Who wants to start a "Black Collar Crime" Forum?

[Ian David]

There are so many stories, every single day, of "Clergy Gone Bad", that my daily postings of a single day's worth of "Black Collar Crime" tends to overwhelm the General Discussion Group.

The sheer volume of a single day's worth of Black Collar Crime is so overwhelming, that to some, it looks like "spam." I mean, there is just so much of it, every single day, that it can tend to dominate the General Discussion group.

So, to accommodate those whose feelings are hurt when the naughty minority of criminal clergy are reported, I suggest we start a separate forum.

Then, whenever a clergy person is arrested, indicted, charged, imprisoned, etc. (About 10-20 articles per day, I think) we will have an appropriate place to put them.

I could also then post a single message in the General Discussion Forum per day, summarizing that day's Black Collar Crime.


And although I owe no apology to anyone, nor do I feel an explanation is necessary, I'm posting a couple links to threads where I feel I have more than adequately addressed any legitimate concern anyone may have.



See also:

7. Don't mistake fundie-bashing for christian-bashing.
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 09:36 AM by IanDB1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x132289#132375


And:


IanDB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-21-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. If you'd followed her life since, you'd realize she had more than atoned.

Hey, I'm the guy who posts about 20 stories a day about "Black Collar Crime" and even I love and forgive Tammy Faye.

Go ahead and do an advanced DU author search on me using key word "church."

If I can cheer for Tammy Faye, then everyone can.

(If you're lazy, just check this thread where I summarize what the Baptists have been doing, just this month alone)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3391412



And:


7. Yes, I have posted about criminal rabbis. I have an RSS feed for this stuff
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1339301#1341518

[pwb]

1. Not many replies to your continued Christian bashing.

[Ian David]

2. Not Christian Bashing. Fundie Bashing and Hypocrite Bashing. See posts referenced in my OP. Also...

... please share with me any stories you can find of indicted or arrested rabis, imams, scientologists, budhists, atheists, shamans, etc.

I'm always looking, just as eagerly, for those, too!

Please, share with the class!

[malaise]

27. Keep exposing them IanDB1

you will help to awaken a few parents so they protect their children from those who prey on children while pretending to pray to their respective myth.

[spoony]

36. Yeah be sure to keep them safe from Ugandans

The danger next door! Lol.

[IndianaJones]

12. Could you elaborate on how it is Christian bashing? nt.

[toddaa]

17. Reality tends to do that, huh?

[woo me with science]

32. Sounds to me more like an obsession of someone with recovered memories.

People who begin building their lives around repressed/recovered memories of abuse very often become obsessed these sorts of stories. They hope that pointing out actual, documented cases of clergy abuse will give some credulity to the fantastic and pornographic "memories" they are creating in therapy.

It is very sad, really.

[Bluebear]

41. Are you a mental health professional? Or Dr. Frist? nt

[woo me with science]

48. It's just a guess.

based on knowing the process well and how those in it think. Memory recovery happens in a very predictable way, and becoming obsessed with stories like this is definitely one of the signs of belonging to that group. I could be wrong in this case, but I doubt it.

[Bluebear]

40. Christian bashing? You think those stories should be ignored?

or maybe just swept under the carpet?

[dmallind]

3. No I think it's better in GD

It's a bit too narrow an interest group to have its own forum. Abuse of clerical influence and reputation is important and should remain visible, but it's more of a general interest topic than a specific area of interest/expertise IMO.

[Tom Joad]

4. No, i think its better in Ian's very own forum. spam it is.

[UTUSN]

19. Agree. This is my typical complaint about the almost daily spam sessions:

This poster's current spam session on the topic of "religious hypocrites" or "religious lawbreakers". Religion forum.



I don't see it as "Christian bashing." As with many other topics, it's about hypocrites. But there's not much "discussion" content in these news items, and, really, not much NEW news in them. So they just take up space. Now, in fairness, I did not object to his threads when they were about the L.A. diocese's settlement of the pedophilia cases or the Cardinal's role, because those were a national story with broad applicability, discussion content, and needing exposure forever.

