Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

warrant2k t1_jdo9gkm wrote

Still not a drag queen.

219

monkeysandmicrowaves t1_jdpjxbf wrote

Conservatives don't actually give a fuck about people's welfare or safety, they just want to live in their right-wing alternate reality where they and people like them never do anything bad, and the only bad stuff happens far away to and by those filthy "other" people. And they're willing to sweep every god damn thing they can't blame on the "other people" under the rug to keep pretending, no matter how many actual real-world problems it causes.

57

[deleted] t1_jdqsdge wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_jdqsdjd wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Alaskabear-235 t1_jdqqd22 wrote

Red team bad, blue team good… hate to break it to you. There’s evil on both sides

−22

CoLuMn1 t1_jdquurw wrote

i mean, they never implied there wasn't. as of the past few decades though, the right has gotten a very good track record of deflecting blame of school shootings, molestation, and sexual assault onto marginalized groups, rather than the majority-rightwing groups who actually commit the majority of those crimes.

that is a real issue, and whataboutism doesn't help it. yes democrats are evil, a lot of us know that already. they're just marginally less evil

12

Alaskabear-235 t1_jds92yg wrote

How do you really know that they are less evil? Your “news”? These politicians do favors for each other weather they are red or blue, doesn’t matter to them. The left owns most all of the media so info on corruption on the left is suppressed or forgotten. The “little people “ who are Conservatives DO care about peoples welfare and safety or they wouldn’t donate so much to help others. “True Christians do that as do many liberals or atheists. As for the these churches that support priests that do the unspeakable. They work against Jesus.

−2

MommySo t1_jdsm928 wrote

lol, fuckin' loon.

3

CoLuMn1 t1_jdvd4e3 wrote

i am a leftist, i do not follow mainstream media, so your critiques fall on mostly deaf ears. also, we literally have no left wing in America, so i have no fucking idea what you're on about.

every single foreigner I know has a Labor party or other left party in their country, while we have parties that they would consider to be "center-right" and "far-right", respectively.

until you learn the difference between "left" and "liberal" (as they are so different that I can nearly guarantee I hate Democrats as much or more than you do), probably don't use the phrase "left" at all. you sound like you don't know what you're talking about at the moment.

3

Alaskabear-235 t1_je4rnkj wrote

Pretty easy to prove my point. Every talking point any major news outlet swings to the left except for fox who also does the same at times. I don’t need to provide any articles from some journalist that’s being paid by George Soros under the table. It’s “obvious”, just take your blinders off and look. If you want a source, www.weforum.org, world economic forum’s website. You can poke fun at me all you want but it’s scary. These are not good people. Everything Klaus Shwab wants he gets. I’ll prove it, if I’m right we will be moving to a cashless society within the next few years and if not I will admit that I am wrong. Of course you and I probably won’t be communicating by then. It’s not about politics, it’s about power and surveillance over us. If the voting process still works I’m voting for the corrupt politician that stands farthest from the government digital coin.

0

CoLuMn1 t1_je83b37 wrote

those are some great claims, but you didn't provide an example of a major news outlet that supports the common leftist ideal I mentioned. if someone doesn't believe that ideal, they are not a leftist.

i say this only because you seem to have been conditioned to fear all vaguely-progressive media, regardless of what it says... I'm not sure why you linked to the world economic forum, or what I'm supposed to be scared of thats on there?

kek I have yet to see someone unironically say that George Soros funds everything. that's hilarious. first time for everything

1

Alaskabear-235 t1_je8kjas wrote

Ok, political scientists and other analysts regard the left as: anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left liberations, progressives and social liberals, movements for racial equality, trade unionism. Wikipedia.org

Swing to the left Jan 2023 edition : CNN, VOX, NBC,MSMBC, TMZ and more libguides.com.edu

My main point is that the news and politics is using people, turning them on to one another, distracting them from the real issue. Our cash will die when we switch to the only digital currency that’ll be considered money. A central government coin. Everyone will be controlled. You want to buy food, get rid of all of everything we don’t agree with. It’s where we’re headed, I hope Klaus Shwaub fails and I wrong about all of this. China desires data more than money so I’ve heard, I’m sure it’s the same with other countries including ours.

