[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid

Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye

Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge

Jewish Land Grab

Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner

Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release

AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women

What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination

Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author

Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own.

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room

Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister

Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals

German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human'


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: Bomb kills 25 at Shiite funeral in Pakistan
Source: AP Wire
URL Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap ... NH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD96F64G80
Published: Feb 20, 2009
Author: Ishtiaq Mahsud
Post Date: 2009-02-20 08:39:07 by war
Keywords: Pakistan, Talibian, Muslim, nuclear
Views: 1434
Comments: 107

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A bomb tore through a huge funeral procession for a slain Shiite Muslim leader in northwestern Pakistan on Friday, killing at least six people and wounding several more, police said.

Rising sectarian violence threatens to further destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan just as it faces renewed U.S. pressure to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Friday's explosion tore through crowds streaming toward a graveyard for the burial of Sher Zeman, a Shiite leader who was gunned down in the city the day before.

City police official Miran Shah said at least six of the estimated 1,000 mourners were killed. Others wounded by the explosion were rushed to nearby hospitals, he said.

Police said people angered by the attack fired on police officers rushing to the scene. An Associated Press reporter in the city heard the gunfire and said troops had arrived to help restore order.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

However, relations between this Muslim nation's strong Sunni majority and Shiite minority are under growing strain from a series of attacks attributed to sectarian extremists.

Much of the violence has been in the northwest, where the Taliban and other violent Sunni groups have gained sway.

In the deadliest recent incident, a car bomb killed 29 people and wounded scores near a Shiite mosque in Peshawar in December. On Feb. 5, a suicide bomber killed 24 people at a Shiite mosque in a central city.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-20) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#21. To: scrapper2 (#18)

One more time - please show me all the posts I have made that express "hatred" for the "Jews" to support your false accusation that I am a "Jew-hater."

'smatter? You afraid of a little old question that makes you express your opinion about any actual "Jew", scrappette? That is why your "argument" breaks down. Broad strikes indeed, eh?

[snicker]

war  posted on  2009-02-23   1:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: scrapper2 (#19)

As for the so-called "history lesson"

It was an attempt at further underscoring what a pedantic little snot you are.

I told you that your knowledge base about me is 0. You don't even realize that you and I are in general agreement on the issue of US/ME policy. Your failures are two fold...one is to recognize that the issue of Islamic radical fundmentalism holding the west to be an enemy is not a late 20th century phenomenem. The other is personal and which we've discussed.

Are you, in fact, a Moslem?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   1:23:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: war (#22)

Are you, in fact, a Moslem?

Righto. And the Catholic Church has been very tolerant of my desire to hold dual religious membership.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   1:51:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: war (#21)

'smatter? You afraid of a little old question that makes you express your opinion about any actual "Jew", scrappette? That is why your "argument" breaks down. Broad strikes indeed, eh?

I'm still waiting for your proof that demonstrate I am a "Jew Hater."

Crickets....

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   1:53:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: war (#24)

As for your question about the goals of a Jew... they are the same as the goals of a Muslim and of a Christian - ie. to get by and lead their lives with their loved ones without meddling or manipulation by outside forces.

Would you agree?

Somehow I doubt it.

The image of a poster boy for bigotry and racism is in your mirror not mine.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   2:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: war (#22)

what a pedantic little snot you are

Coming from an unlearned, poorly read, bigoted, testosterone driven, candy a**ed jock like yourself, I take your remarks as a compliment, a badge of honor, as it were.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   2:25:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: scrapper2 (#24)

I'm still waiting for your proof that demonstrate I am a "Jew Hater."

Then answer the question:

Also, how do you feel about dual citizenhips...?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   8:07:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: scrapper2 (#26)

Coming from an unlearned, poorly read, bigoted, testosterone driven, candy a**ed jock like yourself,

Chuckles...unlearned and poorly read?

Well...not only are you redundant but you repeat yourself!!!

Bigoted? I've expressed intolerance to whom exactly?

