Worse offender in child rape: Catholic Church or ACLU?

[avaya]

This started with part of a post on Christian moderates in naturalism101. I said:

Only a religious organization could openly protect child rapists, and still maintain millions of people looking to them as a source for morality. The Catholic Church exists because of the "casual" Catholics.

John Goddard replied by mentioning the ACLU defending NAMBLA and adds this paragraph from the ACLU web page:

In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

This post was deleted since Naturalism101 is only for non-theists. It was put in the honors hall by Dr. Jack Bauer first:

Golden. That was the perfect reply.

The Catholic Church contains child rapists. NAMBLA defends child rapists. I guarantee you this: The Catholic church would never speak up for NAMBLA.
...
It's incredibly easy to throw around baseless innuendo that the Catholic Church is the worst offender when it comes to child abuse. There is no evidence of that strong claim whatsoever, and definitely no evidence for the suggestion that Christians would protect child rapists but unbelievers never would.

I have several comments on this:
1. I made the claim that no other organization could defend child rapists and still have millions of people looking to them for moral guidance. Neither the ACLU or NAMBLA are near the level or depth of followers looking to the catholic church for Morality.
2. Ignoring the "looking to morality" clause I will, of course, agree there are many people or groups who defend child rape and are worse then the Catholic Church.
3. Since you brought the ACLU up so lets discuss them - they would never defend a child rapist from receiving punishment for child rape (only speech & civil liberties). Read here for examples of the ACLU protecting the right to hand out of bibles, protest against a gay pride parade, have a gay pride parade, quote bible verses in public, and dozens of other . The ACLU is not for or against what anyone is saying, only the right to say it.
The Catholic Church defends child raping priests because they don't agree with, and want to be above, the law. It has nothing to do with civil liberties.
4. I never made that claim that only Christians defend child rapists and you are creating a straw man to say otherwise.

[John Goddard]

1. I made the claim that no other organization could defend child rapists and still have millions of people looking to them for moral guidance. Neither the ACLU or NAMBLA are near the level or depth of followers looking to the catholic church for Morality.

ACLU has 500,000 members, it openly defends free speech for NAMBLA an association of pedophiles, and many more non-members look to the ACLU to say that defending free speech is the right and moral thing to do. That number may also be in the millions for oppressed Chinese, Muslims, and others who might like to be members but who can't or haven't bothered to join yet.

3. Aside from all that, you brought the ACLU up so lets discuss them. The ACLU would never defend a child rapist from receiving punishment for child rape (only speech & civil liberties). Read here for examples of the ACLU protecting the right to hand out of bibles, protest against a gay pride parade, have a gay pride parade, quote bible verses in public, and dozens of other . The ACLU is not for or against what anyone is saying, only the right to say it.

It is still defending child rapists and their message that child rape is ok.

The Catholic Church defends child raping priests because they don't agree with, and want to be above, the law. It has nothing to do with civil liberties.

This is opinion. Despite my problems with their actions, my opinion is that for the most part, the Church was misguided but sincere in not wanting this issue to destroy it, and thus possibly salvation for billions of people who may lose faith in God and Christ because of it.

[avaya]

ACLU has 500,000 members, it openly defends free speech for NAMBLA an association of pedophiles, and many more non-members look to the ACLU to say that defending free speech is the right and moral thing to do. That number may also be in the millions for oppressed Chinese, Muslims, and others who might like to be members but who can't or haven't bothered to join yet.

It sounds as if you are saying freedom of speech is a bad thing.

It is still defending child rapists and their message that child rape is ok.

And it also defends 9-11 truthers to say what they think. You are really against freedom of speech that much?

...the Church was misguided but sincere in not wanting this issue to destroy it, and thus possibly salvation for billions of people who may lose faith in God and Christ because of it.

I agree that is a big part of why they did it.

[John Goddard]

It sounds as if you are saying freedom of speech is a bad thing.

Depends on who is speaking. Pedophiles don't need free speech, except maybe to a therapist or prison guard.

And it also defends 9-11 truthers to say what they think. You are really against freedom of speech that much?

We're talking about one action of the ACLU, everything else it does is another issue. Let's not build a strawman by making it an issue of free speech, it's about defending and protecting child rapists for whatever reason.

[avaya]

Depends on who is speaking. Pedophiles don't need free speech, except maybe to a therapist or prison guard.

You believe in free speech depending on who is speaking. Well, the US does not work that way and we are better for it.

it's about defending and protecting child rapists for whatever reason.

They protect the right to make the case that child rape is okay, they would never protect a child rapist from the law (like the Catholic Church does).

[MarcusAndreas]

ACLU, if they are seriously defending the Nation Kid Raper Assocation.

[MarcusAndreas]

Some people don't deserve freedom of speech.
NAMBLA, for example, with their pedophile propaganda, they ought to be flogged.
I advocate flogging as a punishment.

[John Goddard]

You believe in free speech depending on who is speaking. Well, the US does not work that way and we are better for it.

Opinion. I think Americans are worse off for it. They would do better for God to silence people who speak evil, as it will be when Jesus returns, my opinion.

They protect the right to make the case that child rape is okay, they would never protect a child rapist from the law (like the Catholic Church does).

If the law censors NAMBLA because its members encourage child rape, ACLU protects child rapists from the law.

[franktalk]

Speech is regulated like most things. We can't yell "fire" in a theater and we can't give speeches asking to violently overthrow the government. I would like to include any speech which is designed to protect or enhance the abilities of pedophiles. That which is done to support breaking the law in these cases should be a criminal offense. To hide behind a banner of free speech while trying to shield pedophiles is disgusting.

[avaya]

Speech is regulated like most things. We can't yell "fire" in a theater and we can't give speeches asking to violently overthrow the government. I would like to include any speech which is designed to protect or enhance the abilities of pedophiles. That which is done to support breaking the law in these cases should be a criminal offense. To hide behind a banner of free speech while trying to shield pedophiles is disgusting.

I'd like to reword your paragraph to point out the logical flow doesn't make sense:

Speech is regulated like most things. We can't yell "fire" in a theater and we can't give speeches asking to violently overthrow the government. I would like to include any speech which is designed to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. That which is done to support breaking the law in these cases should be a criminal offense. To hide behind a banner of free speech while trying to shield underage drinking is disgusting.

[avaya]

Opinion. I think Americans are worse off for it. They would do better for God to silence people who speak evil, as it will be when Jesus returns, my opinion.

If you don't believe in freedom of speech I suppose there is nothing I can say. Being in a religious minority, I am very greatful for it.

If the law censors NAMBLA because its members encourage child rape, ACLU protects child rapists from the law.

The law does does not sensor them because we live in a free speech country.

[Lightknight]

Being that the RCC doesn't support child molestation and the ACLU supports organizations that support it, the award would have to go to ACLU.

[Seasanctuary]

What a silly thread.

The Catholic Church was guilty of shielding some known guilty child molesters from human law enforcement, which resulted in more children harmed. BUT this is hardly representative of the RCC as a whole.

The ACLU is not shielding known guilty child molesters from human law enforcement. They are supporting free speech about a crime. The reason this is important is that the government's decision on what is or is not a crime should be subject to open disagreement. An organization which supports the legalization of marijuana -- or 'harder' drugs -- should be able to openly discuss their views AND law enforcement should be free to collar anyone in the group who actually breaks the law. If anything, law enforcement might like to take advantage of examining members of such groups for infractions.

Way to be unfair and misrepresentative of both groups.

[avaya]

What a silly thread.

I agree, but it was taking another thread off topic and I thought this should be seperate.

The Catholic Church was guilty of shielding some known guilty child molesters from human law enforcement, which resulted in more children harmed. BUT this is hardly representative of the RCC as a whole.

Bishops who are fairly high up in the organization, who to this day are still part of the organization, were the ones moving abusers to different locations, not reporting the crimes, concealing evidence, and bribing the family of victims not to go to the police. The Catholic Church is paying hundreds of millions of dollars every year ($615m in 2007) to settle cases that are still popping up. The problem has been going on for decades, and the secrecy mandate of 1962 went to all patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops. I will agree almost all Catholics are opposed to hiding priests from the law, but if you say it is not representative, a footnote at least needs to be added.

[StephenR]

I support protecting everyone's right to free speech, even people who believe the vile things that NAMBLA does.. The ACLU is just being consistent, like they usually are. They protect the rights of Christians, atheists, pedophiles and Nazis.

Those within the RCC who protected pedophiles from being arrested for child rape are in no way similar to the ACLU; the ACLU wasn't involved in a conspiracy to keep child-rapists from justice for their crimes.

Then again, I think claims about the Church have been overblown, because of sensationalism.