1

Alaskabear-235 t1_jdzx7iu wrote

You might not know what the F your talking about… your words in the same paragraph “I’m a leftist, we literally have no left wing in America “ No, I do NOT hate democrats, I have many friends who are. You assume much my friend. It might be that you need to hate others less and tone down that bloated ego.

−1

CoLuMn1 t1_je2smpm wrote

I thought it was obvious, but I meant that there is no organized left wing in America. we have no leftist party, no leftist senators, we have never had a leftist president, we don't even have mainstream left-wing media. there are many citizens who support leftist ideas, but we have no unified "left wing" by any stretch of the imagination, which is what I was trying to say.

you seem to believe that there are left-wing media sources though, and that they in fact "own most all of the media"! that's great to hear! I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point me to any of these. for each one you find, give me one article where they claim the following, which, according to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, is the most common tenet of leftist philosophies: > that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.

1

[deleted] t1_jdr2dip wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_jdr2dn5 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

hognuts73 t1_jdql5gg wrote

Sure isn’t, is there a group that somebody that has sex within their gender falls into?

−14

Remote_Person5280 t1_jdn7dwe wrote

And why wouldn’t he?

He’s no longer a priest so it’s no longer a sin.

57

HarryHacker42 t1_jdnwv8r wrote

The church hasn't been turning them in for "sinning" so it isn't a crime either, even if you are a priest.

18

ryobiguy t1_jdpddwu wrote

Sounds like organized crime to me.

9

HarryHacker42 t1_jdpj4gs wrote

The Catholic Church helped murder thousands of children, in Canada and Ireland in gigantic cases, but throughout the world in dozens of small cases. But don't worry.. the USA lets churches do anything they want and still pay no tax.

15

WaytoomanyUIDs t1_je9ov6v wrote

Also involved in human trafficking in Ireland, Francoist Spain and Argentina under the Junta.

2

subzero112001 t1_jdp14lp wrote

“The church hasn’t been turning them in”

A pedophile from the church has never been turned in? That isn’t an accurate statement.

What you mean to say is “a few people occasionally brush things under the rug”.

−22

HarryHacker42 t1_jdpi842 wrote

The Pope JUST SAID that they are going to continue to review charges of abuse and if it raises to a level they find compelling, they will turn the person in now. But note, the church is the one who decides if the child abuse is to a level they find unacceptable.

That is a revsion to the 2019 policy. Before that, it was "cover it all up and hide the accused". For 200 years that was the policy.

10

subzero112001 t1_jdptstg wrote

So the pope saying “ we will look into these issues” actually means “the church never really turned in pedophiles before but now we will ”???

You’re doing a whole lot of biased assumptions.

Your logic is completely sound. /s

−9

HarryHacker42 t1_jdr0voz wrote

There are decades of proof the Catholic Church hid pedophiles from any investigation let alone prosecution. That is a written policy they had, that the current Pope said he is changing after 200 years. So they admitted to it. I don't know what kind of half-hearted defense you are trying. The only difference is that in 2019, they said they'd change and we're all waiting to see if they'll do something like start turning in all those they were hiding or just toss an occasional one under the bus.

The Church isn't innocent, it paid out millions in settlements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Canada found 200+ graves of children the Church killed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57325653

7

subzero112001 t1_jdthlxa wrote

“There are decades of proof the Catholic Church hid pedophiles”

I never claimed that “the church never hid pedophiles.”

You’re trying to argue like it’s an all or nothing thing. It’s very possible for them to hide some pedophiles while turning others in. But you’re trying to act like they’ve never in the history of the church turned in a pedophile. You literally said “The church hasn’t been turning them in”.

“That is a written policy”

Oh? I’ve never heard of the Catholic policy of “We don’t turn in pedophiles”.

Source please?

1

HarryHacker42 t1_jdvit50 wrote

The vast amounts of detail coming from the 2019, 2021, and 2023 changes are making it hard to find anything that happened before then. But I challenge you to find a case where the Church turned over a person to the law enforcement who wasn't already being demanded by the law enforcement. A case where a priest or other employee abused a kid, and the Church said "here police, this guy did something". You'd think with the massive number of cases shown by the legal settlements, there would be somebody turned over BEFORE it made it to civil court.

2

subzero112001 t1_jdyoj4u wrote

You do realize that its the police that handle people breaking the law, right? Lemme break this down for you.

If the church says "This guy has been abusing kids, ARREST HIM!".

The police will ask "Do you have any proof?"

And if the church responds" No, but the......."

Then the police will say"We'll investigate the charges since you have ZERO PROOF".

​

Do you understand? How in the world do you not even know how our legal system works?

0

HarryHacker42 t1_jdz3ayn wrote

But that's not how it works. What happens is a kid says he's been touched in a way he found odd, and the parents want to know more about it. The church takes over the investigation, looks into it, and finds the priest was probably doing something illegal, again, and tells the kid it was normal and he was wrong, and tell the parents it was nothing, then they ship the priest off to another parish or another country. THAT is what happened. The police weren't called. The person bringing the accusation was told they were wrong and it was just a mistake.

And the church did it THOUSANDS of times, and settled for hundreds of millions of dollars when it caught up to them, but you know what didn't happen? Them turning over all those priests and the evidence they had to the police.

2

subzero112001 t1_jdzf8ye wrote

>The church takes over the investigation

What part of "the police are supposed to handle people breaking the law" did you not understand?

It's like no shit if you go to Burger King and tell them "The gas pump station stole my money at Conoco!" they're not gonna do anything about it. Why is this such a hard concept?

You're basing a bunch of your vile on stupid people not reporting something illegal to the ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. It's honestly really weird.

Also, since this apparently has to be said; THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF ACQUIRING FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE/DISPROVE ACCUSATIONS. That's what the legal system is for.

The premise of your entire claim is completely flawed in every single way.

1

HarryHacker42 t1_je0fhuq wrote

I'm saying it happened ALL the time, which is why the Church paid out millions. The Church should stay the hell out of it. They don't have the ability to investigate, but they did, and then they did the priest. Are you unaware of history? Did you miss the list of payouts the church did for this?

Here is over a decade of payout after payout, over a billion dollars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Here's a list of priests hidden by the church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_transfers_of_abusive_Catholic_priests

2

subzero112001 t1_je35moa wrote

>I'm saying it happened ALL the time

Is due to morons not doing anything right. It has nothing to do with the church. Because the church does not convict criminals. How many times do I have to say that????

>The Church should stay the hell out of it.

If you mean they should stay out of law enforcement, I agree. Because thats what the legal system is for.

>Here is over a decade of payout after payout, over a billion dollars:

And that averages about 8 victims a year. 8 victims out of.... 463,634 per year.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20there%20are%20463%2C634,year%20in%20the%20United%20States.

The church has ~ 8. Out of 463,634.

Now of course is anything over 0 bad? Absolutely. But you're acting like the church has a monopoly on it. And it's quite obvious that 8 out of 463,634 is nowhere near being a large portion,the main culprit, or even moderately responsible for the majority of those acts.

0

subzero112001 t1_jdp189e wrote

Or maybe being falsely accused shouldn’t mean someone should stop trying to be a good person?

−24

Remote_Person5280 t1_jdp67f8 wrote

What makes you think he was falsely accused? Did you read the article? It said nothing like that.

He was defrocked after being accused of sexual assault and investigated by the church. He didn’t quit- he was fired.

According to a woman who has investigated hundreds of these cases he has followed a classic pattern for offenders.

Lastly, given the Catholic Church and its priests actions surrounding the rape of children and the concealment of said rapes it would be insane to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If he’d been accused of sexual assault, defrocked, and moved on to being a line cook, maybe.

He was accused of sex crimes against children, investigated, defrocked, and then chose to…. work with children.

In my opinion I think your statement that he was “falsely accused” demonstrates breathtaking naïveté.

17

subzero112001 t1_jdpfezk wrote

“What makes you think he was falsely accused?”

Probably the fact that it was a random board of religious people who made the judgement of “guilty” instead of using actual forensics to determine culpability.

“He was fired”

Being fired doesn’t mean you are guilty. It just means that keeping you around would make that group “look bad”. It’s a publicity thing. Aka societal manipulation.

“Given the Catholic Church and its priests actions surrounding rape”

It’s odd that you think that the Catholic Church is more likely to commit rape compared to other random people. I have yet to see any evidence which suggests that the Catholic Church has the monopoly on rape.

“He was accused….then continued to work with children”

A person should stop trying to help others if they’ve ever been falsely accused of a crime. Your logic is undeniable. /s

You’re basing this entire thing around an accusation that wasn’t proven in any way shape or form using any evidence based forensics or analysis or any legitimate standard.

Talk about mob mentality and mob justice huh?

But I guess people only care about due process when it’s themself getting the short end of the stick…….sigh….

−4

Remote_Person5280 t1_jdpgjq5 wrote

I had a whole argument typed out but, you know what?

Fuck it.

You let this guy work with your kids. I’ll take mine somewhere else.

Have a nice night.

8

RelativisticTowel t1_jdpuvqa wrote

Check out their comment history. Gotta give them credit, might just be the highest effort reddit troll I ever ran into.

3

subzero112001 t1_jdpm1zr wrote

Yeah, it’s always easier to put your hands over your ears and ignore the other person than try to have a conversation. Good luck with that.

−2

Remote_Person5280 t1_jdqrlsa wrote

There’s no conversation to be had here, it’s a waste of both of our times.

A member of an organization, which has repeatedly lied about and covered up sexual assault of minors by its members was credibly accused of sexual assault. After being investigated the organization- and let me repeat this, this organization is notorious for covering up and hiding this exact thing- fired this person.

This person then immediately sought another job working with children.

You look at that chain of events, and think “this person was falsely accused“.

I look at it and say “typical Catholic Church, deflection and victim, seeking behavior by the offender“.

There’s nothing to talk about.

7

subzero112001 t1_jdtc8sa wrote

Your conclusion is based upon a supposedly untrustworthy group(the church) yet you’re saying their actions of firing this person is somehow trustworthy enough to condemn him.

How can you not see the blatant contradictions?

1

Nezrite t1_jdounnz wrote

r/NotADragQueen

41

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdrdlh2 wrote

"Brice Williams was an HIVIAIDS prevention advocate and community organizer who was planning to begin work with Glo Harrisburg, a center for LGBTQ+ youth, when PennLive interviewed him in June 2021. He also performed as a drag queen known as Anastasia Diamond. He was charged June 23, 2022 with 25 counts of possessing child pornography."

−1

Ylancoi t1_jdoz2em wrote

My children are much safer at storybook hour with a drag queen

27

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdrdqya wrote

What source do you have on that?

−6

[deleted] t1_jdrqprh wrote

[deleted]

3

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdrse0y wrote

Well the better question is if drag Queens/drag story hour was as abundant as church leaders/church, what are the rates of pedophilia per group?

But even then, it's def concerning how people are downvoting me commenting that there are pedo drag queens, almost like nothing could prove them wrong even if we figured out the answer to the question above.

0

[deleted] t1_jdrtzuj wrote

[deleted]

2

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdrv0rv wrote

Nice assumption about me that you randomly made up, I don't like pedo church leaders and want them to be removed from any and every church. Also... If you were to go to a christian subreddit, for example, how many of them would condemn pedos in their churches? You make it seems like 0% would not, however I'm almost certain every single comment would be.

I'm gonna make disingenuous assumption about you in the same manner you did, here you go:

When it comes to drag queens, you’re perfectly fine with them touching children.

0

[deleted] t1_jdrwjib wrote

[deleted]

2

OmniGigaMiga t1_jds17ll wrote

If Drag Queens had a long history of touching children, what would your response be?

I'm very interested to see how you answer this because it would completely change how we talk about this topic...

−1

[deleted] t1_jds1lwp wrote

[deleted]

2

OmniGigaMiga t1_jds2ipa wrote

Dude, it's a hypothetical. Cmon

1

[deleted] t1_jds3zrl wrote

[deleted]

2

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdsw05h wrote

Alright great, if studies prove that drag queens have pedo rates equal to or higher than church leaders then I'm glad to have you on my side.

I have a strong feeling that dudes in dresses who obsess over children going to their events have probably got some dirty thoughts...

0

[deleted] t1_jdt4utq wrote

[deleted]

1

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdtdso5 wrote

But I do condemn the church for having pedos. The difference is that no christian would EVER sit there and say that sexualized content is appropriate for elementary schoolers but a drag queen MIGHT.

