Thursday, April 27, 2006

Under Most Circumstances, I Wouldn't Do This...

I usually don't bring a mess from another site on to my own, but since the person responsible (Ian Scott) is unwilling to post my comments, despite the fact he demands (demands!) a response, I'll put my own little reply to his crazed catholic-baiting on his site.....

***Update***Ian assures me that there is no such problem with my comments, and has not been holding them, etc. He's been busy. That's good enough for me.

Ian:

Ahh, well, arguing with you is a welcome respite from tax season insanity.

1. I didn’t call you a hypocrite. You’re probably a little defensive since you insisted you didn’t defend Paisley, and yet lo and behold it turns out that you did…Or is it that you claimed that Catholics should apologize for their extreme co-religionists without doing so yourself?

Although unfortunately for yourself and Paisley you then compared him to Hitler. Nice work. I didn’t even have to lift a finger on that one.

2. I’ve been denouncing nationalist violence for a while. Consistently. No, I don’t condone any of the leaders of the IRA, nor their actions. In fact, I chastise them more than other group I regularly criticize on a regular basis, but only half as often as you “Attack Catholics”. (Should that be the new name for your blog?). I’m not sure why you’d insist that I be any more vocal than I already am.

Still, I never hear a peep of criticism from yourself about Paisley. Nothing. Only “Catholics on such and such island vote for him” so he’s gotta good. Yeah, what was the figure you quoted? 100%. Doesn’t sound gerrymandered at all, compared to the re-election of Saddam a few years ago.

3. I don’t read nor care about Anselm. I immediately denounced the attack on that former republican as barbaric. Nuff said.

4. Gawwwwd, I’m not a practicing Catholic, and if anything I’m closer to agnostic…so really, me criticizing an institution that I’m already on record as heavily critical is a waste of time.

So you’re pissed about the vatican being anti-democratic? Good stuff. Me too! Cardinal Law’s an asshole? Original and inspiring! Uh…residential schools were bad bad bad? I agree! I know from working in the dept!

You really need to find an more ardent defender of the faith than me. I just find it more than coincidental that you are of protestant northern irish heritage, and its just so happens that you spend a good deal of time attacking Catholics like a bored Orangeman. How much better are you than Anselm or Robert McClelland when you are blatantly race-baiting on your site?

You just latched on to the whole “catholics are hypocrites” shit to be self-righteous about your anti-catholic attitudes and it’s ridiculous. It’s like the anti-semites who rage against Israel’s “policies” while cursing the “Joooos” under their breath.

Just come clean and admit it you’ve got a problem with Catholics. The first step to recovery is……

Uhh, too easy. Ian's also going on and on about the "facts" that he claims he's exposed about Roman Catholics without giving up the facade that he is on a quest for "truth". And what's the truth about about Catholicism?
Let the truly brave, even the brave that adhere to Roman Catholicism stand up and admit to this evilness within their organized religion.

That's right! Roman Catholicism is evil, people. You heard it here first, from an objective source!

Let's keep going...this is all within the last week, mind you...Ian also latches on to some hint of involvement by the Catholic church in the Rwandan genocide, and runs with it...Not because it is fact, of course..
Will Patrick agree that the possibility of Roman Catholic complicity in Rwanda butchering is awful, and demands an investigation by Roman Catholic moderates into what some Roman Catholic officials may have been involved in as far as recent attrocities against individuals?

Not the fact. The possibility. Let's take a closer look at this "possibility" that Ian is using as a hammer to defame hundreds of millions of people:
It has also been criticized by some survivors, particularly for one scene where a white Roman Catholic priest decides to stay with the refugees, rather than be evacuated along with his expatriate colleagues.

Many senior church leaders were complicit in some of Rwanda's killings and the depiction angered many who already blame the United Nations and Western powers for failing to intervene.

Ok, so Ian in the interest of clearing this up, movies have an artistic license. They aren't "reality", nor documentaries. In the movie, a Catholic priest stays with the refugees, mmmmkay?

In reality, church leaders, Ian, "many senior church leaders", (which is very vague) "were complicit" according to this journalist.

Which church leaders? We don't know. Could they be Methodist? Lutheran? United? Anglican? Who knows? There were lots of protestants in Rwanda weren't there?
Roman Catholic 56.5%, Protestant 26%, Adventist 11.1%, Muslim 4.6%, indigenous beliefs 0.1%, none 1.7% (2001)

Does it matter? They were all probably equally involved, but that is irrelevant to Ian, because all he needed to know was that a Catholic priest in a movie was inaccurately portrayed, thus the entire religion is evil. Kudos on the detective work!

His Hollywood PI skills go into overload right here:
But indeed, many of the evil leaders of Islam today are NO DIFFERENT then many of the evil leaders of Roman Catholicism throughout the ages, right up to and including during the 20th century - and if this report about Rwanda is correct, well… there are evil Roman Catholic officials today!

Capital letters "NO DIFFERENT"! He's serious, people! Serious! If these movies about the Rwandan genocide aren't correct, then these Catholics are evil zombies sent to destroy the earth we should mow them down.

Gaawwwd, what a joke. If Catholic leaders were as bad as the "evil" leaders of Islam (that's two "evil" religions on his books)...uh, well I guess we should turn a blind eye to whatever they're doing today because some dudes in the church a long time ago were "NO DIFFERENT"! Forget if folks, it's just history, we can't do anything.

3 comments:

Ian Scott said...

I haven't read this full post yet - but refusing to post your comments? Dude.. it is possible that your comments are, for whatever reason, being held for moderation - I haven't been in my office this afternoon or evening.

But I'll certainly check on the status of any comments you may have tried to post but were not able to.

Ian Scott said...

Alritey - for whatever reason, your comment WAS being held for moderation. I have no idea why - likely some setting with SpamKarma2.

But nevertheless, I would point out to your fallacy suggesting I am refusing to let you post a comment. Do you think that I sit in front of my computer all day, and am looking for comments that for whatever reason are being held for moderation?

Shamrocks! said...

Fair enough. I'll remove the comment about you not allowing my comments on your site.

I should be more considerate since I have deleted several of your comments on different occassions?