The beauty in religion

Sean K · 10 June 2009

MS+Tradesim said:
That article was written by some Catholic but the main underlying research was undertaken by an external body. The article also collates findings from a number of other relevant studies as cited throughout it.

Would they present any information that would not support their position?

Hardly an 'independant' study.

I liked the second quote you provided above also. That only 1 in 25 Priests abuses children. Nice.

four percent of priests have sexually abused youths or children, that still leaves about 96% of priests (24 priests out of every 25) who are non-abusive.

There's something to hang your hat on. They seem to be proud of this for some reason...

Julia · 10 June 2009

gav said:
Exactly. Everyone is quick to jump on blaming religion when it is human beings committing these awful acts. Yet as soon as a religious person does something good (eg. helps others in need), people here are saying it is human beings doing the kind acts and religion is just taking the credit...

Something bad happen = blame religion
Something good happen = its humanity with religion taking the credit

Tink said:
Thats exactly right Gav

When its good -- its humanity
When its bad -- its religion

Why bother trying to explain anything....

No explanations needed. People are always going to take the view that supports their own bias.

You do both make a reasonable point, however. There are plenty of examples of religion-based good actions, e.g. the Salvos.
And I'm currently facilitating a group of gambling addicts for a church based organisation. Most of the participants don't have any interest in religion and there is no requirement from this church for God to even be mentioned.
They see it as a necessary community service in the same way they give food to people who need help.

MS+Tradesim said:
Actually, I wasn't referring to you Julia. If you must know, I refer primarily to ColB and secondarily to the random pipsqueak brigade who feel the need to insert their 'incisive' comments. The overdone 'apology' kind of negates itself through the sarcasm. Next time just call me a name and be done with it.

OK, I don't feel any need to call you names. You believe what you believe and are defending that in the face of opposition. Nothing wrong with that.
And yes, I didn't need to add the sarcasm. I apologise a second time.

MS+Tradesim · 10 June 2009

kennas said:
Would they present any information that would not support their position?

Hardly an 'independant' study.

I see. So you don't believe in assessing the different sides of a situation? They must be as bad as the media makes out? A study undertaken by an external, unrelated agency is not independent? Even when I provided the link directly to the study on that agency's site in post #78? Here it is again for reference, http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.

I liked the second quote you provided above also. That only 1 in 25 Priests abuses children. Nice.

There's something to hang your hat on. They seem to be proud of this for some reason...

That second quote came from the religioustolerance.org site and was made by the author of that article. The site can hardly be said to be pro-Christian. The incidence of sexual abuse is higher in the general male population and the perpetrator is likely to be a relative. People should be more concerned over leaving their children with relatives than Catholic priests.

I thought you were a little more objective than this Kennas.

lasty · 10 June 2009

No divine intervention here
THE world's richest and largest Anglican diocese has lost more than $100 million on the sharemarket and is investigating ways to cut programs and ministries across Sydney.

Two years ago the Anglican diocese of Sydney was able to allocate $30 million to educate new ministers, spread the Gospel and reach out to young people. But returns from investments have plummeted so steeply that the funds available next year have been slashed to $5.6 million.

MS+Tradesim · 10 June 2009

Julia said:
OK, I don't feel any need to call you names. You believe what you believe and are defending that in the face of opposition. Nothing wrong with that. And yes, I didn't need to add the sarcasm. I apologise a second time.

No apology necessary. Julia, we clearly have different beliefs and disagree at a worldview level but that doesn't mean I don't like you and don't respect you. I think you are generally fair and inject balance into discussions.

For myself, I rarely make off-the-cuff remarks on important issues though I was guilty in the NZ football scandal thread. I prefer to only engage in discussions where I am informed and have supporting evidence for my contributions. And that's the kind of people I like to talk with.

Sean K · 10 June 2009

MS+Tradesim said:
Even when I provided the link directly to the study on that agency's site in post #78? Here it is again for reference, http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.

