[Closed] Catholic church and child abuse.

Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

Interesting view. The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on... Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

'Extreme' is taken out of context by yourself. As I'm sure you're aware. Though like you, I find all these things deplorable. The aids argument has of course been discussed endlessly, and proves my point regarding the impact of Catholicism on it's followers' lives- the Pope advocated abstinence, which would have been at least as effective as condoms at controlling the spread of the disease.
Why do you find Mother T execrable, out of curiosity. Surely she did a lot of good for people?

Arguments for and against the existence of god, jesus, and the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document aren't difficult to find, if you choose to look for them. I'm surprised you haven't tried, if only to refute them.

it means your view is so extreme that you will not be persuaded from it by rational discourse. What you say about the Catholic church has some truth to it but it is hardly their raison d'être. Take your stance of murdering it's followers in Africa via the condom message. I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS. Given this I could equally argue that it was the inability of Africans to follow the Churchs teaching that led to the AIDS epideimc not the Catholic message per se. However my alternative view to your polemic and argument would be pointless as you are beyond persuassion hence the quote of
[b]i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible [/b]
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE
EDIT: must type faster not get distracted by works now looks like i plagarised poster above 😳

Why do you find Mother T execrable, out of curiosity. Surely she did a lot of good for people?

The argument put far more eloquently than I could manage here:

I reccommend you watch all 3 sections.

the Pope advocated abstinence

As Stephen Fry described him - one of a "bunch of sinister, hysterical virgins". Where is the need for abstinence. Just use condoms. It's that simple. Given that it's that simple - why doesn't Ratzinger want people to have sex with each other - as if it's any of his business anyway to say "do this, don't do that"...

Arguments for and against the existence of god, jesus, and the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document aren't difficult to find, if you choose to look for them. I'm surprised you haven't tried, if only to refute them.

Again - more detail than I can bring to hand from memory:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Well worth a read - for the glaringly obvious evidence for the "gospels" themselves being fictional, also.

Enjoy.

 

the Pope advocated abstinence, which would have been at least as effective as condoms at controlling the spread of the disease.

ironic given the priesthood's reaction to exactly the same strictures 🙁 Abstinence is effective, however people are not designed, either by god(s) or nature, to practice it.

Just use condoms. It's that simple.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

why doesn't Ratzinger want people to have sex with each other

I am fairly content that a jewish prophet called Jesus existed. That does not give any credence to the existence of a god. That one religious maniac persuaded others to follow him is no proof of the existence of god at all - especially given that Mohammed came along later and split a bunch of people off that faith.

Jesus however would more than likely been short, dark skinned and looking rather like the Arab he was - not a tall nordic blond as he is usually depicted

What does the Bible say about poverty?

Also:

Any type of upbringing is brainwashing. Surely you could argue any ideas you put in the mind of a child could be viewed as evil ?

Only if you assert that any idea is the absolute truth.

Junkyard - Member

it means your view is so extreme blah blah blah...
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE

A fine example of the misrepresentation I mentioned from the hysterical religious types on here.

Nowhere have I said that I hold religious people in contempt. That is simply not true and I request that you acknowledge this and retract your accusation.

It is true that I hold religion in contempt. So what? I repeat - if I am a Chelsea fan who holds Manchester United in contempt, would you be raising such a fuss? Of course not. Why should religion be any different? Although at least footbal is about something real...

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

However my alternative view to your polemic and argument would be pointless as you are beyond persuassion

Not so. I am always persuaded by cogent argument. Evidence: the recent thread re: Israel.

i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible

Despite your attempt to correct what you think may be my poor eyesight, this still does not make any sense. Perhaps you need to learn punctuation?

however people are not designed, either by god(s) or nature,

Or by anything else.

It's a crane, not a skyhook.

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

But the catholic church was formed before condoms, are you suggesting the problem is they have nt moved on with the times ? Or the original teaching was wrong ? Are you suggesting before contraception their teaching was correct ?

I love these ones, round and round we go.

It's not true, the god thing.

What I don't get is when the victim of some catastrophe says "with gods help we will get through this", the same god who caused the catastrophe in the first place one assumes..

FFS...

9/11. Good people will usually do good things. Bad people will usually do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

WTF makes you think these people were "good"?

His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god...

The one written by "ignorant sheepherds"?
I have nothing against people with religion, I hope that it helps them with their lives I just find some of the teachings a bit well, dogsh1t. I never knew that all catholics are homophobic. But as Barnsleymitch said, live and let live hey?

