Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

[Belegon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

You had priests that claimed to be moral authorities? VERY un-Catholic. Ech.

we agree here, for sure. but yes, that was, if not their words , their unfortunate behavior. Not all of them mind you. I still have the utmost respect for Father Griz and Father King. You can almost never cover a whole group with a single blanket.

It was, more or less, flippant. But I can accept that flippancy with regard to religion may be inappropriate... is that what we're saying?

Well, I certainly can be just as flippant as you about religion. But perhaps it is true that Pagans have reason to be at least a little bristly about the Roman Catholic church. I mean, there is some history here.

You and I don't always see eye to eye, but there are some things I truly do respect about you Joe. You have some wonderful passion about some things that is inspiring even when I disagree with you. I just think you really did make a mistake with the thread title.

 

[cantdog]

Whatever, I'm with Joe on this one, right along with Luc. Wiccan or whatever, it's one more perversity she seems to have done. If the charges are true, which I wouldn't trust a newspaper for. Evidently the girl who's supposed to be the victim doesn't think they did anything wrong, or didn't. Look at the article.

The girl's family said Miklosovic brainwashed the girl into thinking the two did nothing wrong.

With a newspaper that could mean anything-- they always get it wrong in the paper.
But granting the case for the sake of the argument, Joe makes a valid point. If what a priest does with pedophilia is worse because of his standing as a priest then what she does, in thus befouling Wicca for pedophiliac purposes, is also worse still because of it.

The rest, as Belegon's argument, is fine tuning as to the relative authority of priests and whatever status she held as a Wiccan. But it is perfectly sound to say that it is one more count to her indictment.

 

[TheEarl]

It doesn't really say that the teacher forced the 14y/o to practise Wicca Joe. A lot of 14 y/os are interested in paganism and they do say Gaia calls to her own. Who says the teacher was forcing the religion on her?

The Earl

 

[English Lady]

Earl...she's a 14 year old girl convinced to have sexwith a teacher and then persuaded it's totally ok. Thats the issue here I reckon.

Personally I wouldn't have put it as violently as Joe but yeah, this teacher deserves heavy punishment for what she has done.


Joe's title may be sensationalist but erm it's not unlike others that float about here all the time really -we all know you need a good headline to get in the readers

 

[impressive]

Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

No end to the Catholic Priest shit, when that went down.

You mean it's stopped?

~Imp

 

[TheEarl]

Earl...she's a 14 year old girl convinced to have sexwith a teacher and then persuaded it's totally ok. Thats the issue here I reckon.

Personally I wouldn't have put it as violently as Joe but yeah, this teacher deserves heavy punishment for what she has done.


Joe's title may be sensationalist but erm it's not unlike others that float about here all the time really -we all know you need a good headline to get in the readers

EL: Earlier in the thread, Joe justified the use of the word pagan in the title by saying that her religion was a part of the issue, because the teacher forced her religion on the girl. I'm saying that, yes it's a terrible act, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her being pagan.

A couple of my best friends are wicca and Joe is (intentionally or not) making a connection between wicca and paedophilia using his thread title. It's not 'Shoot this paedophile in the face,' but 'Shoot this wicca in the face.' Shall we mention whether she's black or white as well?

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Past all of that, though... we say "oh, its a tragedy that we bring up the religious and sexual orientation", but please. What's good for the goose, no? No end to the Catholic Priest shit, when that went down.

If we're going to lambast, it should be an equal opportunity lambasting.

Specious argument. The Catholic Priest abuse of boys was contained within the church. I'm not saying that every child molester was a Catholic Priest, or that every Catholic Priest was a child molester, but there was a fairly high incidence of correlation, which allowed the link to be drawn.

This is one Wicca. Abusing one child. There is no correlation between the two. Show me a second Wiccan teacher and I'll allow you to postulate a third (to paraphrase The Stand). I know you did not write the article, but you carried on its bullshit with your thread title.