Testosterone driven...I'm a man yes I am...

Candy assed jock?

Hardly a jock...I train and train hard in several disciplines but I've long been a misplaced guitar tuner...and, btw, my tuckus is extremely buff and attractive.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   8:16:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: scrapper2 (#25)

As for your question about the goals of a Jew... they are the same as the goals of a Muslim and of a Christian - ie. to get by and lead their lives with their loved ones without meddling or manipulation by outside forces.

ROFLMAO...nice tap dance, Ms. Milller...

Given your statement, you believe that Jews don't want the US to intervene in Israel in any way?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   8:19:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: scrapper2 (#23)

And the Catholic Church has been very tolerant of my desire to hold dual religious membership.

As long as you give them enough money they could probably give two shits what you do...

war  posted on  2009-02-23   8:20:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: war (#29)

ROFLMAO...nice tap dance, Ms. Milller...

Given your statement, you believe that Jews don't want the US to intervene in Israel in any way?

I was not aware that the US had ever "intervened" in Israel.

And when you asked about the goals of a Jew, I assumed you were speaking about the general personal goals of an individual Jewish person, which imo, are no different than those of a Christian or a Muslim.

Now that I have answered your question, give me the proof I asked for that supports your accusation that I have expressed "hatred" for "Jews."

On the subject of "tap dancing", it appears that you are the one doing it not me.

So put up or shut up. Where's the proof?

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   8:47:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: war (#30)

scrapper: And the Catholic Church has been very tolerant of my desire to hold dual religious membership.

war: As long as you give them enough money they could probably give two shits what you do...

You really are a crude rude piece of work.

You find it so easy to insult Muslims and Catholics - your contempt falls right off the tip of your tongue.

But say anything about the Zionists, and you get your nose out of joint.

Your actions are self-revealing.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   8:52:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: war (#27)

I'm still waiting for your proof that demonstrate I am a "Jew Hater."

Then answer the question:

Also, how do you feel about dual citizenhips...?

It's no secret that I believe that dual-citizens should not be allowed to serve in federal government policy level positions or in federal Cabinet positions.

Where's the proof that I have expressed "hatred" for "Jews?"

Put up or shut up.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   8:57:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: war (#28) (Edited)

and, btw, my tuckus is extremely buff and attractive.

Gack!

Sorry but my dance card is full.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   9:01:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: scrapper2 (#32)

But say anything about the Zionists, and you get your nose out of joint.

The Catholic Church has a pedophile issue that it refuses to address.

I have a serious issue with Moslems because the "moderates" won't stand up to the fundamentalists much like the US Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals etc etc etc won't stand up to the American Taliban. The rest of the western world laughs at how backwards we are in terms of declaring ourselves religiously pure while requiring everyone in pubulic service to wear religion on their sleeves.

As for your myopia regarding my opinions about Zionism/Israel, i.e., it's grossly disporporationate influence on American foreign policy, I can't help you there as you seem to be rabidly content to pretend that they don't agree with yours.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   9:44:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: scrapper2 (#34)

Sorry but my dance card is full.

Good for you, gumdrop, but it wasn't an invitation.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   9:50:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: scrapper2 (#33)

It's no secret that I believe that dual-citizens should not be allowed to serve in federal government policy level positions or in federal Cabinet positions.

So a dual Canadian/American in Department of Education would be a no no to you?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   9:51:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: scrapper2 (#31)

I was not aware that the US had ever "intervened" in Israel.

The US has never veto'd a resolution unfavorable to Israal in the UNSC?

When Gazans see spent ordinance in the rubble of their homes, they see MADE IN - --? Can you fill in that blank?

IN 1983, the US put Marines boots on the ground in Lebanon why?

IN October of 1973, the US publically announced that it had put its troops on worldwide alert why?

The US guaranttes every penny of debt of what nation other than the US?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   9:55:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: war (#37)

So a dual Canadian/American in Department of Education would be a no no to you?

