You absolute tit ^ 2.

>> Yet from some of the reactions you would think that the Quakers had put out an invitation to this group to come and break bread with them.

Why would that be? ‘Cos both Hezbollah was allowed to meet there in March, despite FH being forewarned… then the next month, Hamasniks. Then, two months later, Hezbollah came within a cat’s whisker of getting back in again?

Stick to posting in the Arts section.

From Hizb’s site, here’s a report of the meeting:

http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/london-conference-calls-for-zardari-to-go-and-a-new-leadership-and-system-for-pakistan.html

>> He said that Pakistan’s nuclear assets, which America and India wanted to neutralise, were a vital deterrent to hostile threats.

You absolute tit.

This booking, if it was even real, was just one among hundreds each month. Yet from some of the reactions you would think that the Quakers had put out an invitation to this group to come and break bread with them.

If you start to imagine that anyone who breathes the same air as extremists is your enemy, you end up with very few people being sympathetic to your cause.

The small amount of evidence that we have here suggests that the booking was not made under the name of this organisation – i.e. that Friends House were misled.

You have no evidence as far as I can see that Friends House IS knowingly allowing extremist groups, or groups in conflict with Quaker principles, to book meetings there. If you do, please present it, otherwise I shall have to assume that you are deliberately seeking to find enemies where there are none – especially some of you are showing a distinct willingness to tarnish an entire faith group with your opinions of the action of a single booking clerk.

Amie, please do send me your report – joe.muggs@gmail.com

As a result, I feel nothing but utter contempt for the whole rotten, hypocritical, pretentious, holier-than-thou, lying and cowardly edifice of the saintly Quakers.

Yes, why should they or anyone else presume to make moral distinctions? Who is to say that there is anything wrong with terrorism, paedophilia, racism, rape and so on? That’s so arrogant, so last year …

In this context “religious people” means Christians only of course. Also they tend to be “liberal” Christians not traditionalists. Even fundamentalist Christians will be normal enough to defend their own principles and their own members against overt enemies.

The behaviour of the Quakers and the Sisters of Mercy can be more repulsive than outright fascists. “Normal” extremists will at least defend their own members – especially against FALSE allegations. The religious people will lick the boots of their enemies and congratulate themselves on their superior moral code that enables them to transcend normal ethical considerations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Wall

Reaction of Kevin Myers, July 1999
On Saturday 31 July, the Irish Times published an article by writer and journalist Kevin Myers. He was one of the very few to speak out in favour of Wall and McCabe at the time. He originally wrote a column on Monday 26 July to be published on Wednesday but it was withdrawn because what he sought to achieve was already happening – the release of the two accused. He was the first person to describe the trial at a witch-hunt.

“We should always beware the deeds of good men and women when there is a public war against vice of any kind. The “witches” of Salem were not persecuted by bad men or women; people then genuinely lived in fear of witchcraft, just as they did of communism in the 1950s. In the witch-hunt to remove it from public life in the US, innocent people’s lives were ruined, yet through often honourable motives (apart from those of Joe McCarthy).[14]

Kevin Myers has himself been a fierce critic of the Catholic Church – one of his more moderate comments being: “The Sisters of Mercy have no charity and the Sisters of Charity have no mercy”.

Reaction of Sisters of Mercy
After their conviction, the Sisters of Mercy issued a statement which read:

“We are all devastated by the revolting crimes which resulted in these verdicts. Our hearts go out to this young woman who, as a child, was placed in our care. Her courage in coming forward was heroic. We beg anyone who was abused whilst in our care to go to the Gardai (police.)

Even after the collapse of the case against the two accused, the Sisters of Mercy made no effort to apologise to Wall or to withdraw their statement of support for Walsh. One commentator [15] remarked: “The young woman their hearts were going out to, was the false accuser, not their own innocent nun. Our absolutist system had seduced them into identifying with the accuser and betraying their own sister.”

MY SUMMARY: The Irish Sisters of Mercy are as decadent as the English Quakers.