« 2007 Business Review -- Borders, Inc. | Main | Habeas Corpses »

Australian judge rules that a seven-year-old wanted to be gang-raped

In Australia, nine Aborigines raped a ten-year-old girl. Six of them were juveniles, and one of the adults had a prior offense on his record -- the rape of another ten-year-old girl. But thanks to Judge Sarah Bradley, these men won't be going to jail, because the victim, now twelve, "probably agreed" to be raped (emphasis mine):

Nine males who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.

Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order.

One of the adult rapists, Raymond Frederick Woolla, 26, is on the Australian National Child Offence Register following a conviction on March 29 last year for unlawful carnal knowledge of a female child - an offence committed after he was charged with the rape of the 10-year-old girl.

Judge Bradley said Woolla was the oldest and should have known a lot better.

"You cannot have sex with anyone under 16," she said. "However, as I said before, I am not treating anyone any differently in terms of being a ringleader, and in your case, again, I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today. But if you get into more trouble in the next year, you could end up in jail."

Woolla had been arrested on August 7 last year and the judge said the 14 days he spent in custody awaiting his sentence was to count as "imprisonment already served".

When sentencing the juveniles, Judge Bradley said: "All of you have pleaded guilty to having sex with a 10-year-old girl and (one of the juveniles) has pleaded guilty to having sex with another young girl as well. All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16. If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail. I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you. But you were taking advantage of a 10-year-old girl and she needs to be protected, and the girls generally in this community need to be protected. This is a very serious matter. It is a very shameful matter and I hope that all of you realise that you must not have sex with young girls. Anyone under 16 is too young. Some of you are still children yourselves. Others of you are adults but I am treating you all equally in terms of the behaviour. I am not treating any of you as the ringleader or anything like that."

She asked each prisoner to stand up and said she hoped they would realise it was wrong to have sex with young girls.

Judge Bradley then offered them probation and when each agreed to accept that, she said she would not record a conviction.

To one of the juveniles, she said: "You are still a child. You have pleaded guilty to one offence of rape. You have been in a lot of trouble in the past, though, and you still have some community service to do. You have not been doing that well. I am prepared to offer you probation but you have got to stick with the rules of probation."

The juvenile agreed and was then placed on 12 months' probation, with no conviction recorded.

Not mentioned in this story is that rape of children has become a widespread epidemic in Australia, which makes Bradley's irresponsible sentence all the worse.
Aboriginal children, including babies as young as seven months, are being raped by community members, with the crimes going largely unreported and with few cases making it to trial, a Central Australian prosecutor says.

Nanette Rogers, Central Australia's Crown Prosecutor, has written a dossier on the tragic state of domestic violence in Aboriginal communities which details horrific acts of abuse.

Dr Rogers cited an example from 2003 in which a man sexually assaulted a seven-month-old baby who he had removed from a room of sleeping adults. In the morning, her mother noticed blood on the baby's clothes but was too drunk to register what had happened.

In another incident, a male relative took a two-year-old girl into the bush and digitally penetrated her anally and vaginally at the same time. He returned the toddler to her father's camp, crying and bleeding.

Both children required surgery for external and internal injuries, Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers cited another case in which an 18-year-old petrol sniffer drowned a young girl while raping her as a number of children played in a waterhole a kilometre or so from the community.

"While she was playing in water he pulled her under, anally penetrated her, drowned her, probably simultaneously. The children gave very graphic evidence (against him)," she told ABC TV.

She said the acts were "beyond the range" of normal comprehension but there were many reasons they had occurred.

"Violence is entrenched in a lot of aspects of Aboriginal society here," she said. "Aboriginal people choose not to take responsibility for their own actions ... the reason for that malaise is mostly because of the entrenchment of violence in the whole of the community."

Dr Roger said violence in Aboriginal communities was "all around", particularly at stations in rural areas.

But because it was frowned upon to report the acts, few of the crimes made it to trial.

"All child sexual assault is happening at much higher rates than is being reported to police," Dr Rogers said.

If Australians take justice seriously at all, they will demand for Judge Bradley to be removed from the bench immediately. She quite obviously has no concept of what rape is. And how she can look at an adult with a prior record of raping a child, who has now raped another child with eight accomplices, and think that he doesn't deserve serious jail time is completely beyond my comprehension. If I could sentence those men, the ringleader with a history of raping children would be serving life in jail, and the rest would be serving serious jail time. Community service will not reform them, nor will it keep them from raping other children. Letting the ringleader and serial child rapist, Raymond Woolla, go free is a serious miscarriage of justice. It is laughable for anyone to think that he won't do this again.

