It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm happy to discuss any 'beefs' with Catholicism with the exception of one. I respectfully request that we leave out questions of pedophilia and Church cover-up of same. Why? Because there is no need for debate. It was and is heinous. In addition, it is covered in other threads. So, what are your thoughts on Catholicism?
You should, you wrote it? "So what are you thought's on Catholicism" WHAT! let's ignore the Child abuse.
"Because there is no need for debate" You can't just leave out Child Abuse and go forward with a debate on the Catholic Church. That's just insane. It would be incredibly self serving and bereft of intellectual honesty don't you think?
reply to post by adjensen
Now, if you read that carefully, he didn't say that "pedophilia was normal", or that he thought "pedophilia was normal", he said that, for a time, society was acting like it was, and he was denouncing that fact. Was he right?
In May 1974, the Campaign for Homosexual Equality suggested a basic age of consent of 16, but 12 "in cases where a defendant could prove the existence of meaningful consent". In September 1974, the Sexual Law Reform Society proposed lowering the age of consent to 14, with the requirement that below the age of 18 the burden of proof that consent for sexual activities between the parties existed would be the responsibility of the older participant. In 1976, the British political pressure group Liberty published a proposal advocating reducing the age of consent laws to 10 years of age, only when both individuals are younger than 14, with a close-in-age exemption of two years if one of the involved individuals is older than 14 but younger than 16. The report was signed by Harriet Harman, who later went on to become a prominent figure in government and deputy leader of the Labour Party.
EDIT: ATS Staff - Regardless the legitimacy or more appropriately the questionability of such with ITCCS, as prolific as Kevin D. Annett is in making these wild claims (and fooling ATS members into believing them as coming from real legal authority), I'm making formal request we have a separate forum for ITCCS (and similar organizations like Westboro) claims.
edit on 10/30/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
Thank you for dispelling lies with Truth,
God bless you for that,
on a funnier side note, I was reminded of those sensationalist "tabloids" in the supermarket checkouts of old, the "7 toed alien baby of Madonna comes out" or "big foot seen at local KFC", etc, I think these folks just figure if something sounds outrageous enough, then maybe enough people will pay a little money or donation to continue hearing about this things, so it's monetarily worth their time to keep the stories coming, even if it means publicly embarrasing themselves and being known as whack-a-doo's. Oh well,
Such is life, such is the human condition,
I saw Kevin Annett's original video on abuse of aboriginal children in residential schools and I found the story he told very credible and moving. Here it is:
Having said that I do wonder how seriously the International Court of Common Law even takes itself when they can hold a trial of a former Pope, convict him of murder and not put a transcript of the trial on their website.
If someone has a link to that transcript, I would like to read it. A transcript is necessary if the proceedings and the testimony given at the trial are to be given serious consideration and analysis.
Running a somewhat sensationalist website is not enough.