Saturday, March 19, 2011

Lucia Clint wants attention - well, he's got it

A blog that I removed from this site near four years ago (see Tidy Time) has published a scurrilous attack on me because of a post I wrote the other day on the NZ paedophiles who were part of a giant paedophile ring. I wanted to know who they were and was hoping they wouldn't get name suppression.

So, I am accused of faux outrage. Given that I am a parent of two children that I watch out for, this accusation has to be just for effect. Without it, I suppose the whole post might flop. Here's the justification:

For a blog that is so openly catholic to now be all upset about the awful crime of kiddy fiddling is a joke. Plenty of perverts in the catholic church - I'd be willing to wager some of these perverts are part of one of our organised religious movements in NZ.

If there are still any pederasts (homosexual men who target teenage boys) in the Catholic Church in NZ, I would also want to know who they were. At this point, there are no reports of who the paedophiles are, and furthermore, given that the site they were a part of was called boylover.net, where men talked about their sexual feelings towards boys, there is a high chance that we aren't looking at paedophiles here, it's pederasts.

Then there is the implication that pederasty is part of the Catholic faith - which is dead wrong. All sexual activity outside of marriage is mortally sinful and if unrepented, will lead the sinner directly to Hell. That is what we believe. Unfortunately, over the last number of decades, a great many unsuitable men were admitted into the priesthood. This problem has been dealt with recently, but the effects are unfortunately ongoing. From What the US Military could learn from the Catholic Priesthood:

Homosexual relationships caused a deep fracture in the priestly male fraternity. Pseudo-intimacy and intrigue replaced the outward looking evangelization of apostolic brotherhood. Bishops were unwilling to discipline the abusive priests under their charge. The Communio became divided. Religious leaders hid their own homosexual proclivities. The worst priests desacralized the liturgy and their vows and their priestly identity, while good priests often became isolated, fearful, and rigid. All priests were maimed.

We've had time to reflect, analyse and understand this issue. I don't think Clint is really interested in what the problem has been and how it is being solved. He's more interested in pushing his view of the world in which sex can be had any which way, and there's no consequence to anyone.
Lucia Marie, the author of the post is hardly the type of mild mannered christian you'd want to live next door to.

We've told by our neighbours that we are great to live next door to, and that our children are wonderful, friendly and polite.  Clint does not know me personally.

If you have the misfortune to read their blog get ready to see her frothing at the mouth over the mention of equal rights to all citizens.

Most people reading this blog be a little puzzled by this statement, unless they know what he is implying. The redefinition of marriage, for instance. Equal rights, in some people's vocabulary, means changing long established traditions to fit the new amorality.

For people that apparently are for free enterprise and freedom of choice and expression, ask them how they feel about gay people.

Freedom is not what this blog is about. We have the word "Conservative" in our blog name for a reason. Here is what Conservatism means to us: 10 Conservative Principles. The first being:

...the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

An enduring moral order means that you don't go about redefining or destroying the moral order.  That leads to chaos, which leads to destruction.  As is happening right now, before our very eyes.  Kind of like being sucked into a black hole in slow motion, so slowly it's hard to see it. 

Anyway, Clint goes on:

You either support freedom for all or you don't. That's why these sorts of people would love the idea of a religious state like Iran, but run by christians, able to administer death penalties to those who don't conform to their narrow-minded moralistic codes.

Well, we don't support unrestrained freedom. That's just license, not freedom. Easy to confuse.

Furthermore, at this point in time, Catholics cannot support the death penalty. As Pope John Paul II has said, "Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform."

Don't get me wrong, they have the freedom to believe whatever they like and say whatever they choose. But as long as they insist that they are also part of the VWRC* then it is insulting to all right wingers.

Clint is stuck in a time warp. Again, this blog is called NZ Conservative. Conservatism transcends left/right politics.

Graham Capill is the closest people like NZ Conservative have got to getting one of their own into Parliament. Just like Lucia and her co bloggers, he too was an angry religious nut bar and look what he was into.

And now, true to form, Clint shows his real self. He accuses me of being like Graham Capill, who was imprisoned for molesting an 8 year old girl.

In another time, Clint, doing that to someone's face would have resulted in a duel.  Instead, it's just a blog post.  This time.

11 comment(s):

Redbaiter said...

Heine too frequently asserts himself to be a member of "the VRWC". If its a club that condones the kind of mentality and behaviour observed in his latest post, I'm glad I don't belong to it. Just vile and disgusting.

Blair said...

Wet bus tickets at dawn then?

Lucia Maria said...

Counter-post beats wet bus ticket.

