicism in Rome then Vatican.

feel free to look it up, its an interesting read.

of course all three will deny that and all three, at one point in time, would have killed anyone for mentioning that.

and off-topic, i really do find it funny all three denominations and their denominations will kill and hate each other for worshiping the same higher being differently

// It is run and led by foreigners, mostly Italians. The pope is a German. //

oh-so-agree, and don't forget, forced onto our ancestors by Spain, who ironically does not suck up to the vatican anymore.

it gives colonial mentality a very definite meaning.
ironic that the relidiots claim secularists are following colonial mentality since the vatican has no more power in Europe, at nakikigaya lang raw tayo.

You are absolutely right. It's really funny and very stupid that religions produce people who will hurt other people in the name of the same god.

Even funnier when that god supposedly promotes peace, forgiving, and non-violence.

^ yep

or that each of them says they are the religion of love and peace, and are prolife. silly dogma just gives loopholes.

//Even funnier when that god supposedly promotes peace, forgiving, and non-violence. //

He/She/It doesn't 🙁
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html

[31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males]

I think the Catholic Church was established sometime during the 4th Century. There were Christians way before that and these were the true followers of Jesus Christ. They were persecuted by the Roman authorities because they were not conforming to the established way of thinking–early free-thinkers. The first split of the Catholic Church happened when the Eastern Orthodox Church was established and claimed that it was the true Church. Martin Luther came into the picture sometime in the 15th century I believe. But this is not the issue here.

Well, yes – people tend to get very upset when priests start shoving their cocks into things that are considered in inappropriate. Like children's mouths and butt-holes.

And besides, you haven't really proved that your church is worth respecting – you've done a fine job showing us why it's deserving of nothing but contempt.

well you're still ranting about sex? not getting any i suppose.

people hate the church not without good reason. and priest raping kids is a very good reason.

//Your ignorance is showing. Why is it that after 40years of contraceptives and sex-ed, the number of unintended pregnancies in the US has not significantly decreased?//

Actually, it has.

As per the Guttmacher's reports, the prevalent spread of contraceptive use and sex education has been a factor in decreasing the incidences of unwanted pregnancies among teens in the Unites States:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decli… http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/02/08/ind… http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-teen…

What is interesting is that while unwanted pregnancies are on a steady decline, they're reportedly increasing among the poor, due to recent cutbacks by the federal government
on state reproductive health programs, and their pushing for abstinence-only education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27teen.html?…

Dickie, you have it the other way around – it's quite obvious that you are the ignorant one.

Your ignorance is really showing <a href="http://:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.pdf:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.pdf<br />RESULTS: In 2001, 49% of pregnancies in the United States were unintended. The unintended pregnancy rate was 51per 1,000 women aged 15–44, meaning that 5% of this group had an unintended pregnancy. This level was unchanged from 1994. The rate of unintended pregnancy in 2001 was substantially above average among women aged18–24, unmarried (particularly cohabiting) women, low-income women, women who had not completed high schooland minority women. Between 1994 and 2001, the rate of unintended pregnancy declined among adolescents, college graduates and the wealthiest women, but increased among poor and less educated women. The abortion rateand the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion among all women declined, while the unintendedbirth rate increased. Forty-eight percent of unintended conceptions in 2001 occurred during a month when contraceptives were used, compared with 51% in 1994.Is that a decrease??? 3% for over 40 years of contraception? If you factor in other variables like abstinence and delay in sexual activity, 3% is nothing!

the US has the bible belt to thank for the increase in unwanted pregnancies. you know, the states where people like you live? 🙂 conservative, bible-humping, contraceptive-hating, backward thinking, abstinence-pushing homophobes… you know; people like you.

silly dicky. its proven religious nutjobs tend to have unwanted pregnancies more. as stated: there is a direct corelation between teen pregnancies and religiosity.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/rel… http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/10/27/the-bi…

referencing: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46_tabl…

they also have the highest levels of divorce, STD, death penalties and obesity. lol

fun ironic facts huh.

as Einstein said: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. classic example.

off topic again…

oh definitely on topic. you are talking about unintended pregnancies in the US, of which the highest concentration is in the bible belt.

even if it is not, it is worth pointing out.

