Spiritual? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Spiritual? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.155.203.110
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 12:16 am:   

You know, this is quite heartening;
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/comments/roundtable/2004/10/spiritual-side-of-horr or-films.html
And I always knew it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:34 pm:   

Alwaya knew what? That religious fundamentalists can also enjoy horror? I knew that, too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 218.168.181.10
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:49 pm:   

I've known a lot of Christians who like horror films, and also a few who don't approve of it (or of anything much outside of their narrow-minded worldview).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 02:00 pm:   

I was always amazed that a film where only a ritual of the catholic Church (The Exorcist) could save the day was regarded as satanic by the christian community. It was banned by at least one country for being pro-christian.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.143.178.131
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 02:18 pm:   

Yeah, I'm amazed at the anti-Christian backlash at the Exorcist. If anything the film is pretty traditional faith-based horror.
As a Christian I can say that I enjoy all types of horror. I've never shied away from something because it may offend me and can honestly say I've never been offended by a horror film or novel. Although, there is a bit with Jesus in Gary's book that I probably wouldn't let my Dad read. (;
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.235.76
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 03:56 pm:   

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a horror film - there are also moments of pure eerie horror throughout (the dead donkey, the drifting Satan, etc.)

BEN-HUR - the day of the Crucifixion, and Ben-Hur's leprous family - always sticks in my mind as being a creepy, scary sequence.

Pasolini's GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW is eerie, creepy, and grotesque.

Structurally, you could call THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST an abject horror film (i.e., given that awful climax).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.143.178.131
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 04:31 pm:   

Yet to see Passion and I'm not really sure that I want to, knowing what I do about Gibson's take on faith.
Passolini's film does have a certain creepy atmosphere.
Never seen Last Temptation though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 05:48 pm:   

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is utterly brilliant - see it, Jon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.143.178.131
Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 05:54 pm:   

I do like a bit or Scorsese me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.241.143
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 01:15 am:   

Me anarl.

Seriously, though, as a Catholic's take on the whole thing, it's fascinatiing. It's also a superb piece of cinema.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.176.12.179
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 01:48 am:   

Only seen LAST TEMPTATION once, on its first release in London's West End. According to the folk protesting outside, me and my then girlfriend are going to hell...
Good film though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.6.181
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 05:23 pm:   

Seriously, though, as a Catholic's take on the whole thing, it's fascinatiing.

I'd hardly call LAST TEMPTATION a "Catholic's take" - you imply it's an official RC interpretation, when it's certainly not.... More accurately: "one Catholic's take." That'll be £1 for the editing, thank you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 218.168.195.25
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:27 pm:   

Zed said it was 'a Catholic's take', which doesn't, to me, imply it's an official Catholic position, but rather 'a Catholic person's take' - so I don't see any need for editing. If he'd said it was 'a Catholic take', that would be a different matter. Hold on to that pound, Zed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.241.143
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:33 pm:   

I implied nothing. I stated that the film was a Catholic's (note the possesive apostrophe and the 's') take on the Jesus story - Scorsese is a Catholic.

What's difficult about that, thicko?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.241.143
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:33 pm:   

ps - never come unarmed to a battle of wits.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:49 pm:   

That's Craig shot down in flames every time then
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.1.160
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 07:56 pm:   

I stand by what I said: your sentence, as structured, CLEARLY implies that it is a - any, average - Catholic's take on Xtianity. Sure, what you wrote might have meant the other - but the message is ambiguous at best, leaning towards implying it a widespread Catholic view by any other measure. Now fork over that pound.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.241.143
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 08:19 pm:   

No matter how many times you say it, you'll still be wrong. And Huw is always right.

If I'd said "a catholic take", then I'd agree with you. But I said "a catholic's take" - which, in the Queen's English (but obviously not the President's American) means one catholic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 218.168.195.25
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 08:35 pm:   

"No matter how many times you say it, you'll still be wrong. And Huw is always right."

You'd better believe it!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.17.12.39
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 12:54 am:   

Sorry, Zed - I'm not budging. You could have said "an Italian-American's take," or "a short man's take," or "a gangster-film lover's take" - all imply some level of connection beyond mere description, and for you to choose the term "Catholic" CAN ONLY MEAN YOU ARE DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TERM AND THE REFERENCE; and by spelling that out in caps, I have clearly enforced my point. You're now up to £2.

Ramsey?... Joel?... Tony?... Ally?... et.al.?... Am I misinterpreting English here?... I will - well, I won't accept the consensus if it's against me, I'll still rail against it, but....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:40 am:   

Sorry Craig - possessive apostrophe. 'Catholic's take.'
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.0.128
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:28 pm:   

Harrumph.

Clearly, there must be no other Catholics here.....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:36 pm:   

Craig, I fear I'm with Z.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:42 pm:   

'The Last Temptation Of Christ' is indeed a superb piece of cinema and that's from someone born a Catholic (in Ireland to boot) and quite pleased to have found my own spiritual path in life since.
'The Passion Of The Christ' was a well put together gross-out spectacle (something Gibson is a dab hand at) but strangely devoid of emotion for me whereas Scorsese's opus would wring tears from a stone. I saw it on first release over a weekend in Blackpool as it couldn't be seen over here (idiots!).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.0.128
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 05:02 pm:   

Ah, well.... I shall rail on in my seclusion.

I agree, Stephen, LAST TEMPTATION is a superb film; and all those who complained about it, clearly - surely - didn't watch it all the way to the end. PASSION is an art film: it is an artistic spectacle, the best I can describe it - watching it is like staring at a painting, more than like taking in a story. And all those people who were moved so by it, were not moved religiously, but artistically - through an intimate experience with a hyper-passionate/energized vision....

It would be nice if more "mainstream," big-budget films could take on wholly non-Shakesperean story-structures, and try on new forms... there's no reason why new forms couldn't have come into being, and dominance, except that Shakespeare was so innovative and overwhelming - we're still living in the shadow of his influence... but there are other forms that lurk, and may someday have their ascendency....

Imagine a Michael Bay-big production of "The Book of Revelations" - no attempt to "story-ize" it, just pure translation into vision, with an unlimited budget, a great director... as Butt-Head would say: "That would be cool...."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 218.168.184.79
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 07:22 pm:   

"Imagine a Michael Bay-big production of "The Book of Revelations" - no attempt to "story-ize" it, just pure translation into vision, with an unlimited budget, a great director... as Butt-Head would say: "That would be cool....""