For example, many people involved in Drag or support Drag have very loose interpretations on what is acceptable for children. There was recently a video of men in thongs twerking Infront of crowd of mothers holding their toddlers (if you don't believe this I can try to find it and link it, if they allow links).

Christian idealogy never leads them towards having men twerk Infront of children, you will NEVER hear of an event like that in the news but deep down everyone expects this to happen with relation to some sort of drag event.

When drag supports a very loose restriction on appropriate sexual content, it's far more damaging and honestly scary when children are involved. There's this perverted obsession in drag that constantly needs to show aspects of their sexuality to little children, not in a sense of "oh I'm a man married to a man" but imagery like that of twerking or being partially nude. This is why I fundamentally cannot view pedophilia in the church to the same degree as pedophilia in drag.

Even for drag queen story hours which tend to be pretty tame other than the weird man that looks clownish, the topic of sex is so focused in that it's creepy. I mean imagine a priest going around doing story hours where he constantly talks about the love of a man and women being together. While the material itself might not be that problematic, the intention of what leads a man with an obsession of teaching sexuality to children is the part that is gross.

I've never had a friend, or family member, or even stranger obsess and dedicate their lives to teaching sexuality to children... Drag queens are odd in that way and I would never let them anywhere near my younger siblings or any children I may have in the future.

1

iggygrey t1_jdorf1e wrote

And the Cathligelicals parents are fine with it. They just don't want them drag queens grooming their kide because they don't. No, Cathligelicals want their children groomed by the clergy.

19

Professional3673 t1_jdq5ckk wrote

> The charity reported it held a “golf outing” and a “cigar night” that raised $39,222. But the cost of putting those together was exactly $39,222, making the net income from the two events zero.

This is totally legit, no obvious ass accounting tricks here

18

[deleted] t1_jdn7fu5 wrote

[deleted]

9

kels398pingback t1_jdpe4ct wrote

> Play by their rules

A criminal defendant is not presumed guilty in an inquisitorial system. Nevertheless, since a case would not be brought against a defendant unless there is evidence indicating guilt, the system does not require the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE that is fundamental to the adversarial system.

Canon law is a inquisitorial system. Hence the word inquisition.

−1

Yeriant t1_jdoytbc wrote

Yeah, but drag story time...

8

Tommy_Batch t1_jdnnw6d wrote

He calls it "the smorgasbord".

4

THEBIGREDAPE t1_jdq4qjs wrote

It's never drag queens is it. It's always a preacher

4

ElViejoPava t1_jdpyo5o wrote

And for all of you… The Catholic Church, ladies and gentlemen

3

ABAC071319 t1_jdoqrd6 wrote

Get the frock outta here.

2

Commercial_Board6680 t1_jdp969j wrote

No! I'm shocked beyond comprehension! That's my impression of someone who's been living under a rock.

2

ratmanbland t1_jdpjlbw wrote

republicans say its cool they are catholic and do no wrong

2

JackPThatsMe t1_jdq3f6g wrote

Why is the Catholic Church still legal?

2

dr_set t1_jdrkji0 wrote

This and the parents that keep giving them their children should be considered criminals at this point. Is like feeding your child to the lions.

2

Retired306 t1_jdr3s2j wrote

In general, organized religion is a scam for money.

2

Entropy_dealer t1_jdnd719 wrote

Some kind of redemption with nostalgia ?

1

Hadren-Blackwater t1_jdr1v5o wrote

Ah catholics.

Somehow they still believe that they are the good guys.

1

Heliolord t1_jdpgh5o wrote

A free ice cream truck is not a charity!

0

Zenki95 t1_jdpjfck wrote

Well, he's always been passionate about giving to kids...

0

Joegnc t1_jdp9lpj wrote

Credibly accused but not convicted.

−7

[deleted] t1_jdotr5t wrote

[deleted]

−11

ktgrok t1_jdp5li8 wrote

Yeah, but if I’m running a charity I’m pretty sure I hire the guy who wasn’t accused.

12

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdrdzcm wrote

This is how people who get falsely accused have their lives ruined, aka Chris Avellone just recently. Y'all need to stop doing the whole "guilty until proven innocent" because it's a vile way of living life...