How can any judge look at this case and accuse the ten-year-old of agreeing to have sex with nine men?! Obviously, she is incompetent and unable to comprehend the details and repercussions of the responsibility she holds in her hands, and is completely flouting that responsibility. Calling this sentence "lenient" is a giant understatement. What this sentence is -- probation and community service for nine child rapists -- is a huge miscarriage of justice. Bradley should step down voluntarily, if she has any respect for the position that she holds at all. If she won't step down voluntarily, she should be removed.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (46)

What it is is approval.... (Below threshold)

What it is is approval.


If the men "didn't know better" this did nothing at all to inform them or inform anyone else that sex with children is wrong.

It is, however, what multiculturalism gets you.

Sarah Bradley shouldn't be *fired*, she should be tried for complicity in the next case of child rape in that community.

I love love to know if this... (Below threshold)

I love love to know if this woman has daughters, and if she would have that same attitude towards sexual acts with them.

I doubt she does because no halfway responsible parent would consider a child capable of consensual sex.

If she does, I pity her children.

I find your snide judgement... (Below threshold)

I find your snide judgementalism of native aboriginal culture quite disturbing. ;-)

It is, however, what mul... (Below threshold)

It is, however, what multiculturalism gets you.

Truer words could not be spoken.

Why not just say "You Abori... (Below threshold)

Why not just say "You Aboriginals don't know any better since you aren't white, so we won't hold you to any standards"? That seems to be the attitude with this judge. It's just sickening.

No doubt the judge would ac... (Below threshold)

No doubt the judge would accept volunteer work at a day-care center as part of the community service.

Time for the torches and pitchforks.

Looks like this is the logi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Looks like this is the logical conclusion of modern liberalism. Did we have a similarly crazy judge in Vermont?


As bad as this is it's a st... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

As bad as this is it's a step up from charging the girl with a crime for being with these men.

As one who thinks a death s... (Below threshold)

As one who thinks a death sentence should be for anyone who rapes children. I can't even express the words of OUTRAGE I feel to the judge and the rapists.

Good God, is Bader Ginsburg... (Below threshold)

Good God, is Bader Ginsburg a SC judge in Australia too?

This is the true nature of ... (Below threshold)

This is the true nature of most aboriginal cultures -- extremely brutal with murder rates that make NYC before Giuliani seem like a fairy tale. And without the Judeo-Christian influence, these are cultures where sex is between two -- the penetrator and the penetratee. The former gets to do whatever he wants because he's stronger. The latter gets no choice, no protection from others, and can be anything from a woman to weaker boy to a child to an animal to a tree. But too many in the West want to pretend that our civilization is a much greater evil.

Where did you read about ab... (Below threshold)

Where did you read about aboriginals fucking trees, Len?

Imagine there's a nuclear war, or perhaps a genetically engineered virus is released, and we all die. Aboriginals won't be to blame for any of that, though they will have had sex with more babies per capita.

My point: it's stupid to compare "civilizations" in terms of rightness and wrongness. Rather, stick to identifying what each group gets right and wrong, and forget about finding some quantifiable metric of cultural saintliness. Every culture would fail that test, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

Matthew wasn't upset or bot... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Matthew wasn't upset or bothered by such a rape and miscarriage of justice at all. Matthew is more upset about someone claiming that the western culture is better. Matthew is a perfect example of what 's wrong with the multi-cultural mindset of modern liberals. Matthew unknowingly proves exactly what is wrong in this case: only multi-culturalist (in this case this crazy judge) can make such a ruling.

You're a uniculturalist, LA... (Below threshold)

You're a uniculturalist, LAI? That sounds fun! Your Brave New World will have a poor selection of restaurants, though it'll be nice to be rid of those fucking St. Patrick's Day parades.

Matthew, It is desp... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It is despicable to make an excuse for such a rape of a child. You should at yourself in a mirror before hurling insults at other people. You didn't show a hint of anger over such an outrageous ruling and still can distract and make excuse with a straight face.

BTW, let me try it slowly. ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, let me try it slowly. In your worldview, there would be no difference between the US and North Korea or Iran. America gets sth right and North Korea gets sth right. There is no objective diffence between the two. Yup, that 's multi-culturalism and that 's what led to this outrageous ruling.