No, a thousand times no! Now, if David Lynch and David Cronenberg teamed up to do it, I might agree. I don't want to see angels with flame-throwers turning into robots, thank you very much! And it's Revelation, not Revelations. :p
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matt_cowan (Matt_cowan)
Username: Matt_cowan

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 68.249.109.246
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 07:36 pm:   

I'm a Christian myself and I love horror. I like to write about it, read it, and watch horror movies. It's like with any group, different people have different takes on various subjects that isn't shared by all in the same assembly.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.216.15
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 09:21 pm:   

Many of the comments on that link are depressing. Adults holding opinions from a magic book they believe was given to them by a ghost who lives in the sky.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.16.86.1
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:08 pm:   

No, I meant "The Book of Revelations" - you know, the one written by Campy Rambsell?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.216.15
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:13 pm:   

Actually, I don't mind what anyone believes as long as they're made happier by it, but with these particular people it seems to just be deepening a psychosis.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.22.227.106
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:42 pm:   

In plain language 'getting religion' is all about seeing things that nobody else sees. Imho people who perpetually see things that aren't there should at the very least seek professional help.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 05:43 am:   

Couldn't agree more Hubert!
I have no time for religious dogma based on "faith" without evidence. Same goes for atheism which is only the flip side of the coin i.e. no evidence = does not exist.
My own personal 'beliefs' (theories might be a better word) fall somewhere in between the two extremes and are based purely on logical deduction and what can be confidently inferred from same. Just don't ask me to get into it lol.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.5.32
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 08:18 am:   

If a person determined to prove the existence of God, met a person determined to disprove the existence of God... and they actually touched each other... would they explode?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.155.203.110
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:07 am:   

'Adults holding opinions from a magic book they believe was given to them by a ghost who lives in the sky.'
Yes, but the odd ones show a bit of open-mindedness, I thought. They weren't thru-and thru blinkered.
And actually, I quite like the sound of what you've described there!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.155.203.110
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:08 am:   

Ultimately we're ALL playing bingo with belief.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 03:17 pm:   

The trick is not to believe any more than you can perceive with your senses and that you can be sure others perceive the same way i.e. that can be proved by experimentation.
But that doesn't stop us from speculating beyond what is proveable as long as the speculation holds true to the principles of logic. It's where philosophy meets physics (usually with a clash of heads).
Something exists therefore nothing cannot exist ergo the universe is infinite and everything within it... [that's me done] { ;-) )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.201.104
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 08:30 pm:   

You know, I've been thinking about a commonly-used atheist argument against agnosticism and I think it was a vast hole in it. See what you think...

Richard Dawkins might say that agnosticism is analagous to saying that just because we can't prove there _aren't_ unicorns on the far side of the Moon they _might_ be there. But that analogy is only ridiculous because it employs a specifically geographical (astrographical?) argument. I think most people would agree that the odds are in favour of unicorns existing SOMEWHERE in the Universe (remember, there are more stars in the Universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth). Locating the argument to the Moon (for example) is falsely restrictive. Few people think that a God would be is confined to a particular location. A Universe as unnecessarily large as ours yields good odds that virtually everything exists, somewhere.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 08:37 pm:   

You're on my wavelength exactly... and thank God for that (metaphorically speaking).

Richard Dawkins does my head in as much as some of the fundamentalist "easy targets" he gets so hot under the collar about!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.5.6
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:05 pm:   

there are more stars in the Universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth

Is that true?... It seems impossible even by Universal standards... but then, I've never counted (either).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.201.104
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:04 pm:   

At least 100 times more stars than grains of sand on all beaches of the Earth.

Sand calc (http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/jsand.html) gives < 10^18 grains, while there's at least 10^21 stars. And remember, even those 10^21 stars of visible matter makes up just 0.4% of the Universe by mass. The rest is gas/dust, dark matter and dark energy (the last two being almost meaningless placeholder names for stuff we have no clue about).

There's a lot of stuff.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.234.167
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:20 pm:   

Proto – no religion accepts the concept of a God that is alien and unrelated to our world. So the question "Is there a God?" is unlike the question "Is there extraterrestrial life?" because religions have told us, at much length, how connected God is to us. And as Dawkins very accurately points out, if any one religion is right then all the others are wrong. For that matter, how would Catholics feel if there were a proven God who said "Actually, the wine and wafer are purely symbolic"? If there is a God in the universe who did not create humanity in His image, all the major world religions are wrong. Unless, of course, we accept that He is not 'our' God. Religion is about the specific and the certain: it's about an absolute revealed knowledge with some very definite content. Which is why the "Who knows?" stance of agnosticism is as unacceptable to believers as to atheists.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.201.104
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:51 pm:   

Is even one of the religions right? Probably not. They're not even internally consistent. Doesn't mean there's no God or God-like entity, though. If we accept that virtually everything exists in the Universe, why wouldn't that include a being that has contacted humans on Earth (or every planet!) through what we call spiritual experiences? Why not a "God" who sent his son to die on a cross 2,000 years ago for our sins? The sheer size of the Universe has an effect. It's not, as Olaf Stapleton said, just "mere stars separated by mere distance". If we rummage in the attic long enough, we'll find whatever we're looking for.

(Reading the above back again, my agnosticism seems almost untenable now. Maybe all the religions are right, apart from the bit about there being no other gods -- which is mostly about brand loyalty. Now I've totally contradicted the start of my message, but you get the idea.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.201.104
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:55 pm:   

For that matter, how would Catholics feel if there were a proven God who said "Actually, the wine and wafer are purely symbolic"?

I suspect most would be shocked to learn that transubstantiation was supposed to be taken literally in the first place.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.234.19
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 11:23 pm:   

We had a course this year, Religion, Meaning and World View, this being a Catholic university and all, and there were quite a few students who hadn't had a Catholic upbringing who thought it was all very interesting indeed. Turns out I still know my Bible so well that I was mistaken by some for a very devout believer. Curses! Will I ever escape?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:10 am:   

Proto - you're getting sucked into the whole "snake eating its own tail" mindfuck that trying to fathom an infinite universe always results in. It didn't drive all those mathematicians round the twist for nothing.
Best to just let it lie with the logical inferrence that the universe must be infinite.
The rest of the details are so far beyond our ken, in this limited state of perception, as to be always unknowable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.2.141
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:48 am:   

So that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars... or, the projected U.S. deficit this year alone....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.2.141
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:50 am:   

I'd agree too, that I'll bet oh so many Catholics think the Transubstantiation is purely symbolic.

Like I'd bet so many Catholics believe it's okay to miss Mass on Sundays. Or, that you can go to Confession after having (taking any part in, really - driving a girl in a car there) an abortion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 89.19.88.119
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:04 am:   

Like I'd bet so many Catholics believe it's okay to miss Mass on Sundays. Or, that you can go to Confession after having (taking any part in, really - driving a girl in a car there) an abortion.

Why couldn't you? Even if it was considered murder, you'd still be able to / have to confess it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 89.19.88.119
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:07 am:   

Proto - you're getting sucked into the whole "snake eating its own tail" mindfuck that trying to fathom an infinite universe always results in. It didn't drive all those mathematicians round the twist for nothing.
Best to just let it lie with the logical inferrence that the universe must be infinite.
The rest of the details are so far beyond our ken, in this limited state of perception, as to be always unknowable.


So agnosticism seems the only logical position.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 04:16 am:   

Exactly...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.2.254
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 04:44 am:   

According to the RC rules: You cannot go to Confession to have your sin of abortion - or the sin of attending to anything that led to an abortion - forgiven by a Priest; it requires a special dispensation of forgiveness that is only granted by an Archbishop or higher. So the Priest can wave his hands... nothing.

