"Priests abuse children at same rate as everyone else"

[Beartracks]

I was wondering this very thing. Turns out my instincts were correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

By Pat Wingert | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 8, 2010
© 2010

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002 — when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines — a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently" abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One's senior church-risk manager, says "it's been pretty steady since." On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children's programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. ... Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates.

Read the rest at http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096


------------------------

[ZeitgeistObserver]

1. Quite true.

It's just that other organizations or professions tend to call the cops, not transfer the offenders to other areas and hide all evidence of the offence.

[Beartracks]

2. Yes, the article addresses that issue...

... later on. It's part of the reason that abuse scandals fairly explode in the Church, because of the lag time between crimes and the eventual, snowballing revelations.

------------------------------

[ZeitgeistObserver]

3. A big kaboom that's been coming for centuries.

I think it's also because no other religious group has a world spokesman. Maybe the Episcopalians with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he doesn't get the coverage the Pope does. And other than him, there isn't any one individual speaking for a 'united' church. Not even the Anglicans are united anymore.

Plus the pope has a tendency to lecture the world, and insist they follow his rules, so this looks even worse on him.

[Angry Dragon]

10. I like your post

[ZombieHorde]

20. Tibetan Buddhism has a world spokesman. nt

[notesdev]

4. It begs the question

if adherence to and training in their philosophy produces no statistically significant deviation from the overall population average on the question of whether child molestation is a desirable thing, from what moral high ground do they lecture others on how to behave?

[aquart]

6. Exactly.

[Beartracks]

27. Fixed.

"adherence to and training in their philosophy produces no statistically significant deviation from the overall population average on the question of whether incidence of child molestation is a desirable thing"

-----------------------

[laconicsax]

5. So what?

The big deal with the Church is that its hierarchy makes a point of covering it up and painting the perpetrators as victims.

[ironbark]

7. Well. Where’s the heckle brigade now?

Your post confirms the statistics here in Australia and the anecdotal experience of Child Protection workers. Priests or other offenders with a high social profile attract a lot of media attention creating the impression of greater prevalence. The worst aspect of this false focus is that it tends to distract parents from awareness of the most likely perpetrators of child abuse- family members and/or those well known to the family.

The other aspect that ought be raised is that of severity of abuse. While statistics are available on prevalence and likely perpetrators it is difficult to make any quantitative study of the forms of abuse or to measure their consequences…the degree of damage done.
Debilitating as child sexual abuse is, there are a range of abuses that fit the category of sustained torture and render the victim subject to profound physiological/ psychological damage. They are no longer ‘walking wounded’ damaged by molestation but debilitated to the point of near complete dysfunction by ongoing torture and neglect. Such cases are not produced in the church, school or visit to the neighbour but rather occur in the secrecy of the home. The single most common feature of such dysfunctional domestic environments is not religion but drug and alcohol abuse.

Talk to a Youth or Child Protection worker who has been in the field for the past 20- 30 years and I predict they will tell you such abuse is far more prevalent and far more severe than it once was.

[ZombieHorde]

21. The problem with the Catholic Church has been their response to the rapes.

The cover ups and the lies.

[ironbark]

25. The problem with the atheist response has been to portray religion as central/causal to child abuse

.

Endless posts pointing the finger at churches/religion in regard child abuse.

ZERO preparedness to examine the issues beyond any religious reference/context.

ZERO interest in examining the central causal factors of child abuse- poverty, drug and alcohol abuse.

ZERO interest in discussing the role the churches play in fighting the causes of child abuse.

ZERO preparedness to consider or discuss the role the churches play in treating, supporting caring for victims of child abuse.

ZERO interest in considering that through coalface charities and social services the churches are in a front line position in identifying and reporting child abuse.

The atheist response to the issue has a singular tunnel vision focus- the church/ religion role in committing or covering up child abuse.
NOTHING ELSE comes within the province of their interest or concern.

Here’s a sure bet- In the time it takes you to find >ANY< post broadly considering the causes, dynamics and treatment of child abuse as a social issue I’ll find eight to a dozen gleefully focusing on “Priests who arse fuck young boys”.

[Beartracks]

28. Thanks, ironbark. This was exactly my point...

... in making the OP.

It has become acceptable now to just "assume" priests are molestors, and that the Church is one big gathering of pedophiles; it's the punchline of many a comedians' joke, and it's the basis of many posts and opinions here at DU. The Church's pedophile problem is being held up far and wide as an example of what is wrong with organized religion.

I am certainly aware that the Church's hierarchy and traditions of secrecy have resulted in mishandling of abuse cases and have allowed some priests to continue in their jobs and their molestation. But many otherwise educated, thoughtful people are perfectly fine with the notion that celibate men must naturally turn into pedophiles -- WTF? -- and they will simply assume that the Church must somehow attract pedophiles, produce pedophiles, and boast a greater concentration of pedophiles than anywhere else. I've never found any info that would back up such assertions, but I always figured that somewhere there must be studies that compared the incidence of child molestation in the Church to society at large.

I agree with you, ironbark: making the Church the bogeyman in the national child molestation debate allows many people to feel that their own kids must be safe from this problem -- and indeed they are not.

-----------------

[ironbark]

36. As a booby prize, you get my (long;-) debriefing- Going back to work post.

;-)

I was going to put it up as a thread but- a/ I won’t have time to stick around to defend it. b/ Long experience tells me there are no atheists and very few theists prepared to consider or discuss the issue/s.

I live in a rural costal community of 40 000. I work for a govt funded agency that provides residential care for seven adolescent males and five females in five separate houses. All of our clients are high needs/at risk victims of abuse, neglect and trauma.
Two of our male clients and one female live in ‘one client’ accommodation because they constitute a risk to others. All clients have round the clock residential care.
There are 35 young people on the waiting list for such intensive care.
One of our male clients, ‘Eddie’, was designated as the most damaged child in the State. He spent up to the age of six crawling on the floor and barking like a dog. You can still see the small white scars from cigarettes being stubbed out on this arms by drug addict mother.
He is now fifteen and this is his very first year at regular school. I believe it is worth considering how he (and others) reach this point of stability/function after prolonged abuse.

Within the community there are five or six government agencies dealing directly with youth in need. The Dept Human Services, Child Protection, Youth Justice, our agency and another similar providing a youth facility and youth workers.

Despite what is claimed on this board about there being “plenty” and “lots” of secular NGOs doing charity and service work just like the churches the only such organization in our community is ROTARY, which fundraises for others. (I’m told that there are thousands of grass roots secular services doing work just like the Salvation Army and that if you add them all up they “dwarf” the SA…but no one has been able to name/identify these agencies).

At last rough count there are about a dozen+ churches running youth programs in town. Four-five small Evangelical/Pentecostal programs, SA, Uniting Church, Catholic Church, Lutherans, Baptists…
Each runs either ‘In House’ programs and events and/or ‘Outreach’ programs.
Over the years the majority of our clients have had contact or been involved with these programs.

Dynamics-
Each one of our kids works out very early that (as a Ward of the State) almost everyone in their life is ‘paid’ to be there. Even when there is mutual staff/client regard and a bond is formed the kid knows that all workers will probably leave at some point. If they have been in the system since early years they will have seen dozens of workers/caregivers come and go. Consciously or subconsciously they decide to get in first and “hurt them before they hurt you”. It can take years to get past this and other dynamics of perception as being yet another authority figure or part of the State system.

Youth Worker/Volunteers from the Churches do not carry the stigma of being paid or in authority…the very nature and dynamic of the relationship with the young person is different. Such volunteers are also generally much younger than the average social or residential worker….much cooler to hang with, more of a peer than a parent and most importantly a potential role model.

The majority of our clients are very street wise and emotionally immature, a dangerous combination. The perceive of themselves as ‘gangsters’, caps on backwards, jeans hanging down below bum, foul mouthed and aggressive they think the live In the Hood. No volunteer from a Church is going to last thirty seconds with them by mentioning let alone pushing religion…they will just be told to “fuck off”.

Our young ‘Eddie’ has teamed up with youth volunteer ‘Frank’ from one of the Pentecostal Churches, the one that I personally find to be the weirdest in terms of theology…but I can’t fault Frank. An apprentice builder, he comes around two or three times a week in his truck, sometimes with his girlfriend, picks up Eddie and takes him bowling/fishing/coffee/cruising with music blaring. In the opinion of all Eddie’s workers the relationship with Frank is far more effective and productive than any counselling or clinical psychology because Frank provides Eddie with a model of prospective positive future (rather than burrowing in traumatic past). It is primarily through Frank that Eddie is now school attending.

They say- “It takes a whole village to raise a child”….In some cases it takes two or three and those ‘villages’ are often church communities within the broader community.
I don’t have to share their faith or beliefs to recognise, respect and be extremely grateful for the work they do.

Sorry about the length of reply…the issue matters to me.

[iris27]

50. It wouldn't be a punchline if the church didn't shelter the offenders.

There were Boy-Scout-leader pedophile jokes for about six months after a few cases hit the news. But those men were swiftly kicked out of Scouts and tried in a court of law...shortly thereafter...no more jokes.

[Beartracks]

68. And I'm sure the Boy Scout Leaders...

... at your church, school, or neighborhood organization were understanding and cool with those jokes during those six months.

I understand what you're saying, I really do, but that didn't make the jokes right. Funny sometimes, maybe, but not right -- because ALL Boy Scout leaders were being hung out to dry in the court of public opinion. Despite the sins of the few, surely you would've defended the innocent Boy Scout leaders by urging people to separate fact from fiction, and separate hype from reality, whenever possible?

--------------------

[iris27]

87. Honestly, the Scout leaders were some of the ones MAKING the jokes,

all the while making sure our church and surrounding community were aware of the new steps they were taking (background checks, etc.) before bringing any new Scout leader into the pack or troop. And two of these leaders were my parents, by the way (cub master and den mother).

Even though our Cub Scout and Boy Scout groups had never had any trouble of this sort, the leaders wanted to make sure any possible unease that parents might have was addressed. They didn't spend their time getting upset at jokes based on the legitimate horrible crimes of a few. They spent it doing their best to ensure that nothing like that would ever happen in Pack 190 or Troop 190.

[Beartracks]

102. Actually... I like that!

Okay, so the issues aren't the same, but I know lawyers who make lawyer jokes. It's a way to make people feel more at ease, to let them know YOU are not on of those BAD people in your profession. So, that makes sense.

Bravo for them.

--------------------

[darkstar3]

92. I take it, then, that you will now be rushing to the defense of teachers?

After all, priests aren't the only ones who have been the general butt of pedophilia jokes lately.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Catholic priests molest children, the Vatican covers it up, and you blame... atheists?

Wow.

[ironbark]

32. Thanks for yet another blatant fabrication and disingenuous falsification of my pov.

I’ll add that to the hundreds that have preceded you in their quest to demonstrate rational liberal progressive discussion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Your pov's a load of horse shit.

Here's a hint, the problem isn't atheists. Or their "response."

[ironbark]

35. With your blatant falsification it becomes so.

Without your falsification there is, as allways, no "response" to the points/issues raised.

If there is no point of attack on religion you can find no point of contact with the issues.

[Beartracks]

38. self delete - errant post

Gotta keep better track of my mouse cursor. lol

------------------

[ZombieHorde]

40. I have not blamed religion, I have blamed the RCC and its enablers/financial backers.

[trotsky]

8. Big, big problems with this "study."

Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children

I underlined those three words. Why? Because we know, for a fact, that the church ACTIVELY COVERED IT UP. Most especially if you are only looking at data before 1992!

Then there's another problem.

Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10.

From the wording of this, it would seem they are comparing the rate at which priests bugger little boys to the rate at which non-priests commit ANY kind of sexual abuse - i.e., abuse against children, women, or even other men. In fact, if you look at page 2 of this document you'll see that ~10% matches up with many studies of men in the general population regarding OVERALL sexual abuse.

Not to mention the great other observations upthread, most notably the one that remarks how all those years of study and training produce at the very least don't produce a human being any MORE moral than the rest of us. What an unsurprising result.

[Jim__]

9. You cut your first excerpt short, then misrepresented what it actually said.

Your excerpt: Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

Then you claimed: it would seem they are comparing the rate at which priests bugger little boys to the rate at which non-priests commit ANY kind of sexual abuse - i.e., abuse against children, women, or even other men.

