Child Sex Abuse And Atheists

[nPeace]

Until members like you learn to recongize the problems in your religion the abuse of children will continue within your own ranks.

That's advice? Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only problem I see here is your ignoring facts, and saying what you want to say, despite knowing that such a position does not demonstrate reason.
I am not ignoring anything. Your statement is false. Why deny, and not admit it? People prey on children, not religion.

That's why many homes are not safe for many Children, and neither is the porn industry which is not religion either.
These are facts, but there is an obvious reason you close your eyes to them.
Letting go of stubborn pride makes us feel better than that.
Maybe attend a meeting at the Kingdom Hall and see for yourself.
You may be pleasantly surprised at what you learn.

You really working the room to distance religion from any responsibility.

Religious practices and church practices can set the stage for abuse. The Bible has been used to justify villainy more often than Christians care to admit, but I admit it and I am Christian. It is something about false witness. You can do that to yourself as well as to others.

As I see it, Christians should work harder than anyone outside of Christianity to make sure that this crime and any crime like it is not to be found in a church or anyplace under the authority of a church. We should all work that hard, but considering the high moral ground hugged by Christianity, we have accepted a greater burden.

 

[youknowme]

That's advice? Thank you.

You are more concerned about the image of the Church than the fact that children are being abused.

 

[Ponder This]

Another (legal & practical) option....
Don't treat these organizations as being so exempt from law enforcement.
And when one is caught in repeated violations, use RICO to prosecute &
disband them.

As long as these organizations aren't being targeted by the law because they are religious organizations.

 

[Salvador]

What are you talking about? The right move would be to turn them over to the authorities and kick them out of the Church.

Of course, if some pedophile Priest left his DNA on his young aged victim whom he sexually assaulted, then the police should get involved; otherwise, it's usually the Priest's word against the word of his alleged sexually assaulted victim. When the child's testimony seems credible enough that he was likely sexually harassed by his Priest, but if there's not enough evidence to convict the Priest of sexually harassing this child, then out of fairness to everyone, the alleged pedophile Priest should be transferred to another parish where there's not likely to be any children around for this alleged pedophile Priest to sexually harass.

 

[youknowme]

Of course, if some pedophile Priest left his DNA on his young aged victim whom he sexually assaulted, then the police should get involved; otherwise, it's usually the Priest's word against the word of his alleged sexually assaulted victim. When the child's testimony seems credible enough that he was likely sexually harassed by his Priest, but if there's not enough evidence to convict the Priest of sexually harassing this child, then out of fairness to everyone, the alleged pedophile Priest should be transferred to another parish where there's not likely to be any children around for this alleged pedophile Priest to sexually harass.

If the priest is innocent how is that fair?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Knock yourself out on your interpretation.

It is not my interpretation that is the problem.

That is true. We don't often know what articles are promoting lies, but usually, you can check the facts to verify. I know most of the links I posted are true. They can be confirmed.
That's different to someone making accusations, and you accepting those accusations without verifying the facts.

You can verify all of what you posted. Please do. Then show me that I did not.

It is different when it is your favorite church that is suddenly in the spotlight I think.

How have you established that the reference in question is promoting lies? What steps have you taken to demonstrate your findings establishing that reference was a lie?

So, I provide a link with information from an entity. and then someone posts a link with accusations made to contradict. It would be wise to get the facts, as to whether the accusations are true or not. Don't you agree?

If you have facts that would vindicate that report as false accusations, why are you holding back on them?

I suggest you don't know what you are talking about, and accusing me wrongfully and you appear to be doing so because of a personal agenda to find a reason to cast accusations.
You are wrong, and your words don't mean a thing even if they were said in a court of law. They are simply made up for you own purposes imo.

We are not in a court of law and I think I read your reaction correctly.

You are suggesting that we tolerate it and just slough any accusation off, especially when it hits our favorite church or when there is some suggestion that it is becoming prevalent in Christian churches.

Which links did you find not dealing with child sexual assault?

The ones about the medical profession and elder abuse included abuse to other than children. It is horrible, but it paints a false picture, but that gives you fuel to feel better.

How did you arrive at that question?

The OP was questioning why this seems to happen more often with organized religion, and was focused on the Christian religion. You used the links as ammunition to fire back showing that it is not just churches. Since the OP includes questions about why sexual abuse does not appear to occur in atheist organizations, it makes sense to look for atheist organizations where abuse has occurred. Listing non-Christian organizations, that clearly contain a probable high percentage of Christian membership does not seem like it addresses the point.