Which means I can go and rape and murder a small child, and go to Confession afterwards, and be fine. But I can drive a girl who's thinking about what to do about her pregnancy from rape and incest, and if she is convinced into having an abortion... I'm hunting high and low for an Archbishop with magic fingers....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.154
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 02:34 pm:   

Hmm, didn't know that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 02:38 pm:   

Neither did I. perchance because he's talking bollocks as usual. Maybe a priest can't grant dispensation for abortion, but I'd be pretty certain he can't for murder, rape etc. Any major crime and a priest will try to talk you into giving yourself up before offering any kind of absolution.

As a catholic myself it really does piss me off wehen people talk so much bullshit about the church.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.154
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 02:50 pm:   

I didn't know there was any sin that couldn't be confessed. It would make the whole tenet of Christianity -- forgiveness -- meaningless, wouldn't it?

I remember having a conversation with an born-again American Christian. She was in favour of capital punishment (ironic actually, when you consider that's what happened to Jesus). I had to keep reminding her of the central principle of her faith: redemption and forgiveness. None of my words entered her skull. I think when I spoke she just heard that honking voice of the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.154
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 02:51 pm:   

Where did you read this info, Craig?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:05 pm:   

I think it's fair to assume that where major human issues are concerned, the written tenets of any traditional religion are likely to give way to responsible and engaged support.

However, the Ryan Report is neither bullshit nor theological argument, and its detailed coverage in the IRISH TIMES – fifteen pages, culminating in an editorial that accuses the Catholic Church of betraying the Irish people by perpetuating and covering up generations of systematic child abuse (both violent and sexual) on a huge scale in Catholic institutions – is pretty much the end of the line for the Catholic Church. Its credibility as an organisation has been utterly destroyed. There is no organisation, whether religious or secular, that could survive proof of such culpability in major crimes without losing the respect of any sane person.

In that regard, the Ryan Report is a watershed in the history of organised religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. There is no way of denying it or getting round it or putting it in the 'context' of something supposedly bigger.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:10 pm:   

didn't know there was any sin that couldn't be confessed. It would make the whole tenet of Christianity -- forgiveness -- meaningless, wouldn't it?


I didn't say that the crimes couldn't be forgiven. I discussed this with the chaplain at my University. If you were to confess a murder to a priest, he's not going to say "There now, ten hail mary's and you're forgiven". They need the confessor to do something to show remorse etc and will not normally grant absolution until the confessor hasdone the right thing and admitted openly to the crime. Forgiveness means nothing if the person who commits the crime shows no remorse or indeed goes out to to it again.

The sacrement of confession is not a get-out-of-jail-free card whereby you do what you like, confess it and you're free to do it all over again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:34 pm:   

To put the Ryan Report in context, the crimes of a small minority of priests (less than 5%) were covered up by a handful of bishops. I'm not saying that it's in any way right, but it's a small number of people inside one of the largest organisations on the planet. The church will ride this one out. It survived the Borgia popes and the inquisition in it's name. It will ride this one out too.

The church in Britain has already changed it's policies and at the first allegation, the man involved is handed straight over to the police. What certain people in the organisation did in the past will not be repeated.

And let's face it, how many schools in the past have quietly sacked a teacher for being over friendly with the kids but not informed the authorities. Similarly the social sevices - several cover-ups have been unearthed there but no-one says "Well that's it, the social services will cease to exist as a result".

I repeat, I'm not saying there is any excuse for the actions they have taken in the past. But they certainly weren't alone in those actions and they are cleaning their house out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.254.136
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 04:26 pm:   

Proto, my first google search produces....

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan2002/Wiseman.asp

It's because anything that contributes to abortion results in Excommunication. Notice that it says in this answer, any priest CAN forgive it, because a bishop delegates the authority to priests... I don't know if it means the priests first must seek that authority from the bishop in that specific case - but as I see it, you end up with a problem either way:

Either the whole thing is still a crazy bit of spritual bureaucracy, or it's disingenuous if it's already set up so you can go to the priest - why have the rule on the books at all?... It's like the Church's whole approach to divorce and remarriage - they do allow the same thing, it's called, Annulments.

Weber, yes, I'm exaggerating when I say you can murder a child and just go to Confession - the priest would report me, etc. - but in theory, I COULD do this - in theory, according to Church doctrine, you CAN'T do the other - and it's just this kind of celestial nit-picking that I just don't get....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.254.136
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 04:30 pm:   

All that being said, I've always thought: The Roman Catholic Church is a specific club with a specific set of rules. If you don't like it, there's the door - don't complain, just leave.

The only way to be a good Catholic - or, to a degree, a good member of any religion - is to get past the nagging concerns with rules and "foolish inconsistencies" and simply... learn to love Big Brother....

It's the third stage in coming to belief: synthesis - toiling to build the myths, to bring into being the great invisibleness - your lifetime's swing-shift on the cathedral that won't be done while you're around - the hooded chanter on the hill in the dead of night, who won't be there when the Old Ones finally come back....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 04:35 pm:   

the priest would report me, etc

No he wouldn't, he'd try to persuade you to report yourself. To quote Fitz in Cracker, "breaking the seal of confession, that's right up there with buggering the pope".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 06:02 pm:   

"To put the Ryan Report in context, the crimes of a small minority of priests (less than 5%) were covered up by a handful of bishops."

No, that's putting something other than the Ryan Report in context. We're talking about thousands of young people abused regularly by over 500 members of Catholic institutions, including nuns and Christian Brothers, over more than half a century. All of these persistent offenders were kept in their positions by the relevant Catholic authorities and complaints against them were silenced. Victims faced decades of denials and threats from the Church. Where the abuse was physical rather than directly sexual, it was actively defended by the authorities as being necessary. The Ryan Report states repeatedly that in these institutions, child abuse was not the exception: it was the norm. As for the Church having cleaned up its act, why did it try for a decade to have the Ryan Report suppressed? Why did it force the Report's commissioners to remove the names of the abusers whose violent careers the report traces, so that those still alive are immune from prosecution?

The Ryan Report focuses on provable cases where the victims were able to give testimony. All victim accounts indiscate that abuse was prevalent in those institutions: it was the norm. That was how the whole system worked. Most of the abuse was not sexual but it was sadistic and brutal. It's a sensible assumption that the cases listed are the tip of an iceberg – it's hard to conclude otherwise. These were institutions in which child abuse was the norm and being an abuser was the norm. Talking about about the 5% of legally verified cases is deeply unrealistic, and creates a false sense of 'a few bad apples' when the evident truth, stated by the IRISH TIMES, is that the institions and the religious authorities that ran them were seriously corrupt.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 06:23 pm:   

WERE

not are

WERE

But over 500 clergy is a tiny minority of people within the catholic church.

We won't agree on this. So let's agree to disagree. IMO this whole thing about every catholic priest is a paedophile is complete and offensive nonsense. I grew up in a strongly catholic fanily and know/knew dozens of priests. Every one of them (except for one right arrogant sod who thought he knew everything) was a genuinely nice bloke and there isn't one who would hurt a child in any way.

