Of course you know about the religious right...

[Bradskii]

Read his last post. Children are not safe around ministers according to him.

So you posted some junk from a few years back to imply that they're not safe around transsexual people either.

Really?

 

[KCfromNC]

That's kinda hitting below the zone, no?

I don't have any problems with what they wear, but other posts certainly expressed concern.

 

[RileyG]

75% were 13 and under. That specifically contradicts everything you've said about the ages of the victims. I refuse to allow a conversation to continue when you are making up claims.

That what page 10 literally said, but we are getting off topic. I just copied and pasted it from the article you posted. That's all. I'm not making anything up.

 

[RileyG]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/the-vatican-defrocked-848-priests-for-child-abuse-in-the-past-10-years/361821/

• Since 2004, the Vatican received 3,400 credible cases of abuse.
• In total, 848 priests were defrocked, and 2,572 were sanctioned. The Vatican explained that the lesser punishments were often the end result of abuse investigations going back decades, mainly because the abusive priests were elderly or infirm.

Well, I guess you can't defrock a priest because he's...old?

They are no longer active in ministry, or like most of them, are dead.

 

[RileyG]

Seems like a weird statement in a thread partially about Eastern Orthodox views of various political subjects, given what their priests wear.

A cassock is not a dress.

Good grief.

 

[RileyG]

Why? You think it's not working? I mean, all those priests who were found to have assaulted children didn't resign the priesthood. Most of people them are still priests. Oh, except you think they're not.

Here, explain that to the Vatican: info@vaticanrome.it

They're dead.

 

[Bradskii]

They are no longer active in ministry, or like most of them, are dead.

Mainly because they were old or infirm it said. Not dead. Not defrocked. Just put out to pasture. For raping children.

 

[RileyG]

Mainly because they were old or infirm it said. Not dead. Not defrocked. Just put out to pasture. For raping children.

put out to pasture?

 

[BPPLEE]

So you posted some junk from a few years back to imply that they're not safe around transsexual people either.

Really?

I said a man wearing a dress who wants to be around children should be a red flag. I also posted some red flags to look for in ministers.
As much as I support their right to do whatever they choose, it is not normal for a man to want to dress as a woman, and it’s not normal for a man to want to be a woman.
I don’t want to stop them, mistreat them, discriminate against them or disrespect them but I’m not going to pretend that it’s normal.
You can, and the left is working overtime to make it normal, particularly teaching it to children.
You can call me names and criticize me but every fetish and persuasion is not necessarily normal and I’m not going to pretend that they are.
Please continue to post indicating that people that have traditional values are dangerous to children and that children are safer with people who have unusual sexual fetishes

 

[Bradskii]

put out to pasture?

They were allowed to still be priests. And what do you really think the term means in this context?

 

[BCP1928]

I said a man wearing a dress who wants to be around children should be a red flag. I also posted some red flags to look for in ministers.
As much as I support their right to do whatever they choose, it is not normal for a man to want to dress as a woman, and it’s not normal for a man to want to be a woman.
I don’t want to stop them, mistreat them, discriminate against them or disrespect them but I’m not going to pretend that it’s normal.
You can, and the left is working overtime to make it normal, particularly teaching it to children.
You can call me names and criticize me but every fetish and persuasion is not necessarily normal and I’m not going to pretend that they are.
Please continue to post indicating that people that have traditional values are dangerous to children and that children are safer with people who have unusual sexual fetishes

What do you mean by 'normal' and how do you know what it is? Do you mean customary? 'Normal' implies that there is a normative standard. Who imposes that standard?

 

[Bradskii]

I said a man wearing a dress who wants to be around children should be a red flag.

So you posted something about a transsexual who assaulted a young girl? Implying that all transsexuals are somehow more likely to be rapists? Got to watch these people!

My nephew is transsexual. He's a teacher. Do you want me to warn the school? Make sure he's never alone with children? What do you think?

 

[BPPLEE]

What do you mean by 'normal' and how do you know what it is? Do you mean customary? 'Normal' implies that there is a normative standard. Who imposes that standard?

Thanks for posting this. Things have gotten so out of whack that you don’t know what normal means

 

[BPPLEE]

So you posted something about a transsexual who assaulted a young girl? Implying that all transsexuals are somehow more likely to be rapists? Got to watch these people!

My nephew is transsexual. He's a teacher. Do you want me to warn the school? Make sure he's never alone with children? What do you think?

Should I do the same for all ministers?

 

[RileyG]

They were allowed to still be priests. And what do you really think the term means in this context?

Oh. I really don't know what it meant, to be honest.

No doubt some priests and bishops have done immense evil. No arguments from me there.

 

[Bradskii]

Should I do the same for all ministers?

You're the one posting an example of some low life as a warning. It's your call. But if the answer is yes then we'd have to group all racists by job description. Think that might work? Or maybe we look at the numbers.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for posting this. Things have gotten so out of whack that you don’t know what normal means

No, you speak of 'normal' as if there was some objective standard. Is that what you meant?

 

[ozso]

Didn't know transvestites were required to be ideological. Is there an instruction manual or something?

Clever quip but I'm sure you're familiar with male and female doesn't exist, men can become pregnant, women can impregnate, sex, sexual orientation, gender is all fluid and one is whatever one identifies as ie a total break from reality.

If you never encountered it, and I never encountered it, what makes you think it's real?
(People get in trouble for not calling people what they want to be called)

I was raised to see that as just good manners.

I guess that means you don't read or hear any news stories about it.

Why not just give everyone the same respect? How does it oppress you if someone wants a different pronoun than you think they should have?

There's supposed to be 78 gender pronouns. How is anyone supposed to keep track of all of them or know which ones to use in a first time encounter with a stranger?

You should go to a blackboard and write "it's not all about me" 100 times.

It's not about me, it's about society at large. Especially the youth of society.

It started when they couldn't use the "N" word any more. Where will it end? If everyone who respects others has to be respected, what will happen to society?

Nothing bad, I think.

It's not about the abolishment of slurs. It's about the abolishment of many words like "mother" and the establishment of terms like "birthing person" in place of "mother". It's about a massive reengineering of vocabulary and the mandatory acceptance of Trans/LGBQQIP2SAA+ ideology taught to children as soon as they enter the school system.

 

[rjs330]

No, they didn't support SSM, they allowed it. Most of them don't approve of it, but I guess they couldn't find the Bible verse that forbids them to allow a secular government to do something they disapprove of for solely religious reasons. Neither can you, apparently.

Nope they supported it IF they voted for it. If you do t support something you don't vote for it.

 

[rjs330]

Like all safety issues, it's a matter of probabilities. The evidence we have, indicates that ministers are more likely to be pedophiles than transgendered people.

You don't know that since we can't say if a person is transgender or not. We are told we have no idea if a person is trans or not.

Those ministers are closet homosexuals or something least bisexual if they are doing it to kids of the same sex. So does that make homosexuals or bisexuals more likely to be pedophiles?