That is correct. A dual Canadian-American as Head of the Dept of Education or holding a policy level position within that department would be a no-no if I had my way.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   10:17:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: scrapper2 (#39)

A dual Canadian-American as Head of the Dept of Education or holding a policy level position within that department would be a no-no if I had my way.

Why? What conflict exists?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   10:22:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: war (#40)

Why? What conflict exists?

The conflict is that dual citizens have pointedly decided not to put their loyalties to America first and sever their ties to their birth country. Citizens with split loyalties should not be rewarded for this behavior by being allowed to serve in any policy level or Cabinet level positions even if it is as Head of the Dept of Dogcatching.

Obviously, having dual citizenship is advantageous for individuals for reasons of job mobility, career advancement. And the Supreme Court has ruled that US citizens can keep dual citizenship.

I'm merely stating that what may be advantageous to an individual's personal goals is not helpful to our nation when such "conflicted" individuals serve in Cabinet/policy level positions.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:01:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: scrapper2 (#41)

The conflict is that dual citizens have pointedly decided not to put their loyalties to America first and sever their ties to their birth country.

How would that negatively affect the US using anyone of dual Canada?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:07:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: scrapper2 (#41)

Also, would intelliegnce gathering be included in your proscription or just the analyst on up?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:09:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: war (#35)

The Catholic Church has a pedophile issue that it refuses to address.

Wrong. Pope John XXIII in 1961 banned gays in the priesthood. US seminaries ignored that ban for decades and now it is estimated that the American Catholic Church has anywhere from 25% - 50% gay priests.

The pedophile ( or more correctly described as pedarest)abuse cases that occurred was by and large an American Catholic Church problem because over the past 30 years it had developed a culture of homosexuality within its seminary midst - the Purple Palace as it is commonly known. It is no surprise considering that US society - unlike Europe - has experienced the ascension of very powerful gay lobby groups here along with their MSM cheerleaders and our Hollywood inspired culture of depravity and anything goes along with the ACLU suing any organization that would dare to say no to employing a gay person in a position of trust with access to children and teens.

Btw, the statistical number of gay priest pedarest abusers are no different than what occurs in the Jewish faith or Protestant faith. But the numbers of abused were obviously much greater in the American Catholic Church's instance because of the nature of male on male sexual promiscuity effecting greater numbers of sex objects.

The Vatican and the new Pope has been actively trying since 2005 to implement policies to prohibit gays from becoming priests, albeit a somewhat watered down policy version of Pope XXIII's). However, lobby groups in the USA have been vocal in their criticism of such policies. The American Catholic Church has been resistant to the Vatican's policy positions, because of the great numbers of gay priests it has on board already.

Personally, I feel that the Catholic Church was targeted by the Christophobes, who wanted to strike at the heart of organized Christianity - what better way than to infiltrate the oldest and largest Christian church - the Catholic Church. The American Catholic Church provided the gateway.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28677174/

"Less gay behavior in seminaries, Vatican says" 01/15/09

www.boston.com/news/world...ts_said_to_prohibit_gays/

"Vatican policy on priests said to prohibit gays: Italian newspaper says pope has approved document" 11/12/05

www.catholicculture.org/n...es/index.cfm?recnum=58524

"Vatican reaffirms ban on homosexual seminarians" 05/20/08

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:25:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: war (#42)

How would that negatively affect the US using anyone of dual Canada?

Re-read my explanation. We should not reward dual citizens for their deliberate choice in not putting their loyalties to America prominently first.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:27:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: war (#38)

The US has never veto'd a resolution unfavorable to Israal in the UNSC?

When Gazans see spent ordinance in the rubble of their homes, they see MADE IN - --? Can you fill in that blank?

IN 1983, the US put Marines boots on the ground in Lebanon why?

IN October of 1973, the US publically announced that it had put its troops on worldwide alert why?

The US guaranttes every penny of debt of what nation other than the US?