And surely physical or sexual abuse in children's homes is not confined to catholic homes (which most people seem to suggest in any discussion on this subject), along with the cover ups that go along with them. And I'm sure that in the non-catholic childrens homes they would argue that the beatings were necessary as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 07:25 pm:   

You're consistently misrepresenting the point. The Ryan report is not about parish priests, it's about people who ran institutions. And it doesn't say that everyone who worked there was a child abuser, rather that abuse was endemic and accepted by the religious authorities as normal and acceptable. This, not some fantasy of every priest being a paedophile, is the proven historical reality that the Irish people are presently furious about and sickened by. Until you come out of your state of denial and stop telling me how annoyed you are by things I haven't said, and things that the Ryan Report does not say, you will remain wilfully blind to a reality of sustained and deep-rooted organisational corruption. If the Irish press can face up to this reality, Weber, surely you can.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 89.19.83.234
Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 12:44 am:   

All that being said, I've always thought: The Roman Catholic Church is a specific club with a specific set of rules. If you don't like it, there's the door - don't complain, just leave.

That may be possible today, but it wasn't when and where I grew up. There was no outside.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.3.64
Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 06:42 am:   

It is worthy to note, that there still remains the UNSPEAKABLE in society/culture/etc. The UNSPEAKABLE goes against that which is taken for granted as being the way it is - that is, rare and certain things, that have been deemed through time and circumstance to be beyond discussion... to even breach the subject of opening it up for discussion, to even breach the subject of breaching the subject, is to - by mere closeness - by mere entertaining of the possibility of the closeness even in theory - to become potentially accepting of the UNSPEAKABLE, and therefore, a true "heretic": to speak the words, is to speak one's own death. I won't even bring up examples: to bring up examples, would then render me a proponent of the UNSPEAKABLE, and there is no way at all to attempt the subject of the UNSPEAKABLE, without all mucking yourself up with it. Imagine your own examples, if you can....

But, all a roundabout way of saying: There was a time when speaking against Church authority, thinking against Church authority, was to speak the UNSPEAKABLE - to entertain the notion of heresy or even listen to the other side, was to BE a heretic... so I can imagine that well, Proto... actually, growing up in my house as a kid, the whole religion was the boundary... anything beyond it, was the UNSPEAKABLE....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.158.12
Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 08:49 am:   

One final thought: it's truly odd to argue that religious officiants cannot be expected to set a higher standard of behaviour than their secular counterparts. Isn't that the whole point, the basis of their status and privilege? If they're as guilty of crime and dishonesty as the rest of us, not more so but not less so, then doesn't that explode every claim made for them as a special, higher category of people? Saying that the proportion of serious criminals among the priesthood is similar to that among society in general is a vote of no confidence in the concept of a priesthood.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.154
Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 12:58 pm:   

You're right, Craig. There's a human psychology at work here, and group dynamics.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch)
Username: Mark_lynch

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.171.129.74
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 02:00 am:   

I think we're unfortunate to be living in a universe without a God (no God-like entities we're aware of seem to be about yet, either). But just as there's a whole bunch of other universes where life never got a chance to get going because of unfortunate start-up conditions, there'll be a bunch where life got going but physical restrictions prevented the emergence of a God (or God-like entity).

But somewhere in the teeming bubbles of the foamy multi-verse, there'll be a universe or a few with Gods. Lucky (?) sods who live there, huh...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 10:19 am:   

There was certainly physical abuse at the Catholic grammar school (run by Christian Brothers) I attended in Liverpool from 1957 to 1962, and it was accepted by the monks as the way things were. Not all the staff necessarily accepted it. One lay master pretty well apologised to me decades later for the regime (of which, on my observations at least, he was never part).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 10:27 am:   

I seem to remember that corporal punishment in schools wasn't outlawed in this country till at least the late seventies so what passes for physical abuse today was actually sanctioned by law back then. This whole debate seems to be suggesting that only the catholic schools had problems.

If a council run home/school was found to have covered up abuse, would you run down the entire council as a result or just those people who were involved in the abuse and cover up? The Ryan report casts people within the church as culpable. I don't deny that, but it is unfair to denigrate the entire church organisation as other people here have done, as a result.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 11:13 am:   

We aren't just talking about corporal punishment (on which subject, to borrow Gore Vidal's comment, I'm in favour only between consenting adults). In any case, the way it was used at my school made me terrified for years to speak up in many of the classes in case I got an answer wrong, and without question this harmed my education. But I'm also talking about slapping boys across the face, or punching them in the kidneys, or inventing a PE game in which the boys were set to smack one other's buttocks while avoiding the same for themselves. In my observation the church was institutionally complicit in this kind of abuse and worse kinds too. I'm not sure to what extent it has to do with Irish sadism. Remember Joyce's autobiography, and Brian Moore's account of Irish teaching in one of his (highly autobiographical) novels, and the Magdalen Sisters, for a few examples. I have to admit that the reason I lapsed as a Catholic was that I couldn't believe in a god who would let the kind of treatment I encountered and observed be carried out in his name. I'm not a believer in seeking compensation, but I think I and a good many of my fellow pupils would have a case to take to court.

And like Joel, I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that there are inevitably bad people in every job. These are people whose whole point (if they have one) is to be morally impeccable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.165.64
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 12:15 pm:   

>>There is no organisation, whether religious or secular, that could survive proof of such culpability in major crimes without losing the respect of any sane person.

I totally agree Joel. As a lapsed Irish catholic myself, religion and sanity are incompatible in my mind. I remember those PE games too Ramsey and seeing a fellow pupil having the wind punched out of him by... you guessed it, his religious education teacher.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 12:54 pm:   

I too went to a Christian Brothers secondary school here in Belfast, thankfully in the relatively more enlightened times of the late 70s/80s and on the whole have pretty happy memories of the time.
There were a few old-school teachers still left on the staff though who the thought of, to this day, still fills me with a mixture of dread and disbelief that there were actually "professional educators" of their ilk allowed anywhere near children. The sadistic relish with which they would devise ever more humiliating and painful punishments was literally terrifying to a sensitive and shy (as I was then) youth like myself.
One bloke in particular was notorious for his fits of temper; cracking heads open with flung dusters and walloping hell out of pupils hands, arms, shoulders and heads with two leather straps he had bound together with masking tape and studded carefully with staples. When he was in a calmer mood he would amuse himself by having boys kneel on pencils in the corner for the whole class or stand with their arms outstretched by their sides holding two of the thickest dictionaries he could find - woe betide them if either arm started to droop! This same man expressed his utter contempt for us boys by sitting with his feet up on the desk casually picking his nose and flicking the contents over the class! I laugh about it now but he was an absolute raving lunatic!!
People are strange though because I heard of his death a few years ago not with jubilation but a weird poignancy that another (all too memorable) part of my childhood had gone...

The problem with Ireland is the bloody spirit-crushing Holy Joe conservatism of the place and the moral outrage this causes when anyone is seen to step out of line or question the unshakeable authority of the family (i.e. the Irish mother) and the Church. The institutional sadism this country suffered from for far too long was the ultimate result of that moral outrage. They really believed what they were doing was in the best interests of their victims to show them the error of their ways!
That flagrant hypocrisy, coupled with my own naturally questioning mind, was why I rejected my Catholicism in my late teens. The hardest part of that decision was telling my mother and weathering the storm that followed. Discovering the joys of alcohol and women certainly helped though... ;-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:02 pm:   

I'm sure you can verify the above story and add plenty of your own Sean... the best days of our lives or what.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:06 pm:   

In my (non-faith) state school, the caretaker used to time his trips to his store cupboard in the girls changing rooms next to the school gym for the times when the girls would most likely be in the shower. This continued for a dozen years regardless of the number of complaints given by the children and the parents. Do we castigate the entire education system of North Wales for this?