But, the more complete excerpt from the Newsweek article is: Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. Specifically, 4,392 complaints (ranging from "sexual talk" to rape) were made against priests by 10,667 victims.

So, the 4% is not the number of priests who buggered little boys, but the number of priests who were alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct with children ranging from "sexual talk" to rape.

[charlie]

12. Be fair, please

The cut was in the original post.

[Beartracks]

29. My bad on the cut, but Jim_ is right.

I was trying to stick within the 4-paragraph rule in my OP, but wanted to be sure to get to the statements on the general male population from the 5th paragraph in case people didn't read the whole article. So I stuck in a ... cut.

However, I didn't realize someone who did not go on to read the whole article would then try to make "a point" based on my edit.


--------------------

[trotsky]

14. Hey! Alright!

Priests are not QUITE as bad as we thought! Some of them (unknown number) only engaged in "sexual talk" with children! Whew, what a relief, huh?

Regardless, you didn't dispute what I said. Sexual misconduct by priests is evidently being compared to sexual misconduct among males in the general population against ALL victims - children and adults. Even if you include "sexual talk" with the priests, it's still not a valid comparison.

[Jim__]

15. And according to the article the rate among priests is 4%.

The rate of sexual abuse among priests was more thoroughly compared to the rate among other denominations, and that seems to be fairly constant. Insurance companies charge them all the same rate, and any available statistics seem comparable.

[trotsky]

16. That's fine, but you are STILL not disputing what I said.

I realize that it is your knee-jerk reaction to simply disagree with everything I post, but please at least try to disagree with what I actually posted. Thanks!

[Jim__]

17. Yes, I am.

You said: it would seem they are comparing the rate at which priests bugger little boys to the rate at which non-priests commit ANY kind of sexual abuse

That's what you said, and that's what I disputed. What you said is wrong.

[trotsky]

19. No, you aren't.

But keep trying if you want. I'll just stand over here laughing at you.

[edhopper]

11. New Church slogan

Catholic Priests, we don't rape more than any one else. Oh yeah, AND we talk for God.

[edhopper]

13. As I posted in GD

it's like reading that "Police are no more likely to commit crimes than the general population." and saying, well that's okay, they aren't worse than anyone else.
This is NOT the standard they are held to.

[Goblinmonger]

18. My problem is no with the abuse rate.

I assume that the study is relatively accurate. I know a lot of priests and the ones I know are good people.

The problem I have is that the hierarchy of the church not only covers it up, but plays a shell game with the violators putting them in new parishes chock full of new victims. And then lies about the fact that they did that. The fact that anyone who calls themselves a progressive would continue to be a member of this flawed organization is beyond me.

[ZombieHorde]

23. +1.23 nt

[uberllama42]

33. A very apt summation of my feelings on this issue.

Thank you.

[AlecBGreen]

22. Abuse the same...?

perhaps, but the number should be ZERO.

[DeSwiss]

24. Bullshit. n/t

[ironbark]

26. Well that succinctly answers 7#.

With insight, understanding and convincing rational argument that no one could challenge or deny.

[Beartracks]

30. :insert rofl smiley here: n/t

[tiptoe]

45. ..nt

[skepticscott]

37. Please explain to me

why saying "Don't blame us, everyone else is raping children too" has become an acceptable justification for the Catholic Church and their apologists? Especially when the Catholic Church has appointed themselves the moral conscience of the world on every other issue, and presumes the right to dictate public policy for the rest of us as result.

And of course, all of this neglects (as the apologists always do) the fact that it is not just the child rapists in the Catholic church who are guilty, but the bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes who have lied about and covered up these crimes, and made it easier for priest/rapists to get access to new victims, without their parents being aware of the danger. I'm still waiting for the evidence that all of the other religious denominations mentioned in this article did the same on such a scale.

[Beartracks]

39. Uh oh, you whipped out the "apologist" card!

"Don't blame us, everyone else is raping children too" -- Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The study discussed in the article in the OP demonstrates that child molestation is not a Church problem, but a societal problem. The Church's hierarchy only made it worse for abuse cases within the Church itself -- and that indeed is a legitimate, tragic thing. The point is, the incidence of pedophiles in the Church is the same as everywhere else, and if pointing that out makes someone an "apologist" in your eyes, then your built-in anti-religion bias is showing. Unless you are prepared to accept that you are an apologist for the non-Catholics of the world who rape, molest, fondle, and abuse children, then don't play the apologist card here. It's self-serving for your ego, and it's a cool, important-sounding word to sling around, but it doesn't address any real problems.

None of this, by the way, ignores the Church's systemic cover-up. You only think it does, because you've told yourself it does. The first sentence of your post makes that clear: you misstate the issue, and then knock so-called apologists for the misstatement. Has there been a cover-up? Yes. But go back and re-read the article, if indeed you did the first time: The study only addresses the incidence of child molestation, and has nothing to do with the Church cover-up. People without a chip on their should would take this away from the results of the study: "The Church is no more a hotbed of pedophilia than my employer, so all those jokes I hear on TV about priests being pedophiles by nature must not be true. But more to the point, fixing the Church's secrecy problems won't solve society's pedophile problems."

------------------

[skepticscott]

41. Then what exactly is the point or purpose

of trying to prove (whether successfully or not) that the incidence of child rape and molestation is no greater among Catholic priests than among males in general, if not to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad? And since, by the Catholic church's own declaration, morality comes only from god, and they have superior moral authority, don't we have the right to expect that such a despicable crime should be LESS prevalent among Catholic priests? Either the claim of the church that it is god that grants a superior moral sense to religious believers that non-believers do not possess is bullshit, or there is something about Catholic priests that makes up the difference and brings them down to the same level of depravity as this study shows for everyone else, including those vile, immoral atheists. Which is it? Is there ANY crime or sin that is LESS prevalent among Catholic priests than among the general populace, and if so, why is child rape not?

Spin it however you like, but all this article is saying in response to criticism of the Catholic church for hundreds if not thousands of reported incident of child rape and molestation is "everyone else is doing it too". And fixing the church's secrecy problems damn well would help alleviate the problem of child rape and molestation among priests. Or are you saying that immediately removing an accused priest from any contact with children, as opposed to covering up past incidents and secretly moving them to another parish where they have unrestricted access to new victims wouldn't help at all? Talk about being deliberately obtuse.

And if you can point to anywhere where I have defended or tried to minimize the seriousness of ANY act of child rape, then do so...now. We both know you can't, so your application of the word "apologist" to me is nothing but a smokescreen. If you haven't learned by now, bluster will not fly in this room, and certainly not with me.

[Beartracks]

42. Wow, thanks for the bluster.

I didn't need to read past the first sentence of your post (although I did). Child abuse "not really that bad"? Superior moral sense? Vile, immoral atheists? Where are you getting any of this from? Wasn't addressed in the study, wasn't part of the article, and certainly isn't anything I've posted in this thread. If you've read those kinds of assertions elsewhere in this thread, then reply to the people who actually hold such positions, instead of sticking that crap in your replies to me.

However, I can tell we both agree the Church has been unspeakably wrong in addressing (or NOT addressing) child abuse among its clergy. We agree that removing criminal activity from the purview of the Church and removing the secrecy traditions surrounding these sorts of things would definitely minimize child abuse within the Church. We both agree that holding those involved accountable is necessary (I didn't indicate that earlier, but I get the impression you assumed I wouldn't hold that opinion). And, I think we both agree that applying the word "apologist" is usually nothing but a smokescreen.

-------------------

[skepticscott]

43. Nice try at deflecting attention from the real issues.

Again, what was the purpose (since you ducked the question the last time I asked it) of trying to prove that the incidence of child rape and molestation is no greater among Catholic priests than among males in general, if not to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad? That's what the author of the article was trying to show, not me. As far as the other two, if you don't know where they came from, then you've obviously paid no attention to the pronouncements of the Catholic church, which are directly relevant to the judgement of the actions of their representatives and to the criticism leveled against them. But it was a noble attempt to dodge the direct questions I posed.

And no, we don't agree that applying the word "apologist" is usually nothing but a smokescreen. I only claim that your attempt to apply it to me was bullshit, since you (ducking a direct challenge AGAIN) failed to provide any example of me defending or trying to minimize the seriousness of ANY act of child rape by anyone.

[ironbark]

44. Disingenuous extrapolation at its worst.

Disingenuous Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:
Extrapolation. To infer or estimate by extention.

Disingenuous extrapolation- Insincere projection calculated to cast motive or message in worst possible light.
Regardless of absence of any justification in doing so.


In each of your prior posts the same Disingenuous extrapolation-
41#“…if not to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad?”
43#“… if not to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad”

The >ONLY< thing that can be understood/inferred from the OPs post/survey is contained in the thread title- ‘Priests abuse children at same rate as everyone else’

That’s NOT- “what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad”

>NOTHING LIKE IT<
>NO SUGGESTION OF ANYTHING LIKE IT<

To identify via statistical survey that priests aberrant behaviour is “at same rate as everyone else” DOES NOT in any way, shape, manner or form condone, excuse, apologise for or imply that it is >ok< or “not really that bad”.

To project such baseless “impression” is a disgusting and unnecessary distortion.
Completely without foundation.
A disingenuous extrapolation.

[skepticscott]

46. You can't answer the question either, can you?

What was the purpose of trying to prove that the incidence of child rape and molestation is no greater among Catholic priests than among males in general, if not to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad (i.e. that it's perfectly normal and expected)? Why did the author go to such lengths and cite all those studies? Priests rape children as much as anybody else..so what? Why is that fact even meaningful enough to spend a whole article trying to convince people of it?

The OP ducked that question twice (not to mention all of the other significant ones) , and now you seem to feel the need to deflect attention from it too, even though it wasn't directed at you. But your response was also to not answer the question (which should have been easy, if your position is correct), but to blather about dictionary definitions.

[ironbark]

47. The question is couched in the most insulting baseless presumption of psychic insight

into the OPs intent/motivation-
“to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad”…
and as such deserves no consideration or answer.

The OP has stated no such thing. The OP has implied or suggested no such thing.
There is >nothing< by way of language or logic that would justify presuming that the OP seeks to give such an impression.

It is a foul and baseless, unwarranted and nasty imputation of the OPs motives.

It deserves nothing but condemnation and contempt.

[skepticscott]

52. As I thought...you can't answer the question

What was the purpose of writing a whole article to show that Catholic priests rape children at the same rate per capita as anyone else? Or of posting an article which did so? What was the reason for such a piece in the face of rampant criticism of the Catholic church? Logic dictates that there WAS a reason for it, and if you're going to dispute mine (which is clear enough to anyone thinking rationally), then provide your own. It should be easy if I'm so wrong, shouldn't it? But we both know you can't because we both know I'm right.

Answer the question or go away. Your silly smears don't impress me, or anyone else here whose opinion I give a shit about.

[ironbark]

54. Devoid of the falsification, the question receives answer/s.

43# “What was the purpose of trying to prove that the incidence of child rape and molestation is no greater among Catholic priests than among males in general”

Here it is unclear if you are questioning the motives/intent of the report authors or the OP in posting the report. Your assumed psychic insight as to intent-“ to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad” further muddied and poisoned the waters.

52# “What was the purpose of writing a whole article to show that Catholic priests rape children at the same rate per capita as anyone else”.

Here you are asking others the intent and purpose of the article authors. As the OP has pointed out and answered way back in 39#- “article in the OP demonstrates that child molestation is not a Church problem, but a societal problem.”
That is the obvious "purpose".

Neither the OP nor I are entitled or willing to assume knowledge of the article authors intent beyond that.
The same answer was given by me in 44#-
“The >ONLY< thing that can be understood/inferred from the OPs post/survey is contained in the thread title- ‘Priests abuse children at same rate as everyone else’ “

“What was the reason for such a piece in the face of rampant criticism of the Catholic church?”

I can’t and won’t attempt to answer for the author or the OP. The importance of the survey/article for me, as someone who works with the victims of child abuse, is clear and relates directly to “rampant criticism of the Catholic church”. The raw statistics on child abuse clearly show that the crimes committed within a church context are not only no greater per head of population but miniscule when taken as a percentage of the overall statistics. Priests and church figures are not the dominant or predominant perpetrators of child abuse…and yet…in the media and on this board…they will receive 100% of the focus and attention.