By "intervened" I thought you meant the US meddling and manipulating Israeli government policies per what the Israel Lobby does stateside.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:30:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: war (#43)

Also, would intelliegnce gathering be included in your proscription or just the analyst on up?

You raise a good point. Intel gathering positions should not have dual citizens in place.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:31:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: scrapper2 (#44)

Pope John XXIII in 1961 banned gays in the priesthood.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different issues.

The US Cathloic Church for years refused to defrock and expose its pedophiles and merely chose to play a shell game when them whenever complainats arose.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: scrapper2 (#46)

By "intervened" I thought you meant the US meddling and manipulating Israeli government policies per what the Israel Lobby does stateside.

Israel is defacto a US protectorate. We cannot help but intervene...in fact, we do everything up to and including slaying the fatted calf for them even at the cost of our own starvation.

Where you and I get off track is in your belief that should the US cut Israel loose, we're free of Jihad. It doesn't work that way.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:42:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: war (#48)

Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different issues.

With regards to pedarest abuse cases that occurred in the US Catholic Church, which I thought was the subject under discussion, the vast majority of abused involved young males and their abusers were gay priests.

The Vatican had a study commissioned to study the particulars of all the cases, and over 85% were male predator on young male cases.

But perhaps this was all an unfortunate "coincidence."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: war (#49)

Where you and I get off track is in your belief that should the US cut Israel loose, we're free of Jihad.

Cutting Israel loose would be a good starting point. It would not "free" us entirely from Islamic fundie hatred but this step would take a lot of wind out of AQ's recruiting sails. Our playing BullyBoy on behalf of Israel and being a biased peace negotiater in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a numero uno problem for us.

Read some interviews or books by Michael Scheuer to understand what other things our government should do. Scheuer is the former CIA Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:56:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: scrapper2 (#50)

the vast majority of abused involved young males and their abusers were gay priests.

I hadn't seen anything that had revealed that they had also engaged in adult same sex relationships.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   13:40:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: scrapper2 (#51)

Did he ever fess up to writing Imperial Hubris ?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   13:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: war (#53)

Did he ever fess up to writing Imperial Hubris ?

The answer to your question, its implicit snideness notwithstanding, is yes, Michael Scheurer's identity was revealed 2 weeks before the release date of "Imperial Hubris."

However, for your information it was the CIA that required Dr. Scheuer to with hold his name. It was not Dr. Scheuer's choice.

www.bostonphoenix.com/bos...ge/documents/03949394.asp

But at issue here is not just the book’s content, but why Anonymous is anonymous. After all, as the Times and others have reported, his situation is nothing like that of Valerie Plame, a covert operative whose ability to work active overseas cases was undermined when someone in the White House blew her cover to journalist Robert Novak in an apparent payback for an inconvenient weapons-of-mass-destruction intelligence report by her husband, Joseph Wilson. Anonymous, on the other hand, is, by the CIA’s own admission, a Langley-bound analyst whose identity has never required secrecy.

A Phoenix investigation has discovered that Anonymous does not, in fact, want to be anonymous at all — and that his anonymity is neither enforced nor voluntarily assumed out of fear for his safety, but rather compelled by an arcane set of classified regulations that are arguably being abused in an attempt to spare the CIA possible political inconvenience. In the Phoenix’s view, continued deference by the press to a bogus and unwanted standard of secrecy essentially amounts to colluding with the CIA in muzzling a civil servant — a standard made more ridiculous by the ubiquity of Anonymous’s name in both intelligence and journalistic circles.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   16:58:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: war (#52)

I hadn't seen anything that had revealed that they had also engaged in adult same sex relationships.

Well, it's obvious that you have not bothered to read the 3 article links I provided you earlier which described the seminaries of the US Catholic Church as being riddled with actively practicing homosexual priests.