One of my closest friends had transferred to our school from a non faith school where, if a child had forgotten his gym kit, he was given a baggy t-shirt and nothing else to wear for the lesson and ordered not to wear any underwear. My god, how that teacher must have looked forward to his pupils forgetting their kit. Do we deplore the entire education system of (I think it was) Yorkshire?

My brother, was fed up of being bullied in the state school and transferred to the local Cartholic school run by a group of nuns where he flourished and there was never a hint of any kind of abuse.

You cannot paint an entire organisation as corrupt based on a small section of it. Those responsible for the abuses in Ireland were evil but they were not representative of the entire organisation. People who want to abuse children will gravitate to that sort of job. If one or two manage to rise through the ranks then unfortunately it will exacerbate an already rotten situation. This is what has happened in Ireland, but also in a lot of NON FAITH schools.

Maybe I've just been lucky in not ever meeting any of these evil twats who apparently form 100% of the church (judging by the comments that have been made above). I can only go by my own experiences and they have invariably been good (if occasionally tedious) as far as the church is concerned.

"These are people whose whole point (if they have one) is to be morally impeccable."

This is an unreasonable viewpoint. These are humans like the rest of us. To expect them to be perfect is to set them up for guaranteed failure in your eyes. The betrayal of trust from a teacher in a catholic school is no worse than the betrayal of trust in a non-faith school.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:07 pm:   

Hey! Teacher! Leave the kids alone! All in all it was all just bricks in the wall. All along you were all just bricks in the wall [GUITAR SOLO]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:11 pm:   

Incidentally, on a slightly different note, my (identical twin) brother transferring to another school was possibly the best thing that happened to me. Suddenly people started treating me as an individual and not one of a pair. I got called by my own name and not "Oi twin". The downside was that my brother did become an insufferable snob at the catholic school because it was where all the local rich kids went (he got a scholarship through our families links to the local church).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:20 pm:   

"Maybe I've just been lucky in not ever meeting any of these evil twats who apparently form 100% of the church (judging by the comments that have been made above)."

Wweber, the fact that you're incapable of understanding what's been said here, let alone what's been said in the Ryan Report, suggests that you're closing your eyes to the whole issue. There's no point in my repeating words you're determined to read as different words, or referring you to a report you're determined to explain away by distorting its conclusions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:21 pm:   

Sorry, the 'Wweber' wasn't intentional. Keyboard malfunction combined with haste.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:24 pm:   

I went to catholic schools most of the time because they have a reputation of being the best schools around and can say I have never been physically abused by any teacher, clergyman or fellow pupil. However there was a lot of psychological torture going on - if your grades weren't good, you were treated like scum. Also there was more than a whiff of homosexuality in the air, but it couldn't be otherwise in a all-boys school, could it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:41 pm:   

"Maybe I've just been lucky in not ever meeting any of these evil twats who apparently form 100% of the church (judging by the comments that have been made above)."

Sorry, but overstating other people's arguments simply weakens yours.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:48 pm:   

I have to agree with Weber, going by personal experience, that there are far more decent - genuinely Christian - priests and nuns in the Church than there are sadists and paedophiles.

But where even those good people are culpable for all that went wrong was in their turning a blind eye and thereby legitimising the un-Christian flaws in the regime they were a part of.
Like the decent teacher who apologised to Ramsey years later but did nothing about the cruelty at the time. Like the majority of decent teachers and Christian Brothers in my own school who turned a blind eye to the rotten apples still left in the barrel.
This is a human flaw in all institutions that survive by staunch conservatism and the slapping down of all dissenters or fomenters of change and the covering up of all scandals that show up the flaws in the system.
It's a form of brainwashing with the familiar mantra of: "toe the line" - "protecting the authority of the Church is paramount" - "if you're not with us you're against us" - "we'll deal with this internally" - "think of your position" - "think of the scandal" - etc.

It's a cliché but Edmund Burke hit the nail on the head when he said; ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’.

What happened under the auspices of the Catholic Church in Ireland is one of the most depressing proofs of that statement...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.165.64
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:50 pm:   

>>In my (non-faith) state school, the caretaker used to time his trips to his store cupboard in the girls changing rooms next to the school gym for the times when the girls would most likely be in the shower. This continued for a dozen years regardless of the number of complaints given by the children and the parents. Do we castigate the entire education system of North Wales for this?

Ok Weber, now imagine said caretaker had also actually abused the girls and the school itself COVERED IT UP. Now imagine years later this crime is made public and the North Wales education system is called upon to do something. They interview the girls and confirm that this abuse was real. Bravo. Even though the abuse was committed by just one adult out of maybe 30 they then decide to protect the caretaker by not naming him, punishing him, questioning him or making public his current role in the education system. The abused girls get to tell very openly about their ordeal but get no justice at the end of it all. You're saying this is all right ?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.165.64
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:59 pm:   

>>You cannot paint an entire organisation as corrupt based on a small section of it. Those responsible for the abuses in Ireland were evil but they were not representative of the entire organisation.

So why does their organisation protect them then ??
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 02:14 pm:   

It doesn't any more. I said that in an earlier post. The church is cleaning up its act. Something which Joel flatly denied earlier in a post which did suggest that the majority of the church itself is culpable. Even in the bad old days it would have been a few of bishops here and there rather than the entire organisation. The vast majority of priests, if they had known would have blown the whistle themselves.

"Even though the abuse was committed by just one adult out of maybe 30 they then decide to protect the caretaker by not naming him, punishing him, questioning him or making public his current role in the education system. The abused girls get to tell very openly about their ordeal but get no justice at the end of it all. You're saying this is all right ?"

No I'm not, but only if you can prove that the entire organisation knew about, and was culpable for, the cover up can you blame the entire organisation. The people to blame are the people responsible for the cover up.

To expect a priest or fellow clergy to not have any internal impulses which s/he would not admit to in public is unreasonable. It's like expecting a doctor to never get ill. To expect them not to act on these impulses is completely reasonable - as it is with any person who works with children.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 02:31 pm:   

The vast majority of priests, if they had known would have blown the whistle themselves.

Weber, I get where you're coming from in feeling sorry for the majority of good Christian priests who are being tarred with the same brush as the sadists and paedophiles.
But your above statement I have to disagree with. There were surely a brave minority who lashed out against the institutional cruelty they would have witnessed but they wouldn't have stood a chance in the face of the Church machine.
They would have been told to shut up and let their superiors deal with the issue. If they had persevered the Church would have washed its hands of them as "troublemakers".
The vast majority of good priests and nuns would have bowed to this pressure and the infallibility of the Pope passed down through his Cardinals and Bishops. The fact that these crimes went on for so long - the whole of the last century and doubtless beyond - is the final proof that most in the Church turned a blind eye or left it to their superiors to deal with internally i.e. cover up. For that, sadly, they are all culpable.

