The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Anyone else watch this? I find it fascinating. I guess I always kind of understood how people got sucked into religious cults but Scientology is just beyond my comprehension. It just seems so outwardly the exact opposite of rational thinking that I can't understand how anyone gets sucked into it. What does it offer people that they are seeking? Are people just so disillusioned with established thinking that they move in the exact opposite direction? I don't get it. Is this too much of a hot topic to be discussed here?

i can see the way this thread is gonna go already. a few people will comment how "out there" Scientology is .. and some snarky atheist like me is probably going to say something like "i don't see the different between Scientology and any other religion .. they're all brain-washy cults, look at cardinal pell in australia who just got convicted of penetrating a minor (actual charge) and i'd argue that based on all of this that i think religion allows abusers to get away with abuse and actively shelters them from prosecution''.. and then arguing ..

Haha, when I read the original post, the first thing that popped into my mind was "I think ALL religions are essentially brain washing cults" and then I read your comment that pretty much said the same thing.  Cue all the board bros who will be chiming in with "MY religion is the good one and you atheists are persecuting us."   

It's interesting, isn't it? I don't know why people glom towards scientology, but belief is inextricably built into people, it seems. Don't know if this is evolutionary or a weird by-product of consciousness, or something more mysterious. Whatever it is, it's there. I look forward to when we have a unified theory of religion. For now... beats me.

One is an ancient text from the 1st century, and one is completely authored by a best-selling science fiction writer in the 1950s.  That's a pretty big detail to gloss over when comparing the two.

Regardless of how crazy it is ... it is shocking to me that they get away with the things they do to people. I'm always blown away by cover ups such as them, priests and molestation, and political scandal. It seems as if it is expected and accepted by most people.

I'll be the first to admit that "my" religion Catholicism has had it's fair share of issues especially centuries ago, but today it's nothing even remotely close to Scientology. A couple hundred years ago there was a LOT of pretty backwards thinking but you don't see that much of it in today's religions. If you think Catholicism is similar to Scientology you either don't know much about Catholicism (today) or you don't know much about Scientology. The analogy to priests who abuse children would be if the Pope was preaching to his priests and his congregation that it was their duty as Catholics to abuse their children. That's a HUGE difference from covering it up when it happens.

And believe me, I get Atheism. I don't get Scientology.

Until the day comes when we've gone past theory to proven fact, I expect the only unification in that area will continue to come through the subjugation of one religious belief system by another.  History seems fairly clear in this regard...

The cover ups for all of them go beyond their own organizations. People outside have to turn a blind eye to ignore some of the cover ups that have happened.

there is a blurry line between where exactly religion ends and cult begins. 

when you transfer a known pediphile from one congregation to another so he has access to a new batch of victims and then do that multiple times......you have cross that line

I mean like a scientific theory - and understanding of where it physically comes from. Or, stated another way, from whence does religiosity proceed?

It seems strange, to me, that the only species on this planet that is known to have consciousness is also the only one to be religious, consistently, through the ages. Likewise, we are the only ones to have consistent, recognizable art, objective morality which is not self-serving or based entirely on hierarchical precepts, and philosophy and theories of meaning and being.

Are all of these merely mental phenomena with no relation to the outside world? To some, it would seem so - but then, what about math? Math is something we discovered (or created), but it's clearly not simply mental, it has an application, and it seems to, without our interaction, interact with the physical world. Given math's existence as a ethereal phenomena that in some way interacts with the physical world, it would seem it's certainly possible that these others are not mere/pure mental phenomena, but have some similar or relatively similar application. But that's just me.

Please explain how that is "cult" like?

Don't get me wrong, it's completely abhorrent, but not sure what makes that "cult" like.

For me "cult" like is when people are completely cut off from ANY outside influence. Like for instance preventing people from having any contact with relatives unless they are also part of the group. Preventing people from having access to the internet or any other bodies of knowledge like access to a library for instance. Preventing them from having e-mail, access to a radio or TV for example. Putting up walls/fences around the area and physically restraining people from leaving etc, etc etc. That's cult like. I don't see any similarities with your example or with the vast majority of religions.

I think the take-away on that statement is that the only species that humans know much (read: anything) about are humans. For all anyone knows, Elephants could spend 75% of their waking hours praying to a higher power. Perhaps when whales breach, they are simply trying to get closer to God?

