Considering that this is my freedom of speech, belief and expression that is in danger - and it is in danger here and now in this country - I will certainly kick as hard as I can before it is too late. When you realize I am right, it will probably be too late. I regret that you have seen fit to believe the haters, the liars, the liberticides and the whores.
Goodbye, Rebecca. Get back in touch when you realize I am right on this.
any chance you'll unscreen those posts? just for amusement, you understand...
on the broader issue, i wonder how the incidence rates of physical and sexual abuse by *staff* - probably best to exclude emotional/psychological abuses - would stack up against the rates in secular educational and other care based settings?
Sadly, there is little that is amusing about a firmly closed mind.
Studies have been made about the comparison, and the impression I have is that Church school and institutions come out ahead. I might be wrong. But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home, and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.
got any links please? i think i've seen an occupational breakdown at some point in the past but don't remember much detail.
'But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home,' agreed, the opportunities for comitting such offences are much more constrained in institutional settings.
'and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.' institutional/residential settings only exist because there is a need where parents are unable, unwilling and/or incapable of caring for their children - with the exception of the awful practise of sending kids to boarding school. there are enormous numbers of homes where abuse doesn't occur and we only get to hear about the failures. don't kid yourself into thinking that there aren't eyes open in the services provided to parents and children, they are.
That is not what I was speaking about. Did you miss the point of the original article, which is that a climate of opinion is being fostered in which parents will simply not be allowed to bring up children in their religion?
below you write: 'The process is very advanced in Britain, and freedom of religion is really on the edge of being legislated out of existence'. it's fair to argue that the catholic church's response to sex offending amongst its staff hasn't been appropriately dealt with and that the media appear to be pushing for a washing of the dirty linen in public. but i'm thinking that except in the obvious cases of aspects of sharia law, maybe where drug use is expected: rastafarianism, shamanism, and perhaps the carrying of weapons into courtrooms for instance, this argument of yours simply doesn't hold water?
taking the above into consideration and this: 'Considering that this is my freedom of speech, belief and expression that is in danger - and it is in danger here and now in this country', i think it's fair to expect you to back up your position because all my understanding and experience suggests that the uk situation is quite the opposite. i honestly do hope that you're not misrepresenting it to youself aswell as others?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:01 pm (UTC)Goodbye, Rebecca. Get back in touch when you realize I am right on this.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 11:12 pm (UTC)on the broader issue, i wonder how the incidence rates of physical and sexual abuse by *staff* - probably best to exclude emotional/psychological abuses - would stack up against the rates in secular educational and other care based settings?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 01:58 am (UTC)Studies have been made about the comparison, and the impression I have is that Church school and institutions come out ahead. I might be wrong. But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home, and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 01:52 pm (UTC)'But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home,'
agreed, the opportunities for comitting such offences are much more constrained in institutional settings.
'and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.'
institutional/residential settings only exist because there is a need where parents are unable, unwilling and/or incapable of caring for their children - with the exception of the awful practise of sending kids to boarding school. there are enormous numbers of homes where abuse doesn't occur and we only get to hear about the failures. don't kid yourself into thinking that there aren't eyes open in the services provided to parents and children, they are.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 01:30 am (UTC)below you write: 'The process is very advanced in Britain, and freedom of religion is really on the edge of being legislated out of existence'.
it's fair to argue that the catholic church's response to sex offending amongst its staff hasn't been appropriately dealt with and that the media appear to be pushing for a washing of the dirty linen in public. but i'm thinking that except in the obvious cases of aspects of sharia law, maybe where drug use is expected: rastafarianism, shamanism, and perhaps the carrying of weapons into courtrooms for instance, this argument of yours simply doesn't hold water?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 11:33 pm (UTC)