Thread summary:

But the catholic church was formed before condoms

And Aids

WTF makes you think these people were "good"?

The perpetrators of 9/11 became the people they were, who did the things they did, by the influence of Wahabbi-ist Islam.

EDIT: must type faster not get distracted by works now looks like i plagarised poster above

"His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god... "

I dont know why people find this teaching so strange. Say you were not religious but you were a 6th BC official at a court of a small kingdom. You want to create a stable society you might suggest people should get married, only have sex inside of marriage and then raise their offspring together.

Now say you were a twenty first century politician you might come up with something like this
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Family.aspx
Which is not far off the same thing.

People cant seems to remember that only 50 ish years ago sex was directly linked to child birth + sexually transmitted diseases.

Well I don't see why we need 'marriage' anyway.

but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion

Rubbish. All it takes is someone more persuasive. History should tell you that.

Value judgement based, as far as I can tell, on projection.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to. Textual communication is a delicate skill that is hard to master; you need practice. Unless you WANT to hack people off. Cos you are.

Would you complain if I was discussing the merits of various football teams? Of course not. Why should religion demand special consideration?

Comparing football to religion is fatuous in the extreme mate. Seriously, that is fairly obvious. How many people would die for their team? How many wars are fought over football? Stupid argument, stop using it please.

On the contrary, they are generally obfuscatory, snide, resentful, misrepresentative and sneeringly rude. But that really doesn't bother me.

Barnsleymitch is coming over as a decent bloke, he's really not trying to tear your belief system to pieces like you [i]seem[/i] to be doing to him.

The burden of proof rests with the proposer, not the opposer

In law, yes. In this - no. Neither is provable; the only possible conclusion is that you are allowed to believe what you want.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

Listen - I am not trying to persuade you to be a Christian. I am an atheist. I am however trying to persuade you to understand that your world view is no different to that of a religious person. They follow the ideas of a group of people interpreted through their own personalities - so do you. So you are being as bad as any religious fundamentalist. You believe you are right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

Hahaha.. yeah right. Hormones, what are they then?

Two people who want to have sex together are pefectly entitled to do so, in whatever way they want, and also to use contraception to prevent 1: childbirth as a result and 2: sexually transmitted diseases. Which would be wise.

Progress beyond Victoria.

[i]The book of genesis is a myth tale written by ignorant Bronze-age sheepherders.[/i]

In fairness, they must have been pretty bright Bronze-age sheepherders as they could write a whole book.
I've seen plenty of Internet-age people who can't even write an ebay ad.

Two people who want to have sex together are pefectly entitled to do so

Says you...

I've just had this funny imagine of Mr Whoppit and BarnsleyMitch being born in the late Roman Empire.

I could imagine "Mr Whoppit" becoming a Christian after he realised the ignorant Pagans MUST be wrong I mean HOW can there be more than ONE god ???? I mean all the latest cleverest people are Christian its just stupid old timers who are Pagan cant they see they are doing soo much damage allowing people to get divorced think of the children !

While BarnsleyMitch would probably stay a Pagan saying the old ways also have value. He'd then probably get burned to death by Mr Whoppit for being a heretic !

Now that would be ironic 🙂

Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious - I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist - It doesnt take much on here, does it?

The perpetrators of 9/11 became the people they were, who did the things they did, by the influence of Wahabbi-ist Islam.

Just spotted this.

It obviously was NOT Islam that made them do what they did. They presumably felt upset about something and interpreted Islamic ideas through their anger and resentment. Or more likely, they were used by some more persuasive person to do their bidding. Through Islam.

The only difference between Islamic terrorism and non-islamic is that in the non-islamic case the perpetrators often don't end up killing themselves.

And there is a lot of non-islamic terrorism about. What does that tell you?

I'm always amused by that particular Dawkins loving brand of atheist crying "straw man", as RIchard has made a successful, and lucrative, career out of setting up religious straw men and then effortlessly knocking them down. His recent Channel 4 series was a prime example, where he sought out the most bizarre extremes of the Christian faith and ridiculed them.

To put it in perspective, it would be rather like pointing to people like Stalin and Pol Pot and suggesting they represent normal atheist behaviour. As an aside, I suspect that if you add their death toll together with Hitler's and an assortment of other atheistic ideologies, you may find that atheism's kill count actually surpasses that of any other worldview.