Isn't that a seperate article? The one you quoted was there for all to see, composed by a Catholic organisation.

That second quote came from the religioustolerance.org site and was made by the author of that article. The site can hardly be said to be pro-Christian. The incidence of sexual abuse is higher in the general male population and the perpetrator is likely to be a relative. People should be more concerned over leaving their children with relatives than Catholic priests.

I thought you were a little more objective than this Kennas.

Had a look at the site and they are not just Christian.

Just curious about their statement/finding that sexual abuse is more likely to be a relative. How many relatives do people have compared to Priests? Who even has a Priest these days? Would have been damn hard for me to be abused by one, that's for sure.

Or, maybe I'm not making the right assumptions with how they've come up with those conclusions.

Sorry you perceive me to be unobjective at the moment.

MS+Tradesim · 10 June 2009

kennas said:
Isn't that a seperate article? The one you quoted was there for all to see, composed by a Catholic organisation.

I wrote a huge reply and the freaking browser refreshed itself and wiped it.

In summary....

The first article was written by a Catholic. Yes. But the underlying research for that article as cited is drawn from external studies. Particularly and especially this one: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.

Based on all the statistics I have read from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, from a victim's perspective a male relative is the most likely source of child sexual abuse. 1/3 of cases.

From the perpetrator's perspective, catholic priests are less likely to be abusers than other groups. Around 2-5% as a group compared with about 8% of males overall and as an example around 13% of public school teachers (that's in the USA).

Is any cover-up and culture of sweeping it under the carpet disgusting? Yes. I grew up in a similar culture and it's sickening. Those who appoint themselves as moral guardians should also hold themselves to a higher standard of accountability. No argument. I have no sympathy for their predicament. But keep it in perspective. Catholic priests are not the dangerous, depraved predators that the media beat-ups would have us all believe. I think it's the opposite conclusion that is most surprising. Given that priests are generally meant to be celibate and IMO live an unnatural lifestyle, it is very remarkable that catholic priests as a group are less of a threat than others.

Duckman#72 · 10 June 2009

Julia said:
Hi Duckman, it was unfair of me to direct my frustration towards you, who I know to be fair and reasonable. I've calmed down now.

Hi Julia

I know you had no intention of just stirring the pot!! We go back a long way.

I think you and I are a good example of how two people can find themselves travelling down the same road, despite having arrived there using two completely different maps. Shared values.

As a side issue - can you believe that I first starting posting to you back in 2005!!!! I know I don't PM very often and I don't always have the time to reply to all the posts I'd like to - but I love the fact that you (and the rest of the gang) are here each day.

Duckman

Julia · 10 June 2009

Hi Duckman, many thanks. Your sentiments are 100% reciprocated, of course.
Do you remember the post you made when you announced the last pregnancy?
I think of it from time to time, and smile.
Hope Adam, as the product, is doing well and that all the other ducklings are fine also.

All the best
Julia

Sean K · 10 June 2009

MS+Tradesim said:
I wrote a huge reply and the freaking browser refreshed itself and wiped it.

In summary....

The first article was written by a Catholic. Yes. But the underlying research for that article as cited is drawn from external studies. Particularly and especially this one: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.

OK, I think I'm with you now.

I'm still a bit taken back with the 4% of Priests have abused fact. That seems like quite a lot.

If 4% of adult males in the US were child abusers (say 100m) that's about 40,000 sexual abusers. Eeeek. Maybe that's average.

I'm also a bit taken back by the amount of money the church has paid in regard to abuse.

The amount of money already paid by the Church, as a result of allegations, to victims, for the treatment of priests and for legal expenses reported in our surveys was over $572,000,000.

I wonder how much of the 1/2 bil went to victims compared to legal costs? Just being the skeptic now.

Off topic. Would be nice if just the good things about religion could be discussed, but these things get sidetracked. Like the Why Religion? thread...

ColB · 11 June 2009

Originally Posted by Julia

"Presumably Col posted it with a sense of irony but I suppose it should have gone in one of the other threads..."