Here you go - a nice little article about the Sodom and Gomorrah environment of US Catholic seminaries by Stanley Kurtz from The National Review, a journal which you appear to trust and like reading.

www.nationalreview.com/03june02/kurtz060302.asp

"Gay Priests and Gay Marriage" By Stanley Kurtz 06/03/02

Some cut and paste:

"...After Vatican II, and in conformity with the broader cultural changes of the Sixties, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. The homosexual orientation itself, it was stressed, was not sinful. So as long as a homosexual adhered to the very same vow of celibacy taken by his heterosexual counterpart, there was no reason to deprive him of a priestly vocation. This was a compassionate stance, and one that promised to incorporate a heretofore stigmatized minority into a venerable institution, thereby strengthening the institution itself.

Yet imagine that an opponent of this new openness to homosexuals in the priesthood had uttered a warning cry. Imagine that someone had said, back in the 1970s, when homosexuals were flooding into Catholic seminaries all over the U.S., that substantial numbers of gay priests, far from accepting the rule of celibacy, would deliberately flout that rule, both in theory and in practice. Suppose that someone had argued that homosexual priests would gain control of many seminaries, that many would openly "date," that many would actively cultivate an ethos of gay solidarity and promote a homosexual culture that would drive away heterosexuals — especially theologically orthodox heterosexuals — from the priesthood. Suppose this person went on to argue that, at its extreme, the growing gay subculture of the priesthood would tolerate and protect not only flagrant violations of celibacy, but even the abuse of minors. Then suppose that this person predicted eventual public exposure of the whole sordid mess, an exposure that would precipitate a crisis within the Church itself.

Naturally, anyone prescient — and foolish — enough to say all of these things in the wake of the Sixties would have been excoriated and ostracized as a hysterical gay-hater. It is simply bigoted, he would have been lectured, to claim that large numbers of homosexuals would take the vow of celibacy without making a good-faith effort to adhere to it; and even more so to claim that gay priests would embark on a campaign to deliberately subvert the Church's sexual teachings. And surely our foolish (and hysterically homophobic) friend would have been assured that an institution like the Catholic priesthood would attract only the most conservative homosexuals, not a bunch of "queer" radicals. Besides, even if a very few homosexuals did go so far as to actually abuse the children who had been given into their care, surely the number of such cases could never rise to the point where the stature and credibility of the Church itself would be put into doubt.

SUBVERSIVE SUBCULTURE

Yet all of these things have happened. Consider Jason Berry's extraordinary account in Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children (1992), all the more striking for coming from the pen of a liberal Catholic who would himself like to see a liberalization of the Church's sexual teachings. According to Berry, as the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high-school students. Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." According to Berry, Richard Wagner, author of the original study of these gay priests, found that 34 percent of his interviewees called their sexual partners "distinctly younger." (Wagner did not say how young.) What's clear from Berry's account is that sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests (the typical form of abuse in the current scandal) was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood, a subculture that effectively enabled the abuse of minors by encouraging flagrant homosexuality, and openly flouting the rule of celibacy itself. Indeed, in a now infamous case, a priest who has been the subject of abuse allegations over a period of three decades, the Reverend Paul Shanley, went so far as to advocate abuse in an address to the convention that led to the founding of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Here, the connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture was frighteningly direct.

Of course, it is true that powerful conservative bishops, who were in no way part of a homosexual subculture, played a critical role in covering up the abuse. They bear responsibility for their actions, yet their cover-up was itself motivated by their knowledge of the size and significance of the problem: To expose any given case was to risk a public unraveling of the larger problem of sexual abuse, disregard of celibacy, and the place of the gay subculture within the Church as a whole.

It is also true that cultural changes abroad in America in the wake of the Sixties eroded the ethic of celibacy among heterosexual priests as well. Yet heterosexual priests disenchanted with celibacy tended to leave the Church. Gay priests who rejected celibacy, on the other hand, tended to remain within the Church and, in word and deed, opposed the requirement of celibacy.

