Judge: Hiding Money From Rape Victims A-OK

Regular readers will know that I consider Timmy Cardinal Dolan to be an example of the worst that humanity has to offer. A fetid pustule bloated by self-righteous ego-mania, Timmy is more than homophobic, more than just a defender of child rapists, he is also a fraud and a thief. Except, not according to one Wisconsin judge.

I wrote in my Human Excommunication of Timmy about how, when faced with lawsuits for those priests he allowed to continue to rape children for years when he couldn’t pay them to do it as a hobby instead of professionally, the sanguine coward moved money around into another fund to make it immune from being seized and given to the victims he tried to silence.

Unfortunately, to Judge Rudolph Randa, compensating rape victims is a secondary concern to making sure that men in Milwaukee can continue telling people stories every Sunday because having to pay for their crimes would, “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” Basically, because it was moved into a cemetery fund, and the upkeep of cemeteries is important to the Catholic faith, then taking away that money prevents them from practicing their religion. And, as we also see with the Magdalene Laundries, it‘s pretty clear that accepting responsibility for and making amends when you do awful, inhuman things is not a part of the Catholic faith, ergo Timmy’s accounting trick is legal.

Do I really need to go into the problems with this? I recently got a traffic ticket, so does that mean that I can simply insist that the Flying Spaghetti Monster disapproves of tolls but demands that the fastest available route be taken, therefore trying to make me pay to use roads hampers my free religious exercise? What we’re seeing with Randa is another example of people who seem to think that believing in fairy tales with enough conviction is reasonable justification for any action. Usually it’s trying to force other people to live by the strictures of your religion (e.g. abortion, abstinence only sex education, same-sex marriage, etc), but it’s becoming quite in vogue for prominent religious people in this country to say that their faith should exempt them from the law or even criticism of their ridiculous ideas.

The good news is that Randa is usually overturned on appeal. The bad news is that there is at least one person who is so monumentally screwed up that he thinks that denying compensation to rape victims is entirely ok if an invisible sky pixie wants to make sure the things we use to mark where we keep decomposing flesh are well polished.

Hey, instead of just saying that he won’t actively be mean to gay people as long as they’re sufficiently closeted, maybe this is a place where the Pope can step in and do some real good for a change!

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Judge: Hiding Money From Rape Victims A-OK

  1. Wow. Your disregard for the truth is an insult to the rape victims you pretend you’re caring about with this crusade.

    Have you ever considered whether overtly tendentious and biased framing actually helps achieve anything or are you just too wrapped up in your intense feelings to worry about whether you’re actually achieving your aims?

    [clicks another link] Oh. No. I see: “Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan is the most evil man alive. The Great Old Ones recoil at the sheer level of wicked, inhuman behavior that this man displays.” – you’re a zealot with a hate hard on for some Cardinal and care more about getting your rage on than being truthful and advocating for child rape victims.

    Well enjoy that. Don’t pretend to yourself you’re helping anyone though. The only people you’re helping are people with hate-boners for raging. The actual victims are harmed by your dishonest raging.

    • Do you care to point out what I said that was inaccurate? Did Dolan not hide pedophile priests? Did he not offer to pay them off instead of turning them into the police? Did he not put $57 million in an account to, according to a memo he wrote in 2007, make it safe from litigation? What did I write that was dishonest?

      Or are you doing what every other Catholic I talk to does when this subject comes up and trying to say that being angry about child rape makes any argument against the perpetrators and supporters of it invalid?

      • “defender of child rapists” / “a fraud and a thief” / “the worst that humanity has to offer” / “pay them to do it as a hobby instead of professionally” / “it‘s pretty clear that accepting responsibility for and making amends when you do awful, inhuman things is not a part of the Catholic faith,”

        Man, if you weren’t such an idiot, if you cared more about honesty than outrage you’d be able to see how you’re failing here.

        Exaggerating, intellectual dishonesty, dishonest framing, and outright nuttery (“pay them to do it as a hobby”) detract from what you’re saying, and change you from someone who is honestly advocating against an outrage to someone who is bandwagon hopping on some rage *and making it worse for the victims*

        How? Well, not very much, until you get famous and people start to care what you say. But every exaggeration, every lie told in the name of “righteousness” undermines the entire honest and real position, leaving those who NEED truthful advocacy *alone* and *fucked* because no one believes them because of dishonest angry little shits like you.