Yes, you're right Julia. It was with a sense of irony that I posted that article and Duck I did manipulate the title but I make no apology for putting it in this thread. As someone else quite rightly pointed out, why post to a forum if you can't accept a little balanced debate about the issue. I think we at least owe that to the victims of abuse perpetrated by some hiding under the cloak of religion.

Originally posted by MS+Tradeism

"...Actually, I wasn't referring to you Julia. If you must know, I refer primarily to ColB and secondarily to the random pipsqueak brigade who feel the need to insert their 'incisive' comments. The overdone 'apology' kind of negates itself through the sarcasm. Next time just call me a name and be done with it...."

I have already stated that I am not religious but i don't think anywhere in my commentary on this thread have I made derogatory comments about those who do believe in religion or indeed any person on this thread. There is a certain sense of irony however that some who purport to follow religion have little reluctance to belittle some posters who offer no more than an article sourced from the internet or their view. Some people appear to live in a bubble and can't acknowledge or seek to defend or deflect the seriousness of some atrocities committed in the name of the church or under their banner. Not withstanding that there are other people who commit similar acts who are not religious it is the trust and integrity bestowed upon the clergy that some so readily betray. That detracts from the Beauty In Religion which on the whole has far more good than bad.

Garpal Gumnut · 11 June 2009

ColB said:
Yes, you're right Julia. It was with a sense of irony that I posted that article and Duck I did manipulate the title but I make no apology for putting it in this thread. As someone else quite rightly pointed out, why post to a forum if you can't accept a little balanced debate about the issue. I think we at least owe that to the victims of abuse perpetrated by some hiding under the cloak of religion.

I have already stated that I am not religious but i don't think anywhere in my commentary on this thread have I made derogatory comments about those who do believe in religion or indeed any person on this thread. There is a certain sense of irony however that some who purport to follow religion have little reluctance to belittle some posters who offer no more than an article sourced from the internet or their view. Some people appear to live in a bubble and can't acknowledge or seek to defend or deflect the seriousness of some atrocities committed in the name of the church or under their banner. Not withstanding that there are other people who commit similar acts who are not religious it is the trust and integrity bestowed upon the clergy that some so readily betray. That detracts from the Beauty In Religion which on the whole has far more good than bad.

This is from atheistcartoons.com.

Its well worth subscribing. Its free and the toons are not copyright.

The abuses by Catholic and Protestant clergy have sullied the practice and propogation of Christianity. The behaviour of Terror Islamists and Vengeful US TV Christians has further harmed folk's perception of religion.

Revelation is what you guys are on about.

But you have to take the good with the bad.

It is reasonable for people on this thread, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world.

gg

MS+Tradesim · 11 June 2009

ColB,

There are several threads here where people are free to criticise religion as openly as they please. The intent in starting this one was to bring the balance that was lacking. Thus attempting to claim that you are only presenting balanced debate is insubstantial.

Had you genuinely wished 'balanced debate' you would have posted the article in an appropriate thread like this one and offered your own commentary.

I have already stated that I am not religious but i don't think anywhere in my commentary on this thread have I made derogatory comments about those who do believe in religion or indeed any person on this thread.

I suppose you could make an argument that me starting "a silly thread" with no "credibility" and that with "blind faith" I look through "rose-coloured glasses" is neither belittling nor derogatory but I doubt it would be convincing.

There is a certain sense of irony however that some who purport to follow religion have little reluctance to belittle some posters who offer no more than an article sourced from the internet or their view.

Yes. I'm afraid one of my faults is having little tolerance for uninformed bigotry. Should someone wish to confront me and state that I hurt their feelings, I will be more than happy to apologise.

When you are ready to have objective discussion please do so.