Please prove me wrong. Search the board. Right now and back as far as you like.
Find a thread in which ‘religion/church’ is not the sole and exclusive focus of concern re child abuse.

Less than 1% of the crime does not warrant 100% of any communities exclusive focus.

“and if you're going to dispute mine (which is clear enough to anyone thinking rationally)”

Your projected “reason” was to presume the intent was-
“to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad”.
The only thing that would make such a projection “rational” would be evidence of >anyone< proposing that…no one did, no one has…it was and remains an irrational projection.

I have said and the OP has said- No. what the priests and church has done is criminal and deserves to be punished.
But when the entire focus is 100% on the priests and church then the community and other victims are punished by the collective unwillingness to look any further.

Again I invite you, prove me wrong, find a >single thread< a >single post< on this board that looks at the MAJOR contributor to child abuse- Drugs and alcohol.

If you cannot find one then the importance of the article is underlined and the question must be asked-
What is the major issue of concern (to individuals, forums and communities) the wellbeing and protection of children...or the exclusive to all else "rampant criticism of the Catholic (any) church"?

[skepticscott]

57. There, you've answered the question

With statements like this: "Priests and church figures are not the dominant or predominant perpetrators of child abuse…and yet…in the media and on this board…they will receive 100% of the focus and attention."

You've come right back to what I've been maintaining all along. The point of all of this is to say "Don't blame the Catholic church so much...everyone else is doing it too"

Thanks for making my point.

[ironbark]

59. You ‘SPIN’ my answer to your own false ends and ignore all questions put to you.

What a surprise.

“With statements like this: "Priests and church figures are not the dominant or predominant perpetrators of child abuse…and yet…in the media and on this board…they will receive 100% of the focus and attention."
You've come right back to what I've been maintaining all along.”

Yea, sure, right skepticscott…Saying there is 100% singular focus on the churches is >exactly< the same as saying “what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad”.
In fact why not take it to your next “rational” conclusion- That what I and the OP have said really means “what Catholic priests have done is really good”.

If >ALL< you have is SPIN, falsification and bulldust why not take it all the way?

Your certainly not going to hear or respond to anything I’ve actually said and you clearly aren’t going to consider any pov other than your own or answer anyone else’s questions.
What’s the point?
Once more the atheist respondent knows what the other is thinking despite what they are saying.

“The point of all of this is to say "Don't blame the Catholic church so much...everyone else is doing it too"…”

Will it help if I shout?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
THAT’S >>>>YOUR<<<< FUCKING PROJECTED, MANUFACTURED, FALSEIFIED POINT!

>NOT MINE<

Mine is "Don't blame the Catholic church >>>EXCLUSIVELY<<<.”

Don't blame the Catholic church with singular focus fanaticism!
Don't blame the Catholic church to such a tunnel visioned obsessive degree that you
CAN NO LONGER HEAR what others are saying to you.
Don't blame the Catholic church >ALONE< and give ZERO attention/consideration to what else is going on.

Ahhh what the hell…it doesn’t matter what I say your going to write my “point of all of this” for me anyway.

[Beartracks]

67. He's fairly predictable that way, iron.

He's a one-note post brigade, trying to validate his position, but he's doing it wrong.

What skepticscott doesn't get is that the importance of the study shows not that child molestation occurs only as much in the Church as anywhere else, but that child molestation occurs everywhere else at the same alarming rate as it does in the Church.

Which is why the media spotlight should widen out. It's a pretty bright light; shining it around won't diminish the Church's role in all this.

But some people prefer to condemn the Church, even for a problem that might also be occurring right now at a neighbor's house.

-------------------

[darkstar3]

69. Once again, for you and the peanut gallery,

it's not ONLY about the child-fucking. It's about the aiding and abetting of child-fucking, the hiding of child-fucking, and the fact that ALL of that took place within an organization that purports to tell the rest of the world what is right and moral in the eyes of the one true god.

Oh, and also, "they did it too!" is not an argument.

[Beartracks]

70. The outrage...

... at the aiding and abetting, the cover-ups, and all of that is justified, obviously.

Your point is to make sure everyone knows that this reprehensible activity took place in an organization that purports to tell the world what is right and moral in the eyes of the one true god.

The OP's point was to inform others that child abuse occurs in society at the same frequency one finds in the Church -- a fact which remains true no matter how much cover-up there was. And that much child abuse in society is an important thing to address, don't you think?

It also means your local priest is no more likely to be a pedophile than the cashier at your nearby McDonald's, so... innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

I've looked back through this thread and can't find the "they did it too" argument, except in certain threads like yours claiming the existence of such an argument. btw, you like saying "child-fucking" a lot.

----------------

[darkstar3]

71. It gets the rough nature of the topic across.

So tell me this, since you seem to be dodging this question: Why do the facts in this OP matter? Yes, it is a FACT that the local priest is no more or less likely to be a child rapist than your local grocery clerk. Leaving aside, for the moment, that this fact demonstrates how the church is IN NO WAY a moral authority (we've had that out in this forum elsewhere), tell me why that fact matters enough to post it here?

[Beartracks]

72. Topic: Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology

First you state: "Yes, it is a FACT that the local priest is no more or less likely to be a child rapist than your local grocery clerk."

Thank you. Then you ask: "Tell me why that fact matters enough to post it here?"

Well, the answer is really in my post's subject line, but I can elaborate if it will help: 1) Priests are religious figures; 2) some priests have committed or covered up child molestation; and 3) this study is related to the incidence of child molestation and/or abuse among priests.

Basically, I posted it because it's germane to the topic area and to current events.

That FACT up there, by the way, doesn't lessen the argument that the Church's failings in the child molestation crisis call into question its moral authority. That's a valid argument. The results of the study don't change that at all. Why are you afraid that they do?

-------------

[darkstar3]

73. Oh, drop your fear card...

Germane? To what discussion, exactly?
The discussion about how the Church helped aid and abet these criminals? Nope, because that discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the public at large.
The discussion about how the Church may have even helped foster or attract these criminals? Nope, because that discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the public at large.
The discussion about how the highest ranking member knew about the situation and had his hands all over it? Nope, because that discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the public at large.

Now try again: What import does this fact of child molestation rate equivalence have? Why is it important? Why should anyone on this planet give a flying rodent's posterior that the incidence of child-fucking in the Catholic church is the same as in the general populace?

[Beartracks]

75. Seriously, there's a "fear card"? LOL

Look, it doesn't matter to me if it has any import for you or not.

But flip what you said around: If the rate of child molestation in the Church is disturbing to you, then why would you NOT give a flying rodent's posterior that the incidence of child-fucking in the general populace is the same as in the Catholic Church?

It's an equation: if A=B, then B=A. You seem to care deeply about the incidence of child abuse in the Church, so you must care deeply about the incidence of child abuse everywhere. Unless, like others here, the important thing to you is that the Church's child molestation crisis is just another example of the Church's failings. Perhaps you simply care more about the Church's secrecy and cover-ups, the crimes and the involvement of the hierarchy -- in essence, the moral failure of the Church -- than about the victims specifically. Well, no, of course you care about the Church's victims: they are the living evidence of the Church's byzantine traditions and secrecy that have contributed significantly to the suffering of a lot of people and are worthy of criticism and disgust. But do you really not give a flip about the victims of child molestation in society -- unless a priest did it? I hope that's not true.

In short, the study results showed that the incidence of child molestation in society occurs at the same rate as that within the Church. If the level of molestation in the Church is, in your opinion, unacceptable, then these results should be alarming to you.

By the way, how can you think a study on the incidence of child abuse in the church has nothing to do with "the discussion about how the Church may have even helped foster or attract these criminals"? Any study about pedophiles in the Church is germane to discussions about pedophiles in the Church. And even though this particular study showed no significant difference between the rate of molestation inside the Church compared to outside the Church (which would signify that the Church neither fosters nor attracts these criminals), the moral travesty of the Church's abominable failure in covering up the molestation within its ranks is not at all diminished.

----------------------

[ironbark]

77. “But do you really not give a flip about the victims of child molestation in society...”

“...unless a priest did it?”

The answer resides in the Thread headings and Post history of this board.

100% flip factor when a priest did it.

Zero interest otherwise.

(Though some are searching all of the Democratic Underground in a desperate attempt to prove otherwise).

[darkstar3]

86. Why would the RATE of child molestation be alarming to anyone?

Tell me, how many children have to be molested before it raises an alarm with you?

(See, I can ask asinine tangential questions designed to piss off my debate opponent too.)

The RATE has nothing to do with anything, and that's my point. If child molestation occurs, that's bad enough, but to cover it up and even allow through Church or Papal action the assaulter to strike again? That's unacceptable, indefensible, and wholly damaging to the Church's image as a godly institution or moral guide. And THAT is what is being discussed on these boards.

The RATE doesn't matter, unless you're making "an equation." And equating the Church's actions to society as a whole is pointless in this case, because society as a whole PROSECUTES molesters.

[Beartracks]

96. I'm sorry. I didn't realize...

... that you decided what gets discussed on these boards, and how it gets discussed.

I was also unaware that the Religion/Theology board, of all places, was only for people who hate the Church.

My bad.

:evilgrin:

Now, I have to agree yet again that your position regarding the unacceptable and indefensible actions of the Church is valid. Never said it wasn't, nor have I contested you on it. And yes, this thread's OP and the study it cited are not germane to a discussion of that issue.

They are, however, important to another discussion: the idea that all priests ought to be suspected as pedophiles because of a general assumption that priests are somehow "more likely" to be pedophiles than anyone else. That is an actual issue, whether you are aware of it or not.

Obviously, these are two completely different issues. The fact that you find the latter less important than the former is perfectly fine. However, foisting your position on the Church's culpability into this discussion about priests' likelihood of being pedophiles, and claiming that the OP is making a counter-argument to your position, is mind-numbingly inane.

Your position on the one issue is great, but the issue in the OP has no bearing on it, or vice versa. Sorry if that's annoying, but not everything is about you.

---------------

[darkstar3]

98. Allright, then,

if your thread is germane to the discussion about priests being "more likely" to be child molesters, then point me to a thread that is discussing that.

Show me a DUer claiming that priests are "more likely to be pedophiles than other people", and I'll give you your desired mea culpa. Until then, I maintain that this thread is no different than me posting a thread about how the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

[darkstar3]

112. Still waiting...

Show me a DUer who has engaged in the accusation that priests are more likely to be pedophiles than other people. Show me where that discussion is taking place.

Or, you could simply admit that you made a baseless assumption about the non-Catholic members of this board, posted an excusatory OP designed to deflect criticism from the Catholic Church, and continued reveling in the meme of "anti-Catholic bigotry".

[Beartracks]

117. Sorry, Dark.

Been at the hospital, my spouse went in this morning.

I've only got a couple minutes while the dogs are out doing their thing.

Where did I say there were non-Catholic members of this board making claims about innocent priests? It was your assumption that I meant DUers when I did not, so throw the "baseless accusation" verbiage out the window. I was motivated by instances I have seen from acquaintances, plus conversations overheard in public places by myself and others. There is a sentiment "out there" about all priests being suspected as or presumed to be pedophiles simply because they are priests.

I suppose that since that sentiment exists in the wild, there COULD be people at DU discussing it, or even agreeing with it. But if there's a rule that says I have to find an existing thread on a topic of interest before making a new thread on that topic, then send me a link -- because if that was the rule around here, there'd be only one thread regarding the moral failures of the Church in the molestation crisis, instead of the dozens that have either started on that topic explicitly or have been turned into a thread on that topic (which is what you tried to do to this thread).

Anyhow, there may or may not be prior discussions here; frankly, I didn't go look for any. I found an article that addresses a topic of interest that is germane to the board, and posted it.

Your high horse. Get off it.

------------------------

[darkstar3]

119. Good luck to you and yours.

As for this thread...of course there is no rule that says you must post something about what people on DU are currently talking about. I never said there was. Let's walk through, shall we?

Skepticscott and others on this thread (including myself, at this point) have accused you of posting this OP simply to deflect criticism from the Catholic Church through the use of a logical fallacy known as ad hom tu quoque. In this subthread, I have repeatedly asked you to prove us wrong and give us another reason for your motive in posting this here. Your only answer to me and others who have asked this question is that it is "germane to the discussion," but you can't show WHICH discussion.

So why did you post this here?