[QC]

21. It's like being cornered at a party by some drunk with an obsession.

There's really nothing to discuss (nobody thinks hypocrisy is a good thing) so all you can do is suddenly notice someone across the room that you need to speak to and flee.

[spoony]

23. No shit, and 90% of the time it's some otherwise

totally un-newsworthy item from some thirty syllable locale he has to dig out an atlas to find.

[QC]

25. As I said in another thread, some preacher in East Pissflap gets caught jacking off

behind the Tastee-Freeze, he rushes breathlessly to DU to tell everyone.

It's a really weird and ultimately boring obsession.

[spoony]

26. Lol, well put.

[BlooInBloo]

5. mmm... Sweep religion-related crime under the rug - GENIUS!!!

[Kingshakabobo]

6. Nah! Leave it out in the open for all to see.

Let the christo-crybaby's deal with it.

[spoony]

22. So many, many bigots, so little time.

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. What's wrong with GD? It's current events, isn't it? I read just about all of them

I don't consider it 'christian bashing' either. It's exposing the unholy posing as the holier-than-thou. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't christians be made aware that evil can infiltrate even *their* world? Christians, more than anyone, should be supportive of these posts. They can use it to their advantage by showing that they can "cast demons out of their midst".. knowwhutimean??

Keep 'em coming, IanDB1, and thank you for your dedication to this.

[dmallind]

8. Nope. People who point out specific Christians who are vile

also force presumably non-vile Christians to confront the fact that Christian is not a synonym for good and kind and decent regardless of what the dictionaries list as a common usage of the term. This makes a lot of them uncomfortable as it chips away at one of the rationalizations for any logical person to believe in unsupported and extraordinary folk-tales - that this somehow instills or reinforces a moral compass in the believer.

Their only defense is of course the no true Scotsman fallacy, which crops up in almost every actively debated thread on clerical and organized Christian leader crime.

Why it is so hard to say "well jeez 83% of the population is Christian so it's probably going to include pretty damn close to 83% of the slimeballs and loathesome predators isn't it - and in fact maybe more if you factor in that unscrupulous Christians can easily secure a position of implied trust and authority over kids because of all the organized activities churches and other Christian groups set up - what's the big deal?" I have no idea.

The ONLY reason for defensiveness is that of, perhaps even subconsciously, buying into the Christian=good canard. If an atheist were found doing something like this - and doubtless some have been and will be in the future - I would have no cause for defensiveness at all, as it would only speak ill of atheism if significantly more than 7% or so of such cases had atheist perpetrators.

[BlooInBloo]

9. What's the no true Scotsman fallacy? The ubiquitous idioitic christian defense that...

... "they aren't REALLY christian"?

[dmallind]

11. That be it. In its earlier form it goes

McTavish: Sugar in porridge? NO Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!

McDougal: My father puts sugar in his porridge, and is a Scotsman born and bred.

McTavish: Ah but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!

The idiotic defense you name doesn't even change the wording all that much.

[Ian David]

18. Hey, wait a minute! I am NOT just pointing out Christians! I'm also looking for OTHER clergy, too!

I try JUST AS HARD to find Rabis and others committing similar crimes.

There just don't seem to be as many to report.

But I do report them when I find them.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Ah, you're missing the point: it's a demand for the privilege of moral aristocracy

There are plenty of decent and sentient christians, and they are generally quite embarrassed by the shenanigans of the snake-oil salesmen. (Hey, let's be fair, too: I'll bet that many of the really greasy hucksters are total non-believers just working a racket; we non-believers need to admit that many of our group are total rotters, as well...)

Back to the point, however. What you get from many who protest about such threads is that they truly feel, deep down, that simply by dint of being christian, they are to be granted some sort of special status as OBVIOUSLY morally superior, and that anyone who questions that peevish demand for aristocratic privilege is a bigot, playing unfair and essentially scum-of-the-earth. Never mind that claiming moral superiority because of one's cosmic hunch that's held truer than the most provable fact is itself extreme bigotry. This assumption relegates the rest of us to the sub-human tide pool of life.