MS+Tradesim · 11 June 2009

On reflection,

I openly apologise to anyone who might have felt slurred by any comment I have made. That was not my intention. I had hoped that participants in this thread might have been able to self-moderate and avoid mockery. In that, I was guilty of over-optimism.

darkside · 11 June 2009

Unfortunately intolerance for others who don't share the same religious beliefs is rife and will always cause problems, christianity believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share their beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider their religion the most "tolerant" and "loving." WTF .
And on the subject of child abuse amongst the clergy , the tradgedy is that they are way over represented as opposed to the rest of the community, mind you , our so called "blue card holders" who one would assume are more than safe to work with children are also above the average as far as the general population is concerned.

Duckman#72 · 12 June 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
It is reasonable for people on this thread, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world.

gg

GG

No one in this thread has denied, disputed nor dismissed the woeful shame that the Church must accept in relation to its sexual abuse horrors. We accept and acknowledge the bad but are trying to highlight the good. Can you? Can you accept the good? If not - what are you doing posting on this thread?

I completely disagree with the position you and Col have taken. To suggest that we somehow owe it to the victims of sexual abuse to bring it to light in this thread, is fanciful and misguided at best, and mischievous and spiteful at worst.

Col, if you want debate - why not debate some of the actual material that people have posted here regarding "The Beauty in Religion". Not just attaching a media article relating to sexual abuse within the Church, with almost zero commentary from yourself, with the exception of the ironical title change to help validate its inclusion on this thread.

There is a subtle and distinct difference in what you and I are saying GG. I am saying - It is reasonable for people on this forum, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world. You are saying - It is reasonable for people on this thread, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world. I am not trying to cut down debate - just have it in the right thread. Try these for thread starters, "The Evil In Religion", "Callous Catholic Convent Coverups" and "Poll:Hitler v Catholic Priests - Who is more Evil?"

When I first started on ASF the moderators were very big on staying "on topic". Unfortunately when it comes to religion, I am a realist and understand that a different set of rules apply. If you want to debate the injustices of religion - go for your life, start your thread and fire away. But it's not as much fun is it?

It is hard to be the bully when no one else is in the playground.

Duckman

Mr J · 12 June 2009

MS+Tradesim said:
From the perpetrator's perspective, catholic priests are less likely to be abusers than other groups. Around 2-5% as a group compared with about 8% of males overall and as an example around 13% of public school teachers (that's in the USA).

Where did you get those figures? I have no idea myself, I am just amazed that it may be that high.

kennas said:
If 4% of adult males in the US were child abusers (say 100m) that's about 40,000 sexual abusers. Eeeek. Maybe that's average.

Missing a couple of zeros there. If the 4% figure is true, that's certainly millions of kiddie fiddlers running around in the US. Ten's of thousands in our capital cities, dozens in our communities, and probably one every time we go for a walk.

Sean K · 12 June 2009

Mr J said:
Where did you get those figures? I have no idea myself, I am just amazed that it may be that high.

They're in those links provided earlier.

Mr J said:
Missing a couple of zeros there. If the 4% figure is true,

Cripes I did too. It's four million!

That 4% is just using the figures from the study done on the incidence of abuse by Priests in the US. If the general pop abuse to the same level, that's 4 million, about the size of Melbourne.

Sean K · 12 June 2009

Duckman#72 said:
When I first started on ASF the moderators were very big on staying "on topic". Unfortunately when it comes to religion, I am a realist and understand that a different set of rules apply.

It's just impossible to control Duckman.

Mr J · 12 June 2009

Think about it globally though, there's enough to fill the USA .

The beauty in religion

Sean K

Moderator

Julia

In Memoriam

MS+Tradesim

lasty

MS+Tradesim

Sean K

Moderator

MS+Tradesim

Duckman#72

Julia

In Memoriam

Sean K

Moderator

ColB

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Attachments

MS+Tradesim

MS+Tradesim

darkside

Duckman#72

Mr J

Sean K

Moderator

Sean K

Moderator

Mr J

Similar threads

The beauty in religion

Moderator

In Memoriam

Moderator

In Memoriam

Moderator

Ross Island Hotel

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency