philo beddoe
31st March 2010, 06:01 PM
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=372277
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 927
Classified Rating: 0% (0)
Thanks: 142
Thanked 727 Times in 247 Posts
Default Law Enforcement and the Roman Catholic Church
It came to me this morning that the law enforcement community in the USA and the Roman Catholic Church have much in common.
Both have large "flocks" whom they either serve or exploit, depending on your perspective and individual point of view.
Both have strong ties and group loyalty, at least among the "leadership."
Neither seems to be inclined to hold its individual functionaries responsible for their actions, even if they are the most vile kind of criminal offenses, unless the offense happens to be against the organization itself.
By and large, the "flocks" don't seem to be inclined to hold these organizations or their functionaries responsible either, and this is puzzling because oftentimes the behavior is precisely the kind of behavior which would have them screaming for heads, if the offense had been committed by someone else.
Take a hypothetical example of a field in which I have a small amount of experience. Say a family sends their 14-year-old girl off to visit grandma and grandpa, availing themselves of the "Unaccompanied Minor" ("UM" to agents and crews) service of the airline, and paying for it, so that there is always an adult to look after the child and be responsible for her until they hand them over to the grandparents at the destination.
Now say the pilots invite the girl to the flight deck (Yes, I know. This is much more difficult nowadays - hasn't been that easy for a long time - but I'm using a pilot as an example of an individual with perceived authority and esteem so that a fair comparison may be made) and the flight attendant takes her there and presents her to the Captain. The captain tells the girl, "On your first flight, it's a requirement that you join the Mile High Club." No need for details but just assume, arguendo, that the girl goes along with it.
If news got out, the list of people screaming for the head (and testicles) of the Captain of that plane would be long. At the top of it (after the girl's family) would be the different unions of airline pilots, flight attendants, customer service agents, and of course the airline would fire the guy immediately and cooperate with the ensuing investigation.
It would be no different if the Captain had just "smacked her around a bit" because he was in a bad mood that day. The reaction would be the same.
The most this guy would ever get, by way of a public "defense" out of any leader in the industry, would be "Let's not rush to judgement and wait until all the facts are known." (While in the back of his mind, he'd be saying, "Yeah and let's get that finished quickly so we can hang the guilty bastard!)
Even the PERCEPTION of impropriety....
Even though the airline might have millions invested in training this guy over the years, there would be no statement like, "This is the subject of an ongoing internal investigation and while we see there may be some perceived procedural errors, we have seen no evidence to suggest that Captain Schmedlap acted illegally."
There would simply be NONE OF THAT.
And for another example to put things in perspective, say the gym teacher takes one of the kids back in the towel room for a little "fun." Can you imagine the uproar? Right behind the parents of every kid in the school at the ensuing rally would be the teachers because teachers, whatever your opinion of them is, would not tolerate a paedophile in their midst, as an accepted member of their profession.
There would be no requests from the school board to allow them to "handle the matter internally" with assurances the offender would "receive treatment for his illness" and that he would "never again be allowed to be alone with a student." The police and the district attorney's office wouldn't even consider for a second this sort of ludicrous request and would have no hesitation in bringing the full force of the criminal justice system, including a SWAT Team at no extra charge, to bear upon the accused.
If they did not so act, the rallies would turn to riots.
They would have no concerns about their future "working relationship" with the school causing them to look the other way for some perceived "greater good."
Yet for some reason, when law enforcement officers break the laws they are sworn to uphold and abuse the very public they are supposed to "protect and serve" they more often than not get a free pass from the executive branch, judicial branch, and for the most part the public as well. If the executive would investigate and make the case, I'm not sure the judicial branch would be all that lenient but the district attornies are afraid if they make enemies of the police, their job will become impossible.
Which only encourages the idea that cops can act with impunity.
And one cop will almost never testify against another cop, making it even more difficult to make a case, even if someone is interested in doing so.
Honor among thugs...
Catholic priests, even those who are known to be serial paedophiles are similarly treated. You'll see in the newspapers that Bishop So and So or Cardinal Whathisname is assuring the public that the problem will not be allowed to repeat itself, the offender be sequestered and subject to church sanctions, or whatever. But that only happens if the evidence is overwhelming. If not, they can confuse and obfuscate with the best of them.
Seldom are charges filed and for some inexplicable reason the greater law-enforcement machine, executive as well as judicial, seems to go along with this practice.
One priest seldom testifies against another priest.
Honor among paedophiles.
(For the record, I am not trying to say that all police abuse their power or that all priests abuse children. Quite the contrary. The subject of this essay is the propensity for the members of these professions to TOLERATE THE OFFENSES OF THEIR PEERS).