Note matthew's puerile view... (Below threshold)
Aog Author Profile Page:

Note matthew's puerile view of culture -- different cooking styles. If that's what you view as the primary difference, then multiculturalism makes sense. In real life, however, the differences run just a bit deeper than that.

In fact, Matthew considers ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

In fact, Matthew considers hating the Jews is probably the same as hating anchovee. Just a matter of taste. Some people like the Jews. Some people don't care. Some people hate the Jew and want to annihilate them. Just a matter of taste.

Do you really feel that you... (Below threshold)

Do you really feel that you deserve thoughtful responses from people, LAI?

Here, so that you can understand: some places feature many cultures coexisting; some do not. Your problem is not with multiculturalism, but with certain cultures as such. Saudi Arabia is not multicultural. Is that a good place to have a daughter?

I wasn't aware that this was the sort of blog where one needs to make explicit their intolerance for child rape, so I guess I'll go on the record and say that it's wrong, LAI. I don't think we've talked about the Holocaust, so I should probably say that I think that was a bad thing too.

You're confusing multiculturalism with cultural relativism, and thus have no idea what you're talking about. Cultural relativists defend immoral cultural practices, whereas multiculturalists worry about how to accommodate people from illiberal cultures into liberal, lawful (Western) society such that they grow and contribute within their new culture while maintaining aspects of their original identities. Multiculturalists are not relativists, because they believe their conception of society is superior to others.

Sooo, basically matthew, yo... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Sooo, basically matthew, your initial comment was cultural relativism, not multiculturism.


I blame (the) Bush!... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I blame (the) Bush!

This is just the latest in ... (Below threshold)

This is just the latest in a whole series of horrific revelations. Some of the stuff about violence at places like Wadeye was even worse, if you can believe it.

The politicians are all wringing their hands as usual, but nothing will be done. They'll throw more money at it, of course. But the shift needs to come from the policy makers deciding that Aborigines be judged as equals, and part of the modern, wider world, not as strange beings to be kept away from "evil civilization".
Won't be for a long while, if at all, because political correctness has too tight a stranglehold.

Matthew, LAI was not confus... (Below threshold)

Matthew, LAI was not confusing multi-culturalism with cultural relativism. LAI was pointing out the fact that some do. That there are many who simply say, "Well, that's their culture." As if it is somehow equal simply by virtue of its existence.

Some civilizations are "defined" by certain traits or cultures. Western civilization is "defined" by its tolerance of many cultures - to a degree - as long as one's "culture" doesn't interfere with another's right to life and liberty; both sexes, all people. It is defined by its belief in equality.

That's the "quantifiable metric" you want to ignore.

The Muslim civilization in the ME is "defined" by its culture of a patriarchical structure. And in being so, it infringes on equal rights of the other sex. It's also "defined" by its culture of intolerance of those who have different religious beliefs. And in being so, it infringes on the equal rights of those who are not Muslim.

Focusing on what it gets right is minor compared to what it gets wrong.

And I gotta tell you. Your example of possible nuclear war not being the fault of Aboriginals is a fine illustration of ignoring a big picture in favor of something totally inconsequential.

No, we should not ignore that which some cultures or civilizations get right. But it shouldn't be the focus.

One question here. Was the ... (Below threshold)
stan25 Author Profile Page:

One question here. Was the judge in this case appointed by Jimmy Carter or Slick Willie? The reason I ask is because, this is precisely the type of judge that both of have appointed in their Presidencies. Of course if the Hildabeast gets the nod, we can expect more judges like this woman.

Do you really feel that you... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Do you really feel that you deserve thoughtful responses from people, Matthew?
It is so thoughtful of you to call someone stupid for pointing out how cultures are different. Here is what you wrote

My point: it's stupid to compare "civilizations" in terms of rightness and wrongness.

Do you think you deserve a thoughtful response? Oyster gave you a great thoughtful response already. No need to for me to chime in since Oyster does a much better job than I can.

I wasn't aware that this wa... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I wasn't aware that this was the sort of blog where one needs to make explicit their intolerance for child rape, so I guess I'll go on the record and say that it's wrong, LAI. I don't think we've talked about the Holocaust, so I should probably say that I think that was a bad thing too.
This is so mild that I am not sure it is another "culturally relativistic" lingo. Hope that you don't consider the Holocaust is a bad thing just like anchovee is a bad thing. I think it is a horrible atrocity and an unspeakable crime against humanity.

