Israel Palestine Germany Mexico Japan Sri Lanka China Hong Kong Ireland Canada Scotland New Zealand United States Australia Italy Spain Netherlands The Philippines
Global Declaration of a Public Moral Danger to our Children and a Moral Menace to Society

Never Again just got real

"Actively resisting the atrocities & Human Rights abuses of the Christian religion"
"Helping to build a better world simply because we are evolving, developing and maturing humans."
"How can anyone believe in a God whose servants abuse children and whose hierarchy protects the abuser?"
More by JohnB - Living the final years of the Catholic Cover up

JohnB Evidence and the Royal Commission
Bookmark and Share      Created: 2014-02-17 00:13:09   Last updated : 2014-02-17 22:04:33

Comment posted 9.00AM February 17, 2014
Has the Royal Commission considered yet the possibility of a false premise to be found in the religious institutions?


I am having some difficulties with the basics of their claims. It seems that they have a claim of connection with a god or creator being, in the case of the Catholic Church their claim is for a bigger stronger connection.


If this connection can not be found then the premise that they rely on must be false. 


It is for the religions to provide the evidence of their connection. The truth to this can only be found in irrefutable evidence. 


The evidence required must show that the connection goes back 13+ billion years. Until that connection can be shown beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. 


It is not reasonable to suggest that some people thousands of years ago happened to think they were chosen to be the messenger for the rest of time so they can save the planet and the obviously the universe from its inevitable destruction in about another 13 or 14 billion years. 


It is not reasonable to accept the claim for that connection based on the writings those thousands of years ago to that claim. The claim looks quite flimsy when you consider that if the being they talk of had the powers they claim it does have then things like the age of the earth or the universe would be basic knowledge to the god creator. 


Instead of saying the he had waited 13.7+ billion years to await his chance to talk with someone here on this planet to fill them in on a few of the details of their world he gave them a story about making people from ribs and clay when all he had to do was say that in the future the way we were made would be called evolution. On the face of it the claim is quite amusing today when we look at the history of the many gods man has created. 


Instead of saying to the people wash your hands after wiping your backside as that will help you to keep healthy he gave them something about not ogling the boobs of the women in the neighbourhood. It is quite amusing when you consider something like that as there are many people who can and do live or congregate together where men and women are able to go topless or naked and they do not have any desire to turn into an incestuous group raping session.


It may be that this god came to this particular group because of their sexual obsessions. While it is highly unlikely and to me entirely implausible in the same way the claims of connection are made by the Christian religion. 


If that is indeed the case then the issue of a false premise becomes a necessary question of major importance to the Royal Commission in its stated task of understanding "the Why question" as Justice Peter McClellan puts it. 


This question is evident in the majority of the testimonies received by the Royal Commission and is considered to be of primary importance by a large body of those giving private submissions to the Royal Commission. 


At this point in the proceedings it is obvious that the Royal Commission accepts the claim of the Churches and therefore it does not consider that there is any need to look at the question despite the large number of survivors who hold that this opinion or position of the Royal Commission when it makes the choice it has is a clear and evident bias towards the religious and subsequently against those who do not hold the same opinion. 


The provision of evidence and testimony immediately comes to the fore when the current position of the Royal Commission is taken into account as the testimony of non believers, atheists or agnostics can be dismissed on the basis of being vindictive or any number of the long list of claims against them held by the religious. There is a growing list of complaints arising from this demographic behind the scenes at the moment.


To the many atheist, agnostic and non believing survivors of childhood sexual abuse by the religious this does not afford them a fair and level playing field nor does it provide them with an independent arbiter. 


Strictly speaking it is up to the Royal Commission to provide evidence for its support of the claim by those of the Christian faith or it should provide evidence to support the claim that there is a creator god as well as the evidence to show that the claims are beyond reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities. If it cannot do that then it must openly state that there is no supporting evidence and therefore the claims must be disallowed. 


Of course it can be included once that evidence is given to the Royal Commission so long as it meets the requirements in the evidence giving process and is judged in the same way and on the same basis and merits as the evidence of the survivors and others who can give evidence to the Royal Commission. 


Currently the primary evidence put forward by the Christian religion is the Bible. The fact is that under the requirements of evidence the Bible can only be submitted as one or more claims. It is not and can not be submitted as evidence for the claim so it is now dependent on the Christian to provide substantive evidence that can be examined through the inquiry process an be proven beyond reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities as that is the designated process of the Royal Commission. 


Many survivors find this situation intolerable and from the conversation that goes amongst survivors this is the one aspect that keeps so many from coming forward. Other concerns that keep many from coming forward is the over-riding threat that comes from friends, family, community can and do turn against them for reporting the crimes of their clergy. For many there is the extremely high risk of losing their job or not being able to obtain one in the future. 


The fact is that these events are going on right now right across the country and the Royal Commission appears to pay it no heed. This is the most deplorable and evident institutional failure in that it leaves the vulnerable at great risk on a personal and on a psychological level.This group which forms the largest segment by far has been totally overlooked by the Royal Commission. Many are beginning to find this to be more horrific than the combined coverups by all the religious organisations and bodies under investigation combined.

The article reads in part 

Add your comment below.

"How can anyone believe in a God whose servants abuse children and whose hierarchy protects the abuser?"

Myth #2 - Most sexual abuse of boys is perpetrated by homosexual males.

Pedophiles who molest boys are not expressing a homosexual orientation any more than pedophiles who molest girls are practicing heterosexual behaviors. While many child molesters have gender and/or age preferences, of those who seek out boys, the vast majority are not homosexual. They are pedophiles.

#Anglican #SalvationArmy #ChildAbuse #CatholicChurch #alwayscatholic #catholic #catholics #catholicedchat #catholicism #catholictravel faithfulcatholics #FantasyFree #RoyalCommission

Check these other related sites: Keep the evidence alive | Molested Catholic | xt3 Molested Catholic | September 1 2009 | TFYQA | My Broken Society