The fact that she's Wicca doesn't matter because that's not why she molested the child. Show me a system of abuse by Wiccan teachers on 14 y/o girls and I'll allow you the connection. But from this one incident, it's a person in a position of authority who abused a kid.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Second time in two days that I've hit reply instead of New Thread.

The Earl

 

[Remec]

<trying to resist><failing>

Okay lets stay away from Unitarians while we're on the subject of religions.

What would the subject of religions have to do with Unitarians?



<duck>
<chuckle>
<holding hands up in appeasement>

Alright, alright...maybe not a good time for light-heartedness...

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Well, more accurately... Priests don't claim to be the moral authorities either. More like those charged with the job of encouraging the moral standards of the agency that employs them in their instruction of scripture. Not entirely comparable, but... well, yeah, comparable to the role a teacher with regard to their social responsibility charged to them by their occupation. I don't think anyone's going to argue that you are entrusting a great deal to a teacher by allowing them to teach a child.

By my logic, I simply have no quams about pointing out that this teacher was in breach of a number of things including pedophilia and religiously directing the child.

You can't ignore a priest's religion as part of a story. The story is his religion. The story here is about a teacher and a student. Although the religion might play in, it was certainly not well founded and did nothing but feed into irrational fears about *paganism* and took the focus entirely off the abuse issue.

If you don't see "Pagans molest children" as the theme of this article, then you are refusing to see it on purpose. If it was in fact important, it could have been handled better.

Now- with the Catholic Priest stories- HELLO!!! Those news stories all featured some bishop or the pope or some representative of the church to defend the church and Catholic religion as a whole.

Even most anti-muslim stories usually feature at least one half-hearted 'followers of the muslim religion insist that it is a peaceful loving religion'

Now, I suppose you would think that was too PC or something, but in reality it's known as showing more than one side of a story, which is what true reporting is supposed to be about.

And I certainly don't believe that your 'burn em' comment was a)aimed at child mollesters or b)innocently chosen. Please.

I think maybe you just wanted to lash out because of the whole Catholic Priest thing or something. And you should just cop to it and stop trying to defend yourself.

After all- what's so scary about being wrong?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
You can't ignore a priest's religion as part of a story. The story is his religion. The story here is about a teacher and a student. Although the religion might play in, it was certainly not well founded and did nothing but feed into irrational fears about *paganism* and took the focus entirely off the abuse issue.

If you don't see "Pagans molest children" as the theme of this article, then you are refusing to see it on purpose. If it was in fact important, it could have been handled better.

Now- with the Catholic Priest stories- HELLO!!! Those news stories all featured some bishop or the pope or some representative of the church to defend the church and Catholic religion as a whole.

Even most anti-muslim stories usually feature at least one half-hearted 'followers of the muslim religion insist that it is a peaceful loving religion'

Now, I suppose you would think that was too PC or something, but in reality it's known as showing more than one side of a story, which is what true reporting is supposed to be about.

And I certainly don't believe that your 'burn em' comment was a)aimed at child mollesters or b)innocently chosen. Please.

I think maybe you just wanted to lash out because of the whole Catholic Priest thing or something. And you should just cop to it and stop trying to defend yourself.

After all- what's so scary about being wrong?

Again, I admit that the title was being flippant. And if flippancy is inappropriate concerning religion, in this place, I'd really like someone to point that out. Restraint on that isn't a common habit here.

I think you just want to protect Paganism from negative connotations.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Dude, I'm not much for cutting our resident illogician slack, but cut him some slack.

It's the media that gets its jollies off sensationalizing the irrelevant to sell newspapers. He hardly wrote the story.

This is very noble of you.

However, it was Joe and not the media who said "Shoot this pagan in the Face" and "Burn em! Burn em all!"

No slack for Joe.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
This is very noble of you.

However, it was Joe and not the media who said "Shoot this pagan in the Face" and "Burn em! Burn em all!"

No slack for Joe.

And, for the third time, I admit (and did way back) that the title was my being flippant. And I'd be delighted for someone to point out how we are intolerant of that, here.

 

[Amy Sweet]

When I look beyond the sensationalism of the case I can still condemn what this woman did as grievous, but what struck me particularly is that she could be sentenced to life imprisonment. As a mother whose sons were molested at a very young age it seems fair to me. However, I've heard no end of cases where male rapists or child molesters go unpunished or are let off with a few years or even only months of imprisonment. Even disregarding the lesbian factor I daresay what will get this woman the most time is the paganism.

Perdita

No doubt- I know a girl who was mollested for *years* by a relative- talk about a social contract! When he finally even admited it in court- he did months in *jail* NOT even prison.

She was six when it started. But I guess as a teenager, she wasn't as sympathetic a victim. Oh yeah, and they let him move back into the house with her too.

 

[TheEarl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Again, I admit that the title was being flippant. And if flippancy is inappropriate concerning religion, in this place, I'd really like someone to point that out. Restraint on that isn't a common habit here.

I think you just want to protect Paganism from negative connotations.

The title was flippant as was the burn em comment, as you've admitted, but I've yet to see you apologise. Admitting you were wrong to say it would be nice, rather than going on the counter-offensive straight away.

I do want to protect Paganism from negative connotations, because 90% of the negative connotations associated with Paganism are complete bullshit. It is not a cult, it is not devil worshipping and it has nothing to do with this teacher molesting her pupil. One swallow doesn't make a summer and one Pagan paedophile does not create a link between Pagans and paedophilia. The reporter created that link all on their own and you are complicit in their idiocy by defending it.

What is your opinion of Paganism Joe? Honestly?

The Earl

 

[Amy Sweet]

Whatever, I'm with Joe on this one, right along with Luc. Wiccan or whatever, it's one more perversity she seems to have done. If the charges are true, which I wouldn't trust a newspaper for. Evidently the girl who's supposed to be the victim doesn't think they did anything wrong, or didn't. Look at the article. With a newspaper that could mean anything-- they always get it wrong in the paper.
But granting the case for the sake of the argument, Joe makes a valid point. If what a priest does with pedophilia is worse because of his standing as a priest then what she does, in thus befouling Wicca for pedophiliac purposes, is also worse still because of it.

The rest, as Belegon's argument, is fine tuning as to the relative authority of priests and whatever status she held as a Wiccan. But it is perfectly sound to say that it is one more count to her indictment.

I think the primary relationship here was that of teacher.

Apparently, teachers sleeping with students is old news. Pagans brainwashing teanagers- a much better story.

Joe said 'burn em all" an obvious reference to wicca/witchcraft.

And yet, he still claims no bias in himself or in the article.

This was obviously meant to be inflamatory (no pun intended)

Joe know there are pagans here.

Joe's trying to be smart and play dumb at the same time.

Which is it?

The teacher was in the wrong. So was Joe.

The article- you call that reporting???

 

[Amy Sweet]

EL: Earlier in the thread, Joe justified the use of the word pagan in the title by saying that her religion was a part of the issue, because the teacher forced her religion on the girl. I'm saying that, yes it's a terrible act, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her being pagan.

A couple of my best friends are wicca and Joe is (intentionally or not) making a connection between wicca and paedophilia using his thread title. It's not 'Shoot this paedophile in the face,' but 'Shoot this wicca in the face.' Shall we mention whether she's black or white as well?

The Earl

She's obviously white. Otherwise they would feel compelled- I'm sure, to point it out.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Originally posted by TheEarl
What is your opinion of Paganism Joe? Honestly?

Same as my opinion about religion in general. But that's not popular around here, either.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

Specious argument. The Catholic Priest abuse of boys was contained within the church. I'm not saying that every child molester was a Catholic Priest, or that every Catholic Priest was a child molester, but there was a fairly high incidence of correlation, which allowed the link to be drawn.

This is one Wicca. Abusing one child. There is no correlation between the two. Show me a second Wiccan teacher and I'll allow you to postulate a third (to paraphrase The Stand). I know you did not write the article, but you carried on its bullshit with your thread title.

The fact that she's Wicca doesn't matter because that's not why she molested the child. Show me a system of abuse by Wiccan teachers on 14 y/o girls and I'll allow you the connection. But from this one incident, it's a person in a position of authority who abused a kid.

The Earl

Thank you.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: <trying to resist><failing>

What would the subject of religions have to do with Unitarians?



<duck>
<chuckle>
<holding hands up in appeasement>

Alright, alright...maybe not a good time for light-heartedness...

LOL, it's as good a time as any.

Bad boy!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
I think the primary relationship here was that of teacher.

Apparently, teachers sleeping with students is old news. Pagans brainwashing teanagers- a much better story.

Joe said 'burn em all" an obvious reference to wicca/witchcraft.

And yet, he still claims no bias in himself or in the article.

This was obviously meant to be inflamatory (no pun intended)

Joe know there are pagans here.

Joe's trying to be smart and play dumb at the same time.

Which is it?

The teacher was in the wrong. So was Joe.

The article- you call that reporting???

So, by this notion, had we been talking about the Mormon polgymany/pedophilia camp in Northern Arizona... then that they were convincing or telling underage girls that their getting tagged by all the men in town was "godly" makes the religious coercion or backdrop ENTIRELY irrelevant, right?

Like, we can't call anything brainwashing or wrong on that religious front because Mormons are good people and justifying the molestation religiously is cool?

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

And, for the third time, I admit (and did way back) that the title was my being flippant. And I'd be delighted for someone to point out how we are intolerant of that, here.

I think it went beyond flippant.

And I did object to more than the title. If it were just the title, I could buy the argument of 'oh it was just a catchy title.'

But it was more than that and i think you know it.

And usually, we tend not to be quite so 'flipant' when we are trying to make a serious point.

If I were taking a stand against priest abuse, I wouldn't start off with an alterboy joke. Ya' know?

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will Someone Please Shoot This Pagan in The Face?

if flippancy is inappropriate concerning religion,

I think flippancy is inapproprate concerning child sex abuse.

Or would you like to admit that the article and your post was about religion and not about sexual assult of a minor?

 

[cantdog]

Right. So the article was poorly written, had a tendency to mis-emphasize, and might have some facts twisted. It also arises in a context of sensationalism. Why? It's a news article. Skip it.

How about the issues it raises, and the issues Joe raises? Or raises flippantly, if you insist.

Sure the article sensationalized the link to Wicca. Equally predictably, the articles on the priests sensationalized that link. A person would have to be from a place quite alien to this country not to see that coming. In fact, the priest articles leapt immediately to the conclusion that the church had to defend itself, now that this story was out.

Whereas the importance of membership or leadership in either religion is very minor compared to the main issue, in each case it was still significant. With pedophile priests was the damage they did to the RCC. I think we have to admit that this teacher did damage to Wicca. Day care providers who hire someone like this find their business drops away. The school in which she taught was likewise discredited. The priests gave a double dose to the RCC because they did it in a church context as well as with a strong church identification.

Joe pointed these things out, irreverently. So has every informal commentator on the RCC priests issue. People find these things push buttons, very saisfactorily.

A thread not long ago pushed some "South" buttons. It was irreverent, it was flippant, it was insensitive.

Yep.

cantdog

 

[English Lady]

Sweet,

What the hell are we actually arguing here?

It's swings and roundabouts, 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

It's about religion and it's about abuse. It's not about just one or the other the two are quite obviously intertwined IN THIS CASE.

You can trawl through every religion,cult, belief movement etc etc etc and find some people who have used their postion to corrupt innocents.

There is nothing being said about a group of people, except maybe child molesters and power abusers and well they deserve all they get in my mind.

The only thing I can see now is nasty accusations being thrown at Joe. Joe's explained himself at every turn and apologised too, several times.

If you don't want to take what he says then leave this thread to die and put him on ignore.

All this does is cause anger, bitterness and hurt to people who are expressing their opinions and may not be the best at creating neutral sounding thread titles.

I don't jump in often and maybe I shouldn't have here but gees this got my blood boiling!