My initial point wasn't rel... (Below threshold)

My initial point wasn't relativistic. If it said "Child rape is fine in a culture where that is so common that it's excused as a norm", that would be relativistic.

Our culture is "bad", and native cultures are "bad". Islamic culture is "bad". Christian culture is "bad". Why the quotation marks? Because when everyone on Earth belongs to a group that gets certain things wrong, perhaps it might be prudent to drop the language of good and evil and simply address issues of human rights across the board, irrespective of geographical location and/or cultural membership.

Oyster: agreed. The Middle East is fucked. Most schools of Islam treat women horribly. Did I imply otherwise? I would say the same thing applies to nearly all Christian churches, to a much weaker degree, and the practices of either religion don't excuse any individual's behavior towards other people. I don't think I ever implied anything to the contrary. By mentioning possible nuclear or environmental holocaust, it's of course a cartoon-like scenario, but it served an illustrative point--that we do not judge other cultures from the standpoint of "the culture that gets everything right", and that we also need to look inwards if we're interested in criticizing the practices of other groups (as we should be).

that we do not judge other ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

that we do not judge other cultures from the standpoint of "the culture that gets everything right", and that we also need to look inwards if we're interested in criticizing the practices of other groups (as we should be).
Oyster point is we should judge cultures from the standpoint of "the culture that gets the big picture right" (no culture can be perfect). Anti-american or anti-traditional American culture as expressed by leftist professors on campus for example is an extreme that should be pointed out.

BTW, by any objective standards, the "christian" culture is the most open of all (it is not perfect, but the overall it seems to be the best possible). The fundamentalist atheistic culture and radical Islamic culture are the most oppressive and intolerant. The atheistic "culture" as practiced in the communist countries is a big example. In the west, the ACLU is such an example of the fundamentalist atheists trying to impose their views on the religious people. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of closed minded and intolerant fundamentalist atheist.

How have you determined tha... (Below threshold)

How have you determined that our culture gets stuff right? If it turns out that we are going to be the cause of an ecological holocaust that kills all life on Earth, will your judgement have been correct? (No.) The point: if you want to be critical, do so knowing full well that you don't stand on solid ground yourself, even if you can honestly say that we're better off than (e.g.) the Saudis or Chinese.

The rest of what you said about atheists being fundamentally intolerant doesn't warrant a response. So long as you learned the difference between multiculturalism and cultural relativism (and I assume you didn't, as you are to conceptual nuance what brick walls are to rubber balls), I could care less about your ignorant opinion of atheists and your conflating them with Communism (or any other culture, for that matter). They represent merely a single patch on the enormous quilt of Things LAI Insists On Talking About Yet Does Not Understand. Maybe instead of denigrating professors, you could read more books they write on things you insist on talking about--wouldn't that be a neato alternative to cluttering the internet with more of your ignorant ranting?

Matthew, Using your... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Using your own standard now, your post doesn't warrant a response since it is devoid of substance. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. I am not sure whether you are intentionally ignorant here. But it is easier to see that constitutional democracy in America with its unprecedented freedom and prosperity in the history of mankind doesn't come from the Chinese or Saudi. And the American constitutional democracy was based on theistic assumptions (God and Creator), not atheistic assumptions. Whenever atheism has become state religion, it entails unprecedented horror and oppression.
The rest you can research on yourself. If you at the data objectively you would come to the same conclusion. I came from an anti-American (and anti-western) bias myself. Once I looked at reality objectively, I came to this conclusion.

BTW, Matthew, looks like yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, Matthew, looks like you are reverting to the typical cheap liberal tactic of ad-hominen insults when running out of args. Sounds more like Brian to me: trying to insult someone first. When called out, then pretend to be offended by it. When run out of args, then use insults again.

I was stating that we aren'... (Below threshold)

I was stating that we aren't perfect even though we're better off than the Saudis or Chinese. And the value of individual liberty comes from the Enlightenment, which is a secular (not atheistic, mind you, but generally not theistically concerned) intellectual movement that ushered in the dawn of liberal democracy.

You don't know much about history, or political theory, and yet here you are trying to explain it to me. I no longer find you annoying--you're funny, is what you are, like a South Park version of an wingnut internaut.

