New catholic scandal

Has anyone seen this already? A Spanish cleric says it's OK for women who have had an abortion to be raped. Here is the link.Go to your work, send an e-mail to all your colleagues in which you say that women who have had an abortion may be wantonly raped, and see what happens. My guess is that you'll be out of a job before the day is over. So why the perverted misogynist sociopath Javier Martinez, the archbigot of Granada, has not been sacked five minutes after he proclaimed his gross ideas to the world is anybody's guess. But if the catholic church is not prepared to take action against this hatemonger (and I think that's not going to happen any time soon), someone else has to do it. Is there an organisation that can start legal proceedings against Javier Martinez of Granada, or better still, against the catholic church as a whole? Not in order to abolish it completely - people who believe religious nonsense have to have a place where they can do so without bothering the rest of us - but in order to force it to get rid of its rotten apples. Perhaps for starters an international arrest warrant can be issued on the grounds of incitement of violence against women?

I wish I read Portuguese.....
Yes, that dipshit needs to be arrested.

Just the other day I was wondering whether anyone could deserve rape, and of course my thoughts went to mass murderers and genocidal maniacs as possibilities. I never came to a certain conclusion on that matter, but it turns out that the Archbigot has also thought of this.Not only can a person deserve rape, but a single abortion is worse that masterminding and inciting the deaths of millions. Who'd have thought?(From the linked article)

quote:

---

For the Archbishop Hitler's and Stalin's crimes (he forgot Franco's) were 'less dreadful than abortion'.

---

That I would love to see. The comments are a disgrace and the RCC should not only be distancing itself from them and him, it should be condemning them and him and apologising to women all over the world.What an utter, utter fuckwit!

Why?

What's been going on behind the purple curtains for centuries in the convent brothels, the confessional booths, etc is coming into the lights.For eye openers read Behind The Purple Curtains, 1950 by Walter Montano and Fifty Years In The Church Of Rome by Father Chiniquy, etc.

As Para said - incitement to violence. Spain, like Texas, probably has no law against dumbassery.

As well they shouldn't.But honestly, I'm more concerned about the views expressed claiming this man should be arrested than I am worried about anything this bishop actually said. I think arresting him for expressing his views is far more dangerous than anything he said.Jon

If i rally a mob in front of your house saying stuff like you work with the devil and you should be gang raped. Then the mob would proceed in to your house and gang rape you but i would stay outside or go and have a cup of coffee some place else. Would i be responsible for you being raped and should i be punished?

Then the crime would be the rallying not related to what you said in particular that enabled you to do the rallying.The guy disrespects the human race by his existence but he is not a criminal for what he said.Moreover, how is this any worse than saying that people who don't believe in a particular sky daddy deserve to be burned in a lake of fire for all eternity? That someone's sovereign thoughts should allow them to be punished worse than anything we mere mortals can conceive?I understand that the danger is that some people might really act on what this guys says but we can't say that speech is free unless there exist people who actually listen to you when you say nasty things.

I agree speech should be fully free but if your speech causes someone to hurt another you should be responsible too.So if someone acts on the priests ramblings and rapes a woman who aborted a child the guy who acted and the priest should be arrested, and punished. the guy who acted gets tried for rape, the priest gets tried on incitement of violence.edit:
If no one acts on the priests ramblings my faith in humanity is partly restored, and the priest can be left alone to preach all the hate he wants. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

So if I say right now that I think certain Republican presidential candiates are economic terrorists and that I hope they drop dead and you go out and shoot one of them, I am responsible for inciting you to violence?

I think I over-reacted a bit. I'll take back anything I said about arresting the man. Maybe he should be disciplined: the Pope could prohibit him from any contact with monaguillos for a couple of years.

That would have to be decided in court.
But the answer is: "Yes, you could be responsible."As a similar example:
A Guardian article on 2 lads that posted on facebook, encouraging riots in the UK.
They never attended a riot - "Neither of their Facebook posts resulted in a riot-related event."
All they did was post on Facebook.But they still got 4 years in prison.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

The point of the comparision was to elicit a further justification that the speech should be illegal. Can you justify it? Well, there are definitly some different sensibilities between the US and the UK regarding free speech. To any extent that someone should be imprisoned for something like that should be because they were orchestrating the riots BY their speech, not the speech itself.Someone saying, "I am outraged! We should riot!" should be protected speech.