//off topic again… //

…because the data destroys your assertion. In fact, you yourself claimed that there are more single parents than ever, and all Basti here has cited is that most of these incidences are happening among the US' bible belt areas, specifically where abstinence-only education is enforced by the state.

Dickie, you're a 40+ year old dentist who practices in St Luke's. Kindly stop acting like a man-child.

I don't know what your fixation is with my personal info or my place of work and I may be Catholic But do not take kindly to people who bring it up in these fora especially since it has nothing to do with the discussion. If you want to make this personal then stop hiding behind the anonymous username so we can do this face to face like real men.

//If you want to make this personal then stop hiding behind the anonymous username so we can do this face to face like real men.//

– This is highly reflective of the adage "TALO ANG PIKON…"

– Why resort to physical means, when a little online research can help? Here's the thing: provide ample research that can provide a counter-attack to all the data they have given, and SAVE YOURSELF. You're a sitting duck against the weight of all the relevant data the freethinkers have thrown at your face.

Excuse me but who asked you?

dick you are quite the misogynist man-child.

dont feel bad a mere girl destroyed your already pitiful self-esteem by pointing out your oh-so-obvious flaws

do yourself a favor and grow up. and maybe go back to school for some reading comprehension skills.

thanks….

the last i checked, this website is open to all comments. i happen to have a brain and a pair of hands, so i type and make sure my observations hit the target. if you cant stand it, it's not my business.

What an idiotic statement when in the first place, I was the one who posted data and the refutation worked against him. I think before you open your mouth you should read the history of the posts. You come off like an ignoramus lecturing me about being personal when it's this fellow who started becoming personal to begin with. My tolerance for bad behavior only goes so far.

on the other hand our tolerance for bigots and stupidity doesn't really go so far either.

Wow tough guy huh?Sent from my iPhone

//Wow tough guy huh?//

your point dick? pathetic as always 😉 like his church, you're as intimidating as a wet napkin.

My point is you talk that way, seemingly tough, because you hide behind anonymity. You say all sorts of vulgarities and even provoke by being personal, that to me is a sign of cowardice! I do not hide behind that because I am willing to face things like a man, are you?Sent from my iPhone

anonymity or not your threats are empty and pathetic. and besides who cares? you either debate or you don't.

if you can't handle free speech, why are you still here? masochist is the proper definition.

oh and lashing out on a girl for pointing out your flaws. like a man my ass. even more pathetic you delude your self to be a one. a real man can handle criticism. sorry no man-points for you dicky.

you might be reading too much http://artofmanliness.com/

enjoy your stay! 😉

I stand on what I said… tough guys huh? What you are dishing out is not criticism, it's vulgarity. Where did you study? Why can't you make the distinction between criticism and vulgarity? Between criticism and ad hominems?

vulgarity? please your profile pic shows you are a middle age man, but your posts are juvenile.

hardly ad hominem, if its clear you insist on acting like a child, a misogynist and a homophobe.

you are free to do so as you it is your right. however, we are free to point it out to you and everyone else.

Yes ad hominems and straw man arguments. I was talking about the lies in Tani's article and you keep on ranting about clergy abuse, how is that relevant.?Sent from my iPhone

because whatever morality you try to push is bullshit if theyre written and enforced by an immoral and corrupt organization.

its like asking advice for sexual morality from a rapists, oh wait! It is exactly that! silly me.

also tani's article is spot-on, history has proven, the Church hates being wrong. it destroys their image of infallibility. this dates back to galileo, evolution, vaccines and the printing press. because if proven wrong, then all your moral authority is nullified.

Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens even called Pope Paul out and they didnt need another Galileo Affair.

all it takes is for your church to make one silly proclamation to make another schismatc , atheist or secularist.

get my drift? havent we pointed that out time and again.