But at least things are out in the open now and hopefully this kind of institutional barbarism will never be allowed to happen again!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 02:56 pm:   

' "These are people whose whole point (if they have one) is to be morally impeccable."

This is an unreasonable viewpoint. These are humans like the rest of us. To expect them to be perfect is to set them up for guaranteed failure in your eyes. The betrayal of trust from a teacher in a catholic school is no worse than the betrayal of trust in a non-faith school.'

In my experience it was they who insisted on being viewed as morally impeccable. And let's not forget the ridiculous idea (drummed into Catholics with the catechism in my day) that "sin in thought" is serious. All I ask is that they behave morally and by God, in my experience quite a few didn't but regarde their behaviour towards their victims as moral (and yes, justified by their religion).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 02:57 pm:   

"...regarded their behaviour..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 03:06 pm:   

'The fact that these crimes went on for so long - the whole of the last century and doubtless beyond - is the final proof that most in the Church turned a blind eye or left it to their superiors to deal with internally i.e. cover up. For that, sadly, they are all culpable.'

True - and it just doesn't apply to the Catholic Church but large corrupt companies, regimes, or in the thread I posted about the women in Sudan who were flogged (and many are too afriad to speak out). The conspiracy of silence rules.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.165.64
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 03:09 pm:   

When my telly goes wrong I blame Sky, not the engineer who installed the dish or the girl on the complaints desk or the man on the ad. I blame the organisation full stop. To try to separate the individual from the organisation they act on behalf of is to try to diminish that organisation's responsibility for its own members.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 03:42 pm:   

Personally, if my dish has just been fitted and it doesn't work (I don't have sky BTW) I would blame the guy who fitted the dish, not Rupert Murdoch, unless of course Rupert had popped in to do the job himself. If, after I complain, the next ten engineers they send out can't get it working, I blame Sky. If the first repair engineer fixes it, the problem was with the installer, not the organisation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.253.83
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 03:53 pm:   

In my experience it was they who insisted on being viewed as morally impeccable. And let's not forget the ridiculous idea (drummed into Catholics with the catechism in my day) that "sin in thought" is serious.

No one conscripts priests into their job (nor, btw, politicians). It is voluntary: they put themselves there, and I didn't put myself there, because at least I know and am openly honest about my limitations. They must behave non-hypocritically - that's all really that Jesus asks. But even that is difficult, because...

The more one probes and ponders the very concept of "sin" the more it utterly breaks down, and falls to fluff and pieces in one's hands - I mean just plain logically, it doesn't make any sense - given those rules, of course, all Christians (Catholics on down) insist on adhering to....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 04:20 pm:   

True - and it just doesn't apply to the Catholic Church but large corrupt companies, regimes, or in the thread I posted about the women in Sudan who were flogged (and many are too afriad to speak out). The conspiracy of silence rules.

Way to go Ally! Goes back to what I said about institutions or societies or companies that rely on staunch conservatism to survive. They will protect the status quo by whatever, increasingly brutal, means are necessary. Like the Taliban throwing acid in young girls faces coming out of school in Afghanistan - because they had the temerity to seek education when all women are good for is cooking, raising children, servicing their men and dressing up as tents!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 04:55 pm:   

Indeed, Stephen. Subjugation - I get angry even thinking of the word.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 193.113.57.165
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 05:33 pm:   

>>If the first repair engineer fixes it, the problem was with the installer, not the organisation.

Even though I have to call Sky to get a Sky engineer out to fix a Sky installers mistake ? I'm sorry, but if he is acting on behalf of Sky in Sky overalls in a Sky van the problem belongs to Sky.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 160.6.1.47
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 05:51 pm:   

"I'm not sure to what extent it has to do with Irish sadism."

Are you implying here that the Irish are more sadistic than other people?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 05:57 pm:   

Lord I hope not!!
We're really very nice over here, honestly... okay, so we've a penchant for killing and maiming each other and our institutions are riddled with corruption but, hey, no ones perfect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 05:57 pm:   

My TV was playing up, so I called an engineer out to repair it. While in the house, the engineer raped my nine-year-old daughter. I complained to the company, who insisted that I and my daughter were telling sick lies. Then they sent the engineer round to break my daughter's arm to punish her for lying. We kept quiet after that. Twenty years later my daughter made a complaint to the police, who took it up. The company agreed to comply with the investigation as long as the engineer was not named publicly and was immune from prosecution. It turned out that he had raped a hundred and seventy-three other children after my daughter, and broken the arms of forty-one who had made accusations. However, as the company pointed out, he is now too old to get it up, so it would be inhumane to prosecute him for crimes he won't repeat. And he won't break any more arms since there won't be any more new accusers. So everything's fine.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.155.203.110
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:12 am:   

How come you people bicker but never fall out?
It's admirable, I have to say.
:-(
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.26.61.140
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:13 am:   

Cos we can't reach far enough to smash each others' faces in. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:24 am:   

Have I ever at any fucking point said that I agreed with what happened in Ireland? No I fucking haven't. What I have said and will continue to say is that the majority of the clergy are good, hard working and moral people who are just as angry about the Irish situation as the rest of us. If not more so as people blame the church and tar all these decent priests with the same brush.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.165.64
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:24 am:   

And really it's all just a bit of craic !
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:36 am:   

WHY DOES THE CHURCH INSIST THAT OFFENDERS MUST NOT BE NAMED AND MUST HAVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION?

Let me put that a different way:

WHY DOES THE CHURCH INSIST THAT OFFENDERS MUST NOT BE NAMED AND MUST HAVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION?

Weber, if you carry on ducking this question then you are being fundamentally dishonest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:56 am:   

So now I'm a liar for believing that the views and actions of a few evil fuckwit bishops in Ireland are not actually representative of the entire organisation of the church? Most clergy, the ones that I know at any rate, wish the bishops in Ireland would just back down.

In my eyes the church is the grass roots stuff, the parishes etc. Apart from some of the priests I've met being entirely charisma free zones (much like the priest with the boring voice from Father Ted - I'm sure I've met him), all my experience with the church has been positive.

I can't judge from any more than my personal experience. If you think that makes me fundamentally dishonest then XXXXX [ed]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.155.203.110
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 11:50 am:   

Maybe I spoke too soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 12:14 pm:   

Weber, I disagree with your statement that Sonic the Hedgehog is a bottle of correction fluid.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 12:43 pm:   

I should perhaps explain that the experiences I suffered took place in Liverpool, not Ireland, but the Christian Brothers there were Irish. Of course not all of them were bad, by any means, but I'm afraid I believe the establishment there was complicit in what went on. I don't believe teachers would behave like that if they weren't certain they would get away with it - indeed, that it was regarded as acceptable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 12:58 pm:   

'I don't believe teachers would behave like that if they weren't certain they would get away with it - indeed, that it was regarded as acceptable.'

Exactly.

One day I would be so happy if that applied to the women in the Sudan (and in all the other places). Just substitute 'teachers' for 'people.'
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 01:44 pm:   

I certainly agree with that, Ally.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.23.233.247
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 04:23 pm:   

Slightly askant;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article382052.ece
(correct me if it doesn't work)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 04:38 pm:   

That returns us to this thread:

http://www.knibbworld.com/campbelldiscuss/messages/1/2223.html?1247239634

I'm with Williams.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.237.4
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 05:29 pm:   

Well, there are limits, to everyone's tolerance. Could someone forgive/overlook in a living artist....

-- Murder/child murder
-- Abject racism/anti-Semitism (e.g., a Nazi or an active member of the KKK)
-- Abject anti-homosexual activist (e.g., Fred Phelps type)
-- A terrorist, determined to "sacrifice" fellow citizens to advance a cause

... and so on. If one has boundaries - why some, not others? If art stands above the artist producing it - why not in all cases?

Is BIRTH OF A NATION a great film?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 05:37 pm:   

A line from Frankie Boyle on a Mock the Week repeat yesterday - "Everyone thought it was so wrong with Braveheart, Mel Gibson playing a Scotsman. He'd never be convincing. Now look at him, an alcoholic racist!"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 06:14 pm:   

"Is BIRTH OF A NATION a great film?" is surely a separate kind of question. It's a racist film. William Mayne didn't write paedophile novels. His novels were regarded as great children's fiction (my parents loved them, though I preferred more weird stuff), and perhaps should still be. I don't think they should necessarily fall out of print because of Mayne's offences.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.2.55
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 07:58 pm:   

"Is BIRTH OF A NATION a great film?" is surely a separate kind of question. It's a racist film....

And yet, oddly, the larger-than-life names associated with the film - Lillian Gish, D.W. Griffith - are somehow not synonymous with abject racism... or at least, pro-Klan sentiments....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 08:16 pm:   

I always found it a bit odd that 'Birth Of A Nation' was followed by a work like 'Intolerance'!
Was there any kind of liberal criticism of Griffith at the time that this was perhaps his answer to? Or was it just an ironic coincidence...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.213.172
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:41 pm:   

I should perhaps explain that the experiences I suffered took place in Liverpool, not Ireland, but the Christian Brothers there were Irish. Of course not all of them were bad, by any means, but I'm afraid I believe the establishment there was complicit in what went on. I don't believe teachers would behave like that if they weren't certain they would get away with it - indeed, that it was regarded as acceptable.

Oh, sure. I went to a Christian Brother school too. Yes, the abuse was systemic and wilfully overlooked by both the establishment and society.

The phrase "Irish sadism" didn't sit well with me. But I do think that it's possible that a disproportionate number of the abusers were Irish in the system. Ireland had a unique socio-political history which led to the church (some of whose members were unstable religious zealots of questionable mental stability) into a position of power it should never have had.

I think it may go back to the fact that Ireland is post-colonial. After the British withdrawl, the power vacuum was partially filled by the Catholic church. I also believe that the people had an indoctrinated post-colonial need to be controlled. So you have a cowed populace under an unelected "elite" of religious zealots in positions of power they did not earn. There aren't any more bad apples in one society than another. People are people. But there are sometimes awful socio-political situations which allow the worst to rise to the top.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.155.203.110
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 07:47 am:   

'Was there any kind of liberal criticism of Griffith at the time that this was perhaps his answer to? Or was it just an ironic coincidence...'
Yes. It was quite a big deal. What interested me was that it hurt him; he felt he'd just been making a historically accurate film.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 09:01 am:   

"Well, there are limits, to everyone's tolerance. Could someone forgive/overlook in a living artist....

-- Murder/child murder
-- Abject racism/anti-Semitism (e.g., a Nazi or an active member of the KKK)
-- Abject anti-homosexual activist (e.g., Fred Phelps type)
-- A terrorist, determined to "sacrifice" fellow citizens to advance a cause

... and so on."

Why not? I wouldn't forgive various things in the artist, no, but the artist isn't the art. Not living, admittedly, but sufficiently recently dead to count, I think: William Burroughs was convicted of culpable homicide, but I certainly wouldn't be without his work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 09:44 am:   

Just as a matter of interest: regardless of whether you have a taste for it, how would folk feel about listening to a Gary Glitter album now? Would it possible to "listen without prejudice"?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 10:13 am:   

I remember hearing his first single, "Rock 'n Roll Part One", back in August 1972. Liked it a lot at the time
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 11:35 am:   

I honestly don't know - I'm not aware of ever having heard him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 11:57 am:   

Well I was a child of the punk/new wave era so Glitter was always anathema to me.
I remember thinking he was an irritating prat at the time - like an embarrassing uncle at a wedding trying to get down and boogie.
But seriously, I don't hold with decrying the work of an artist with 'questionable morals' shall we say or over whom the taint of suspicion lies - smacks too much of fascism for me.
Having said that I did once have the chance of buying a CD of Charles Manson's music at a record fair and while curious didn't hesitate to leave it back in the rack.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 12:35 pm:   

I'm told that Glitter's songs, once a regular at parties etc, are rarely played now. A kind of collective discomfort. His trial was highly publicised, of course. Still, even though I reckon most people would claim that there's no connection between his songs and his private life, we still seem to connect the creation with the creator in this case.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 12:58 pm:   

I think in this case (unlike that of say Pete Townshend or Michael Jackson) the evidence was so unequivocal and Glitter showed so little remorse - reoffending time and again under a variety of increasingly ridiculous disguises - that no one could possibly defend the guy.
For me there always was something inherently 'not right' about his whole stage persona though at the time I just found it embarrassing, now I find it downright creepy. The music (and it never rose above the level of simplistic party music unlike The Who or Jackson) has become synonymous now with a sinister old bloke trying to entertain the kiddies so he could get close to them. Whether this is true or not is now immaterial though I can't help breathing a (guilty) sigh of relief that I was never into it.
Would be interesting to get the Gallagher Bros view of this as they famously sampled Glitter on their best album! What's the betting they regret that now... rightly or wrongly.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:08 pm:   

If Jacko had been found guilty would we be able to watch his videos or listen to his songs the same way? His biggest mistake was paying off Jordy Chandler. Half the world took that as an admission of guilt. If he'd gone to trial first time round and been found innocent, his reputation wouldn't be as bad as it is.

As an interesting aside, has anyone noticed the differences in the way this type of case gets reported in the press?

If a man is having sex with a teenage girl he's always described in mildly derogatory terms in any articles.

If he's sleeping with a teenage boy, it goes from derogatory to vilification as if gay sex is intrinsically evil.

If a woman is sleeping with a teenage boy, the reports are almost salacious and you could be forgiven for reading in a suntext of "Wahey, way to go kid!"

It always seems a touch unbalanced in the reporting. (Maybe I should stop reading the red-tops.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:08 pm:   

But you're comparing him here to folk who'd weren't found guilty. We were talking about those who have been.

Why do we feel awkward with Glitter's work, and less so with that of others? (If we do. I feel we do.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:09 pm:   

Sorry, my message was for Stephen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:23 pm:   

You're right, we DO feel more awkward about Glitter because he couldn't be defended and was rightly found guilty which was the point I was making. I feel uncomfortable about making a distinction myself but sadly that's human nature...
I try to live by liberal ideals, all right thinking people do (notice even there I'm making distinctions that we are the ones thinking right), but human beings are intrinsically flawed. Group judgement and conformity is a survival mechanism so deeply hot-wired into us I fear we may never shake it off...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:23 pm:   

Back in the 70s, I read a tabloid account of how motorcyclist Barry Sheen had lost his virginity at 14 to an adult woman. The whole piece was written in terms of how he 'became a man'. The words 'abuse' or 'paedophile' were not even hinted at.