Matthew, just look at the A... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Matthew, just look at the American declaration of independence and Constitution for example. They refered to God and Creator. And the people who came to America first were to the people who wanted to find religious freedom. With all the Enlightment, Europe produced facism and communismm and WW1 and 2. It is funny that you don't know these details.

America is a great example of how the "christian" culture has brought freedom and prosperity to America and throughout the world. Even the Jews have prospered in America. Look at more secular Europe. The Jews had a hard time there even now. When atheism rules, unprecedented horror and oppression follows.

These are basic historical facts and you can objectively confront them if you like.

BTW, Matthew, I noticed tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, Matthew, I noticed that you start acting like moonbat now. Cannot hide it anymore?

Matthew, I wasn't implying ... (Below threshold)

Matthew, I wasn't implying that you defended the ME culture. I was pointing out the contrasts between Middle Eastern culture and Western. It was a way of showing that Western culture is fundamentally superior. No one, not one person here, made the claim that Western culture was perfect. You keep implying someone here said that.

That was in reference to when you said we should focus on what other cultures get right.

Well, acutally, we do. Over the 200+ years we've actually incorporated many of those things they got right into mainstream life here. Most of it is art and science, but there are philosophical aspects too.

Yes, the Aborigines probably don't pollute much, and some of us could probably learn from that, but they're raping their children.

The big point was the cultural relativism practiced by a certain contingent of liberals in this country and elsewhere. They excuse certain abhorrent behaviors as someone's "culture" even though they would never permit others doing it or having it in their own neighborhood.

This judge insulted everyone with her finding. She excused them as if they didn't know what they did was wrong by interating over and over that its wrong to have sex with minors. As if it was a cultural thing they should simply be admonished for. It happens to be the law of the land.

I'm of the mind that equality and liberty are universally desired by those who do not have it and to excuse a lack of it by pretending otherwise (that's their culture and who are we to judge or punish?) is one of the worst insults those who actually have liberty can heap upon those who don't.

Oyster, I disagree with ver... (Below threshold)

Oyster, I disagree with very little you've written there. I'm concerned, though, that dangerously stupid people like LAI might take a look at other cultures; say "Mine's better!"; then continue to drive his/her Ford Excursion four blocks to the 7/11 to buy slushies for his/her diabetic children.

I disagree, though, that "equality and liberty are universally desired by those who do not have it". You can't say that every Wahabbist woman is insincere in her beliefs, right? Doesn't make her beliefs right. (They aren't.) Neither does a Mormon woman being okay with polygamy doesn't make polygamy okay.

Here's why I don't like to judge cultures too harshly: I think most people who engage in abhorrent practices (i.e. having sex with babies to "prevent" infection by AIDS; female genital mutilation; etc.) aren't wrong on their values, but on their facts. They feel that these practices are ordered by a god, or are medically beneficial, or will help the recipient (victim) of their actions remain chaste and thereby get into heaven. I read once about a tribe in the Amazon who used to kill children when their parents died. Fucked, eh? Well, they really thought that they were sending these children to the next world, where their parents could continue to raise them and they could be happy together. Nice thought, huh? Wrong--but the intent is commendable, when we take into account their very unsophisticated conception of the value of self-determination and other things we too often take for granted.

The problem with most (but not all!) morally repugnant traditions/practices is a misunderstanding of objective facts, and not malicious intent. So, the solution? Education! Can we realistically convert the whole Islamic/fundamentalist Christian/primitive world to a belief system that holds all men and women to be fundamentally equal? No! But we would be wrong not to try, while maintaining sensitivity to just how deeply entrenched in these peoples' moral psychologies these morally awful factual misunderstandings are. Liberal democracy took a helluva long time to come to fruition in the West, and who knows--maybe it'll only spread so far. The world ain't a pretty place, never has been.

We must be fair and judicious (looking at you, LAI, you putz) when discussing these things: when a mullah orders that a woman be beaten to death for being raped, get outraged and criticize this evil practice; but there should also be outrage when some Catholic bishop uses the carrot of "Heaven" to make poor people feel better about their shitty, hungry, destitute lives.