EXACTLY….

And this is why the Roman Catholic church resorts to threats of excommunication to anyone who dissents their dogma. They loathe it when their authority is being questioned, let alone being challenged, which is why this debate has been a mere reflection of what the BATTLE OF SECULARISM V.S. DOGMA is all about. Religious fanatics mirror all that's left of the decaying morality their church possesses.

//! I do not hide behind that because I am willing to face things like a man, are you?

Sent from my iPhone //

You call yourself a man, and yet you carry a wimpy iPhone. What gives?

Your measure of manliness is what phone a person carries? Babaw mo talaga and you're a member of this group… ? sheeesh!

//Your measure of manliness is what phone a person carries? Babaw mo talaga and you're a member of this group… ? //

Babaw is the man who includes "Sent from my iPhone" with his every inane rant.

Okay then, show me your Galaxy then, so I can verify if a real man owns it. Well?

//Okay then, show me your Galaxy then, so I can verify if a real man owns it. //

Dickie, what would it be worth to you? No phone or any amount of posturing will make you any less despicable.

OMG, you actually engage in this level of discussion? I love it! LOL

Real men use Android, Who are we to argue.
http://www.milidroid.com/2011/news/real-men-use-a…

I have an android phone AND an android tablet. *GASP* the gay man is more man than dboncan! LOL

sent from my Sony Ericsson Experia Arc but composed using my Samsung Galaxy Tab P1000

while on the topic of phone OS and sexuality. and yes, more fun at dick's expense.

They actually have a study for this…

"Moreover, new research from Nielsen finds that women show a greater preference for the iPhone while men show a stronger interest in Motorola’s Droid. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2010/12…

being a GSM geek and an android user, my girlfriend being an IOS girl. this is interesting.

This is the kindest way to say:

iPhone 4S is so gay.

(no offense to iPhone users)

TALO ANG PIKON….

^ this +1 and Like 😀

or so i have noticed……

THE FREETHINKERS ARE COOL, CALM, AND COLLECTED. Very elegant debaters, and allow nothing to get to their nerves at a personal level.

"like real men" ??? So you attribute cowardice or anything inferior to your preferred methodology to women and "fake" men?

Ladies and gentlemen, a prime example of sexism and bigotry.

Congratulations dboncan! You've outdone yourself once again.

De Vera what part of real men didn't you get? Was I not being clear enough?

Oh, you were actually very clear. You clearly think women are inferior therefore things must be done "like real men."

But again, that's a sexist opinion that you are entitled to have. ^_^

A pleasant evening to you! Ü

Ron don't be stupid twin skies was getting personal I wanted to ask him if he was willing to take it to the next level as men… I assumed he was a man, how is that making women inferior?Sent from my iPhone

If twin skies were a woman, would you still say "so we can do this face to face like real men"? or would you say "so we can do this face to face like real WOMEN"?

No, because only real men are brave. Real men don't hide, real men are strong etc etc, and women don't have to live up to the expectations of being "a real man." That is how the expression makes women inferior, because the reality is women can be just as strong and brave as any "real man" on the street even without your sexist expectations.

There is no escaping this, dboncan. The expression is sexist. And again, you are entitled to it.

Love and peace,

rondevera

Ahh so now whenever we talk we have to write he/she… he /she.What an insane way of applying inclusive language! Do you mean to say that when I am talking to a man I am supposed to say “like real men/women?” Are you serious Ron… LOL

//Ahh so now whenever we talk we have to write he/she… he /she.What an insane way of applying inclusive language! //

In your case Dickie, I'd be more than happy to play it say, and refer to you as "it"

ron,

if i existed during my grandma's time, or worse, during the middle ages, i would've been burned at the stake for having a sharp tongue, for having the balls to voice out my opinion, and for simply just being a woman. but that's okay. i'd rather die fighting for something, rather than to live a life dictated by dogma.

oh boy, am i so glad that Reason and Science are flushing the shit called the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

//I assumed he was a man, how is that making women inferior?//

"Real men," or should I say mature people, don't huff and puff, and resort to baseless sabre-rattling and posturing, as you are doing now. Dickie.