I suggest you again are resorting to baseless accusations. Why? I think you have an agenda.

My observations are not baseless. I have no agenda, but thank you for throwing in reference to a conspiracy. My day would not be complete without even subtle reference of one or two creationist conspiracy theories.

I do not think that child abuse should be tolerated. I think that people and organizations that hide it and tacitly support it by doing so, should be held responsible. I think Christianity has a greater burden in making sure the first two are adhered to. That is my agenda.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course, if some pedophile Priest left his DNA on his young aged victim whom he sexually assaulted, then the police should get involved; otherwise, it's usually the Priest's word against the word of his alleged sexually assaulted victim. When the child's testimony seems credible enough that he was likely sexually harassed by his Priest, but if there's not enough evidence to convict the Priest of sexually harassing this child, then out of fairness to everyone, the alleged pedophile Priest should be transferred to another parish where there's not likely to be any children around for this alleged pedophile Priest to sexually harass.

I think the Catholic Church felt pretty certain that the accusations were a little more than just accusations, but the reaction of church authorities probably did sweep up some priests that were innocent and got the official church punishment anyway.

 

[Salvador]

If the priest is innocent how is that fair?

It's not totally fair, but it'd be better for the priest to be transferred to another parish away from children than taking the chance that the priest is actually untrustworthy around children.

 

[youknowme]

It's not totally fair, but it'd be better for the priest to be transferred to another parish away from children than taking the chance that the priest is actually untrustworthy around children.

They should just turn it over to the authorities instead of trying to handle it internally.

 

[Salvador]

They should just turn it over to the authorities instead of trying to handle it internally.

We can agree the police should handle the cases from the Church when the Church investigation finds there is enough evidence for a Priest to more than likely be found legally guilty of sexually assaulting a child.

 

[nPeace]

It is not my interpretation that is the problem.


You can verify all of what you posted. Please do. Then show me that I did not.

Please describe "all of what you posted", and explain why I need to verify anything.
Then explain please, what you mean by "show me that I did not", because I have no clue what you want.

It is different when it is your favorite church that is suddenly in the spotlight I think.

I have no favorite church. I am not seeing the spotlight where you want to shine it though. Perhaps you have another thread in mind.

How have you established that the reference in question is promoting lies? What steps have you taken to demonstrate your findings establishing that reference was a lie?

That's not my job, is it. If after I said what I did, it is up to you to believe what you wish.

If you have facts that would vindicate that report as false accusations, why are you holding back on them?

Why should I do your research for you, on a topic that you are interested in?

We are not in a court of law and I think I read your reaction correctly.

I can't stop you from thinking what you want to believe. We all have our thoughts.

You are suggesting that we tolerate it and just slough any accusation off, especially when it hits our favorite church or when there is some suggestion that it is becoming prevalent in Christian churches.

Tolerate what? I'm am not sure what you are on about. Are you dealing with the OP, or something else?

The ones about the medical profession and elder abuse included abuse to other than children. It is horrible, but it paints a false picture, but that gives you fuel to feel better.

I know the one with the elderly is not child abuse. The medical one is.

The OP was questioning why this seems to happen more often with organized religion, and was focused on the Christian religion. You used the links as ammunition to fire back showing that it is not just churches. Since the OP includes questions about why sexual abuse does not appear to occur in atheist organizations, it makes sense to look for atheist organizations where abuse has occurred. Listing non-Christian organizations, that clearly contain a probable high percentage of Christian membership does not seem like it addresses the point.

Then perhaps you missed a post, or two, or three...

My observations are not baseless.

Your accusations are baseless. An observation is not worded the same as an accusation. You can tell the difference, I'm sure.

I have no agenda, but thank you for throwing in reference to a conspiracy. My day would not be complete without even subtle reference of one or two creationist conspiracy theories.

I do not think that child abuse should be tolerated. I think that people and organizations that hide it and tacitly support it by doing so, should be held responsible. I think Christianity has a greater burden in making sure the first two are adhered to. That is my agenda.

I think the law will do it's job, by following its own procedure.
It can't go out of its bounds, if is is to maintain a "just" system.

 

[youknowme]

We can agree the police should handle the cases from the Church when the Church investigation finds there is enough evidence for a Priest to more than likely be found legally guilty of sexually assaulting a child.

