I spent a bit too much time on forums the other day and didn't get enough rest. My apologies for emotional outbursts.
Legitimate enough that the church is willing to shell out $15,000. Legitimate enough for a representative of this diocese to say, "if you want more money you need a lawyer to call my lawyer." Any illegitimate claim wouldn't even get close to any type of discussion like that.
That doesn't legitimize the claims imho. The accused often pay out to hush the matter with minimal embarasment or scandal. I do not agree with this claim.
True, but why would two different victims make this up? I don't see how people here in this thread are willing to accept the fact that these two could have been shafted because they're poor, but not because of their ethnicity.
I am open to the possibility of racial discrimination in this case. At present, I am not convinced that it was motivated by racial discrimination and I'm not convinced that it wasn't.
This is comparing apples and oranges. You cannot impart the idea because of your mental status that they too, like yourself suffer from some psychiatric condition that may affect their memory and judgement. You are essentially saying that their feelings are a farce. It is not only disingenuous but its downright ignorant.
As far as calling their feelings a "farce", that is incorrect. Their subjective perceptions of an event are highly important. Trauma, for example, is highly based on that person's perception of the event. Their perceptions are important, and processing their perceptions are integral to recovery and mental health, It is important.
I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I "might" be comparing cherry tomatoes to the Amana Orange. Everyone's perceptions and memories are flawed, to varying degrees, and that degree changes based on a lot of factors. Subjective, eyewitness perceptions and testimony are the lowest forms of evidence. That is not to say that they are not evidence. But evidence that should be regarded with the highest degree of skepticism.