Someone earlier asked the question "why would I need to understand any theology" - the simple answer to that is that if you do not understand a system of thought, you cannot effectively argue against it. In practice, people tend to end up setting up 'straw men' that are easily cast aside. I think it was Woppit who claimed the Church supported Hitler - a claim which overlooks the opposition to Hitler which came from what became known as the Confessing Church. it is hard to imagine someone being able to comment on the significance of the opposition to Hitler without any understanding of the ideas and actions of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, and their impact on the development of Christian theology since 1945.

As to Woppit's assertion that the perpetuation of religion can be attributed soley to the indoctrination of children - my response is "nonsense" and I speak as a professional youth worker who has spend 20-odd years working in a church setting. If you ask the question, can I point to examples where education of young people has been distorted and become indoctrination - yes absolutely, but to suggest they represent an accurate overview of the church's work with young people is laughable nonsense.

And to respond to the OP - the Catholic Church's institutional response to the allegations, and evidence, of widespread child abuse is a f*king disgrace and the pope should hang his head in shame to be leading an organisation that has not acted vigorously to rid itself of such people and practices. Any local congregation or worldwide denomination that doesn't do everything in its power to protect and nurture children in a wholesome environment is a grotesque distortion of what the church is meant to be.

Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious - I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist - It doesnt take much on here, does it?

Pretty much the same as me then.

Rubbish. All it takes is someone more persuasive. History should tell you that.

I refer you to my previous reference re: Islam.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to.

To you...

Comparing football to religion is fatuous in the extreme mate. Seriously, that is fairly obvious. How many people would die for their team? How many wars are fought over football? Stupid argument, stop using it please.

I'm not talking about the results of various types of beliefs, I'm talking about the alleged difference in "tone" required when discussing religion as opposed to anything else ieg: football. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

Barnsleymitch is coming over as a decent bloke, he's really not trying to tear your belief system to pieces like you seem to be doing to him.

I do not have a belief system (perhaps you missed that bit). I was not trying to "tear his belief system to pieces", merely trying to elicit his opinion regarding a proposition. Which he chose not to deal with. And asked me to "leave him the **** alone". Which I did.

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

There may be bacteria on Mars.

... and the conditions for planets on which there may be other forms of life elsewhere, exist - [u]evidentially[/u] so.

There is no indication whatsoever that anything that happens is the result of a god. It used to be thought that water in rivers moved as the result of the actions of "water-sprites", who need placation to perform this remarkable task. This belief has long-since died out. Nevertheless, the water still moves.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to.

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

Ahem.

So you are being as bad as any religious fundamentalist. You believe you are right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

Not so. I have said many times that I am happy to accept the existence of whatever god is being proposed. All one needs to do is demostrate the evidence.

That is the difference between, for instance, science and religion. Each different religion claims to have the absolute truth - where they cannot all be so. Science says merely that a theory is there to be disproved on the presentation of new evidence. A far superior approach, in my opinion.

Progress and knowledge, or ignorance and lies. Take your choice.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

Hahaha.. yeah right. Hormones, what are they then?

Not sure that was one of mine?

It doesnt take much on here, does it?

Just asking for fairness, consideration and equanimity, that's all...

You've totally missed my point here one of the key words was "Western" which am I meant to be fixing first the horrors of colonialism ? The situation on the Middle East ? The problems with the catholic church ?

I see what you did there... seeking some spurious connection between the entirely unrelated issues of governmental behaviours, and the voluntary membership of a morally bankrupt organisation. The flaw in that argument is that in fact large segments of the population have in fact protested vehmently and consistently against those actions, thus doing away with such ills as slavery, colonialism and the like. Unlike the Catholic Church where to the best of my knowledge few if any have stood up and done anything similar about the institutionalised corrupt behaviours that are so apparent. In fact far from protesting they have in fact made one of the worst and most morally bankrupt members into their leader.

Science says merely that a theory is there to be disproved on the presentation of new evidence

There is a theory that God created the universe with the big bang. Disprove that Woppit.
It can't be disproved, and therefore a fanatical Athiest is as dilusional as any religious fanatic.

I could imagine "Mr Whoppit" becoming a Christian after he realised the ignorant Pagans MUST be wrong I mean HOW can there be more than ONE god

On the contrary, I would have said that both beliefs were incorrect.

setting up religious straw men and then effortlessly knocking them down

Odd interpretation. Looked more to me like asking religious people to explain themselves. The fact that all they ever come out with is gibberish is hardly Richrd's fault.

most bizarre extremes of the Christian faith

Ah, I see. Believing that a virgin gave birth to a god who'd had ghost-intercourse so that he could have himself born as a human is not bizarre.

To put it in perspective, it would be rather like pointing to people like Stalin and Pol Pot and suggesting they represent normal atheist behaviour. As an aside, I suspect that if you add their death toll together with Hitler's and an assortment of other atheistic ideologies, you may find that atheism's kill count actually surpasses that of any other worldview.

Hitler was a catholic, not an atheist. He attempted to institute a form of Paganism as a state religion.

Stalin and Pol Pot killed many different people - religious, atheist, gay, Jewish, Gypsy, intellectuals of all sorts and so on. Not [i]because of[/i] atheism, but to acheive complete personal control over their respective populations. This is a classic "straw man" argument and I'm surprised you are trying to use it.

Someone earlier asked the question "why would I need to understand any theology" - the simple answer to that is that if you do not understand a system of thought, you cannot effectively argue against it.

To paraphrase what I actually said - I don't need to have any "Leprechaunology" to argue against the existence of Leprechauns. The Emperor has no clothes.

I think it was Woppit who claimed the Church supported Hitler - a claim which overlooks the opposition to Hitler which came from what became known as the Confessing Church. it is hard to imagine someone being able to comment on the significance of the opposition to Hitler without any understanding of the ideas and actions of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, and their impact on the development of Christian theology since 1945.

It may be possible to find other individuals like barnsleymitch who follow a "cherry-picked" version of catholicism, but it is a fact that the Vatican, during the 2nd world war, had many opportunities to oppose the persecution of the Jews, but did nothing. The Vatican's history of anti-semitism is long and ugly.

As to Woppit's assertion that the perpetuation of religion can be attributed soley to the indoctrination of children

More misrepresentation. At no point did I suggest that this was the "sole" atttribute, so to suggest that this is what I said, is simply a lie. The indoctrination of children at the acquiesence of the parent(s) is, however, arguably one of the strongest tools of subjugation possessed by the cult.

f you ask the question, can I point to examples where education of young people has been distorted and become indoctrination

Of course - by inculcating self-evident nonsense and prejudicing them against open enquiry. In my day it was called "Sunday School".

There is a theory that God created the universe with the big bang.

Oh boy. *sigh*

That is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. To make it into a theory, you need evidence.

Good luck.

I refer you to my previous reference re: Islam.

Islam was founded by a persuasive man.

To you...

And everyone else on the thread!

I'm talking about the alleged difference in "tone" required when discussing religion as opposed to anything else ieg: football

It's obvious that religion is a deeply personal and sensitive thing that a lot of people hold dear. If I came on and started ranting about how awful your wife or mother were, would you not be a bit annoyed? You must understand that persistently and 'stridently' asserting that what someone believes very personally is rubbish is going to uspet people? Upsetting people apparently for the hell of it is bad.

There is no indication whatsoever that anything that happens is the result of a god

Likewise, there's no indication that it isn't. So what you have to have is belief. You (and I) believe that there isn't, some believe that there is. Seems the same to me. Let's reduce it to a logical debate:

You assert A is the case, I assert B. Now there is a third case C, where there is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove A or B. So given that A is not conclusively proven, nor is B, then the only remaining option is C. Surely this is apparent?

You may passionately believe in the case against God, but by your own arguments, that's not enough.

All one needs to do is demostrate the evidence.

Well let's see, a lot of people are satisfied with the evidence at their disposal. A lot of people also maintain that the world around you is evidence enough. You aren't satisfied with their evidence, fine; they are not satisfied with yours.

See, the thing is, you are putting yourself on the side of science, logic and reasoned thought. But by evangelising so much you are actually behaving the same way as religious people. To be honest you are coming over as a bit of a neophyte with this logical thought stuff...

Each different religion claims to have the absolute truth

Hmm.. do all religious people make the same claim? I think not. Bear in mind you are not attacking the religious establishment on this thread, you are attacking religious people fairly personally.

Science says merely that a theory is there to be disproved on the presentation of new evidence

Ok, so where's the conclusive evidence of the non-existence of a supreme being?

A far superior approach, [b]in my opinion[/b].

Well there you have it folks. I win. End of thread 🙂

It may be possible to find other individuals like barnsleymitch who follow a "cherry-picked" version of catholicism

So you are on the one hand arguing for independent thought, and then complaining that people are choosing their own interpretation of world views?

[b]How[/b] many handbags ?

What tyres for Glentress? Or should I ask God?