This behavior, and the tolerance thereof, is something that has puzzled me for some time but it came to me this morning that maybe the explanation has been with us all along but I just never put it together:
"To Protect and Serve the Roman Catholic Church"
OF COURSE ALL OF THIS COMES FROM THE RESIDENT FREEMASON OF GIM
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 927
Classified Rating: 0% (0)
Thanks: 142
Thanked 727 Times in 247 Posts
Default Law Enforcement and the Roman Catholic Church
It came to me this morning that the law enforcement community in the USA and the Roman Catholic Church have much in common.
Both have large "flocks" whom they either serve or exploit, depending on your perspective and individual point of view.
Both have strong ties and group loyalty, at least among the "leadership."
Neither seems to be inclined to hold its individual functionaries responsible for their actions, even if they are the most vile kind of criminal offenses, unless the offense happens to be against the organization itself.
By and large, the "flocks" don't seem to be inclined to hold these organizations or their functionaries responsible either, and this is puzzling because oftentimes the behavior is precisely the kind of behavior which would have them screaming for heads, if the offense had been committed by someone else.
Take a hypothetical example of a field in which I have a small amount of experience. Say a family sends their 14-year-old girl off to visit grandma and grandpa, availing themselves of the "Unaccompanied Minor" ("UM" to agents and crews) service of the airline, and paying for it, so that there is always an adult to look after the child and be responsible for her until they hand them over to the grandparents at the destination.
Now say the pilots invite the girl to the flight deck (Yes, I know. This is much more difficult nowadays - hasn't been that easy for a long time - but I'm using a pilot as an example of an individual with perceived authority and esteem so that a fair comparison may be made) and the flight attendant takes her there and presents her to the Captain. The captain tells the girl, "On your first flight, it's a requirement that you join the Mile High Club." No need for details but just assume, arguendo, that the girl goes along with it.
If news got out, the list of people screaming for the head (and testicles) of the Captain of that plane would be long. At the top of it (after the girl's family) would be the different unions of airline pilots, flight attendants, customer service agents, and of course the airline would fire the guy immediately and cooperate with the ensuing investigation.
It would be no different if the Captain had just "smacked her around a bit" because he was in a bad mood that day. The reaction would be the same.
The most this guy would ever get, by way of a public "defense" out of any leader in the industry, would be "Let's not rush to judgement and wait until all the facts are known." (While in the back of his mind, he'd be saying, "Yeah and let's get that finished quickly so we can hang the guilty bastard!)
Even the PERCEPTION of impropriety....
Even though the airline might have millions invested in training this guy over the years, there would be no statement like, "This is the subject of an ongoing internal investigation and while we see there may be some perceived procedural errors, we have seen no evidence to suggest that Captain Schmedlap acted illegally."
There would simply be NONE OF THAT.
And for another example to put things in perspective, say the gym teacher takes one of the kids back in the towel room for a little "fun." Can you imagine the uproar? Right behind the parents of every kid in the school at the ensuing rally would be the teachers because teachers, whatever your opinion of them is, would not tolerate a paedophile in their midst, as an accepted member of their profession.
There would be no requests from the school board to allow them to "handle the matter internally" with assurances the offender would "receive treatment for his illness" and that he would "never again be allowed to be alone with a student." The police and the district attorney's office wouldn't even consider for a second this sort of ludicrous request and would have no hesitation in bringing the full force of the criminal justice system, including a SWAT Team at no extra charge, to bear upon the accused.
If they did not so act, the rallies would turn to riots.
They would have no concerns about their future "working relationship" with the school causing them to look the other way for some perceived "greater good."
Yet for some reason, when law enforcement officers break the laws they are sworn to uphold and abuse the very public they are supposed to "protect and serve" they more often than not get a free pass from the executive branch, judicial branch, and for the most part the public as well. If the executive would investigate and make the case, I'm not sure the judicial branch would be all that lenient but the district attornies are afraid if they make enemies of the police, their job will become impossible.
Which only encourages the idea that cops can act with impunity.
And one cop will almost never testify against another cop, making it even more difficult to make a case, even if someone is interested in doing so.
Honor among thugs...
Catholic priests, even those who are known to be serial paedophiles are similarly treated. You'll see in the newspapers that Bishop So and So or Cardinal Whathisname is assuring the public that the problem will not be allowed to repeat itself, the offender be sequestered and subject to church sanctions, or whatever. But that only happens if the evidence is overwhelming. If not, they can confuse and obfuscate with the best of them.
Seldom are charges filed and for some inexplicable reason the greater law-enforcement machine, executive as well as judicial, seems to go along with this practice.
One priest seldom testifies against another priest.
Honor among paedophiles.
(For the record, I am not trying to say that all police abuse their power or that all priests abuse children. Quite the contrary. The subject of this essay is the propensity for the members of these professions to TOLERATE THE OFFENSES OF THEIR PEERS).
This behavior, and the tolerance thereof, is something that has puzzled me for some time but it came to me this morning that maybe the explanation has been with us all along but I just never put it together:
"To Protect and Serve the Roman Catholic Church"
OF COURSE ALL OF THIS COMES FROM THE RESIDENT FREEMASON OF GIM