HotRod's Playgroud - The thread where he can be a hypocrite, a bigot, and a jerk without screwing around with other people's threads — Page 2

While that has indeed happened, it wasn't for the sake of protecting the individuals themselves, but to protect the church's reputation.  Look at how folks view the Catholic Church because of the actions of a minority of priests.  Now folks associate that with the whole priesthood.  I'm not saying hiding such things was right at all, but when the actions of a few could damage the faith of millions, you can see why the leadership might be inclined to hide it.  They feel it might be for the greater good.  Look at my recent contribution to the Mormon thread about blacks and the priesthood.  How long has that gone unaddressed?  Really, it's a difficult topic, a sad one.  Many reasons have been given for it.  But in the end, my Church has admitted that racism motivated the institution of the policy.  Why couldn't they admit that sooner.  Because it is difficult to admit that early leadership was wrong about something, as it damages the faith of some.  I am of the opinion that if someone's faith is too weak to handle such things, then they don't have sufficient faith anyhow, but one can see why churches hide darker aspects when they are trying to protect their general membership.

As for this thread accomplishing anything, I do feel HodRod softened his tone in his last post.  Maybe I'm wrong about this thread altogether.  Folks have called me out for my errors before, and it's changed my perspective.  It might do some good, but we shall see.

I do not agree that what the church did was understandable in any way.  You can't cover that up and claim to be a moral authority at the same time.

Covering something up ultimately does more harm to a cause anyway.

TV's Frink said:

I do not agree that what the church did was understandable in any way.  You can't cover that up and claim to be a moral authority at the same time.

Have you ever lied to your kids about something because you thought the truth would do more harm than good?

Covering something up ultimately does more harm to a cause anyway.

If you have lied to your kids, you probably realized then that this statement is absolutely true once they discovered the truth.  Yes, it ultimately does more harm than good.  Covering up just kicks the can down the road.  The Boy Scouts of America, an agency very devoted to the teaching of moral values, has done the same thing.  I still respect the good it does in spite of covering up abuse cases.

Thanks ray.  I'm not a big fan of yours either.  What exactly qualifies as being a justifiable jerk and what doesn't.  You've made rude comments to me on numerous occasions.

Making a thread to call out someone already known to be irreverent is as pointless and silly as making a thread about golf.

Oh, it's only bad if it's a new thread?  That's kind of silly too, don't you think?

What about derailing a civil discussion with idiotic attacks?

Forgive me all, I admit that I've been a bit cranky over the past few days, but this is ridiculous.  I love how everyone jumps down my throat for calling someone out, yet no one stands up to HotRod.  Ray_afraid, as usual, reads almost nothing about the topic, reads the first post (as he did in my abortion thread), and shares his ignorant opinions without context (only knowing that it disagrees with his worldview, then bolts, not to be heard from again on that topic.  I kid you not when I say I'm sick of liberal crap where they only attack those on whom it is permissible.  If I were known to be irreverent, then would I be justified in starting new threads, hmmmm?  I guess I am, since I "seem to be like this all the time.  Count me in on the "Going away for a while" thread as well.

If he is genuinely furious over the activities of the organisation in the thread title why is it wrong to launch idiotic attacks at it?

Detailed empirically concise posts may serve his position better but everyone here has farted into a thread dropped a stench of their opinion and farted out again leaving us all debating as to the merits of lighting a match.

If you discovered that someone was a member of some organisation that had gone out of their way to make money out of crime, cover up child abuse facilitated by the traditions of the institution : discouraged poor people from using a proven method for reducing the fatalities of sexually transmitted epidemic and also a proven method of managing family sizes beyond aborting existing fetuses ; while politically lobbying against other groups of people who happen to believe different things (all this after a history of torture, murder and repression) but wasn't the Catholic church, I assume you would make a very detailed account as to why you might think membership of such an organisation might be less than optimal.

I imagine other people would would just ejaculate.

Using the word "Church" or "Religion" seems to be assumed to be a shield against criticism. Shields however often make convenient targets.

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I do not agree that what the church did was understandable in any way.  You can't cover that up and claim to be a moral authority at the same time.

Have you ever lied to your kids about something because you thought the truth would do more harm than good?

Covering something up ultimately does more harm to a cause anyway.

If you have lied to your kids, you probably realized then that this statement is absolutely true once they discovered the truth.  Yes, it ultimately does more harm than good.  Covering up just kicks the can down the road.  The Boy Scouts of America, an agency very devoted to the teaching of moral values, has done the same thing.  I still respect the good it does in spite of covering up abuse cases.

Of course I've lied to my kids for their greater good.  I can't believe you would equate the two.  Care to explain what good it ultimately did the church?  If you were molested by a priest who had been transferred instead of exposed, what good would you see in it?

I understand the desire to protect religion and the institutions that use religion, but don't be so blinded by loyalty.  No good could have possibly come from protecting child molesters.  To compare it to telling white lies to your own children is just plain ridiculous.

HotRod said:

They cover ver up way too much.

 The extra "ver" is for extra covering up.

I see you conveniently avoided my question about the "playgroud." You bastard, don't think I didn't notice! I will learn what a playgroud is even if it takes me until the end of time. 

*faceplam*

TV's Frink said:

This thread will not accomplish anything.  Oh, and churches have shielded child molesters in the past, so there is at least some element of truth to what he said.

 I believe most Christians disapprove of the shielding of child molesters.  I know I do.  

darth_ender said:

 I'm not saying hiding such things was right at all, but when the actions of a few could damage the faith of millions, you can see why the leadership might be inclined to hide it.  They feel it might be for the greater good.

It is certainly not when you consider that hiding it put more children at risk of being molested. 

darth_ender said:

I love how everyone jumps down my throat for calling someone out, yet no one stands up to HotRod.

I think Darth_Ender makes a good point here.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

This thread will not accomplish anything.  Oh, and churches have shielded child molesters in the past, so there is at least some element of truth to what he said.

 I believe most Christians disapprove of the shielding of child molesters.  I know I do.  

 Well, of course.  What does that have to do with what I said?

Darth_Ender made a thread about you.   None of the people that came down on him attacked you for what you did.    That was the point Ender was making.

Total Biscuit stood up to HotRod.