Would you attack the Church if you could?

[AceBoogie]

No.

I would stop their tax exempt status and any other unfair favouritism, but that's all.

Once again, Rob chimes in and steals the words right from my mouth... erm... fingers?

I agree completely. I would not attack any churches or religious organizations violently because then I'm no better than the Christians themselves.

But I would certainly enforce a strict separation of church and state and would absolutely force all churches to pay their fair share in taxes. If your church cannot support itself financially it should not be allowed to stay.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Priests are not more likely to molest children than any average man. In fact, the occupation that has been most guilty of molesting children are teachers. So I don't understand the stereotype that priests are molesters when they don't do it any more often than the general public, and in fact less often than other vocations.

Perhaps it's because they're regarded as moral guides, you know. They may or may not commit pederasty at higher rates than non-priests, but I think you and I both agree that anyone who does that loses any claim they may lay to moral insight.

When committed by a priest, pastor, rector, etc, molestation becomes even more insidious, because you have the offender using a position of trust to abet his violation. That his church hierarchy would thereafter act to protect the molester is doubly sinister, and any organization which regularly practices protection of molesters -- as the RCC has done for at least the last seventy years that we know of -- that organization ought to be prosecuted under RICO statutes, so far as I'm concerned.

[Mister Agenda]

If we can't win through sweet reason in the marketplace of ideas, we still should not resort to violence. We have no right to impose our views on others by force.

That said, neither do the religious, and when they attempt to do so, they must be resisted. For instance, I think that churches involved in electioneering should have to pay taxes on their political activities; just like other charities.

[Doubting Thomas]

Actually I think all churches should have to pay property taxes and sales tax. They shouldn't get a free ride just because they're a religion. Just think of how much tax revenue we could raise from all these multi-million dollar megachurches out there. In return, preachers will be allowed to preach politics from the pulpit if they want (like many of them already do and get away with it). But religion would still be kept out of government as per the First Amendment.

[vorlon13]

Actually I think all churches should have to pay property taxes and sales tax.  They shouldn't get a free ride just because they're a religion.  Just think of how much tax revenue we could raise from all these multi-million dollar megachurches out there.  In return, preachers will be allowed to preach politics from the pulpit if they want (like many of them already do and get away with it).  But religion would still be kept out of government as per the First Amendment.

We could give a discount to the One True Faith.

[Catholic_Lady]

Priests are not more likely to molest children than any average man. In fact, the occupation that has been most guilty of molesting children are teachers. So I don't understand the stereotype that priests are molesters when they don't do it any more often than the general public, and in fact less often than other vocations.

Perhaps it's because they're regarded as moral guides, you know. They may or may not commit pederasty at higher rates than non-priests, but I think you and I both agree that anyone who does that loses any claim they may lay to moral insight.

When committed by a priest, pastor, rector, etc, molestation becomes even more insidious, because you have the offender using a position of trust to abet his violation. That his church hierarchy would thereafter act to protect the molester is doubly sinister, and any organization which regularly practices protection of molesters -- as the RCC has done for at least the last seventy years that we know of -- that organization ought to be prosecuted under RICO statutes, so far as I'm concerned.

I agree. I think it is far worse when a supposed "man of God" does evil things than when just any ol'Joe does. They should be held to a higher standard above others, and when they break that trust, it's heinous. And of course, the individuals who committed such acts and those involved in covering up should be reprimadded.

What I'm saying is I just don't think priests in general should be put into a box and stereotyped as sex offenders when they don't do it any more than the average man, and when other vocations do it more yet don't have the same stareotype. It's unfair to all the millions and millions of perfectly decent men out there who are priests. And of course, I'll object to someone saying they fantasize about murdering every person who is a priest, even those who are completely innocent of any crime. As is what the OP did.

[Macoleco]

Perhaps it's because they're regarded as moral guides, you know. They may or may not commit pederasty at higher rates than non-priests, but I think you and I both agree that anyone who does that loses any claim they may lay to moral insight.

When committed by a priest, pastor, rector, etc, molestation becomes even more insidious, because you have the offender using a position of trust to abet his violation. That his church hierarchy would thereafter act to protect the molester is doubly sinister, and any organization which regularly practices protection of molesters -- as the RCC has done for at least the last seventy years that we know of -- that organization ought to be prosecuted under RICO statutes, so far as I'm concerned.

I agree. I think it is far worse when a supposed "man of God" does evil things than when just any ol'Joe does. They should be held to a higher standard above others, and when they break that trust, it's heinous. And of course, the individuals who committed such acts and those involved in covering up should be reprimadded.

What I'm saying is I just don't think priests in general should be put into a box and stereotyped as sex offenders when they don't do it any more than the average man, and when other vocations do it more yet don't have the same stareotype. It's unfair to all the millions and millions of perfectly decent men out there who are priests. And of course, I'll object to someone saying they fantasize about murdering every person who is a priest, even those who are completely innocent of any crime. As is what the OP did.

Every priest is a criminal for me. Preaching lies and fear. Many believe that what they do is right, but it is actually wrong. Not that I will kill them for that anyway.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree. I think it is far worse when a supposed "man of God" does evil things than when just any ol'Joe does. They should be held to a higher standard above others, and when they break that trust, it's heinous. And of course, the individuals who committed such acts and those involved in covering up should be reprimadded.

They shouldn't be reprimanded. They should be prosecuted and jailed.

What I'm saying is I just don't think priests in general should be put into a box and stereotyped as sex offenders when they don't do it any more than the average man, and when other vocations do it more yet don't have the same stareotype.

Well, I don't care for any stereotype, so yeah no argument. But it's entirely fair game to point out the hypocrisy of both the priest molesting the youngster as well as the bishop who sends him to Venezuela so he can diddle another child. And if the Catholic church doesn't like that sort of shit sticking to it, perhaps they should not have tolerated it for so goddamned long.

And of course, I'll object to someone saying they fantasize about murdering every person who is a priest, even those who are completely innocent of any crime. As is what the OP did.

Probably why I didn't address his OP at all. What's the use of answering dumbfucks?

---

Every priest is a criminal for me. Preaching lies and fear. Many believe that what they do is right, but it is actually wrong. Not that I will kill them for that anyway.

"Criminal" has a specific meaning. I think you're practicing sloppy language.

[PETE_ROSE]

No.

I would stop their tax exempt status and any other unfair favouritism, but that's all.

Once again, Rob chimes in and steals the words right from my mouth... erm... fingers?

I agree completely. I would not attack any churches or religious organizations violently because then I'm no better than the Christians themselves.

But I would certainly enforce a strict separation of church and state and would absolutely force all churches to pay their fair share in taxes. If your church cannot support itself financially it should not be allowed to stay.

Can we take the same stance with people in America? If you cannot support yourself, you should not be allowed to stay. Interesting concept. You must be a Trump supporter.

[vorlon13]

Does the church need an attack ?

Aren't pointing out the self-inflicted wounds sufficient ?