Rather than pointing out al... (Below threshold)

Rather than pointing out all the grammatical stupidity in my last post, I'll suffice to say that I'd been at work for 11 hours and was delirious with hunger. The only thing served at the 11:30 lunch 'n' learn were veggie wraps. Should be a law against tricking people into not bringing their lunch and then giving them a tortilla with eggplant and sprouts in it. >:(

I forgot to mention, Oyster... (Below threshold)

I forgot to mention, Oyster: the strongest argument I've come across that supports your position that all people desire liberty and equality, is Richard Rorty's: if you try liberal democracy, you'll like it. I think he's right. His book Philosophy and Social Hope is shot through with wonderfully Whitmanesque admiration for the infinite horizon of opportunity in the United States, tempered with the knowledge that we can and should do better.

We must be fair and judicio... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

We must be fair and judicious (looking at you, LAI, you putz) when discussing these things: when a mullah orders that a woman be beaten to death for being raped, get outraged and criticize this evil practice; but there should also be outrage when some Catholic bishop uses the carrot of "Heaven" to make poor people feel better about their shitty, hungry, destitute lives.
You should look at yourself in the mirror. You cannot even hide your anti-Catholic bigotry. Your moral equivalency is so off-the-wall and so repugnant. I haven't heard Catholic practice of honor killing. I have seen Catholics (I am not a Catholic) running leprosy camps, orphanages etc... I don't know many secularists or atheists who have done that kind of charitable work.

The rest of your post is so devoid of a coherent argument. Your effort at slandering fundamentalist christians etc... is so weak and so brazen. Why? Because you do not dare confront the facts in front of your eyes: where atheism or radical islamism rules, horror and oppression follows. With all the historical lessons, "enlightment" Europe still produced fascism and communism and the worst atrocities in human history so far.

The fact that you have to attempt to make such a brazen moral equivalency shows that you don't have the facts or logic on your side. You are simply expounding prejudice and bigotry (or talking points that you have picked up without independent thinking). Instead of facing the truth, you are trying to justify it with such a flimsy excuse.

'...tempered with the kn... (Below threshold)

'...tempered with the knowledge that we can and should do better."

Tempered. Yes. And I think we excel at that already. But also with the knowledge that we still won't be perfect. And sometimes change isn't better. It's just "change". Also read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller:

... children of Merlin, chasing a gleam. Children, too, of Eve, forever building Edens--and kicking them apart in berserk fury because somehow it isn't the same.
The closer men came to perfecting themselves a paradise, the more impatient they seemed to become with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier for them to see that something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.

(lifted from commenter "James" at ejectejecteject.com)

BTW, since you are talking ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, since you are talking about Catholics, let me use your own arg. You have problems with Catholics talking about heaven, speak out on behalf and take care of the old, the unborn, the weak, the handicapped, the outcast of society. Yet as an atheist, you have no problem with killing them under the name of mercy killing or choice. Even worse, you don't seem to encourage the old/the weak to kill themselves under the name "death with dignity". As you said, good-sounding names don't make these practices right.

I like that quote, oyster. ... (Below threshold)

I like that quote, oyster. People who think they're building paradise, or have a definite view of what constitutes "civilization", don't understand that a healthy society will always be in flux to a certain extent. Pluralist liberal society is the only way to go forwards and maximize human flourishing, messy though it may be.

LAI: you're right. Because I don't believe in any supernatural authority, I like Stalin and think we should be more proactive with the practice of euthanasia. I also hate my mother because she's Catholic, even though her politics and values are more or less the same as mine, because I dislike a lot of teachings of her church. I'm going to go burn down a nativity scene and eat some stem cells and then write a check to Ward Churchill.

Any civilization that would... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

Any civilization that would allow such a crime should probably be extinct, never to pollute the gene pool again.

Bwah?! That's pretty stupid... (Below threshold)

Bwah?! That's pretty stupid, civil. Rape wasn't rigorously punished throughout the history of Europe. Should someone have wiped out those flea-ridden brutes a thousand years ago?

Or were you just trying to be funny?

Matthew, Glad you g... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Glad you get the point that comparing rape to the Catholics talking about heaven is pretty stupid if not repugnant. Using your own logic/argument to bring out the repugnant views of the liberal left seems to help also. There is some hope for you. I also understand that it is difficult to face facts contrary to your view, so sometimes you have to resort to insults to cover it up. Hope you can grow out of that.

Mantis, looks like you want... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis, looks like you want a quick spin and not even reading your own article here

On Facebook, at least 11 groups have surfaced in response, with more than 5,000 members, some ranting, some pontificating and others spewing racial epithets.

The Sun couldn't help but bring out the racism here. Looks like the FrontPageMag guy was right. Feel free to run.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy