How is it hate speech if it's simply stating what did happen?
Well, there are a few reasons as to why this would be considered hate speech by our far-leaning leftists. First, the examples given don't provide
much depth or explanation, nor given any historical context. Secondly, there is no objectivity in these claims, just one-sided hysteria.
I am not claiming the Church to be perfect. But I also think you are severely discounting the positive attributes of the Church throughout history,
and taking a severely one-sided, accusatory tone in your grievances. We could isolate each of these accusations one by one, and go into microscopic
debate and detail on each and every accusation if you so choose, but I doubt that would change your opinion.
Do this. Head to a depressed city in America - say Detroit, or Cleveland, for example - and take a look at who runs the soup kitchens, the homeless
shelters, and the food pantries. Many of these charitable organizations are run by arms of the Roman Catholic Church. This is just one, simple
There are literally tens of thousands of missionary nuns and priests working Third World countries to help end hunger, starvation, sickness, poverty,
etc. These priests and nuns earn no income aside from basic necessities, and dedicate their entire lives to serving others. Many live a quiet life
of prayer and service to mankind, and die with little if any recognition.
Who works in the prison system helping inmates? Catholic missionaries.
So, before you go off on some one-sided rant against the Roman Catholic Church, about some historical event hundreds of years ago, take into account
the good that the Church has done in helping mankind. That good is real, measurable, and has been vital to lifting up the poor and oppressed
Children's Crusades, you say? That's the best you can do? Heck, even Wikipedia has numerous sources cited dispelling this ludicrous myth:
Question: Are you willing to accept the religious dogma of ALL religions to be part of your government?
I don't believe the public square calls for censorship. Whether one is Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, or any other religion -- or even agnostic for that
matter -- all are called to participate in public debate. Santorum shouldn't be excluded because of his religious beliefs. Last I heard, we still
had freedom of speech in this country.
I'll spell it out-child molestation.
Again, let's put this in the proper context. Go here:
"Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out
of the clergy. Of course we expect better behavior from priests than from the average man on the street. While even one priest who abuses children is
a major problem, we need to keep this issue in perspective and remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children."
"...Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general
back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at
the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake. It has been estimated that 40
years ago about 23% of male psychotherapists have been sexually involved with their clients. Of course this is no longer true today. Forty years ago
we thought that autism was caused by cold and withholding mothers referred to as the "ice box mother." We can't take what we know in 2010 and apply it
to problems and decisions made in the 1960's and 1970's.
Furthermore, 40 years ago, most priests entered seminary during high school, did not participate in a comprehensive psychological evaluation prior to
admission, and had no training in sexuality, maintaining professional boundaries, and impulse control. Advice regarding dealing with sexual impulses
included cold showers and prayer. Today, most applicants to the priesthood are much older (generally in their late 20's or 30's). They often have had
satisfying and appropriate intimate relationships before entering the seminary. They have completed a psychological evaluation that specifically
examines risk factors for sexual problems. They now get good training in sexuality and issues related to managing sexual impulses. It is not
surprising that the majority of the sex-offending priests that we hear about in the press are older. In fact, our research indicates that the average
age of these men are 53."
Horrific as the abuse was, the same percentages exist across all religious denominations. I won't even discuss the abuse that goes on in the
classroom, at much higher percentages than the Church.
Besides, what does this have to do with Santorum's right to free speech?
edit on 7-3-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason