Religion in the USA

I don't see any difference. Are you trying to tell me that molesting children is okay if your employer doesn't know about it? You are making a distinction without a difference over something you really know very little about. I say the school didn't do a very good job of vetting these teachers.

 

duh, the schools never took part in the crime(cover up and obstruction of justice) the RC did...this isn't a difficult concept to grasp if you didn't deliberately blind yourself to the facts...

 

Well...considering the topic is the Catholic Church, it is awaiting a thread which discusses it. That was a very pathetic distraction attempt.

 

oh please do! so I won't waste good thought process on those incapable of living in the real world...

 

Give me one case where the Church obstructed justice and covered up, along with names and dates. I'll bet you don't even know, you're just engaging in mob mentality.

 

Nope, just pointing out, one again, that most of you couldn't care less about the kids, your apathy toward the situation in the schools proves it.

And again, rehashing what happened 20 and 30 years ago doesn't help anything.

 

I agree.

That's why I think the 56% who claim to believe in god as described in the Bible is a significant overestimate of how many actually qualify as Christians by folks like you and USFan.

I think what we're seeing is a reduction in the number of people who are interested in comparing their religious views to those of any formalized religion.

I suspect that's one of the reasons we see Catholics and others relaxing on their rules. One might claim they aren't changing root tenets, but they do change on issues they once saw as immutable as they look for maintaining their audience.

 

20 or 30 years ago???

From wiki:

So, there have been well over a thousand of these cases successfully prosecuted - a gigantic task with a low success rate, given the difficulty of proving past events, especially when the criminals operate under the cover of religion.

During that time, the church is well known to have moved priests around (even out of the country) to avoid prosecution, has denied access to records, has cut deals to avoid prosecution, etc.

The notion that all the miscreants have been removed can not be more than a fantasy. It requires one to believe that our justice system so thoroughly penetrated the church cover that all criminals were found and successfully prosecuted - which is just plain ludicrous.

 

The settlements were recent. The cases were from years ago. The kids are now adults. Some of the perps are dead.

 

so pedophilia ended years ago...there are no more pedophiles?...right, tell us some more fables...

 

True religion is based on sex 'gender' or education is based on sex 'gender'? I'm not sure to which you are referring to.

 

So what about the cures that occurred without the uses of modern medicine?

 

I don't think the "rules" are relaxing as much as it is that the archaic 1950s Baptist way of explaining things is passing away. Even they aren't as heavy handed as they used to be.

Now that the 1960s are over I also think it's possible to tell believers that there will be no "pre-tribulation rapture", that dispensationalism is bunkum, and that Barak Obama and Donald Trump are not the anti-Christ. The internet has a lot to do with that, and anybody who can slog through the archaic English from years past can get their hands on college level texts.

 

And this is one reason why the children seek 'other' company, so as to discuss their joys. If parents or family does not provide for their 'joys', although clean, moral and good, they will seek elsewhere where the dangers lurk unbeknownst.

 

Wrong is wrong. Sin is sin. Regardless of age, ethnicity, job title or status.

 

Link?

20 or 30 years ago???

From wiki:


So, there have been well over a thousand of these cases successfully prosecuted - a gigantic task with a low success rate, given the difficulty of proving past events, especially when the criminals operate under the cover of religion.

During that time, the church is well known to have moved priests around (even out of the country) to avoid prosecution, has denied access to records, has cut deals to avoid prosecution, etc.

The notion that all the miscreants have been removed can not be more than a fantasy. It requires one to believe that our justice system so thoroughly penetrated the church cover that all criminals were found and successfully prosecuted - which is just plain ludicrous.

 

Why is the highest number of Church scandals in one country? There are more Church Scandals coming out of 1 country then the world Countries combined.

There are over 100 something real documented cases of Church scandals from 1 country whereas the total combined from the entire world is less than 30 or so.

 

Why? Because we are Homo Sapiens, which when translated, means, 'wise man'. Homo = man, Sapiens (sapere) = wise, to know.

We are men who know we are from primates. We are the wise, knowing men.

We're all beasts. Get over it with your holier than beast ideas.

If the past truly hands down wisdom to their successors, then it is not wrong to say we are either getting wiser or dumber.

Viva i primati!

Primates have breath also. And so do turtles.



I think the turtle is eating.

So nice to allow the photographer to take a picture. Thank you turtle!

Have you ever noticed that if you don't wash your plastic cup often that the water from it starts to taste like water with a spittle aftertaste?

 

Did you know that if you use Wikipedia as a source in college these days you'll flunk the course? I generally take Wikipedia with an extremely large block of salt.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0bvKE3tbVWune31vOqSENL

 

What encyclopedia is credible? The Britannica has lost credibility, in my opinion.

Maybe referenced encyclopedias such as the Medical or Tax encyclopedias?

I wonder if today's medical encyclopedias uses the word 'gender' in reference to biological sex.

Is there such a thing as a turtle giraffe.

'How's the weather up there', the turtle asked.

If one Medical definition or term is changed, would the entire binary and single worded taxonomy of Medical terms be in question?

Is the world waiting to see? 'Should we lean to the left? Should we lean to the right? How can we be upright if we can't decide on the left or right'?

 

Anybody can edit a Wikipedia article, I have edited them myself. Britannica I don't know anout.

 

https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability.

In particular, Wikipedia has taken hits for its inclusion, for four months, of an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. At the same time, the blogosphere was buzzing for several days about of anonymously deleting references to others' seminal work on the technology.

RELATED STORY

• Growing pains for Wikipedia

In response to situations like these and others in its history, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate.


Still, many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

"An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature--the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science," the journal wrote, "suggests that such high-profile examples (like the Seigenthaler and Curry situations) are the exception rather than the rule."

And to Wales, while Britannica came out looking a little bit more accurate than Wikipedia, the Nature study was validation of his service's fundamental structure.

"I was very pleased, just to see that (the study) was reasonably favorable," Wales told CNET News.com. "I think it provides, for us, a great counterpoint to the press coverage we've gotten recently, because it puts the focus on the broader quality and not just one article."

He also acknowledged that the error rate for each encyclopedia was not insignificant, and added that he thinks such numbers demonstrate that broad review of encyclopedia articles is needed.

He also said that the results belie the notion that Britannica is infallible.

"I have very great respect for Britannica," Wales said. But "I think there is a general view among a lot of people that it has no errors, like, 'I read it in Britannica, it must be true.' It's good that people see that there are a lot of errors everywhere."

To Britannica officials, however, the Nature results showed that Wikipedia still has a way to go.

"The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors" than Britannica, said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica.


But Cauz and editor in chief Dale Hoiberg also said they were concerned that Nature had not specified the problems that it had found in Britannica.

"We've asked them a number of questions about the process they used," Hoiberg said. "They said in (their article) that the inaccuracies included errors, omissions and misleading statements. But there's no indication of how many of each. So we're very eager to look at that and explore it because we take it very seriously."

 

Tell it to the academic dean, not me.