To far too many believers, if you point out ANYTHING wrong with the faith or certain of the faithful, you're "bashing". Sure, many DO do that and have ulterior motives, but religion is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Agnostics don't do suicide bombs. We don't cut off the arms of our infants, drown whole squads of our children, behead them, bash in their brains, shoot them, drive them into the bay or a lake in our car or anything else of the sort. Even if extremely outnumbered, I still have yet to hear of a non-believer offing his/her kids in the last decade or so, but there are MANY cases of believers doing it, and the belief itself is cited as either the motivator or the accomplice. (When non-believers hear voices, our friends and family get us help.)

Far too many people want a free pass for their actions because of allegiance to some supernatural belief system, and they demand the rest of us to accept their definition of that system as the only valid one. The assumption is this: christianity is good and the teachings and activities of the organizations are unquestionably of great value to mankind. Sorry folks, but I don't buy it. Sure, there are many tenets that ARE good, but it's also a deeply selfish death-cult, and it promotes xenophobia, dominance, acceptance of things without proof and willing submission to earthly enslavement by others. Let's use a reductionist argument: if reduced to one simple act that a christian is supposed to perform, what is it? It's saving one's own ass, and that's EXTREMELY selfish. Having said all that, I'll also say that Islam is much worse, even though it has some good things going for it too.

No belief system can exist for long without having something going for it, but remember: all organized religions are, at heart, political organizations. They all started as frowned-upon cults and the ones that best provided for our emotional needs survived.

The point is this: too many believers DEMAND to be assumed morally superior just because of their allegiance to this particular faith (virtually all other faiths do this too, by the way) and when it's pointed out that there are some pitfalls to the belief, they shriek as if they're being persecuted. The real truth is that THEY'RE doing the persecuting. Those in power don't have to flex their muscles all the time; they're already holding all the cards, and this is how the vast sweep of our society works. Other bothersome religions like the Jews are tolerated because they also believe in a god; it's the people who don't who are filth and weirdos. The very gall of such inferiors pointing out the dangers of what is obviously a moral superiority is tantamount to vicious hounding.

Yes, one hears a lot of it on this board, but there's a reason for that: this is a refuge for pluralists and leftists who have been hounded by the stodgy tyranny of reactionary group-think. Religion just happens to fit into this category: it's MUCH more conservative by nature than it is liberal. Religion and Conservatism claim to have the answer and really don't tolerate any other mindsets. They both tend to huff with outrage that anyone would question their moral superiority, and they consciously marginalize anyone who tries.

I'm not an atheist; although the god concept sounds, feels and tastes absolutely ridiculous, THERE'S NO PROOF EITHER WAY. I'm an agnostic. I take the responsibility for the heinous actions of non-believers like Pol-Pot, but I want christians to take responsibility for the transgressions of fellow christians like Hitler, McVeigh, Jim Jones, Franco, Mussolini and a host of other fine believers.

We all take hits for our beliefs and affiliations; to expect to be above this normal human accountability is selfish and immature. I've lost jobs, been marginalized in others, been ostracized, had my possessions damaged and been beaten up as a kid a few times for my beliefs, so we all get a bit of fallout for our assumptions. To expect immunity for them is egocentric and anti-social.

[me b zola]

42. Excellent post. n/t

[Ian David]

46. Yeah. What HE said!

I've posted about how evil Karl Rove is, MANY times, and HE is an Atheist!

You have made my argument for me.

I have no need to defend or explain myself any further-- just to point to your post.

Thanks!

[Ian David]

47. You should post that as a separate thread in the Religion forum. n/t

[IndianaJones]

10. Please continue to post in GD. nt.

[madmom]

13. the only way this could be considered christian bashing is if they

related to this kind of activity, IMO.

[QC]

14. Will it stop you from spamming GD 24/7 with pointless, irrelevant stories?

If so, then I would support it.

[Ian David]

16. Unfortunately, as much as I, personally, would like nothing more than to make you feel better...

the rest of the community seems to have spoken and said they would rather the stories stay here in GD, for various reasons.

Well, I tried.

Sorry.

[UTUSN]

20. Your "mandate" is about as thin as Shrub's. My count of "the community" is:

4- Against posting in GD.

6- For posting in GD.

6- Other discussion.

3- Ian's own replies.


Yaas, you tried oh-so-hard. It's HARD work.

[moggie]

15. 10-20 articles a day doesn't swamp GD

Those who are offended can easily ignore the threads. And who'd go to a dedicated forum full of clerical pervs? That'd just be creepy, I think. Keep them in GD.

[malaise]

28. Ditto n/t

[spoony]

24. What's the matter, ran out of articles but still needed some attention?

[Ian David]

33. Oh, believe me. There is NO shortage of articles. Ever. On ANY given day.

Fresh reports of Black Collar Crime, every day, without end.

Or else, there would not be so much whining from people who can't get it through their heads that keeping quiet about the handful of perverts and crooks within their ranks won't make the problem go away.

[SidDithers]

29. I always enjoy your posts...

and don't mind having them in GD. The reaction of the pious is almost as interesting as the articles themselves.

:toast:

Sid

[brentspeak]

30. Hey, Einstein - why not try posting more "I fuKK our troop's wives" messages?

Like you did a couple of years ago? We'll see just how quickly you can get the boot. And I will be more than happy.

You seem to have a talent for disrupting and causing division on these boards. Kind of like members from other, unnamed boards...

[Ian David]

34. I apologized for THAT incident immediately, TWO YEARS AGO when it happened. Geesh!

I report on Black Collar Crime from TODAY'S News.

(Not my fault that there's so much of it-- every single day-- that you find it overwhelming).

You have to go back TWO YEARS to find something to complain about with ME?

If I went back TWO YEARS looking for Black Collar Crime, we'd need to buy DU a new mainframe.

[spoony]

35. Since none of those criminals post here, and you do,

I don't know why you think pointing at them helps your scummy rep.

[Ian David]

37. I only post here to annoy you, personally. I was sent by God to test your faith.

Just your faith, personally. Nobody else's. Because YOU are SPECIAL to Him.

You have passed.

Now, you can put me on ignore and consider yourself safe.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

39. That's because I frequently come out in defense of your right to worship your invisible friend...

however you see fit.

The kind of thing that I suppose would be truly annoying would be if I said that all religion was evil, all religious people were to be hated and distrusted... that sort of thing.

But I don't.

THAT would be bigotry.

And I don't do that.

Because I don't believe that.

Although why you persist in seeing it as "bigotry" to point out that nobody is perfect-- no matter which god they cloak themselves in-- is beyond me.

[spoony]

43. Let me put it this way

If you posted twenty articles a day about crimes throughout the world, and the only factor tying them together--indeed the only reason you were posting them--was that they were committed by black people, what would that reveal? That you were interested in the sociology of remote African towns? That you deeply cared about black people and only wanted to weed out the criminals? That these stories came through a news-feed and you couldn't help but share them?

No, chances are it would hint at a substantial prejudicial view in your head about the behaviours and natures of a group of people, despite your soggy defenses after the fact. Such as that you don't believe that all members of that group should be distrusted, as you're sewing the seeds of distrust with daily propaganda.

Lol, and as for that other soggy defense, what do you honestly expect? My thanks and congratulations for not wanting to rip freedom of religion out of the Constitution? Gee, what a friend! You don't want me in jail! I'm tearing up.

[Ian David]

45. If I post 20 articles a day and the only thread were they were crimes committed by Republicans?

Hey, I am LOOKING for crimes committed by various OTHER religions, too.

And Atheists!

Find me some!

I'll post them!

I always do whenever I find them!

Not my fault that you can't separate your own faith from the need to justify atrocities committed by other members of it.

[me b zola]

44. Keep on posting, Ian

It shouldn't be hid in a dungeon :hi:

[NorthernSpy]

49. I dunno. Reminds me of those tendentious "race and crime" things that white supremacists write...

Thing is, they never want to talk about "race and crime" when it comes to disproportionately "white" crime categories, such as sex crimes against children.

That is because their real intent is to idealize whites and to stigmatize nonwhites.


So I have to ask you: what is your real intent in posting this stuff?

[Ian David]

50. That question was answered in my original post if you follow the links I included.

You're not accusing me of posting crimes that are skewed only to Christians, are you?