I think the problem a lot of non-Catholics have is that the Roman Catholic Church has such a rigid heirachy, with the infallible Pope at the head. I find it a bit odd that a Catholic can be excommunicated or put under interdict for supporting a woman's right to abortion, or engaging in pre-marital sex, but not for repeatedly and systematically covering up paedophile priests.

I think that's why people brand the Catholic Church as a whole, because the top layers are rotten. The question is, if you're on the bottom level of the heirachy and you question the moral authority of the Church leaders, are you still really a Catholic?

I agree with this.

Simonfbarns.
I owe you an apology simon, you appear to be a good man I was simply in a very bad way and lashed out without thinking.

Handbags indeed

good grief, what brought [b]that[/b] on 🙂 ?

I've been watching this bitchslapping fest developing today with mild amusement. Perhaps we all care about morality to some degree, but it's more fun scoring points and slagging each other off ?

As for the roman catholic church! from the people that brought you the earth is flat, say it isn't and you're toast. Murder witches as they are evil and torture countless people when you can. My favourite accomplishment of all time the dark ages! No wait there is one even more spectacular than that. Wasn’t it the romans as in the roman catholic church’s predecessors that got rid of jesus in the first place? same fools different shoes.

Thank god they don't have a large army any more and jesus christ could it die off any slower!

Islam was founded by a persuasive man.

It was the religion that did the persuasion, not the long-dead founder. This is really very simple. Why can't you come up with a meaningful rebuttal?

And everyone else on the thread!

Not so, there have been some who are in agreement. I really can't find anything that doesn't sound like an insult to describe your approach of arguing against my view by making up things that simply are not true. Why DO you do it?

It's obvious that religion is a deeply personal and sensitive thing that a lot of people hold dear. If I came on and started ranting about how awful your wife or mother were, would you not be a bit annoyed?

Then I do not see why they cannot defend it as robustly as I attack it without resorting to misrepresentation, avoidance, refusal to understand the simplest of reasoning or retreat into expressing "hurt". Used to be, xtians at least were made of strener stuff (Romans, lions, etc).

1: I am not married. 2: My mother is dead. In any event, the most you might achieve is an enquiry into your own antecedental relationships...

Likewise, there's no indication that it isn't.

In fact that is precisely what IS indicated, because the former condition is the one that obtains.

with the evidence at their disposal.

Which is?

A lot of people also maintain that the world around you is evidence enough.

Evidence of there being a world around me establishes that there is a world around me. Shall I say that again for you?

See, the thing is, you are putting yourself on the side of science, logic and reasoned thought. But by evangelising so much you are actually behaving the same way as religious people. To be honest you are coming over as a bit of a neophyte with this logical thought stuff...

Not a bit of it. I have presented a series of arguments and asked for evidence that I am incorrect. So far, all I have seen is a series of poorly-thought-out and innaccurate suppositions partly based on misrepresentation and appeals to sensibility.

Hmm.. do all religious people make the same claim? I think not.

It may be there is a religion somewhere that bases itself on it's claims to truth not being absolute, but if that is so, I certainly haven't heard of it. Can you name one?

you are attacking religious people fairly personally.

Not so. I am attacking religion itself. If you think otherwise, please substantiate your claim.

Ok, so where's the conclusive evidence of the non-existence of a supreme being

The burden of proof is on the proposer of the hypothesis. A scientist does not say "A photon can appear to be in two places at once" and then ask you to disprove it, why would he (or she)? The event can be demonstrated.

To ask for evidence that a non-evidential thing does not exist, is an admission of defeat. Merely saying that because a thing cannot be proved to NOT exist and so therefore it does, is a self-defeating argument and clearly deluded. See my earlier argument re: the giant snail on the roof of the National Gallery.

Well there you have it folks. I win. End of thread

Not at all. 1: My opinion is supported by evidence. 2: This posting.

I'm now waiting for Mark Datz's contribution.

I reckon Datz is probably above wading into a sermon from someone declaring [i][b]"I do not have a belief system"[/b][/i]- possibly the most incredible claim ever made on stw.

So you are on the one hand arguing for independent thought, and then complaining that people are choosing their own interpretation of world views?

No. I was not complaining (why would you think that?) It's an observation. It could be argued that in the case of "cherry-picking", the cult member who does this, is displaying a certain capacity for indpendent thought. This is encouraging in the case of those like barnsleymitch, who seem to be displaying some resistance to the full-blown requirement for blind obedience.

I must admit though, that constant misrepresentation and attribution to me of things that I simply have not said or suggested, being presented as an argument that holds weight, is begginning to become a little wearisome...

All is not lost.