Was it to start a whole new discussion on the moral failings of the church? It doesn't seem so, after reading everything you have written thus far.
Was it to deflect criticism from the church by saying that "other people molest children just as much as priests"? That's certainly what it looks like, and with those cheering you on also being the ones who are so vehemently spouting about "anti-catholic bigotry" every time a detractor of the Church says "boo" anymore, this thread is difficult to see as anything other than apologetics for the Church.

[Beartracks]

144. Back for a couple of minutes

Thanks. It's a bit better day today than yesterday.

Anyhow, let's walk through your post, shall we?

> I have repeatedly asked you to prove us wrong and give us another reason for your motive in posting this here. Your only answer to me and others who have asked this question is that it is "germane to the discussion."
I didn't say it was germane to the discussion, I said it was germane to the board. If earlier I did in fact say "germane to the discussion," then I know I also subsequently described which discussion (when you automatically assumed I must have meant YOUR discussion) and then I also noted that it may or may not be a discussion already in progress here on the board, although I know it to be a discussion "out in the wild" so to speak, because I've encountered it - namely, that all priests are assumed or suspected of being pedophiles, even though the incidence of pedophiles in the Church is the same as in the general population. Since the discussion exists, it's a valid topic for the board.

>So why did you post this here?
And here I thought you had been reading all my posts....

>Was it to start a whole new discussion on the moral failings of the church?
No.

>Was it to deflect criticism from the church by saying that "other people molest children just as much as priests"
No. That's stupid.

> .............
Wait, that's it? After all this, you still think the only reasons for any post that doesn't stem directly from "your" discussion must be one of those two options above?

I suggest the following:
"Was it to start a discussion about how all priests are being unfairly assumed or suspected of being pedophiles, even though the incidence of pedophiles in the Church is the same as in the general population?"
Yes.

Maybe I should have stated as much in the OP. Would have saved me a bunch of hassle fending off stupid accusations. Of course I expected "That's really interesting," or "That study is bogus," or "Father Dave has been slandered," or "Let's do some hypothetical statistics," or "I've heard that crap from my repug cousin!" But: "Why did you even post this?" :eyes:

I know you previously understood the purpose for the OP as I re-stated it a couple paragraphs up, because you generally agreed with the gist of the article at some point (I think I said "Thank you") but then responded with something like, "Why is that important? Who cares?" And I tried to explain the importance of the study findings as I saw them in several different ways after that. But anyway, at that point you should have quit, because clearly the intention of the thread was to discuss something which you acknowledged was of no interest to you, and which I clearly pointed out SEVERAL times was either not related to your major concern, or was not in conflict with your major concern. And yet you still only saw it as some apologist counter-point to your major concern: the Church's moral failings. Now you've regressed and claim you still don't know why the OP was even made. In the end, you'll probably just keep asking Why like a 2-year-old.

"Are you trying say that what the priests did isn't that bad because 'everybody does it'"?
No, I'm trying to start a discussion about how the incidence of molesters in the Church isn't any greater...

"You apologist!"
... um, isn't any greater than in society at large, and yet there's a general sentiment that all priests are molesters simply because they are priests.

"Why is that important? Who cares? What is its import?"
It's important because priests are being unfairly accused of being pedophiles.

"But why is that important?"
Uh... because the sins of a few priests are being used to malign all priests.

"But where is this discussion taking place? Why is this important on the Theology/Religion board? Name a DUer who has lied about priests!"
WTF, srsly?


Pfft. I gotta get back. Have a good weekend.

[darkstar3]

145. 2 things you need to understand:

1. Putting things that I did not say in italics and quotes is no way to respond to a post, but aside from that...
2. The problem that you're having with me and other posters here asking your motives behind posting this is simple: A meme has cropped up on this board lately that every time someone nay-says the Church, they are engaging in anti-Catholic bigotry. Your post, whether you meant it to or not, plays heartily into that meme, and many of us have been curious as to whether that was your intent. Your lack of clarity hasn't helped, and neither have certain contributions made to this thread by some of the same perpetuators of the afore-mentioned meme.

At any rate, I think we've exhausted this topic, and you have more important things to worry about. Good luck to you, and may everything work out to your benefit.

[Beartracks]

97. Hey, I was re-reading your post...

... specifically this: "The RATE doesn't matter, unless you're making 'an equation.' And equating the Church's actions to society as a whole is pointless in this case, because society as a whole PROSECUTES molesters."

It occurred to me that: a) society prosecutes molesters; b) the Church has covered for molesters; c) the rate of child molestation is still the same in both. Could the RATE perhaps be important to your case, for the simple reason that prosecution hasn't seemed to decrease the rate of molestation any more than coddling has?

Not meant as an asinine, tangential question.

-----------------------

[darkstar3]

100. After reading #93,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to table your myopic* question until more evidence is available to support the claim that the rates of incidence are indeed the same.

*It's myopic, BTW, because it ignores the other vast differences in the two environments in question that may affect rates of incidence.

[Beartracks]

101. Well, it was just a question that occured to me on the fly.

No offense taken at the myopic comment. Just thought it would be interesting to explore.

-----------------

[iris27]

111. See #110.

The "rate" the study is looking at isn't really the rate of molestation. It's the number of people within a given population who commit crimes like these. A single individual who leaves dozens of shattered lives behind him still only counts as one molester in those stats. Prosecution most certainly DOES have a greater impact than coverup on the number of kids after victim #1 who are abused.

[Beartracks]

118. Thanks, iris.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

My original interest in the study was regarding the rate of abusers within the given population, and how that impacts -- or should impact -- the rate of suspicion given to each member of that population.

I appreciate your input on my question regarding the effectiveness of prosecution vs. cover-up. As I stated in a subsequent post, it was sort of an idle thought. There MAY be some relevance in noting that, apparently, the lack of prosecution within the Church does not significantly increase the incidence of molesters within that population (that is, that population isn't going to generate or attract more pedophiles than they otherwise would)... but the other result -- the staggering amount of human damage that one molester can do -- pretty much sews up the case in favor of prosecution.

-----------------

[iris27]

89. It IS addressed (everywhere but in the Catholic church it seems) by criminal trial and imprisonment.

"And that much child abuse in society is an important thing to address, don't you think?"

Unless you have a study showing that prosecution and conviction rates for child molestation are the same among priests as among the general population, it is indeed reasonable to think your local priest is more likely to be a pedophile than the dude serving you a Big Mac.

Unlike the church, McDonald's isn't going to pay a million-dollar-plus settlement on behalf of an employee accused of sexual abuse, relocate him to another state and give him a job playing Ronald McDonald for kids' birthday parties.

[Beartracks]

99. Wait, so now CLOWNS are under suspicion??

Haha.

It occurred to me earlier that, based on the study in the OP, prosecution and conviction rates of pedophiles in society at large has apparently not decreased the rate of child molestation any more than paying settlements and covering up the actions of pedophiles in the Church has. So, I would think your local priest is still no more likely to be a pedophile than the drive-thru cashier.

---------------

[iris27]

110. Well, I don't know about you, but Ronald always seemed to send off the creepy vibe to me, LOL!

:) Honestly, neither clowns nor priests as a general category are under suspicion -- we'd just like those who have been accused to face criminal trial, please.

The stats mentioned in the OP's linked article were based on number of abusers accused, so multiple accusations against one person would still only "count" as one. So, really, we know nothing about the comparative number of victims. Some of the priests mentioned in this article for example, left quite a wake of destroyed lives behind them, having been moved to this parish AFTER previous accusations of abuse. In the more well-known Father Murphy case, he was accused of abusing more than 200 deaf kids. It would've made quite a difference in the lives of 199 boys to have Murphy before a court of law after Incident #1.

Look at it this way. If Population X (priests) and Population Y (drive-thru cashiers) both start with 100,000 people and 4% of each group are sexual abusers, let's say half of the abusers in both groups later face accusations (which is sadly generous given the silencing nature of victim shame). So 2,000 abuser priests face accusations, and the church does its thing, pays out settlements, shifts assignments to other states, etc. Meanwhile, the 2,000 drive-thru pedos are left to face the justice system...say maybe the evidence isn't strong enough to convict for 10% of them because the victim waited so long to report or whatever.

So Pop X: 100,000 people
4,000 abusers
2,000 faced accusation, all cases settled out of court
endgame: all 4,000 still at large

Pop Y: 100,000 people
4,000 abusers
2,000 faced accusation and trial, 200 acquitted for lack of evidence
endgame: 2,200 still at large

Now your average rate of encountering a pedophile in Pop X is still 4%, while encountering one in Pop Y is only 2.2%. They initially abused at the same rate, yes, but one group is shielded from forces that would take them off the street and spare future victims.

[Beartracks]

120. Nicely thought out.

THIS was the kind of thoughtful discussion I was hoping for. :)

And backed up mathematically no less!

Thanks.

P.S. Sorry about Ronald. :/

--------------

[ironbark]

80. The falsification and fabrication score thus far-

This thread alone-

“to give the impression that what Catholic priests have done isn't really that bad” X 2

One- "everyone else does it too"

And now one- "they did it too!"

“…“they did it too!" is not an argument….”

Hmmm…Just like the preceding ‘arguments’ it is not one that I have put forward.

And not one that Beartracks has put forward.

It is not one that anyone has put forward....so I guess it "is not an argument".

So…Why is it appearing in quotation marks >as if< it was a verbatim quote?


Why is it necessary to falsify, spin and manufacture what the other is saying?

Why can’t you just deal, even once, with what they actually bring to the table rather than making crap up?

[Beartracks]

53. Hello, skepticscott!

I didn't duck the question; however, you missed the answer. Again. Still can't tell if you're doing that on purpose, but I think the big chip on your shoulder is getting in the way.

Suffice to say, I'm not "trying to prove" anything -- the study shows what it does. And what it shows is that the clergy of the Catholic Church, despite vows of chastity and living only around other men, do not represent any statistical anomaly when it comes to the incidence of child molestation in society at large. What might that signify to someone who doesn't have a pre-conceived narrative that they're trying to fit it into? It would indicate that priests are no more likely to be child molesters than anyone else. It would indicate that the Catholic Church has gotten a bum rap over the years as some kind of pedophile organization "by definition." It would mean that Catholics can't be said to "support" child molesters any more than Protestant churchgoers, Walmart shoppers, or casino patrons "support" child molesters. And THAT's the reason I posted the article on DU -- because too many people comfortably spout off that Catholic is synonymous with pedophilia, that priests are somehow "more likely" to be pedophiles than anyone else on the planet, and that the sins of the few reflect the will of the many. The fallacies are rampant.

There are TWO problems being conflated here by some people: society's child abuse problem, and the Church's heinous mismanagement of the child molesters within its own ranks. While the Church hierarchy deserves the utmost criticism and prosecution for its pedophile cover-ups, there is not, in fact, a greater ratio of molesters in the Church than anywhere else in society, so the Church at large does not merit treatment as some kind of pedophile-producing machine. To insist that it does says more about an accuser's individual bias than it does about the Church's shameful response to the crisis.

The point, in summary: Anger, criticism, frustration, and blame in the abuse scandals should be focused on the clergy, bishops, and cardinals who actually endangered children, and on the culture of secrecy that allowed molesters to have free rein for so long, but the Church is neither the cause nor the epicenter of society's problems with child abuse.

You might hold the Church in contempt for any number of other reasons, and that's fine. But that's fodder for another thread.

So... This post should answer your question about why I posted the article; "the point," as it were. Take it or leave it; I don't really have any more time for you after this. I cannot, however, speak to the "motives" behind the researchers who conducted the study. Perhaps they were interested in finding out the answer to the question of whether priests are more likely to molest children than non-priests. That would be a likely hypothesis, given the pedophile scandals from several years ago. Many research studies and surveys are conducted based on current events, to learn more about human behavior. Makes sense to me; why doesn't it make sense to you? I really doubt they published the findings just to irk you.

As for your "direct questions" and "challenges" -- pfft -- they are misdirections at best. Nowhere, except in your mind, was it suggested that the study or the OP was an attempt to absolve the Church hierarchy and leadership of its sins and cover-ups; nowhere, except in your imagination, was it considered that the study results somehow mitigated the guilt of certain Church officials, or were intended to lessen the horror of what they had done. Nowhere did I actually accuse you of trying to minimize the seriousness of child rape (as any honest read would show, I was merely taking your apologist shtick to its absurd conclusion). And nowhere, except in your own posts, do the pronouncements of the Church have any relationship to the research study, the statistics, or the subject of this thread. And yet, you've concocted wild fantasies along those very lines and then attacked others for not indulging you.