It should go right to the cops. End of story. The Church is not the Department of Justice, it is not their job to solve crimes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheism is in no way proof against child sex abuse. It's simply not.

I will say that I think some of the churches and organizations you are citing have cultural issues or mandates (eg. no sex) which exacerbate the issues above and beyond what the people involved would do due to their base nature only.

But that's it. And there is nothing to prevent an 'atheist' organisation, whatever that looks like, having cultural issues of this type too.

Yes, all that you say is true. Atheism is no "proof" against child sex abuse, and atheist organizations could well engage in such stuff, it's just that for whatever reason, they don't seem to be actually doing it. Or, at least, nothing is hitting the papers. I know that as a member of the Canadian Humanist Association, I am aware of no impending trials of atheist humanists facing the kind of things that far too many religious institutions are facing. I dunno, maybe we just don't have the energy.

 

[Salvador]

It should go right to the cops. End of story. The Church is not the Department of Justice, it is not their job to solve crimes.

A child claiming he was sexually abused without any reasonable evidence to support his allegation of being sexually abused by his Priest is not sufficient reason for the Church to go to the police.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So what's your explanation for why atheists haven't succumbed to them?

.

Well come on, think about it! Using irrational beliefs as scare tactics to get unattractive old trolls to let you into your pants would be kind of hard for a group who's first tenet is the denial of irrational beliefs!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A child claiming he was sexually abused without any reasonable evidence to support his allegation of being sexually abused by his Priest is not sufficient reason for the Church to go to the police.

WHAT!!???!?? Are you serious?

 

[youknowme]

A child claiming he was sexually abused without any reasonable evidence to support his allegation of being sexually abused by his Priest is not sufficient reason for the Church to go to the police.

Yes, it is. An allegation of a crime should be handled by the authorities. Priest are not trained nor have the experience needed to properly investigate and handle allegations of sexual abuse.

 

[nPeace]

A child claiming he was sexually abused without any reasonable evidence to support his allegation of being sexually abused by his Priest is not sufficient reason for the Church to go to the police.

I think that would be something the parent would have to decide, regarding what measures to take, since the parent should do all they can to protect and care for the child.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please describe "all of what you posted", and explain why I need to verify anything.
Then explain please, what you mean by "show me that I did not", because I have no clue what you want.

You posted links. You claimed they were from verifiable sources. It was meant as a question and I accidentally left out the question mark. If your sources were verified, I assume that you did this verification, since you were implying no one else apparently did with sources they cited. I am still curious how you determined that I did not verify the reliability of that article about the JW's.

I have no favorite church. I am not seeing the spotlight where you want to shine it though. Perhaps you have another thread in mind.

I think it is clear from your responses that you do.

That's not my job, is it. If after I said what I did, it is up to you to believe what you wish.

If you claim they are verified sources, it is your job to show that.

Why should I do your research for you, on a topic that you are interested in?

Lame. You implied the story about the JW church was a lie. Then you went to length to go on about verification. You must have the verification for your accusation of lies with regards to the article that so inflamed you.

I can't stop you from thinking what you want to believe. We all have our thoughts.

But you are not denying that my read was correct. I will rest comfortably tonight knowing that and that you cannot stop me from thinking.

Tolerate what? I'm am not sure what you are on about. Are you dealing with the OP, or something else?

The tenor of your posts suggests that you consider sexual abuse of children by church membership and/or clergy as something to be tolerated. If that is not your underlying theme, then you may wish to reword your statements.

I know the one with the elderly is not child abuse. The medical one is.

If the OP is child abuse, then you should only include evidence only to child abuse. Anything else potentially clouds the issue and in favor of your position, I will add.

Then perhaps you missed a post, or two, or three...

Not hardly.

Your accusations are baseless. An observation is not worded the same as an accusation. You can tell the difference, I'm sure.

Dance away. My observations still stand and they are on what I have read.

I think the law will do it's job, by following its own procedure.
It can't go out of its bounds, if is is to maintain a "just" system.

This really says nothing in relation to what should be done in the case of church-related sexual abuse. You seem more willing to let abuse or allegations of abuse go without investigation and unpunished where it proves to be the case. That is the message I got from you. If I am wrong on this, you can show me by throwing all your weight behind positive claims that allegations should be investigated and criminals prosecuted and punished where they are found to be guilty. Even if it is in a religion, sect or church that is your favorite. Or my favorite, for that matter.