Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
Go interview a Catholic arch bishop about their opinion of how the Vatican has handled sexual abuse scandals. Would a non-committal answer from them mean they're a dangerous person who supports pedophilia?
|
More likely I would view it as someone who wishes to deflect rightful criticism away from the church. Just as it would appear as this Imam wishes to deflect rightful criticism away from radical Islam.
JW, I don't quite get your analogy. I get that you are trying to link (for the same of argument, not literally) the Catholic church with all pedophiles. What I could understand as an analogy is a center for troubled teens run by the Catholic church and the church refuses to acknowledge whether or not any priests involved in counseling these teens have had issues with molesting children or pediphilia. I would GREATLY condemn that. Building a church near a child molester I'm not getting.
I also bet, if asked, he would gladly and eagerly condemn Israel for such actions.
My gut reaction is certainly as you described, GD, but I then the reason has set in that they have a right and there is no reason to stop them. As far as using buraeucratic means to stop it, I don't support that, but it isn't like things don't happen like that all over, condemning properties in order to seize them, having buildings declared as historical, or finding some reason why a Walmart can't build a big box store in a neighborhood (there have been HUGE protests here in Phoenix regarding that Walmart situation). Not trying to justify using those means, I'm just saying it isn't a new tactic whatsoever.