I apologize if any of my word choice or phrasing upthread confused you or sent you off an a tangent by accident. That said, I have a feeling that if you stopped the bluster and BS long enough to listen to other people, you'd probably find you have more areas of agreement than not. But you're too busy wearing your contentiousness as a badge of honor. You're kinda touchy, skepticscott, and you've clearly got a bone to pick. But it's not with me. It's like there's something going on in your background, but I cannot begin to guess what it is.

Have a good one.

---------------------

[skepticscott]

58. You and ironbark have both made my point...thank you

And THAT's the reason I posted the article on DU -- because too many people comfortably spout off that Catholic is synonymous with pedophilia, that priests are somehow "more likely" to be pedophiles than anyone else on the planet, and that the sins of the few reflect the will of the many. The fallacies are rampant.

All of your long-winded spin boils down to what I've been maintaining all along. This is nothing more than a way to deflect criticism from the Catholic church by saying "everyone else does it too" And if the authors really had an honest intent to study human behavior, might the simple question of why priests don't rape children far LESS often than everyone else have occurred to them? Or are you saying that the Catholic church doesn't claim higher moral standing and authority than the rest of the world? Which, in case you missed it, is exactly why they have been singled out for criticism.

[TZ]

62. EXACTLY!

You cannot claim the moral highground when its shown time and time again that your behavior is NO DIFFERENT then the general population!

[ironbark]

78. EXACTLY! You cannot claim Palin is a perfect presidential candidate!

What’s that?

You never did?

That’s funny…because I never claimed anyone held any kind of “moral highground”.

And I havn’t seen Beartracks make such a claim either.

But don’t let the facts get in the way of your good falsifying, projecting, assuming bulldust story.






I do believe that’s two dodo’s with one stone.

[TZ]

81. Hahahahaha!

You are comparing politicians to the priesthood! OMFG! That's rich. John Edwards, Bill Clinton, David Vitter, and all the rest of the pols who are IN JAIL thank you for that!! Lol. Seriously your denialism of the loathesome behavior of the church is quite amusing if not outright sad. I now understand how those who refused to believe the Church capable of evil sold my family down the river in WW2 Poland. Because you know doing nothing about genocide wasn't evil at all. :eyes:

[ironbark]

83. No. I met one bizarre fabricated pov with another..

I never claimed anyone held any kind of “moral highground”.

You never mentioned Palin.

That should have been obvious to anyone old enough to avoid a spanking.

“…comparing politicians to the priesthood!”

Yea- OMFG….What orifice did you pull that bizarre fabrication from?

Do let me know if you >ever< have a response that relates to something I’ve actually said.

My "denialism of the loathesome behavior of the church" ?

When you can find it be sure to put it up....perhaps it's next to your support for Palin?

[TZ]

48. However instead of going to jail as most molesters do

They get to say three Hail Mary's and spend a couple of days or weeks in seclusion or are sent elsewhere.
Its not that the rates of abuse are any highter...ITS THAT THE BEHAVIOR IS TOLERATED AND COVERED UP...Where as the tolerance in secular society is near ZERO.

[AlecBGreen]

49. yeah TZ

"ITS THAT THE BEHAVIOR IS TOLERATED AND COVERED UP"

the leadership of the Catholic Church definitely has a "circle the wagons" mentality when it comes to this sort of thing. I am sickened by it.

[gcomeau]

51. Do they institutionally cover it up at the same rate too?

Pretending this is just a matter of there being a certain percentage of child molesters in the church is supremely dishonest. The fact that all the way up the chain of authority clear to the Pope people KNEW it was happening, KNEW who was doing it, and systematically deliberately covered for them over the course of decades is the damn issue.

[ironbark]

55. Probably at about the same rate that families do.

By the very nature of “cover up” hard data is hard to come by.

What we do know is that ‘Institutional’ cover up is easier to trace, through meeting minutes and correspondence paper trail, than family cover up.
Families don’t generally have a meeting to discuss dads behaviour or moving Uncle Joe.
The other prevailing factors in family cover up is alliance and dependence…spouses and even victims will commonly ‘align’ with and defend the perpetrator against the investigating agency/s. Spouses and victims will commonly perceive the threat of removal/incarceration of breadwinner as greater than the threat of abuse.
Victims are more inclined to report against and stand against institutions than family members.

The prevalence of child abuse remains far far greater and far far more severe within families than within institutions.

“Pretending this is just a matter of there being a certain percentage of child molesters in the church is supremely dishonest.”

Precisely. Honesty and real concern for the issue of child abuse necessitates a broad consideration of all causes, contributing factors, areas of concentration and effective protective, responsive and healing measures. A Holistic response.
100% focus on the role of priests/churches is not only >not that< it is counter productive in its exclusive tunnel vision.

“The fact that all the way up the chain of authority clear to the Pope people KNEW it was happening, KNEW who was doing it, and systematically deliberately covered for them over the course of decades is the damn issue.”

No…that’s “the issue” as it pertains to religion. The “damn issue” is the genocide being committed against children of which the churches are a small proportion.

I have no problem with folk on DU R&T being justifiably outraged by the actions of priests/churches.

I just want to know why the concern and outrage stops there >full stop<.

As an issue that goes to the very spirit and heart of who we are individually and collectively-

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING THE PORN INDUSTRY AND CHILD ABUSE!?

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING DRUGS AND ALCAHOL IN CHILD ABUSE!?

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING CHILD ABUSE IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS!?

[gcomeau]

60. Bull. Shit.

You did not just seriously compare those two situations. One where likely traumatized family members that are often going to be in denial have to deal with a situation with a relative and one where The Fucking Pope gets an official report that a preist somewhere is molesting children.

Like those are both equivalent "cover-ups". The Catholic Church is supposed to be a moral authority. And they have an institutional responsibility in that regard. And the people committing these offenses aren't "uncle Jimmy some of us have a funny feeling about"... they're fucking EMPLOYEES that they damn well KNEW were doing these things. And their reaction was to protect THEM instead of the damn kids.

And you coming along trying to play this guilt trip "nobody cares about any other child molesting that is happening" card just because everyone is a little focused on the giant damn conspiracy that news is coming out on right now is contemptible.

[ironbark]

63. “a little focused”? You spread your advertised “Bull Shit” well.

From ‘The Endless Collection of Questions Atheists Refuse to Answer’-

54#-
“Please prove me wrong. Search the board. Right now and back as far as you like.
Find a thread in which ‘religion/church’ is not the sole and exclusive focus of concern re child abuse.”

54#
“Again I invite you, prove me wrong, find a >single thread< a >single post< on this board that looks at the MAJOR contributor to child abuse- Drugs and alcohol.”

What a surprise...there was no answer.

[gcomeau]

65. Geez...

From ‘The Endless Collection of Questions Atheists Refuse to Answer’-

54#-
“Please prove me wrong. Search the board. Right now and back as far as you like.
Find a thread in which ‘religion/church’ is not the sole and exclusive focus of concern re child abuse.”

Thread about child abuse statistics being high in Oklahoma: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=173x2341

Thread about child abuse in the home being detected by day care workers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=162x8987

Child abuse in China: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1480940

Child abuse incidents rising in bad ecomomic conditions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5776695

...

What a surprise...there was no answer.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying? I couldn't hear you over the sound of those other threads about child abuse that didn't focus on religion/church.

[ironbark]

74. “Search the board”, singular. That’s R&T. NOT all the boards, plural, in the entire DU forum.

My point was and remains the ONLY time that there is any interest in the issue of child abuse on this board is when it serves as a vehicle to attack religion.

Of course there are progressives discussing the issue on other boards within the DU forum…they are not obsessively exclusively interested in child abuse only when it occurs in relation to religion.

[skepticscott]

79. Uh, this is the R/T board

Are you using the fact that there are no threads here addressing aspects of the child abuse problem that are not related to religion as evidence of anything? Of course a thread concerning the relation of drug and alcohol abuse to child rape is going to be elsewhere. Every thread here is concerned with things to do with religion...duh. If you're tired of seeing so much criticism of the RCC regarding child rape issues, go to a non-religious board.

[ironbark]

84. Yea, R&T, in which a host of issues might be discussed in relation to religion

if not for the fact that every opportunity is dragged down to its lowest common denominator- a vehicle by which religion is condemned, vilified, ridiculed.

Religion also pertains to the state of the individual and collective spirit/health…and child abuse is an issue that deserves broad consideration in that light.
Child abuse is a social issue on which the churches have a direct impact and effect.

“Are you using the fact that there are no threads here addressing aspects of the child abuse problem that are not related to religion as evidence of anything” ?

No.
I’m using the fact that there are no threads here addressing aspects of the child abuse problem that >ARE< related to religion in something other than a negative light.

No interest in issue of ‘Child Sex Tourism’ having direct impact on East/West-Christian/Moslem relationships. A direct contributor to acts of terrorism. (I have posted on the subject 4-5 times…no interest from the atheists…it does not meet the requirement of “priest fucks boy”)

Drug and alcohol abuse as central factors to Child Abuse and the role of the churches in treating D&A abuse and caring for the victims of all forms of abuse?
Phttt! Does not meet the requirement of “Church covers up”

Churches engaged in battle against Child Sex Trafficking and Child Porn?….
yea…I know…this is R&T and the only thing religion ever does in relation to kids is fuck them up.

“Of course a thread concerning the relation of drug and alcohol abuse to child rape is going to be elsewhere.”

Oh yes... “Of course”….The “vultures” at the Salvation Army never deal with drug and alcohol abuse or the victims of rape/child rape…nor do any of the other religious agencies.
“Of course” a thread discussing this broad aspect of child abuse is going to be “elsewhere” because anything like it gets ignored, howled down or shat on here.

“Every thread here is concerned with things to do with religion...duh.”

Yea…and the ONLY and EXCLUSIVE point of contact between ‘religion’ and ‘child abuse’ is when- “priest fucks boy… Church covers up”.

There is no interest whatsoever in any consideration of religion as a bulwark against child abuse…>that< is not going to be discussed…duh.

“…tired of seeing so much criticism of the RCC regarding child rape issues…”

Nah….I’m just tired of seeing a world view that is sooo insular, narrow, shallow and bigoted that it refuses point blank to consider or discuss anything other than vitriolic criticism.

[gcomeau]

88. This it THE RELIGION FORUM.

You did not seriously just try to prove that nobody here cares about child abuse outside of the context of religion because there are no posts in the religion forum that have nothing to do with religion but *only* talk about child abuse.

This is where we talk about issues in the context of religion Captain Perceptive. Posts that don't have anything to do with religion don't belong here. So your amazing evidence that people here only care about child abuse when they're using it to attack religion is that... people here post on topic? Brilliant! Sheer genius! Your position is clearly logically unassailable!

In other news, nobody posting in this forum cares about saving baby kittens from being lit on fire. Because, you know, they never posted about that here either. And the only possible explanation for that is that they don't care or it would be RIGHT HERE, on THIS BOARD. Damn we're bastards.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Maybe ironbark is saying child abuse is inherently a religious issue

and therefore that whenever child abuse is discussed, it should be done so inside the religion forum. :shrug: Perhaps when ironbark hears 'child abuse', he thinks 'religion'.

[darkstar3]

91. Funny, but no.

He just wants people to discuss BOTH sides. He wants someone to commiserate with him over the fact that while some priests are fucking boys, the ones preventing child abuse are being ignored.

As if preventing child abuse was something above and beyond the call of duty for any decent human being. As Chris Rock said, "whatchu want, a cookie?!?!"

[ironbark]

94. “to discuss BOTH sides”? Balanced and thoughtful debate? The precursor of social/ policy change?

What an odd idea.

“He just wants people to discuss BOTH sides”

And isn’t that a patently absurd proposition? “BOTH sides” and all angles…what’s known as ‘informed debate’.
The very idea that progressive liberals could look at child abuse within the churches and condemn it and STILL be capable of looking at the frontline role of the churches in the fight against child abuse.

The very notion of such balanced discussion is met with condemnation, falsification and derision-

“ He wants someone to commiserate with him over the fact that while some priests are fucking boys, the ones preventing child abuse are being ignored.”