Generally when organizations give more power to the individual leadership at the expense of the dogma, it's a red-flag.

Protection of priests, knowing what they're doing, is giving power to the position, despite going against the mission of the group.

That's my answer, at least.

I would agree, but that's a LONG way from actually making that practice DOGMA which is what happens in CULTS. In Scientology it's DOGMA that you have to punish those that question the church. Locking them into a room, preventing them from having food and water, putting bars on the windows, preventing them from leaving the chuch by putting up a wall/fence around the compound with guards, hunting them down if they escape and harrassing them, their loved ones, etc this is part of the DOGMA of the religion of Scientology and it APPLIES to CHILDREN as well. There's absolutely NOTHING in Catholicism even remotely close to this. Again it's one thing to hide abuse from the outside world. It's something COMPLETELY different to make it a part of the accepted practice of the religion and enforce it!

Again, if you think this is similar to Catholicism then either you don't have any idea what Catholicism is or you don't have any idea what Scientology is, one or the other. You might try watching the show, it's eye opening.

^ I mean...I think you sorta answered it yourself.  It doesn't make Catholocism a cult, but the decision to shield raping priests from exposure was cult-like.

In what way? The Catholic religion didn't APPROVE of this behavior, in fact just the opposite they knew it was wrong which is why they tried to cover it up. Not ALL abhorrent behavior is cult like. If that's your definition of cult like then John Wayne Gacy was partaking in cult like behavior. I guess he was a cult of 1 then? It's specifically certain abhorrent acts that are cult like. At least that's my definition of cult like. Your definition seems completely different from mine.

I don't think the definition of cult is going to find your answer, but if you were to list qualities of cults (and there are many lists like this), one is about giving power to leadership over dogma -- or basically worship of the leadership itself.

IMO, the decision to protect priests regardless of their acts is akin to worshiping the leadership itself.  It's blurry and it's not 1:1, but it's on the same path.  The church protected the bad priests, not because they think they were right, but because they were priests.  They put the value of the position over the dogma, like a cult would do.

That's incorrect. They protected them because they didn't want to lose members of the Catholic faith over it. They did NOT protect them because they were priests, they were worried that it would be found out and the Catholic religion would be ruined. In fact even saying they were "protected" is not totally accurate, many of the priests were removed from their parish, counseled, moved into positions where they didn't have a parish or access to children, etc. What they did was wrong, but they didn't do it for the reasons you think they did.

There was also a LOT of backwards thinking in that they could prevent these pedophile tendencies through counseling etc. This was obviously a very flawed belief, but they didn't just accept the behavior because they were priests. That's not what happened at all. When it was found out what was happening the congregation was horrified by it and many of those guilty were expelled from the church. That's just the opposite of what happens in a CULT which is that the practice is allowed to continue unchecked and in fact the practice becomes dogma.  You need to go read a little about David Koresh and Jim Jones and some other well known cult leaders and what they were teaching their congregation. These things weren't being covered up by their religion they were being written into the laws of the church by their leaders.

Wow, I had no idea how right you were. I mean I knew atheists thought I was wrong, I had no idea they thought I belonged to a cult.

honestly when you boil it down the only difference between a "mainstream" religion and a cult is popularity

Not quite. Here's a "few" differences.

1) CULT: Single, unquestioned leader who makes all the rules, with no accountability to peers, a presbytery, a chapter, or co-leaders.

RELIGION: Plurality and hierarchy of leadership, accountable to one another with a charter or church constitution including a mechanism in place to remove leaders who abuse their power.

2) CULT: Cohabitation. Members often live in a group or commune, often with the leader.

RELIGION: Members have their own lives and homes and come together to worship or socialize, then go back to family homes.

3) CULT: Isolation. Members are often not allowed to interact/socialize with outsiders, and frequently are required to separate from their friends and families.

RELIGION: Respect the friends and family of their adherents, almost always encouraging friend and family relationships, even with those not part of the religion.

4) CULT: Coercion. Coercive recruitment methods, often including sleep deprivation, withholding of food or bathroom breaks, locking the initiate in a room with a succession of people hammering in the group's ideas.

RELIGION: Members, including new members, are free to come and go as they please.

5) CULT: Repetition. Members are told what to believe on a daily basis, with intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to hold members.

RELIGION: Teaching and study groups are mutually encouraged with all members free to contribute insights. A variety of subjects are discussed.

6) CULT: Exclusiveness. Initiates are often told that only "select" members of the cult will reach the ultimate goal. This is incentive to stay and to be more dedicated to the cult.

RELIGION: All have the same requirements and opportunities for advancement, leadership positions and participation.

7) CULT: Bread trails. The dogma is fed to the initiate in small pieces, and gaining more knowledge about the dogma requires a greater commitment to the organization.

RELIGION: Typically all beliefs are publicly available with no effort made to keep some beliefs secret.

8 ) CULT: Alienation. Adherents are encouraged or even bullied into thinking in terms of "us versus them" with total alienation from "them."

RELIGION: Members are encouraged to quietly show themselves as exemplary among their peers in secular workplaces and in public.

9) CULT: Seclusion. Members are often not allowed to leave the cult or even the cult compound. Even temporary excursions among outsiders are done in pairs or in groups with a trusted member always present.

RELIGION: Gatherings are held at regular intervals with members free to come or skip as they please.

10) CULT: Totalitarian. Cults ask significantly more time and money from their adherents, often asking for a person's life savings to progress in the organization. They are usually totalitarian and demand that the individual give themselves up to the organization or theology.

RELIGION: The tithe (10% of income) is a good example of what a religion may ask of its adherents, and rarely will anyone check up on members to make sure they are doing this. In pretty much all churches, this is strictly voluntary.

11) CULT: Secretive about the workings, the leadership, and the finances.

RELIGION: Respect individual freedom and ask for a commitment typically less than a person devotes to their work and family. There is no secrecy over the leader's activities, typically these are very transparent, with the congregation knowing the salary their tithes pay the clergy members, the amount going to building upkeep, and how much goes into helping the needy, community charity, etc. Financial statements are typically available to church members.

If you have never been part of a religion or cult then I could see how they might seem similar, but no Catholic would ever mistake Scientology for Catholicism or vice versa. The idea is ludicrous.

I think it's the inevitable combination of instinct + language.

Animals - including humans - rely upon instinct for survival.  It helps us distinguish between things that are dangerous and things that are beneficial.  In the wild, when your instinct fails you, you stand a good chance of dying.  As we develop consciousness and then language, we have to find a way to put our instinct into words so that we may describe our feelings to others.

Unfortunately, as society grows more complex, these written instincts grow from simple notions like "It's a bad idea to go out alone at night" or "You should not eat animals that lay in feces" to "You must sacrifice and burn five lambs before each harvest season."

so .. the pope, or the dailai lama

so the 1000 residents of vatican city, thousands of nuns that live in convents and thousands of monks in monestaries.

some monastic orders and some buddhist orders

so you're describing pretty much every religion in some way here over the past 1500 years. Currently the dogmatic penalty for apostasy in islam is death.

Are you kidding me ? this is exactly what religions do to children, who lack the analytical skills to process information. This is exactly what happens when you indoctrinate kids into a religion.

I can see why Pappy13 doesn't think religion is a cult, since he belongs to it. It's tough to see the light when you're buried in the middle of the forest.

I also don't think that we're saying Catholicism is a cult.  Some of us are saying that there is evidence, on occasion, that there are elements of it.

Also,
These are the same thing to me.  They protected them because they were priests, because exposure of these figures would hurt the organization (at the expense of the dogma).  Had they been regular people pedophiles, instead of priests, the church would have acted differently.

Ah....so you don't know anything about the Catholic religion. Ok, that clears up the confusion.

other than being a recovering catholic myself .. yes .. nothing at all

Well I"m actually not a practicing Catholic. I haven't gone to church in years except for when they buried my dad, however I still believe some/most of the teachings that I learned growing up as a Catholic that mostly had to do with treating others as you would have them treat you and the 10 commandments and that sort of stuff. Amazingly no one tried to prevent me from leaving or came looking for me and harrassed me into going back. No one told my parents they couldn't have anything to do with me now that I was no longer a Catholic. No one told me that I was going to die a horrible death or would be consumed in the fires of hell. Really they just allowed me to stop coming since it was my choice. When I went back this passed summer and attended my fathers funeral everyone there was extremely nice to me and welcomed me back into the church even though I was just visiting because of my family. They even allowed me to carry my Dad's ashes out of the church and to the Catholic cemetary to be buried. Yes I guess I'm lucky to have escaped that abusive cult that has been nothing but wonderful to me and my entire family my whole life.

^ Again....we didn't say Catholicism was a cult.  Just that there are some elements of cult-like behavior sometimes.  There is nuance in this, like most things.

No....there's not. Not in this case there isn't, but we are each entitled to our own opinions/beliefs or at least I think I am, Catholicism taught me that, maybe that was just more of that cultish jibberish.

Because you see all those things that never happened to me happen to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the Church of Scientology. Every last one. It's the way the church is run. It's dogma. Now they don't tell you this when you start out with the Church of Scientology, they tell you that you will improve yourself and these are only just self help classes and such but then those people that have stayed in the church long enough to see it first hand and to have experienced it first hand and changed their minds about what the Church of Scientology was all about realized that they WERE in a cult and had to escape and escape they did and have been harrassed, followed, libeled among other things since they escaped along with their family members and anyone else they try to associate with and are now trying to warn others to what's really going on in the Church of Scientology so their lives are not ruined like theirs were.

But no one here seems to really care much because all religions are exactly the same, so I'll just shut up now. Thanks for hearing me out.

^Smug atheists, M I RITE!?
 ;)

I guess Atheists aren't as open minded as I thought they were. I did hesitate on posting this initially because I thought it might be a hot topic, but I thought there might be some good discussion on the TV program, I didn't realize it would become what it did. My bad.

to be fair .. i called it :)

So if we can cite a single Scientologist who says that is not her experience with the religion, we must conclude that Scientology and Catholicism are not too far apart?  Because if your response is that she must be lying to protect her religion, that particular stone can smash many glass houses.

Be careful with those "EVERY SINGLE MEMBER" proclamations.

There really is no point in trying to persuade someone that their religion is just as kooky to us as how Scientology is to them. Anyone in any religion will always say theirs is correct while everyone else is wrong, otherwise, why would you still be a part of it? If Pappy13 was born in another another country, he'd be Buddhist, or Jewish, or any of the other hundred or so religions.

You have to ask someone who's no longer part of the church because saying anything negative while within the church has DIRE consequences. Even saying things after you leave the church will get you labeled a suppressive person (SP) which also has severe consequences. Individual mileage may vary according to how deep they make it into Scientology, some get out before they get in too deep so they never experience some of it first hand and never say anything bad about the church so they are relatively safe, but the dogma is still there at the highest levels even if you haven't experienced it because the people who HAVE reached that level and have gotten out all tell the SAME EXACT STORY. Those who have worked for David Miscavige know the story all too well. We're not talking just Leah Remini and Mike Rinder or a handful of people, we're talking dozens of people that have been in the Sea Org and the like who are willing to come forward at their own peril because they know they will be hounded, harrassed, followed, their house bugged, their car tracked, their garbage collected, their photograph taken, their whereabouts tracked by private investigators, their name smeared, their friends and family and neighbors intimidated and just about anything else they can think of to try to force you into silence. They had a PI that wasn't even part of the church come forward in a recent episode and confirm all of this was being done at the behest of the church. They have documents written by Ron L Hubbard that confirm the policy that once you leave the church you are fair game. That's not a secret, that's part of the church's teachings. There are dozens of similar documents that basically say you are either with them or you are the enemy and absolutely anything that challenges the church is an attack on the church and needs to be dealt with harshly. People have been forced to give up their children, their spouse, have abortions etc because once you make it this far into the church you can't let ANYTHING get between you and the church.

Don't listen to me. Watch the show. Listen to the people tell you their story and decide for yourself if they are believable or not and if this church is just like any other church. I dare you.

I have nothing at all bad to say about Buddhists, Jewish or any other religion. This isn't religion, that's the whole point.

So then, for an apples to apples comparison, the only people we can TRULY ask about Catholicism are former members of the Vatican.  We certainly can't ask current Catholics, and we probably shouldn't bother asking low-level Catholics who were not fully indoctrinated.

(https://coffeewiththelord.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/smug-alert.jpg)

Not at all you can ask ANY former Catholic who speaks out against the church if they have been followed by a PI sent by the church. I wouldn't be a good one to ask since I don't speak out against the church. Ask Fau, he seems to have some negative things to say about the Catholic church.

Say what you want about Scientology, but I haven't seen them successfully passing federal laws to prohibit same-sex marriage just because Dianetics (allegedly!) says it's bad.

Similarly, I think we can ask any former Scientologist if they were raped by a Scientology "priest" as a child, or if they were pressured to cover up child rape by someone else in the organization.

Ummmm, no that would actually be god himself. To Christians and other religious people, he is the single unquestioned leader of the universe who makes all the rules and is held accountable for nothing. You know, because he's perfect and all. The more I read that, the more ridiculous it sounds. Religion is a sham to control people.

Why did you change the subject? Were you afraid of the answer? You were willing to go down that path a second ago, what changed your mind? Fau, have you been labeled as a subversive by the church? Any of your friends or family been harrassed by the church? Does your family still even speak to you if they are still Catholics? Or are you too scared to say anything negative about the church for fear of repraisal from the church?

What about anyone else who's been a member of a church other than the church of Scientology. Any of this happen to you?

Compare Catholicism to Scientology is like comparing Andrea Yates to Adolph Hitler.  Both are evil but one is way worse evil. 

i don't buy that one is any less evil than the other .. i'm not convinced of that argument.  maybe evil per-capita is less for the catholic church .. but evil in totality could very well be that the 2 billion catholics are way more evil in aggregate than the tens of thousands of scientologists

I'm just going to leave this little article right here.  Can you say "archaic barbarism"? 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6492289/Terrified-girl-two-screams-Russian-priest-violently-forces-head-underwater.html?mrn_rm=rta-fallback

I have some issue with the Catholic Church but they fail mightily in comparison to Scientology. I'm strictly speaking as a religion/cult perspective. At least in the Catholic Church you can leave anytime you want. That doesn't appear to be the case in Scientology and the higher up you are the harder it is to get out.

Yeah, you can leave at any point in time, that's true. Of course, depending on your situation, you could be ostracized by your family/friends/co-workers, or you keep it quiet and live with it.

A person can be ostracized from your family for dating outside their religion or race. That isn't nearly the same thing in my opinion.

Some of the terms that you should be familiar with if you watch the show or just wish to learn a little bit more about Scientology, Fair Game and Noisy Investigation. These are terms coined by Ron L Hubbard in his teachings back in the 50's and 60's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_investigation

What if I just like watching Leah Remini?

I think the Scientology one is the only one left that she's got still going. :) I did like her in the King of Queens.

She's in a movie that comes out next week with good friend Jennifer Lopez.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2126357/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_2

i just read an article about the Illinois AG claiming the catholic church is withholding names of 500 sexual predator priests.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/catholic-church-withheld-500-names-priests-accused-child-abuse_us_5c1ad131e4b05c88b6f48fbb

WHAT .. the fuck.

We have some lawyery people on here, can someone please explain why they shouldn't indite the pope under RICO for this? It's clearly a large scale criminal organization who's motive is profit and power.

The Catholic Church covers it up (and always has) because for the truth to come out would be "bad for business".   As for why religious organizations are never held legally accountable for their action, I have no idea.  But they certainly do seem to get a free pass in the legal world.  From the shadiness of their tax exempt status to the lack of legal action for them covering up horrible crimes (for centuries).   

^Why is the tax exempt status shady?  I thought all legitimate religions were tax exempt?

^ They are. 

I just think that it's weird and has become a louder criticism of organized religion that I've heard over the years.  Say what you will about the dogma, but there's no doubt that religion is BIG business.  So, you have these places making money hand over fist and then are tax exempt.

^^^ I consider organized religion's tax exempt status to be one of the 3 biggest problems facing our country today.

1) Lobbyists and the "politics for profit" mindset among politicians
2) Religion's tax exempt status, and corruption in God's name
3) Our two-party political system

I would have included "Reality TV" on that list, but you can always just change channels...

Below is a link from within the article with the response from the Archdiocese of Chicago.

https://www.archchicago.org/en/statement/-/article/2018/12/19/statement-of-the-archdiocese-of-chicago-on-the-attorney-general-of-illinois-report-on-clergy-sexual-abuse

From the actual preliminary report....

"The Office found dozens of examples where the Illinois Dioceses failed to adequately
investigate an allegation of clergy sexual abuse it received from a survivor. "

The office in their 4 month investigation have found "dozens of examples" but they claim the number of unreleased names is 500. What's the basis of their claim? Just because there have been 690 reports and 185 publicly identified priests with credible evidence doesn't mean the remaining 500 all have credible evidence against them but were not reported. They only found "dozens". I understand this is a preliminary finding but it seems a bit preliminary to me to assume that all 500 reports about priests where the church deemed there was no credible evidence are in fact true. In fact the preliminary report doesn't even say there is credible evidence in these "dozens" of cases they just state that they believe the church failed to adequately investigate the claim. What proof do they have of that? Of these "dozens" how many are prior to 1991 when the church put in place many of the policies related to investigating and publicly releasing the names of priests where credible evidence was found? How many cases have have they found that the church did an adequate investigation and found no credible evidence? Not even once? Let's say for arguments sake there is credible evidence on these "dozens", that is definitely a major concern, but that's a bit short of 500. How many of the priests are still alive? How many are still priests? Not that either of those things absolves the priest, but would make it nearly impossible for the Catholic church to do a thorough investigation of the claim. The church is not part of the justice system. I'd need to see the evidence they have. At this point it's a preliminary report. If there really is a case against the church I'm sure it will be forthcoming.

Just so you know the Catholic Church has been held legally accountable.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/clergy-sex-abuse-has-cost-catholic-church-3-billion-in-settlements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

So 10% of what they are worth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+is+the+catholic+church+worth+2018&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+is+the+catholic+church+worth+2018&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab)

You do realize that it's not just Catholics or even religions that have a problem with child abuse. Athiests aren't exempt.

https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

That 3 billion number is just the US. The 30 billion I think is a worldwide estimate. Not really sure if there is an estimate of the Church's worth in the US alone. I'd seen a $9 Billion estimate but not sure if that was worldwide or US only. So might be as high as 1/3 of their worth.

But nowhere near to the extent that the should be. 

I definitely agree with that.  Like most criminals, child molesters are opportunists and as such, they seek out careers that maximize their exposure to victims.  Hence, they go into careers such as teachers, the ministry, Boy Scouts leaders, etc. that give them both access to the age group they seek to abuse and also puts them in positions of authority in which they can intimidate their victims into not coming forth to parents/police/etc. when they are abused.  However, as abhorrent as it is for any group to molest children, when the supposedly moral and spiritual leaders of religious groups do it, it is even more repugnant to me.   People expect cops to be held to a higher moral standard because of their jobs and religious leaders should be held to a higher moral standard because of theirs as well. 

Having a priest be a sexual predator isn't the fault of the catholic church.

hiding the fact, moving them between dioceses, covering up for them, enabling them  .. THAT's the crime.

so until you can show me some sort of atheist social club that ran a wide spread conspiracy to shelter sexual predators so they wouldn't get bad press and lose money, then you have a comparison .. otherwise, your point is garbage.

and really does it matter if it was 500 like the article says or "dozens" as the archdiocese claims .. "dozens" of cases of sheltering sexual predators would be enough to bring criminal charges against any organization .. but not a religious one

A few flaws with that:

1. Even assuming if the incidents occur at the same rate.  Other organizations don’t protect the abusers.  Yes BSA leaders have committed abuse against scouts.  but when it happens they don’t reassign the scout master to another troop.  The coopeate with LE .

2. given the extent of hidden abuse there is absolutely no reason to trust the numbers, i would not be shocked if actual number of priests that have been protected was 10 times as high.

3 and this really important....with the general population almost all of the abuse is against family members.  with priests it is always someone elses kid.  and may sound harsh....but if Pappy is abusing his own nephew that is bad and i hope you go to jail.  but if Pappy abuses my nephew then i would fucking kill you the most painful way possible not carrying that i might go to jail.  Priests abused somebody elses kids. 

I further don't understand church apologists who make every excuse in the book for the horrible things that the church allows and then covers up.  It is as if the pope himself could be caught on camera kiddie diddling and his followers would yell "Fake news!"    I guess there isn't a lot of incentive for these monsters to change their ways when they seem to operate with impunity. 