//Ron don't be stupid twin skies was getting personal I wanted to ask him if he was willing to take it to the next level as men.//

Getting personal my hairy ass. You were called out for displaying a false sense of machismo:

"You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!"

And then you proceeded to pretend that we made threats against your family just so you could huff and puff some more.

Dear dboncan,

A good evening to you! I think I'll take a different direction today.

Time moves forward into a progressive future, not backwards into the medieval dark ages, so I know that the RH Bill will become law. It is inevitable, just like divorce and same-sex marriage as evidenced in other countries. You can say "I won't hold my breath" and I will let you say it because that is your opinion.

But on the day these bills become law, your comments will be nothing but a memory of the past.

Until then, I will only spend my time and energy on people who actually matter, who can actually help turn the bills into law instead of wasting my time on your sexist, bigoted, remarks, and that is my opinion.

A blessed evening to you and everyone! ^_^

Love and peace,

rondevera

“But on the day these bills become law, your comments will be nothing but a memory of the past.”Wouldn't you wish. Not while the Church is here. Not while we are here!Sent from my iPhone

//Wouldn't you wish. Not while the Church is here. Not while we are here!//

That's what the Klan said about desegregation 😉

Dickie, your lack of reading comprehension never fails to surprise me 😉

Here's the relevant section of the report you ignored, which is pretty surprising since it was right in the first paragraph:

[…by Kathryn Kost and Stanley Henshaw of the Guttmacher Institute. In 2008, the teen pregnancy rate was 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19, which means that about 7% of U.S. teens became pregnant that year. This rate represents a 42% decline from the peak in 1990 (116.9 per 1,000). Similarly, the birthrate declined 35% between 1991 and 2008, from 61.8 to 40.2 births per 1,000 teens; the abortion rate declined 59% from its 1988 peak of 43.5 abortions per 1,000 teens to its 2008 level of 17.8 per 1,000.]

so now you narrow it down to the 15-19 year olds? the figure I gave you is an overall 15-44. teen pregnancy declined not because of contraception only but also because of the awareness of the dangers of STD. Stop skirting the issue… overall it is only a 3% decline… that is what is important because after all the majority of contraceptive users are not the 15-19 age range!

Let's look at a more updated study on the same matter, dickie: Here's one that covers the same time period of the article you posted, except with additional information and insight:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/ind…

[Analyzing U.S. government data from the National Survey of Family Growth and other sources, Finer and Zolna found that of the 6.7 million pregnancies in 2006, nearly half (49%) were unintended. Although some unintended pregnancies are accepted or even welcomed, more than four in ten (43%) end in abortion. Unintended pregnancy rates are elevated not only among poor and low-income women, but also among women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and minority women. It is important to note, however, that poor women have high unintended pregnancy rates nearly across the board, regardless of their education, race and ethnicity, marital status or age.

In contrast to the high rates among certain groups, some women in the United States are having considerable success timing and spacing their pregnancies. Higher-income women, white women, college graduates and married women have relatively low unintended pregnancy rates (as low as 17 per 1,000 among higher-income white women—one-third the national rate of 52 per 1,000), suggesting that women who have better access to reproductive health services, have achieved their educational goals or are in relationships that support a desired pregnancy are more likely than other women to achieve planned pregnancies and avoid those they do not want.

“These data suggest that women who lead stable lives—women who are older, more affluent and better-educated—tend to have better reproductive health outcomes, while women whose lives are less stable, such as younger, poorer or less educated women, have higher rates of unplanned pregnancies, unwanted births and abortions,” said Finer. “They also show that marriage is not, in and of itself, a solution to the problems women have in controlling their fertility: In fact, poor women who are married have unintended pregnancy rates more than twice as high as those of higher-income women who are unmarried or cohabiting]

In short, it's often the poor who are more likely to experience unwanted pregnancies, because of their lack of access to proper reproductive health medicines, facilities or education.

The same RH services you're denying our women.

Once again, you've been caught making a pitiful attempt to cherry-pick you own sources, Dickie. Or should I call you Szell?

And yet this is what this study says… if contraception was effective you would see an across the board decrease which proves my point! The rise in the lower income groupIn 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line was 88 per 1,000 women aged 15–44; it increased to 120 in 2001 and 132 in 2006—a 50% rise over the period. At the same time, the rate among higher-income women (those with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) fell from 34 in 1994 to 28 in 2001 and 24 in 2006—a 29% decrease. Poor women’s high rate of unintended pregnancy results in their also having high—and increasing—rates of both abortions (52 per 1,000) and unplanned births (66 per 1,000). In 2006, poor women had an unintended pregnancy rate five times that of higher-income women, and an unintended birth rate six times as high…It is important to note, however, that poor women have high unintended pregnancy rates nearly across the board, regardless of their education, race and ethnicity, marital status or age.Even the fall among the WASP's is only 29%! That says a lot considering that contraceptives have been around for 50 years in the U.S…. this is a prolific and dismal failure!

[.. if contraception was effective you would see an across the board decrease which proves my point! The rise in the lower income group]

The same income group you love parading around is experiencing higher than average unwanted pregnancies exactly because of lack of access to the same reproductive health options as more well-off women.

But while these options should have been made available to them through government health care programs, people like you have been moving to cut off support for these programs because you think it makes Baby Jesus upset.

Anybody with a decent net connection can access any news source in the US (Except for Faux News, of course) and figure it out for themselves.

So tell us Dickie – how do you manage to read everything you type with your head so far up your ass?

//That says a lot considering that contraceptives have been around for 50 years in the U.S…. this is a prolific and dismal failure! //

The funny thing you failed to mention is that the incidences of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and STD spread rose at the same time that Dubya tried to push for abstinence-only programs across the states.
http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/abstinence_only_fail…

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=du…

Dubya
Slang term for the most inept president the United States has ever had.
George "Dubya" Bush.

Did you know that the stock market dropped again today because Dubya made a speech?

//Why is it that after 40years of contraceptives and sex-ed, the number of unintended pregnancies in the US has not significantly decreased?//

Why is is that after 16 years of abstinence-only education from the Church, the number of maternal deaths in the Philippines has not significantly decreased?

That was not what we were talking about, I was addressing Tani's BS about the commission. Don't change the subject.

Said commission is also a driving force behind the CBCP's stance on the RH Bill, Dickie.

The commission is not the driving force behind CBCP its the teaching against contraception that had been held by the church since her early years! Paul VI took the initiative not to change what has always been taught, as what our Bishops are doing regardless of whatever stupidity some of the clergy do. The commission is only made up of 15 Bishops, the rest of what Tani's distorted article says, are members, had nothing to do with the voting. They were there on an advisory capacity. lets get that straight! So yes part of the reason why we dont want the RHBIll is because we do not believe that contraception should be institutionalized. I will not be forced to pay for someones's lack of self-control or sexual appetites. If you want to have sex without consequences, then you pay for it!

//So yes part of the reason why we dont want the RHBIll is because we do not believe that contraception should be institutionalized. I will not be forced to pay for someones's lack of self-control or sexual appetites.//

I find you funny Dickie. You're against paying extra money in your taxes and yet here you are, going against the RH Bill. What do you think is costlier?

The Government providing child care services for children that our women cannot afford to clothe or feed, or the collective measures that guarantee that less of these pregnancies happen in the first place?

//. If you want to have sex without consequences, then you pay for it! //

And once again, you're contradicting yourself. If our women had access to better education, I doubt they'd be so inclined to think that every act of sex they have goes on without consequences.

But but I am using contraception for the very fact that I want to have sex without consequences! I also pay for it (contraception), too. dboncan acts like sex without consequences is such a bad thing. Tsk tsk. xD