From behind killfile ‘ignore’ the author is prepared to falsify my pov while speaking off me but not to me.
And that serves as yet another clear confirmation of the complete unwillingness to engage in anything like balanced debate.

The >whole game< and the >only game< is to slag and slander, falsify and lie about any person or pov that refuses to limit their consideration of the issues of religion and child abuse to “priests are fucking boys”.


“As if preventing child abuse was something above and beyond the call of duty for any decent human being.”

Preventing child abuse and providing care and support for victims and families has been a partnership between the agencies of the State and Churches in Western democracies for decades.


It is the “call of duty for any decent human being” who is interested/concerned with the nature, role and interaction of these Church/State agencies and services to be engaged in and informed by balanced debate= ALL SIDES of the issue.

That would include consideration of where do kids go after child abuse if/when return to the family is not an option? State Care? Church Agency/Foster Care?
And such questions immediately raise the issue of ‘surrogate family/community’….an issue darkstar has already designated as “horseshit”.

The anti religion brigade is not interested in discussing any of the “call of duty for any decent human being” issues…they are clearly only interested in child abuse as an issue to slag religion. No “BOTH sides” or broader discussion will be entered into or tolerated.

[darkstar3]

95. Thank you for proving my point.

You want to discuss both sides of the issue because you think there ARE two sides.

Sorry, there aren't. NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse. Just like NOBODY gets kudos from me for staying out of jail. IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

Now when people deviate so grossly from that which should be (and is) expected of every member of civilized society (child protection), those of us of sound mind and body have a right to go off about it.

But don't let those simple facts stop you from your crusade against everyone who might nay-say the Church. Clearly, though you've said before you'd rather die violently than associate yourself with EITHER theism or atheism, you are:
1. VERY invested in defending the current privileged status of theism in this society,
2. VERY invested in apologizing for it's faults, and
3. VERY determined to attack not only atheism but non-religious society in general as "lacking" in various ways.

How unoriginal.

And BTW, in case you're curious, you're not "behind the ignore curtain" anymore, I just don't usually feel like engaging in debate with someone who increasingly debates like Michelle Malkin. If you get any more shrill and repetitive about how people are fabricating your POV (they're not) and how religion is the ONLY place anyone can find "X" (it isn't), we'll need to investigate your identity.

Now, how do I put this delicately..."May you live in interesting times..."

[ironbark]

103. The police get “no kudos” from you, Child Protection gets “no kudos”

“ NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse”

Doesn’t matter to you who is involved in preventing child abuse- Police, Schools, Churches, Welfare, Child Protection… “ NOBODY” gets any recognition/kudos.

There are “no sides”? No perpetrators and no protectors…and “NOBODY” performing the public service of protecting children gets kudos from you.


Your post leaves me feeling literally physically ill.

[darkstar3]

113. Does anyone get kudos from you for avoiding jail?

Do you praise your male friends for not raping the women they meet?
Do you praise teachers for not fucking their students?
Do you praise parents you know for not beating their kids?
Do you praise drunks for not pissing on the sidewalk?
Do you praise drivers for not hitting pedestrians?

Are you getting the point yet?

"You're not SUPPOSED to go to jail, you low-expectation-havin' motherfucker!" -- Chris Rock

[ironbark]

121. You cannot distinguish between ‘abstinence’ and ‘protection’?

You seriously need me/a dictionary/Google to explain the distinction between “not raping” (abstaining from crime) and those who >PROTECT AGAINST rape and CARE FOR rape victims-
The Police, Child Protection, Church Agencies?

???

Your clear obfuscation and evasion started after I stated-

94# “Preventing child abuse and providing care and support for victims and families has been a partnership between the agencies of the State and Churches in Western democracies for decades.”

And you responded-
95# “NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse. Just like NOBODY gets kudos from me for staying out of jail. IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.”

I cannot believe that anyone who has the cognitive ability to string two sentences together cannot make the distinction between those who chose not to commit crimes and those who PROTECT us/all from those who do not make such a choice.

Even after it has been pointed out who the primary/front line protective agencies are- Police, Schools, Churches, Welfare, Child Protection- you persist in this bizarre obfuscation and ludicrous questions-

“Do you praise teachers for not fucking their students?

A screaming WTF?
There have been occasions when I have praised a teacher for declining the offered/tempting opportunity. And thereby the teacher might be encouraged to maintain the students protection.
But WTF does that have to do with the certainty that some teachers will take the opportunity?
When such an act or even the clear risk of such an act becomes apparent any sane person will call on the PROTECTIVE AGENCIES- School, Police, Child Protection and if the victim needs ‘Safe Haven’ a Church Refuge.

“Are you getting the point yet?”

NO. WTF Do your ridiculous questions have to do with the frontline Protective and Caring Agencies!!!???

And why on earth would any ethical/moral being reject/deny the phenomenal role of the protective agencies?

“NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse.”

Your declaration still turns my guts and your elaboration makes no sense.

[darkstar3]

125. "A screaming WTF?"

:rofl:
How descriptive of you in general...

As my final two statements on this ridiculous stupidity:
1. I expect any half-decent member of a civilized society to not just abstain from child abuse, but to prevent it or intervene when it becomes an obvious necessity. If you stand by and watch as abuse is being committed, you are aiding and abetting a criminal. So no, no kudos from me for people who do what any normal decent human being should be expected to do. Now, if you want to talk about the REAL role that protective agencies like police, fire, and EMT organizations scattered across this country play, I'll be more than happy to praise them.
2. Your claim that somehow the Church is a "front line protective agency" is so stupid, baseless, and contrary to current evidence that I can do nothing more in the face of that claim than :spray:. The claim does, however, go to cement my earlier point that you are very, perhaps overly, invested in defending and now even promoting the Church.

...front line protective agency...:crazy:...next you'll be telling me that we should be paying them with our tax dollars for the "services" they provide...holy fuck...

[ironbark]

132. No surprise you cannot answer the points/questions and flag your retreat

“I expect any half-decent member of a civilized society to not just abstain from child abuse, but to prevent it or intervene when it becomes an obvious necessity. If you stand by and watch as abuse is being committed, you are aiding and abetting a criminal“

Well that’s just F%^$ing brilliant Sherlock!…ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS DO YOU THINK SOMEONE GETS TO-
“stand by and watch as abuse is being committed” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????

It is those agencies- School, Welfare, Medical (Secular State AND CHURCH) that have frontline FIRST CONTACT with the potentially abused child. The kid covered in bruises, the kid with burns or scolds, the kid manifesting inappropriate sexually explicit or violent behaviour…. AND FROM THOSE CLUES AND INDICATORS THEY BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION, THE >>>PROTECTION<<< STARTS THERE!
And if there is no immediate explanation for the indicators then Mandatory Reporting kicks in.

Meanwhile your looking for the people who “stand by and watch as abuse is being committed”?
Phttt.
Good luck with that.

“So no, no kudos from me for people who do what any normal decent human being should be expected to do”

Change of colours Darkstar?
A second ago it was ““NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse.”…even when it was clearly pointed out to you what agencies fulfilled that preventative and protective role.

“Now, if you want to talk about the REAL role that protective agencies like police, fire, and EMT organizations scattered across this country play, I'll be more than happy to praise them.”

THE FIRE BRIGADE!!!!??????????????
WHO THE F%$&! CALLS THE FIRE BRIGADE IF CHILD ABUSE IS SUSPECTED!!!???

“. Your claim that somehow the Church is a "front line protective agency" is so stupid, baseless, and contrary to current evidence….”

Read- At this point you will run like hell because you cannot and will not even consider or discuss the reality of church agencies in the front line of child protection.

The public knowledge “current evidence” is that the Churches provide Social Welfare and Education services that come in constant contact with kids/youth- Schools, Holliday Programs, Counselling, Youth Facilities, Youth Outreach, Rehab Facilities, Refuges, Respite Facilities…on and on the list goes.
EVERY SINGLE DAY these services and agencies are involved in the assessment and reporting of thousands of suspected cases of child abuse.
And none of it reaches the headlines or this board or your consciousness because it doesn’t ring “Priest fucks boy, church covers up”

Your obfuscation, falsification and filibuster pov has died a slow and public death.
Its last gasp was- “stupid, baseless,” and the obvious inability to justify.

“...front line protective agency... ...next you'll be telling me that we should be paying them with our tax dollars for the "services" they provide..”

That is an option many Western Liberal Democracies (Australia included) have already considered and taken.
Many church Social Welfare services and agencies have long been identified as more cost effective and socially effective than secular State counterparts. Cost effectiveness and service provision aside one of the key factors has been the recognition of the ‘Surrogate Family’ component of church agencies when providing protection and care for victims of child abuse.

You remember ‘Surrogate Family’ Darkstar…it’s the concept you dismissed out of hand as “horseshit” without any consideration or cause.

More evidence that you neither know nor care what goes on regarding the abuse, protection and care of kids.

Perhaps you were distracted while ringing the Fire Brigade to report the child abuse being perpetrated right in front of you?

[darkstar3]

133. If you spun any faster and flung any more shit I'd mistake you for a tornado on a hog farm.

Now I remember why I put you on ignore in the first place...you've gone 'round the bend...

[ironbark]

135. Ad hom. No substance. No rebuttal. No win. Bye.

That’s the third time you have done a dummy spit when your pov is in terminal tatters.

Back you go to hide in the ‘ignore’ bunker.

;-)

[darkstar3]

136. How perfectly descriptive of your own argumentation.

There are definite tatters here, but they are found in the remains of your argumentation, your language skills, and your credibility.

See me when you can tell the difference between winning an argument and being laughed out of a room. Also when you can tell the difference between "your" and "you're".

[ironbark]

138. Here again is the post and pov that forced you to flee.

If and when you can muster the intellectual and ethical capacity to meet it then do so.

Otherwise >you are< just peeing in the wind.

I expect any half-decent member of a civilized society to not just abstain from child abuse, but to prevent it or intervene when it becomes an obvious necessity. If you stand by and watch as abuse is being committed, you are aiding and abetting a criminal“

Well that’s just F%^$ing brilliant Sherlock!…ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS DO YOU THINK SOMEONE GETS TO-
“stand by and watch as abuse is being committed” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????

It is those agencies- School, Welfare, Medical (Secular State AND CHURCH) that have frontline FIRST CONTACT with the potentially abused child. The kid covered in bruises, the kid with burns or scolds, the kid manifesting inappropriate sexually explicit or violent behaviour…. AND FROM THOSE CLUES AND INDICATORS THEY BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION, THE >>>PROTECTION<<< STARTS THERE!
And if there is no immediate explanation for the indicators then Mandatory Reporting kicks in.

Meanwhile your looking for the people who “stand by and watch as abuse is being committed”?
Phttt.
Good luck with that.

“So no, no kudos from me for people who do what any normal decent human being should be expected to do”

Change of colours Darkstar?
A second ago it was ““NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse.”…even when it was clearly pointed out to you what agencies fulfilled that preventative and protective role.

“Now, if you want to talk about the REAL role that protective agencies like police, fire, and EMT organizations scattered across this country play, I'll be more than happy to praise them.”

THE FIRE BRIGADE!!!!??????????????
WHO THE F%$&! CALLS THE FIRE BRIGADE IF CHILD ABUSE IS SUSPECTED!!!???

“. Your claim that somehow the Church is a "front line protective agency" is so stupid, baseless, and contrary to current evidence….”

Read- At this point you will run like hell because you cannot and will not even consider or discuss the reality of church agencies in the front line of child protection.

The public knowledge “current evidence” is that the Churches provide Social Welfare and Education services that come in constant contact with kids/youth- Schools, Holliday Programs, Counselling, Youth Facilities, Youth Outreach, Rehab Facilities, Refuges, Respite Facilities…on and on the list goes.
EVERY SINGLE DAY these services and agencies are involved in the assessment and reporting of thousands of suspected cases of child abuse.
And none of it reaches the headlines or this board or your consciousness because it doesn’t ring “Priest fucks boy, church covers up”

Your obfuscation, falsification and filibuster pov has died a slow and public death.
Its last gasp was- “stupid, baseless,” and the obvious inability to justify.

“...front line protective agency... ...next you'll be telling me that we should be paying them with our tax dollars for the "services" they provide..”