1

ktgrok t1_jdscxn4 wrote

So someone accused of child abuse should be fine to work with kids? Would you want your kid spending time with someone accused of this? I didn’t say the man should be stoned or kept from all jobs, in exile. But there are plenty of jobs and roles he can play that don’t put him with kids .

2

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdsrnpp wrote

A person accused of child abuse should be placed on leave, have a proper investigation, and then go back to their job if they aren't found guilty.

Is it really that difficult to NOT ruin a person's life over an allegation?

2

ktgrok t1_jdt3o0g wrote

This assumes that the abuse was reported in a timely fashion, in a way where it could be investigated and prosecuted. In this case it was reported decades later, as were many sexual abuse cases regarding the church. There is probably very little way to prove anything at that point. However, the Catholic Church had a review board evaluate the accusation, and that board found the claim to be "credible and substantial".

So, does the charity assume he is innocent despite the church finding the claim to be credible? Best case, guy gets to keep working for the charity. Worst case, children are sexually assaulted. Or, does the charity decide to err on the side of caution - with best case being kids are protected from a predator, worst case being an innocent man has to work for a non child related charity instead of one dealing with kids.

You'd think an honorable man, given the situation, would find a different type of work, to avoid, as the Catholic church itself might say, "the appearance of evil".

1

OmniGigaMiga t1_jdtflus wrote

I don't really care about what some mildly redacted priest has to say about an allegation, religious leaders can barely solve what 1+1 is let alone whether or not someone is guilty of rape.

We use the law, if it cannot be proven that someone is guilty of a charge we cannot act as if they were.

A week ago or so I read a story of a man who lost his all of his friends and a good amount of his family over a false accusation. No one wanted to hear him because "accusation = guilty".

Now was his life destroyed? Probably not, but did he suffer greatly? Yeah... Yeah he probably did.

Some people could have their lives turned upside down over such a thing, it's not as easy as saying "hey we know you aren't guilty but you still can't be teacher, just in case". What if that was the only job he was good at or that made him happy, now he has to work as some janitor in a hospital or something? Nice, I'm sure thats a society that really cares about justice and law.

1

ktgrok t1_jdthd56 wrote

This was an outside board of review that found the allegation credible. Would you hire someone to babysit your kid who had been accused of child sexual abuse?

1

heykid_nicemullet t1_jdpcw0e wrote

The catholic church is so intense about protecting molesters that for him to have been defrocked and therefore to lose the church's protection, he had to be next level.

10

NoVaFlipFlops t1_jdp8f5f wrote

Boys aren't his exes who benefitted from an accusation in any way.

6

chimpaflimp t1_jdnnjxd wrote

Since when did 'accused of' mean 'undeniably guilty'?

−23

chuckie512 t1_jdoafb1 wrote

Credible enough for the church to kick him out. And that's a lot.

19

subzero112001 t1_jdp0iqe wrote

Not really. They just had some random review board guess whether the clergy were innocent or guilty. It wasn’t even based upon any actual standards or evidence. Did you even read the article?

−1

AdamicAtom t1_jdop6ro wrote

This is Reddit. You're guilty until innocent here

−12

r4yu11 t1_jdnj0mb wrote

Anyone can be accused of anything. It’s not proven guilt. I’m not saying he didn’t do it. But he should be treated as innocent before proven guilty. Any accusations and everyone jumps to conclusions.

−24

[deleted] t1_jdoej40 wrote

[deleted]

16

subzero112001 t1_jdp0qro wrote

Or a fair investigation before they condemn an innocent person to a lifetime of misery?

Pretty sure everyone deserves a fair investigation.

−6

[deleted] t1_jdp4y9r wrote

[deleted]

7

subzero112001 t1_jdpc1vp wrote

“Judging by the history of the church”

Are churches more likely to not bring a guilty person to justice compared to non-churches? I was pretty sure people with agendas exist in both groups. Non-church people vs church people are generally equally full of shit. Because it’s both filled with “people”.

“Guessing you’re a churchy person”

Nope. But I don’t have to be religious to say “Every person has a right to a fair investigation before their life is destroyed”.

“What about the kids”

What part of “Do a fair investigation” sounds to you like “ruining a child’s life is okay”???

You’re taking tons of random shit out of the ether and trying to put those ideas into what I’ve said. And it doesn’t make any sense because I haven’t said anything of the sort.

−3