I think you need to rethink this. So if your dad is abusing your brother he should go to jail but if a priest does he should die? Can't say that I agree with that in the least.

not what i am saying at all.  my family isn’t fucked up like that.  if your family is and you abuse your kid, well then it sucks for your kid.  if you or a priest abuse my family then we have issues.

This thread is basically a clinic on how members of a cult "belief system" can find excuse after excuse to explain away the misdeeds of leadership.

The irony is that the most aggressive attacker of one corrupt cabal is simultaneously the most ardent defender of another.

^and smug atheists don't forget that part.

Will it take away from the integrity of this topic if I use this time to say that I am undecided on whether I would do Leah Remini or not?  She is pretty, but she tends to get a little chunky from time to time. 

^I would  >:D

I hope no one thinks I'm explaining away misdeeds of the Catholic religion because I'm not in an way shape or form doing that. I fully admitted right from the beginning that the Catholic faith has had some MAJOR issues to deal with not just in recent years but in the past as well. The Catholic faith has had it's share of time in the spotlight and taken a beating over it for good reason. That in NO WAY means that I'm not allowed then to point out when another religion needs to be called into question for it's practices. On the contrary, having been through it and seen the Catholic Religion attempt to correct some of the problems it's had and to see that it's possible to make changes I'd like to see the Church of Scientology own up to it's own problems, admit they need to work on them and then make some much needed changes of their own.

^ Not at all.

Your faith is your own and good for you.  I was raised Catholic and the church ain't for me.  But I don't want you to feel attacked about it.

Don't worry about it man, sometimes a smug cloud can block people's vision

(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vR8OQOUPsOeu6A0/giphy.gif)

I'm not feeling attacked Dave, but I am actually horrified by the attitude of some here that "I couldn't give a rats ass what Scientology or any other religion does because they are all totally fucked". That's an EXTREMELY poor attitude in my humble opinion and I'm pretty much shocked by it. I hope that attitude is not indicative of atheists as a whole because if it is, I was giving FAR too much credit to atheists and their beliefs. That goes WAY beyond not believing in God. I knew Atheists didn't think I was right, I had no idea the level of contempt they have for Religion as a whole. I take it back, maybe I don't get Atheism either. Consider me educated.

I think that the view of most atheists is that all religions are bullshit, in terms of dogma.  Some are just more socially accepted, evolved over 1000 years so the worst parts are behind us, or adopted by more secular societies where there is a check on their negative influences.

So, sure Christianity is better than Islam in the modern world, but not because the dogma is better.  It's just that the Crusades have happened and Islam hasn't grown past that part yet.  If we had a truly Christian-run nation, there'd be atrocities, I'm sure.  And Scientology is so obviously bullshit because it's new and we know who made up all the bullshit.  But give it 1000 years and it'll be right there alongside Christianity.

I don’t consider all religions be totally fucked up.  Many sects of most religions do more good than harm...by building a community and providing for the less fortunate.  Just as there are sects of Islam that have corrupted their religion to promote terrorism, there are sects of Christianity that bare no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus and are corrupt.  There are sects of Judism that I find abhorrent.  Catholism is among the fucked ip sects.

Disagree on both counts. Religions like the Church of Scientology typically flame out, sometimes in horrific fashion.

The real difference is that there are more governments today that are officially bound by Islamic law, whereas most nominally Christian countries (e.g. Spain) have already done that and grown out of it.  Keep in mind that one of the main reasons the US was founded as the one of the first governments with no official endorsement of any religion is because of the original colonists' experience of being persecuted by the Christian church.

Any country in which Christianity (or Scientology!) had as much state control as, say, Islam does in Saudi Arabia would be equally barbaric.  All you have to do is look at the last sixty years of the religious right in this country to see that.

^Everyone can agree the Westboro Baptist Church is full of the biggest pieces of shit in America, who hide behind the banner of Christianity.

Ottoman Empire (1301-1922).  They had 621 years to grow out of it.

I don't understand what you are getting at.  Are you comparing the Ottoman Empire to Spain, England, Italy, etc?

Let me get this right, we are attempting to give a pass to priests because non-priests are scumbags too?

This actually makes it worse.  

On one hand we have the possible worst people in society, the ones who prey on children.

On the other hand we have people who then hide behind religion in order to have access to children...in order to prey on children.  Thus, making them a subset of the worst "people" in society.