That is an option many Western Liberal Democracies (Australia included) have already considered and taken.
Many church Social Welfare services and agencies have long been identified as more cost effective and socially effective than secular State counterparts. Cost effectiveness and service provision aside one of the key factors has been the recognition of the ‘Surrogate Family’ component of church agencies when providing protection and care for victims of child abuse.

You remember ‘Surrogate Family’ Darkstar…it’s the concept you dismissed out of hand as “horseshit” without any consideration or cause.

More evidence that you neither know nor care what goes on regarding the abuse, protection and care of kids.

Perhaps you were distracted while ringing the Fire Brigade to report the child abuse being perpetrated right in front of you?

[darkstar3]

140. So...

when I mock your post because of its abject stupidity and incredible spin, your response is simply to repost it?

Yeah, we're obviously through here...goodnight.

[ironbark]

142. So…If you can’t face the simplicity of defending/justifying your own pov

Won’t answer points or questions pertaining to such a simple and simplistic matter of your own manufacture.

How can you claim any credibility in a matter as complex as the universe and its creation?...
Or even comprehension of the basic protective measures guarding children?

;-)

[Jim__]

108. Great post! It states the problem quite clearly.

People who refuse to look beyond the aspects of an issue that feeds into their present mindset are people who are content in their ignorance.

[ironbark]

124. There are now one dozen+ opportunities to consider the positive role of church agencies

in the protection and care of child abuse victims in this thread alone.

EACH and EVERY ONE has been cut, ignored, falsified, obfuscated and/or shat on.

While every participating non atheist in this thread has conceded the abuses and cover up of the RC Church…NOT ONE atheist is prepared to consider or discuss the role of the churches in social welfare and child protection.

Not one.

“People who refuse to look beyond the aspects of an issue that feeds into their present mindset are people who are content in their ignorance.”

Perhaps, possibly, probably…..but I don’t understand it Jim…I can’t wrap my head around the dogged determination to cast >everything< religious as wrong/ bad/ useless/ stupid and at the same time refuse, point blank, to even consider looking at what the churches do in and for the community.

I just don’t get it Jim.

[darkstar3]

126. Of course you don't get it.

You refuse to see that "what the churches do in and for the community" is nothing that couldn't be found elsewhere.

When shown repeatedly that non-religious people and groups are capable of (and in fact have been) providing these "good things", you simply dismiss them because they're not specifically "atheist", or at least not enough for you, and therefore they don't count.

Your problem, and your lack of understanding, stem from the fact that you wish so badly for people to agree with you that the church has done good in this world that you are willing to ignore the good done by anyone else. You also fail to understand that all the good done by such a corrupt and corruptible organization will never expunge the horrors done by it.

[ironbark]

131. Then link to the post that NAMES the Agencies.

“You refuse to see that "what the churches do in and for the community" is nothing that couldn't be found elsewhere.”

On atheism and charity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=243764&mesg_id=243764

The OP was looking for- “an organization like the Salvation Army, but without the "salvation" part. Does anyone know of any good national secular groups that accomplish the same general mission, without the preaching?”

Responses ranged from the bizarre-‘The National Center For Science Education’ to the inappropriate-(your nominations) Doctors Without Borders, Engineers Without Borders….none of which came ANYWHERE NEAR matching the OPs criteria. In the end the desperation gave birth to the claim that there are thousands of little (un named and un identified) secular NGOs that when (conceptually) combined “dwarf” the Salvation Army.

So we have been down that path and exhausted it darkstar….you couldn’t name the agencies that could “be found elsewhere” then…and you haven’t nominated any now.

“When shown repeatedly that non-religious people and groups are capable of (and in fact have been) providing these "good things", you simply dismiss them because they're not specifically "atheist"…”


Link to a single example of your “shown repeatedly” assertion. I claim it is false/fabrication.
Link to a single example of my “dismiss them because they're not specifically "atheist"…”
I claim it is false/fabrication.


“, stem from the fact that you wish so badly for people to agree with you that the church has done good…”

I just love it when >you< present what >you< think I “wish” as a “fact”…I never cease to be amazed by the atheist presumption of psychic powers.

My clearly and repeatedly expressed ‘wish’ has been for ANY demonstration of preparedness on behalf of atheists to CONSIDER or even DISCUSS the possibility “that the church has done good…” and/or continues to do good.

Every single opportunity to do so is ignored or rejected even to the fanatical point of obfuscation-
“There are no two sides”
94#-
“to discuss BOTH sides”? Balanced and thoughtful debate? The precursor of social/ policy change?.............. “BOTH sides” and all angles…what’s known as ‘informed debate’.
The very idea that progressive liberals could look at child abuse within the churches and condemn it and STILL be capable of looking at the frontline role of the churches in the fight against child abuse.”

And you respond 95#-
“You want to discuss both sides of the issue because you think there ARE two sides.
Sorry, there aren't. NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse.”

You have absolutely no interest whatsoever in considering if the “church has done good…”.
You cannot even conceptualise the possibility or “two sides” of the issue.
You have no idea about and no interest in what is involved in child protection and the partnership between secular State Agencies and frontline Church Agencies.


“You also fail to understand that all the good done by such a corrupt and corruptible organization will never expunge the horrors done by it.”

As Jim 129# succinctly pointed out-
“Decision making is much easier in a black and white world. Shades of gray introduce complexity.”

In your case the conceptualization is EXCLUSIVELY >black<.

[darkstar3]

134. The link you have provided more than adequately shows what I was talking about,

while also serving to display your jackassery on the subject. I have nothing to add, and I encourage other people to follow that link and read for themselves how non-religious organizations can and do fill the gap that a lack of Church would supposedly leave behind, and you refuse to recognize it.

[ironbark]

137. What? STILL can’t NAME THEM?

The link I provided showed what the OP was talking about- “an organization like the Salvation Army”
It also showed that what you were talking about (“Doctors Without Borders, Engineers Without Borders”) had no link/relevance to the OP question.

“The link you have provided more than adequately shows…”....
that no one could name a comparible secular NGO >THEN< and you clearly can’t name one >NOW<.

“I have nothing to add.”

LOL!
Dam Straight you have “nothing to add”! NOTHING then, NOTHING now.
Zero, Zip, Zilch.
No comparable secular NGOs named or nominated at all.


“I encourage other people to follow that link and read for themselves how non-religious organizations can and do fill the gap that a lack of Church would supposedly leave behind”

Yea….Me too…Hooray for the -‘The National Center For Science Education’ as it steps up to fill the shoes and role of the Salvation Army!

Meanwhile and yet again, while I answer and refute your every obfuscation, you cut and run from every question and key point-

131#
Link to a single example of your “shown repeatedly” assertion. I claim it is false/fabrication.
Link to a single example of my “dismiss them because they're not specifically "atheist"…”
I claim it is false/fabrication.

“, stem from the fact that you wish so badly for people to agree with you that the church has done good…”

I just love it when >you< present what >you< think I “wish” as a “fact”…I never cease to be amazed by the atheist presumption of psychic powers.

My clearly and repeatedly expressed ‘wish’ has been for ANY demonstration of preparedness on behalf of atheists to CONSIDER or even DISCUSS the possibility “that the church has done good…” and/or continues to do good.

Every single opportunity to do so is ignored or rejected even to the fanatical point of obfuscation-
“There are no two sides”
94#-
“to discuss BOTH sides”? Balanced and thoughtful debate? The precursor of social/ policy change?.............. “BOTH sides” and all angles…what’s known as ‘informed debate’.
The very idea that progressive liberals could look at child abuse within the churches and condemn it and STILL be capable of looking at the frontline role of the churches in the fight against child abuse.”

And you respond 95#-
“You want to discuss both sides of the issue because you think there ARE two sides.
Sorry, there aren't. NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse.”

You have absolutely no interest whatsoever in considering if the “church has done good…”.
You cannot even conceptualise the possibility or “two sides” of the issue.
You have no idea about and no interest in what is involved in child protection and the partnership between secular State Agencies and frontline Church Agencies.

[darkstar3]

139. You can keep screeching but it won't change anything.

That thread you linked to shows everything it needs to, and it seems that you don't realize just how badly you come off in it.

Goodnight, ironbark. I have no more interest in your lies, your screeching, and your attempt to "baffle with bullshit." Perhaps we shall meet again in a different thread, where I suggest you bring a friend who can proofread.

[ironbark]

141. Even. if. I .whisper. you. can’t. name. “anything”. that. looks. like. what. you. claim.

“That thread you linked to shows everything it needs to,”

LOL.
Sure does-
Zero, Zip, Zilch.
No comparable secular NGOs named or nominated at all.

And here you are again with “nothing to add” to “nothing to add.”

“I have no more interest in your lies,”

Seeing as you cannot identify them shall we add them to your substantiation account?

Nothing plus Zero, plus Zip, plus Zilch, plus “nothing to add”

A Zero Sum Game ;-)

[darkstar3]

143. rug?

I have the strangest feeling of deja vu...

[Jim__]

129. Maybe it's the need some people have for simplistic answers.

Decision making is much easier in a black and white world. Shades of gray introduce complexity.

[ironbark]

104. Argumentation based exclusively on speculation.

You ignore entirely everything I have said and wander into the realms of “maybe”
Why would that be Muriel? Does ignoring what I have said and projecting “maybe”
serve the Golden Game of falsification?

“Maybe ironbark is saying child abuse is inherently a religious issue…”

No, never said or suggested any such thing. Your speculation is without foundation.

I have said that child abuse is an issue that requires broad consideration and that religion is far more than a perpetrator or concealer of child abuse it is also a protector and carer of child abuse victims.

To focus exclusively on the former and ignore, mock or ridicule the latter on a progressive religion & theology forum is dishonest and counter productive to the protection of children.

“and therefore that whenever child abuse is discussed, it should be done so inside the religion forum”

Bizzare speculative nonsense….nothing to do with anything I have said or suggested.

“Perhaps when ironbark hears 'child abuse', he thinks 'religion'.”

Sometimes I have good cause to do so. When I consider the role of the Salvation Army in providing emergency accommodation for mothers and children who have been abused. When I consider the Uniting Church agency I once worked for that provided residential care for the psych disabled- quite a few of whom victims of child abuse. Or the church run Rehab Unit that battled with incredible ethical insight over issues of ‘Mandatory Reporting’ of child abuse regarding former clients.

In thirty years of Welfare practice I could fill three R&T boards with good reason to “think religion” when it comes to the protection and care of victims of child abuse. And a dozen others regarding the child porn industry/child sex tourism that have a central international/interfaith component.

And doing so here would be a complete waste of time…because if you don’t holler “priest fucks boy” then it does not register as having anything to do with abuse/religion.

Anything posted here that examines the role of the churches in protecting and careing is ignored, cut, mocked or falsified.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. OK, we'll make it simple for you: threads on child abuse that didn't involve religion would be moved

by the moderators. This is because this R&T forum is for discussions that involve religion and theology. You may well not understand how DU actually works, because you never seem to venture outside the R&T forum, or indeed express a political opinion of any sort, but people starts lots of threads on different topics, and if they post them in a forum to which they are not suited, the moderators move them.

So if a DUer has something to say about child abuse and families, they don't post it in R&T, since they know it's the wrong place, and they'd be making work for the moderators. Your suggestion that such a post belongs in the R&T forum seems to indicate you think that there is always a link with religion or theology. Or you just want to encourage DUers to confuse the forum.

[ironbark]

106. Who said anything about “threads on child abuse that didn't involve religion” ?

Are you trying to tell me that if someone posted a thread in R&T about the role of the churches in protecting and careing for victims of child abuse it would get moved?

Or are you trying to tell me that the >only< way religion and child abuse are linked or can be viewed is when religious figures are the perps and not protectors?

I predicted in prior post-
“Anything posted here that examines the role of the churches in protecting and careing is ignored, cut, mocked or falsified.”

And you cut and ignore everything relating to “the role of the churches in protecting and careing”

Why?

Then, having cut/ignored the specific examples of the positive relevance of religion that I gave, you go on to describe a non religion related scenario- “about child abuse and families” and then pretend >I’m< “suggesting” something about >your< hypothetical- “Your suggestion that such a post belongs in the R&T forum…”

Again….Why?....Why do you cut and ignore what I have said, transplant it with your own scenario… and then pretend it has something to do with me? Or is my “suggestion”.