ZenTiger said...

Clint said: For a blog that is so openly catholic to now be all upset about the awful crime of kiddy fiddling is a joke.

What a pathetic comment. Can he not see the idiocy of that statement?

ZenTiger said...

I addressed Clint's mythconceptions as far as I am concerned, but I'm not quite sure why I even bothered:

1. No, I do not want homosexuality made illegal.
2. No, do not want sodomy made illegal.
3. No, I do not want to establish a religious State.
4. On the death penalty - not too keen on the State having such power, especially for political crimes or thought crimes, but I could be swayed for the cases of multiple offenders of violent crimes and for child abusers.
5. I don't insist I'm part of the VRWC, unless I'm making a joke.
6. I never voted for Graham Capill's party and never would have. Their politics are far too different to mine.
7. I don't support Capill in any way whatsoever. ANY people guilty of such crimes deserve the maximum penalty under law.


So basically, Clint was talking bullshit.

Redbaiter said...

Zen. We won't defeat these lowlife by defending ourselves.

ZenTiger said...

He's nearly bored me to death. What am I supposed to do?

Redbaiter said...

Its a great rebuttal mate, well done.

Redbaiter said...

You're right Zen. He's just a worthless idiot.

ZenTiger said...

Clint's done a new post. Through my tears and frothy mouth, I managed to mount a feeble defence against one of the accusations against us. I was going to rebut them all, but some-one offered me a Chocolate Eclair with real cream, and I realised as a Capitalist I had to eat it.

Here's my response (copied here on the off-chance Clint gives up blogging, deletes his blog and becomes an MP:

---------------------------
Clint, I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. You seem to be making most of your argument on the basis the NZC bloggers hate gay people, or perhaps that we don't accord them equal rights.

You say:

Being gay isn't a choice, but NZ Conservative don't carey. When Zen Tiger tried to clarify his points to me (in the last post) not once did he state that he accepted that law abiding people are equal, even gays.

I also didn't state that I think murdering children is bad, so surely you don't conclude that I want to murder children?

What I did state was:

1. I do not believe homosexuality should be made illegal.
2. I do not believe sodomy should be made illegal.

That proved to be very relevant because in this post you say:

then what sort of nation does NZ Conservative want for NZ?
Should we ban homosexuality?


Well, I explicitly answered that question yesterday, except that you are so convinced you think you know what I think, you seem to have ignored that and are busy claiming I want to ban homosexuality. How much more clearer could I be, and does it really matter what I say if you pretend I didn't say that or that it is irrelevant?

Since you are worried that I don't treat gay people equally (and I shudder at even having to couch this in terms of "gay people" since this seems to be a big thing to you, let me tell you a true story.

I work in a primarily technical sales role in an IT company and I have a pre-sales resource who needs to work closely with me to help achieve product sales.

When we needed a new pre-sales person, some-one else in the company stepped up for the role, who happened to be gay (he can be a bit camp, so I think most people would figure he's gay).

I was asked if I could work with this person, and did I think he could handle the role, which is demanding and requires a lot of client interaction. Personally, I had no reservations and endorsed him unconditionally.

However, there was some consideration by my manager on how he might react with a range of clients that might find his style a little confronting. In other words, would any gay bigots with cheque-books affect our potential to close the deal? We considered this for a few moments, and jointly agreed that we'd rather lose the sale than have to work with such people.

So for the last 5 or so months I've been working closely with a gay guy who is as much a friend as a colleague, and him being gay doesn't worry me. So can you just get over this "anti-gay" obsession thing?

We believe in giving others a fair chance, ... not picking and choosing what citizens are better than others.

Well, everyone except Catholics perhaps?

ZenTiger said...

Clint and friends seem to think his post is neutral, and we are frothing.

Is this an example of a neutral comment?

Graham Capill is the closest people like NZ Conservative have got to getting one of their own into Parliament.

No, not even close and we resent the link. The closest might have been Gordon Copeland or Bill English, both Catholics.

Just like Lucia and her co bloggers, he too was an angry religious nut bar and look what he was into.

Sorry, we are not angry, and not nut bars. And then the implication that we might be kiddie fiddlers?

Ordinary christians too should be pissed that their beliefs are being misappropriated like this.

Actually, they might get a bit pissed off that YOU are misappropriating our beliefs in the way you are doing.

It would be a tragedy for the right wing for any of us to call them true Capitalists... a better name for them is Capiltalists.

And who exactly is frothing? (as you say of us later) Or do you define "frothing" as anyone who defends themselves from being called a kiddie fiddler or being accused of endorsing kiddie fiddlers?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.