The existence of an influential and intentionally subversive gay subculture within the Catholic priesthood has everything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. To show this, I want to hark back to "The Gay Marriage Debate," an extended exchange I had (on National Review Online and in a number of other venues) in the summer of 2001 with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, the two most prominent conservative advocates of gay marriage. Although both Sullivan and Rauch have honorably and ably defended same-sex marriage as the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays, the priesthood scandal is powerful proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken.

In our 2001 exchange, Sullivan assumed that only those gay couples prepared to be governed by the traditional ethos of monogamy would marry. I challenged that view, citing an important sociological study by a lesbian advocate of gay marriage — which showed that many gays with no commitment to monogamy, indeed with a conscious desire to subvert it, planned to marry. The priesthood scandals take us beyond even this predictive research: They represent a concrete and historically important case in which a significantly expanded homosexual presence in an established institution did in fact result in the undermining of traditional sexual morality, rather than in a "sexual-domestication" effect.

In my exchange with Sullivan, I also challenged his "arithmetical rebuttal" of the cultural-subversion argument. Sullivan had argued that any subversive effect on marriage coming from the open promiscuity of gay-male couples would be numerically offset by the notable fidelity of lesbian couples. I countered this point with the example of a strict college honor code — one that leaves it up to students themselves to refrain from cheating, and to confront and report those who do cheat. It would take only a small number of rebels against this honor code to subvert it, I said, since any significant group willing to sign the pledge against cheating, while also openly acting and speaking in violation of the code, would tend both to "break the spell" of the code and to put honest students at a disadvantage. In effect, this is what has happened with the open subversion of clerical celibacy: The open flouting of the rule, in belief and in practice, has helped to demystify it, and also put those who continue to uphold it at an unfair disadvantage. And particularly when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors, we have seen that egregious violations of a sexual code of honor by even a relatively small number of individuals can bring suspicion and discredit on an entire institution — and to the code that governs it..."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   17:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: scrapper2 (#55)

Well, it's obvious that you have not bothered to read the 3 article links I provided you earlier which described the seminaries of the US Catholic Church as being riddled with actively practicing homosexual priests.

I never said nor would I say that the priesthood was not "riddled with" gay men.

I did say that it's never been shown that the gay men were also pedophiles.

war  posted on  2009-02-25   10:52:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: war (#56)

I never said nor would I say that the priesthood was not "riddled with" gay men.

I did say that it's never been shown that the gay men were also pedophiles.

With regards to the US Catholic Church, if you read the articles and the remarks I posted previously on this thread, the following was noted.

a. the US churches and seminaries were riddled with actively practicing gays

b. the vast majority of the abuse cases in US Catholic churches were those involving adult male priests victimizing young male alter boys or parishioners

With regards to statistics about risk factors of pederasty/pedophilia in the gay population re: adult male on young males, I have read the following statistics in a report by physicians:

The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

www.lifesite.net/features...fence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-25   13:32:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: scrapper2 (#57)

Authors of this report: John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

You don't "see" antything odd about that group? It lept right out at me.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   9:20:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: scrapper2 (#57)

BTW, the "lumping" of homosexuals with pedophilia is based upon the gender of the victims of pedophilia rather than the overt adult relationships that pedophiles have.

Regardless, the above report was written ON BEHALF of the Catholic Church. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you did not know that.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   9:26:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: war (#59)

a. BTW, the "lumping" of homosexuals with pedophilia is based upon the gender of the victims of pedophilia rather than the overt adult relationships that pedophiles have.

b. Regardless, the above report was written ON BEHALF of the Catholic Church. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you did not know that.

a. speak English

b. The group of physicians I cited analyzed a breadth of information published in a variety of medical journals. They did NOT write a report for the Catholic Church. The C after some of their names denotes their citizenship. That is, C denotes Canadian, not Catholic.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:03:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: war (#58) (Edited)

You don't "see" antything odd about that group? It lept right out at me.

I see that several of the MD's are noted as being Canadian. What did your wee biased closed mind see?

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:04:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (62 - 107) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]