So, right.  Not sure where this comment was going but it's a massive, epic fail.

Who's giving a pass?  I don't see any of that article or post giving anyone a pass.  Seems like your splitting hairs between the scummiest of scum bags and the scummiest of scum bags that hide behind religion.

Leaders of the Church are actually held to a higher standard than the average Christian according to Paul. When he directed Timothy he said they must be above reproach meaning they can't even appear to be immoral to the outside. Once caught in any sex crime they may be forgiven ... but they are no longer above reproach.

1 Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

Bringing it up in general.  "Hey, by the way, other people do it, so..."

Doesn't need to be said.  It's the general "this happens in all walks of life" way of thinking.  One uses their power, influence and position to access their prey, making it worse.

I'm not splitting hairs at all.

So, in your opinion, does that put priests on the same level as the Hollywood pedophiles?

Pedophiles = bad
Priest pedophiles = worse

I agree with this

They aren't all pedophiles!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134033 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134033)

No you missed the point. My point was that there's no more pedophiles in the Catholic religion then there are in the general public, in fact it's a lower percentage. There's been an attempt in this thread to paint the Catholic religion as harboring pedophiles. That's the exact opposite of the truth.

We're ranking pedophiles now? Sorry but there's nothing worse then a pedophile no matter their race, religion, sex, age, occupation or color of their shoes, so no.

^That's why I say it's splitting hairs

The issue is not the percentage of pedophiles in the Catholic Church.  The issue is that when notified of these crimes, the church choose to protect and defend these priests.  THAT is the problem.

Yeah, I don't see why that isn't clear. The cover up is the huge issue that's going on.

There definitely be a higher standard for religious leaders and others in a position of trust. 

An elementary school principal that is a child abuser is worse than your run of the milll child abuser.

A high school teacher who is a pot dealer is worse than if a Walmart employee is a pot deaaler.

A s school bus driver getting a DUI is worse than if a mattresses salesman gets one.

I disagree when it comes to pedophilia. I don't believe there is a higher standard for being a pedophile. It's not like we should allow ANYONE no matter what their profession or non profession to be a pedophile. They should ALL be treated the same way. We lock them all up. We can argue about what standard to hold pot dealers and DUI drivers, but not pedophiles.

Thank you. The issues were being confused. THAT problem has been and continues to be addressed by the Catholic church and I hope that it no longer occurs. It's easier to file a complaint and complaints are now being taken seriously and all credible instances of abuse are dealt with including dismissal from the priesthood and assisting the authorities with criminal charges where appropriate.

the proper analogy is that you have people convicted of murder and people convicted of murder of a police officer ..
both are murder, one of those is generally penalized more severely than the other
because it is in society's best interest to protect police officers in that way.

ok that is fair.  Still doesn’t excuse the church for systemicly aiding and abetting pedephillas.

The police officer analogy is a good one.

First, no one said they are ALL in this class.  I mean, come on.  Let's use some common sense here.  Additionally, no one is ranking.

A cop committing a crime has more resources to get away with it.  Does it make it right?  No.  But a veteran detective (example) has a greater understanding of the law and how to circumvent it, along with knowing what strings to pull (and having "friends in low places").  Additionally, it can be argued a person sworn to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard.

When a person goes to church they are seeking - whatever they are seeking.  When a family sends their child they are seeking spiritual guidance for the child.  When a priest specifically seeks out a broken home and preys on a child within that home, taking advantage of all of that; it is especially egregious.  The "person of cloth" has violated another person in several ways.  In spirit, physically, mentally; under the guise of being a pathway to a higher source to redemption.  

There is a special place in hell for them.  Or I hope there is.

And to clarify this in a very crystal clear way:  ANY person under ANY circumstance who violates a person under ANY condition is a sick ass bastard, period.  When you have special protections to do it?  You're at a whole new level.

Absolutely.  If a janitor is a pedo, it sucks, and you deal with it as you discover it.

When Jerry Sandusky is a pedo, running a kids camp, it's loads worse, because it shows higher levels of intent, manipulation, and malice.

The idea that a McDonald's manager taking a bribe to cover up child abuse and a judge taking a bribe to cover up child abuse are "the same crime" is pretty silly.  The amount of public trust invested matters.