Here again are some of the religion/child abuse issues that a progressive R&T board might discuss consider-
“…the role of the Salvation Army in providing emergency accommodation for mothers and children who have been abused….the Uniting Church agency/s that provide residential care for the psych disabled- quite a few of whom victims of child abuse….. the church run Rehab Unit that battled with incredible ethical insight over issues of ‘Mandatory Reporting’ of child abuse regarding former clients.
And a dozen others regarding the child porn industry/child sex tourism that have a central international/interfaith component.”

Go right ahead…cut and ignore it again…fact remains there are a host of religion related topics in regard child abuse that will not be considered on this board-
because if you don’t holler “priest fucks boy” then it does not register as having anything to do with abuse/religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. You did - in capital letters

"WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING THE PORN INDUSTRY AND CHILD ABUSE!?

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING DRUGS AND ALCAHOL IN CHILD ABUSE!?

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING CHILD ABUSE IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS!?"

in reply #55. And when someone found some threads for you, you whined that they weren't in the Religion and Theology forum. So, it's clear you want threads about child abuse that aren't in a religious context, but in the R&T forum.

You may not realise it, but you don't have to register for each separate forum of DU. You already have the ability to read and post in GD, Editorials, the Australia forum etc.

[ironbark]

122. So, When your responding directly to 104# your actually referencing 55# without saying so

and ignoring all prior and subsequent clarifying statements?

Brilliant.

In each instance I have PREFACED my meaning and intent and/or clearly flagged meaning in the preceding post.

Eg-
24#
“ZERO interest in discussing the role the churches play in fighting the causes of child abuse.
ZERO preparedness to consider or discuss the role the churches play in treating, supporting caring for victims of child abuse.
ZERO interest in considering that through coalface charities and social services the churches are in a front line position in identifying and reporting child abuse.”

Each and every prior post and preface had clearly indicated I was referring to the absence of any willingness to consider the role of the churches in the issue of child abuse in a POSITIVE light.

That’s normally how an argument is built…on prior post or preface so that you don’t have to repeat every point and context in every single post.

Having a foundation of prior post and preface should permit writing in short hand but it seems not…

If your going to cut, omit, ignore all preface and prior statements then here are the statements in full/religious context established by the preceding posts-

-"WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING THE PORN INDUSTRY AND CHILD ABUSE”
When the church agencies are out there working to protect children from same and caring for victims

“WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING DRUGS AND ALCAHOL IN CHILD ABUSE!?”
When the churches are out there dealing with the consequences of drug addiction, providing rehab, and looking after the kids when the family cant.

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING CHILD ABUSE IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS!?"
ie no positive context. No context other than “Priest fucks boy”.
No examination of the role of the church agencies in preventing child abuse and caring for victims.

The very passages you quote were prefaced-
55#
"Honesty and real concern for the issue of child abuse necessitates a broad consideration of all causes, contributing factors, areas of concentration and effective protective, responsive and healing measures. A Holistic response."

The role of church agencies being clearly part of that "Holistic response"

If you take the time to read the preceding posts and preface then I am not obliged to fill in the blanks for you when you drop in half way and cherry pick out of context.

[darkstar3]

127. You know, when you're in a deep hole,

digging further downward is no way to get out...

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. Since #63, #65, #74 and #88 were a discussion about where threads about paedophilia might be found

(and #63 was your complaint that #54 hadn't been answered) it's reasonable, when replying to #88, to assume the topic doesn't need repeating again.

'The role of church agencies being clearly part of that "Holistic response"'

Well, it ought to be part of it. You think it is already, obviously. But you seem to be just asserting that it is, rather than showing it. And the problem in this sub-thread seems to be that you think everyone else ought to have shown it already, in other threads, rather than you backing up your assertions. Perhaps if you had started some threads on the subject earlier, then it would have been established by now that some churches do some good in preventing child abuse.

[ironbark]

130. 'The role of church agencies being clearly part of that "Holistic response"'

“Well, it ought to be part of it. You think it is already, obviously. But you seem to be just asserting that it is, rather than showing it.”

Take the protective provision of Mandatory Reporting-
“Professionals Required to Report
Approximately 48 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands designate professions whose members are mandated by law to report child maltreatment.1 Individuals designated as mandatory reporters typically have frequent contact with children. Such individuals may include:
Social workers
Teachers and other school personnel
Physicians and other health-care workers
Mental health professionals
Childcare providers
Medical examiners or coroners
Law enforcement officers
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm

And apply that Mandatory Reporting to those church agencies and services that deal directly with children/youth/families-
(From a single SA link for services in one city)-
Child care centres –
The Salvation Army Counselling Service
Bereaved by Suicide support group
Children of people in addiction
Salvation Army refuges
Kids clubs & playgroups –
Holiday camps at the beach.
Christmas cheer –
Youth support programs
http://salvos.org.au/need-help/family-and-personal-issues/childrens-services.php


Such Social Services are provided by other churches and these services and agencies are replicated all over the world.
As soon as any agency (church or secular) is engaged in working with children/families it is at the frontline/coalface in protecting children and Mandatory Reporting of abuse
All of the services listed above would come into direct contact with suspected and actual abuse, be obliged by law to report it and through the services described provide care for the victims.
That is one list of services from one church in one city.
That is “The role of church agencies being clearly part of that "Holistic response"'

“Well, it ought to be part of it. You think it is already, obviously. But you seem to be just asserting that it is, rather than showing it.”

The very fact that it is necessary to show an adult liberal/progressive the role and scope of the church agencies is a sad indictment.

“…you think everyone else ought to have shown it already, in other threads, rather than you backing up your assertions. Perhaps if you had started some threads on the subject earlier, then it would have been established by now that some churches do some good in preventing child abuse”

LOL! There are one dozen+ post opportunities in this thread alone to respond to the positive role of the churches re child abuse and on each and every single occasion the issue is cut, ignored, falsified or crapped on. All prior threads posted that are germane to the issue get the same treatment. Don’t try to pass the ball back to me as if it was my responsibility to raise the issue louder or more frequently…folk hereabouts just don’t want to know. And “Well, it ought to be part of it.” is a good indicator of that unwillingness/disinterest.

The ONLY, SINGULAR and EXCLUSIVE consideration here of the role of the churches in the child abuse issue is “Priests fuck boys, church covers up”. No thread, post or response indicates otherwise.

[TZ]

61. I'm calling bullshit on your post

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING THE PORN INDUSTRY AND CHILD ABUSE!?

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING DRUGS AND ALCAHOL IN CHILD ABUSE!?

WHY CAN I FIND >NO THREAD OR POST< EXAMINING CHILD ABUSE IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS!?

You aren't looking hard enough! There was a post on spanking just yesterday. NOTHING to do with religon.



AND JUST FOR YOU: WHY AM I HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING RELIGIOUS R/T POSTERS WHO WILL ADMIT THE POPE HAS BEHAVED IN AN ABOMINABLE IF NOT CRIMINAL FASHION? Why is it only the "hateful" atheists who seem to have a problem with this?

[ironbark]

64. LOL!......Your.....your serious arn't you?.......Bwahahahaha!

"There was a post on spanking just yesterday. NOTHING to do with religon"

Was there?

Really!!!?? A whole post!

WOW….Shoots my pov and point down in flames don’t it! Gosh darn.

“Spanking” huh?

You sure it wasn’t a note from Mommy? Something to do with playing on the computer?

;-)


Go and have a look at threads current and past on child abuse and religion...come back when
you have an arguement or even a 'cite'.

[skepticscott]

66. Crickets

in response to #65? What a shock.

If you're going to be arrogant and condescending, you might at least try to be close to right once or twice.

Now, please proceed to move the goalposts.

[ironbark]

76. There is no ‘arrogance’ in refusing to have you falsify my pov.

I reserve the right to be condescending when you repeatedly/demonstrably do so-

57#“The point of all of this is to say "Don't blame the Catholic church so much...everyone else is doing it too"…”

Caught out again, challenged and exposed in 59#….you flee.

You cannot defend your falsification nor answer the questions put to you as others have answered yours.

But you can pop up later with a bad case of the vague obliques-

“…you might at least try to be close to right once or twice.
Now, please proceed to move the goalposts.”

You might at least have the courage to specify…>if< you have anything of substance to whinge about.

[TZ]

82. There are tons of posts about child abuse

Not having to do with religion. But you are too lazy to look. I know for a fact there are oodles of them. Here in DC there was recently a trial for a woman who killed her children and stored them in a freezer for years. I know there were multiple posts about that. Maybe you should actually read GD and not just R/T sometime. Again, I seriously do understand now how Catholics behaved in WW2. Willful ignorance is harmful. But you are two blinded by your biases to see it.

[ironbark]

85. See 74# and 84# n/t

[TZ]

109. Wow. Imagine posts about religious folks abusing children

in a religious forum. Geezus. Get over yourself. SOME Catholic Priests abuse kids and there is plenty of evidence that shows the Church covered it up. You seriously expect people to not post about such CRIMINAL behavior? Do you really believe that tripe about the Pope being infallible?

[ironbark]

123. 1/ Your responding/arguing with a n/t- no text post.

and you clearly havn't read the posts it is referring you to.

2/ I am not/have not ever questioned the validity of-
“posts about religious folks abusing children in a religious forum”

What I have/will challenge is that EXCLUSIVE fixation…The refusal to consider or respond to the fact that the churches/religion ALSO plays a vital role in the protection and care of child abuse victims.

“Get over yourself”

3/Easily done, I’m a lowly shitkicking agnostic welfare worker who deals with child abuse victims every day.
What I can’t get over is the fanatical and obsessive tunnel vision and bigotry of the anti religion brigade that can’t pull their heads out of their arses long enough to take an honest look at what the church agencies do in protecting and caring for victims of abuse

“SOME Catholic Priests abuse kids and there is plenty of evidence that shows the Church covered it up.”

4/ That is something with which I have agreed and conceded in detail on at least a dozen occasions on this board. Having done so and having seen countless other agnostics and theists do so…here’s the rub.
Can you find me the single Thread or Post on this R&T board in which an atheist is even PREPARED TO DISCUSS let alone concede the work the church agencies do?

“You seriously expect people to not post about such CRIMINAL behavior?”

No….I never said, suggested or inferred such a stupid proposition. It’s all >yours<.

“Do you really believe that tripe about the Pope being infallible?”

No….I never said, suggested or inferred such a stupid proposition. It’s all >yours<.

How’s your batting average sunshine?
Let me know when one of your wild swings gets close to the ball.
;-)

[olegramps]

56. Did the John Jay College study have total access to all files?

I can not determine from reading the article if the researchers were limited to those cases that have become public. It is a know fact that the Catholic Church has used every means at it disposal to prevent unlimited access to their secret files. The fact of the matter is that once one person makes their charges public that they are quickly followed by a number of people coming forward. I also find it difficult to believe that 1 in 5 people are sexual abusers. If that is so, our large extended family must be the odd exception.

[jgraz]

93. The title of the OP is misleading at best.

First, the quotes imply it's directly taken from the article. It isn't.

Second, there's no evidence to support the claim in the title. The fact that there have been no comprehensive studies on the issue is NOT proof that priests are more or less likely to abuse children. The closest they come is some worthless comment from a corporate spokesdrone and speculation by a few "experts".

It's amazing what passes for actual journalism these days. :eyes:

[golddigger]

114. Well, I guess that

makes okay then.

:sarcasm:

[Facebook Group]

115. While true how do you explain the "boys club" mentality that allowed abuse to continue?

It's not that the priests are being maligned, it's that they are supposed to be the pillar of comfort for entire communities, a pillar of morality-- for many they symbolize the way to become closer to God. These child molester's not only violated the children, but the tenets of their faith, of complete congregations. It is not only the damage, pain, and suffering that they caused to their many victims, but also the hypocrisy of evil manipulations of the faithful. The cover ups expand on this exponentially. For the pope to be implicated is extremely disheartening. This is not only immoral, it's criminal, and we should not stand for it. The people of the world want this mentality to stop now.

Please help by joining the "Down with Pope Benedict XVI" Facebook Group. We hope that millions of people around the world join to show the vatican how much Ratzinger is anathema to the faith. He does not deserve to be the pope and is a blemish on the institution of the Catholic church.

[laconicsax]

116. Stop spamming the board.