        People need to be called to account for the CRIMES that have been committed. They are not helped by distractions like you making implausible hyperactive claims. They need people holding the perpetrators to account – which can only happen when the accusations are the truth, not screams of outrage from people trying to drive up blog views.

        You’re a parasite on real victims.

      • To expand: What you casually and ignorantly refer to as “pay them to do it as a hobby” was a real and serious problem that was *nothing* to do with paying them to do it as a hobby, and by referring to it like that and spreading that meme you are a) spreading ignorance b) making the complaints look ridiculous and untrue rather than serious and very true.
        If people believe you, there’s a distinct risk of them going on to assume that other things they heard were nonsense exaggerations – when they discover how badly you’re distorting things. Other things that like this, really matter, and shouldn’t be fucked around with casually by tabloid hacks like you.
        If they see through your tendentious framing (or do the slightest bit of research and see how wrong you are) then there’s a risk of them assuming that every mention of abuse, every accurate description of cover-up is just badly-exaggerated eyeball hungry tabloid filth like your pages here. That fucks the victims. Gets you page views, but fucks justice.

        Enjoy your outrage while it lasts. I hope you calm down before you do more damage.

      • I think that you’re mistaking lying for rhetoric. Let’s look at the examples that you brought up.

        “defender of child rapists” – This is 100% accurate. Several priests under Dolan raped children and, rather than turn them in to the police, he hid their crimes and attempted to pay them off. That is defending them.

        “a fraud and a thief” – Putting aside that his job is making people give him money to tell them about how to please a being that doesn’t exist, he purposefully moved money into an account for one purpose while saying it was for another (fraud) and, the other purpose was that he didn’t want to give money that he rightfully owed to the victims he helped create (theft). Again, this is entirely accurate.

        “the worst that humanity has to offer” – This is a subjective value judgment that, therefore, entirely within my purview to make as I please. I consider this to be true and have stated my case a number of times as to why.

        “pay them to do it as a hobby instead of professionally” – Well, they were raping children in their capacity as employees of the Catholic church. Dolan got the bright idea that, instead of doing that, that he could simply pay them to quit being employees of the Catholic church, not even thinking that by doing that instead of turning them into the police that they would continue the same activities. And he also seemed to not care about that, since his concern was the image of the Church, not the well being of children. Far too many people I’ve spoken to, at least, seem to have thought that paying these priests off was a good idea, because they think it solves the problem and forgot that all it did was put a pedophile on the street. You may have a problem with this framing, but it is, again, entirely accurate.

        “it‘s pretty clear that accepting responsibility for and making amends when you do awful, inhuman things is not a part of the Catholic faith,” – I feel this is incredibly important for people to realize, since there is a perception that being religious in general makes you gracious and humble, and that is not the same. In this case, the judge is ruling that the Church has religious responsibilities to maintain cemeteries, but not to show remorse for the awful things that it did.

        That being said, have you seen an apology for the castrations, physical and chemical, that the Church forced on people? Have you seen them attempt to make amends for the hundreds of thousands of children they stole and coerced from their mothers in Spain and Australia between the 40s and the 80s (one lay employee apologized, but took no concrete actions)? Do you see any of the four orders of nuns who imprisoned women from hundreds of years in the Magdalene laundries offering to help? Can you give me examples of the Church hierarchy admitting to something they have done wrong and actually trying to correct the situation without fighting it tooth and nail?

        Listen, I understand what you’re saying, but you’re tone trolling. This is no different than the contention that angry atheists actually turn people off from atheism. Often the expression of rage and using hyperbolic language help people recognize the depth of a problem, hence why I have rejected using the phrase “child molestation” in favor of “child rape.” It is more accurate and the word carries and emotional weight that people understand better. I was made an activist by reading what is often angry and hyperbolic rhetoric (Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris, for example), and all it did was help me recognize that the problem was not one I could easily dismiss. Will some people be turned off by that? Yes, but others will not and I don’t write because I’m trying to appeal to a middle of the road audience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s