We do need to remember, though, that while protecting sexually curious adolescents from exploitation by adults is necessary, the sexual activity of adolescents is neither pathological nor a tragic loss of innocence. What is wrong is when, instead of being allowed to work things out for themselves, adolescents are preyed upon and their sexuality is commodified. In this respect, their experience is part of the same spectrum of vulnerability as that of teenagers over 16.

One other point: Pete Townsend was not just not convicted – his innocence was pretty clearly established. He made the same mistake as many other people engaged in research and non-fiction writing projects of assuming that research gives you right of access to material otherwise banned. Rather like the film lecturer in Ramsey's THE ONE SAFE PLACE.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:25 pm:   

As for GG, I think the crassness of his records and his 'image' as a performer mean that the work (I would use another word, though a similar one) cannot readily be separated from perceptions of the man, since the two were always closely entangled.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:28 pm:   

Much as I was thinking. Plus maybe there's something about a performer being physically present in the work that makes it harder to ignore the artist and focus on the art. (Not that art is the right word for GG.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:29 pm:   

In particular, it's impossible to hear the line "I'm the man who put the bang in gang" without deep embarrassment.

But then, it always was.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:34 pm:   

'What is wrong is when, instead of being allowed to work things out for themselves, adolescents are preyed upon and their sexuality is commodified. In this respect, their experience is part of the same spectrum of vulnerability as that of teenagers over 16.'

'commodified' that photo of Mylie Cyrus.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:55 pm:   

GG was a joke from the outset, as he himself admits, but then most glam rock was jocular, wasn't it? For reasons I cannot even begin to fathom today I used to be into The Sweet in my early teens, not only because their infectuous records sounded great but because I loved their looks. A year later I was into Pink Floyd
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 02:11 pm:   

Which was a progression how?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 02:14 pm:   

Isn't Pink Floyd the music chartered accountants play after their reckless (ooh, maybe four or five pints) one night out a week?

Just joking. I'm too young to comment. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 02:32 pm:   

These were pre-Dark Side of the Moon days. We were all into Ummagumma, Meddle, More, A Saucerful of Secrets . . . not to forget the (to some people) unmentionable Atom Heart Mother. The Floyd were taken very seriously by the European avant-garde at the time. I still like most of these records, btw. Why limit yourself to one type music?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 02:56 pm:   

"These were pre-Dark Side of the Moon days."

Snark withdrawn. You chose well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 03:26 pm:   

Pete Townsend's explanation about "doing research" strikes me as slightly smelly in that he actually paid to have access to certain sites. Come on, he should have known that was going a bridge too far.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.226.131
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:04 pm:   

Why not? I wouldn't forgive various things in the artist, no, but the artist isn't the art. Not living, admittedly, but sufficiently recently dead to count, I think: William Burroughs was convicted of culpable homicide, but I certainly wouldn't be without his work.

Well, Burroughs is a somewhat easy example - it's terrible, but not of the class of anathema of child murder, terrorist acts, or rabid anti-gay activism. Nor, as you say, is he alive: the dead's sins are always easier to forgive, and forget. Even deSade's been sanitized by time. "Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough" -- Noah Cross, CHINATOWN.

Luckily we have no real examples, so the whole thing's somewhat moot. Unless there's any fans of Charles Manson here?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:11 pm:   

Real examples - Victor Salva - served time for raping a twelve year old boy and was hired by Disney after his release.

Polanski - still wanted in the US for the rape of a young girl.

Michael Jackson - personally I'm with Jarvis Cocker on this one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:31 pm:   

JC's point was solely that Jackson's 'World Song' was pompous twaddle and his stage show for it was self-important and tasteless. All of which it's impossible to disagree with.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:50 pm:   

Quick bit of interweb research later, on this occasion you're right Joel. I always thought it was because MJ had surrounded himself with kids on stage.

Oh well.

Change that comment of mine to I'm firmly in the "Why the hell did he pay that kid so much money to keep his mouth shut if he was innocent?" camp.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 05:20 pm:   

'JC's point was solely that Jackson's 'World Song' was pompous twaddle and his stage show for it was self-important and tasteless. All of which it's impossible to disagree with.'

Was that where MJ descended from the heavens (ceiling) like a Christ sort of figure?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 05:26 pm:   

Yes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 05:27 pm:   

That last posting wasn't a contribution to the discussion of one-time favourite bands.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 05:34 pm:   

"Pete Townsend's explanation about "doing research" strikes me as slightly smelly in that he actually paid to have access to certain sites. Come on, he should have known that was going a bridge too far."

Perhaps he assumed you had to pay for access to anything. I didn't say he was overly sensible. But he had declared the reseach project in advance – I think to the police, if not then certainly to the press.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 06:09 pm:   

"That last posting wasn't a contribution to the discussion of one-time favourite bands"

Methinks he doth protest too much
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 07:04 pm:   

I think the MJ song referred to is "Will You Be There", with the immortal lines "Hold me like the river Jordan, and I will then say to thee you are my friend." An angel descends from the sky and wraps his wings around MJ.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.70.118.211
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 07:50 pm:   

'An angel descends from the sky and wraps his wings around MJ.' But at the TV awards MJ descended.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.93
Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 08:05 pm:   

"But he had declared the reseach project in advance – I think to the police, if not then certainly to the press."

I'm prepared to accept that, but only because I hold the artist PT in such high esteem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.20.22
Posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 12:04 am:   

'Atom Heart Mother' rocks!!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.165.64
Posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 01:53 am:   

>>'An angel descends from the sky'

See how this thread has come full circle ?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.170.178.214
Posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 11:34 pm:   

'Ramsey?... Joel?... Tony?... Ally?... et.al.?... Am I misinterpreting English here?... I will - well, I won't accept the consensus if it's against me, I'll still rail against it, but....'
Craig - I'm veering mostly towards you!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.252.170
Posted on Sunday, July 19, 2009 - 04:05 am:   

Craig - I'm veering mostly towards you!

VINDICATION!!!

I could go further and make a snarky comment about how I'm mystified that masters of the language can't seem to perceive how others could easily read something quite different in a clearly ambiguous sentence regardless of protestations to the contrary that rely solely on the letter of the grammatical rule for contrary evidence but ignore the at very least implied sentiment and/or are ignoring the fact that it is even possible that an alternate sentiment could be construed and further that it was clearly the sentence's sentiment that I was aiming at all along BUUUUUT... I'm much too big for that....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.170.178.214
Posted on Sunday, July 19, 2009 - 10:30 am:   

That said, my grammar/use of the English language is known to suck.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.3.58
Posted on Sunday, July 19, 2009 - 04:54 pm:   

That said, my grammar/use of the English language is known to suck.

DOH!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.129.86
Posted on Sunday, July 19, 2009 - 05:09 pm:   

Does your grammar suck eggs, Tony? If not, you should teach it to.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration