Oh, Thank you, Your Ass-Holiness....

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I disagree; I think his point is that he would defend a pedophile even if he were a victim because molestation is an embarrassing but harmless experience. But again, we all know very well that you guys would not go through such lengths to defend any priest if they had made remarks half this ambiguous or unclear. Be honest now.

This is a first for me. I actually believe the christian has a point on this one. He's right. I would rip the Pope a verbal new-one for saying the exact same words as Dawkins is quoted as saying. And honestly, fairly, his remarks are a bit ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

As much as I HATE telling a christian "you have a point" ... lets face it, the man does have a point, even if I disagree with his overall perspective. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile, and I cannot count the multitude of times that I have ranted against the catholic church for overlooking and making-lite of child molestation .... and that is exactly what Dawkins does appear to be doing whether he is referring to just his own molestation or not.

That being said ... I don't really give a shit about Dawkins or the Church. Both are useless to me.

---

Thanks for being intellectually honest on this one. I am not a fan of the Catholic Church or Dawkins so it is easy for me to be hard on both for their views on child abuse. However, I would hope that if a Christian Reformer had the same views I would be equally as hard on them, and if I were not then someone would call me on it I hope.

---

How are my views on the age of the Earth in anyway relevant to this discussion?

I decided that you were a flaming idiot several months ago. I really doubt that there will be any change in that depending on whatever issue you are blathering about.

You are a fucking fool.

Some things will not change.

Well you are hardly an intellectual force on this board, so what you think is as irrelevant to me as my views on the age of the earth are to this discussion. You should thank me actually, I make your boring threads interesting for others to read and respond to.

---

---

A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile, and I cannot count the multitude of times that I have ranted against the catholic church for overlooking and making-lite of child molestation .... and that is exactly what Dawkins does appear to be doing whether he is referring to just his own molestation or not.

That blog clearly says he was "fondled" (a rather mild form of child abuse). Lets stop even debating whether or not he is talking about himself and his own experience at the hands of a nonce of a teacher or child abuse in general in the paragraph from the god delusion that Waldorf quoted. In both the blog and the book he calls it embarrassing. He is talking about his own experience. If you or anyone can't see that, then I give up .

Should he really lie about how it affected him or be honest and say that overall it wasn't a serious incident and that he felt it was more embarrassing than harmful? He clearly dosen't condone or belittle paedophilia as his stance against what is done by priests in the name of the catholic church, his comments in the blog I posted and lack of any other piece of writing, video or audio that suggest he does, proves.

All he says is, he personally was fondled, it personally didn't affect him in the long run and he personally thought it was more embarrassing than harmful.

---

Wow, look at you. Could you imagine if a Catholic Bishop stood up there and said, "Well I just fondled the boy, and that's pretty mild as far as child abuse goes." I have the feeling you would be not so defensive of the Bishop. Any form of inappropriate touching is still a felony, which I think is serious. Teaching children about God's grace and judgment is not a crime in any free country, so the fact that Dawkins thinks that is worse than something that is a felony shows that maybe the molestation had more affect on his brain than he thinks.