RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
J. Anderson Thomson Jr. MD:
why we believe in god(s)
RSS Feeds
Comment 16 by QuestioningKat
From Wikipedia:
A scapegoat: "In modern usage a scapegoat may be a child, employee, peer, ethnic or religious group, or country singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame".
It strikes me that the blame apportioned to the priest in question wasn't unmerited, nor was he singled out by the church or prosecuting authorities to deflect blame away from another person. He was charged with and found guilty of a particular offence, based on the evidence the prosecutors collected; what else is there to say? How does his conviction preclude that (or another) prosecuting authority from charging other clerics with similar offences?
I must say I find this thread a little bit strange. Finally an individual is called to account for his actions, in a court of (state) law, and people are perturbed....eh...why?
What kind of judicial magic bullet do people think is out there?! This is how the law works.
Permalink Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:51:13 UTC | #950086