I've been told that I should not point out child sexual abuse

[MineralMan]

that is perpetrated by religious leaders, pastors, priests, etc. Apparently that is somehow wrong to do, since some reason I don't understand. I'm asked "but whatabout..." others who are not religious leaders who do such things.

Well, those others do not set themselves up as moral teachers and leaders who claim to be God's voice on Earth. Their acts are still horrendous and vile, but they are not necessarily hypocrites. Those religious leaders are precisely hypocrites and hypocrites of the very worst possible kind.

So, from time to time, I post a news story about some priest, youth pastor or Christian minister who has demonstrated such deplorable hypocrisy. Why? Because such actions by people who claim to represent a deity are especially heinous, it seems to me. They have violated the trust of some innocent child, who has been taught to revere such religious leaders. They have abused that trust, and have done so knowingly, willingly, and very harmfully.

That, to me, is considerably worse than the run of the mill offender, who I still believe should be severely punished. And yet, religious leaders, pastors and ministers often escape punishment, even when caught in acts. All too often, they are simply moved without warning to some other place where they can offend again.

I find that uniquely and disgustingly deplorable. So, I sometimes post here with an example of that sort of harmful hypocrisy. I will not stop doing that. Sorry. Religion is no excuse. In fact, it is the foulest of such behaviors, when done by the religious.

[Frustratedlady]

1. Say what? Those are the ones who should be top of the list to report abuse of children.

They have the community's trust and respect, which makes it easier to perform their nasty abuse and then warn the child not to tell anyone what has happened.

This is a no-brainer. Shout it to the hills! Good grief!

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. That's how it seems to me, too.

And so, I will continue from time to time to post such stories here.

[TygrBright]

3. It's also an inherent element of any patriarchal power structure...

...which, to my awareness, includes all organized religions today with the exception of a few Wicca branches and some smaller Pagan groups.

While correlation is not causation, I would suggest that in this case the link is bolstered by considerable evidence of historical doctrine, practice, and records for virtually all religions.

Child sexual abuse, besides being an expression of deeply aberrant and distorted humanity on the part of the abuser, is facilitated by any ethos or ideology that dehumanizes children as the "property" of their elders. Patriarchy intrinsically depends on "propertization" of offspring, and many religious doctrines explicitly promote this.

It should be no surprise that religions are rife with such antithetical, paradoxical practices.

wearily,
Bright

[erronis]

12. Yup - agree with you. It's about control - mind, money, sex. Hypocrites try to accuse others

of their own failings. This seems to be true in the case of our carnival-barker pResident as well as most of the repuglicons.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. I have an alternative explanation.

Religions are powerful, sure, but few of them are actually structured. You'll find sexual abuse rampant in Protestantism, but there's very little in the way of formal organization there beyond the local.

I would imagine predators are attracted to religion more because of the respect it commands. People assume the best of clergy, and as a result are more willing to entrust their children to clergy than they would be other people in similar situations and contexts. This allows the predators close, personal, private time with potential victims. And as a bonus, because they command so much respect, victims would be reticent to report the abuse, and even if they did, parents would be reticent to believe it.

[cyclonefence]

4. Of *course* not all religious leaders are sexual predators

That's why it's extra-important to point out those who are! The abusers betray not only their direct victims and all who love them but also every other man (or, much less frequently to the point where it's tempting not even to mention it) woman of the cloth who is living a righteous life. If they were *all* doing it, why bother to report it? Although sometimes it does seem as if they are all doing it.

[MineralMan]

5. No, they are clearly not all doing it.

I never claimed they were. I just find it especially heinous when they do, due to their positions of trust and their specific jobs as religious leaders. Vileness.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Who's doing that? I haven't seen it.

Members of the clergy (all of them, not just Christians, see https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-why-do-jews-tolerate-child-sex-abuse-1.5297162 and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/28/imamas-500-mosques-denounce-grooming) shouldn't be exempt from condemnation or punishment for acts of abuse, any more than any other person in a position of trust who uses his position to take advantage of children or vulnerable adults. Certain professions often attract people who want to be in a position of authority and trust in order to satisfy their own kinks. In addition to clergymen, this often includes Scout and other youth leaders, coaches and teachers. Some clergymen avoid exposure or punishment because the denomination (most notably Catholic, but not only them) might have the power to transfer them to another parish rather than report them to the police. Whatever discipline might occur is kept confidential because the church hierarchy wants to protect the institution from scandal. In some other denominations their clergy are directly controlled by the congregation, and in those cases there might be a lot of denial, especially from the older people who constitute the leadership: "Pastor Jones would never do something like that; he's such a Godly man!" And they, too, want to protect their church from the whiff of scandal.

However, this desire to protect the organization isn't limited to religious institutions: Look at the recent scandals at MSU, Ohio State and Penn State, involving doctors and coaches - people in positions of trust and authority. This stuff went on for years; and when the abuse was reported officials either didn't believe the students or intentionally covered up the abuse in order to protect the reputation of the school.

In any entity in which adults are placed in a position of authority over children and the children are encouraged to trust those adults, abuse will occur. Unfortunately there a lot of people - mostly men - who become involved in those sorts of organizations to gain access to children, and all should be subject to equal scrutiny and penalties. Youth organizations like the Boy and Girl Scouts now do background checks and have protocols in place to try to keep abusive people out - and this happened because they got sued a lot. The Catholic Archdiocese of St.Paul/Minneapolis got itself sued into bankruptcy because of rampant child abuse. That might be the only way to keep abusers out of the kinds of organizations that attract them.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, this post is in the Religion Group...so...

[Major Nikon]

16. Do any of those other organizations provide (unlicensed) counseling services to troubled people?

Including children.

Do any of those other organizations bill themselves as a moral authority that transcends legal authorities?

As you point out, churches also have the capability of moving people sometimes out of the country to avoid prosecution. In some instances you have church sympathizers that will hide those accused and/or provide them with material support that enables them to stay on the run after being accused. Some churches also pay for the legal defense and continues providing financial support to predators while they are accused.

[thucythucy]

7. "Religious" leaders attacking children

are particularly horrific examples of betrayal of trust.

I'd put therapists/counselors up there as well. There's a long sordid history of psychotherapists abusing their power over their patients to commit sexual assaults, often (usually, at least until very recently) with impunity. It's particularly heinous for someone to take advantage over a person, already in pain, coming for help. And then to have it covered up by professional organizations--well, like you say, "disgustingly deplorable."

Not too long ago there was also a spate of stories about sexual abuse at residential schools for Deaf children.

My sense is that predators gravitate towards those types of jobs (and vulnerable populations). All the more reason to vet and re-vet the people in those professions, as unfair as that may seem to the people who enter those fields only to do good.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Another particular problem involving abusive therapists and psychologists is

the phenomenon of transference, which makes it that much easier for a predator to take advantage of a patient because the patient develops an emotional attachment to the therapist (in some cases countertransference also occurs, further complicating the matter). Some form of transference probably occurs in some abusive clergy-parishioner relationships as well.

[thucythucy]

10. Good point.

[MineralMan]

14. In the stone age, when I was a teenager,

The youth minister of the church I attended was caught, in flagrante delicto, with a 14 year old girl who attended the church. I knew her. She was a semi-depressed person who had low self-esteem and other problems. We were acquaintances, but not close friends due to age difference.. Clearly, he took advantage of her by befriending and praising her. Then, he took a different sort of advantage.

He was not prosecuted. He was not arrested. He was sent away, instead. A couple of years later, I discovered that he was still a youth minister, at a church not 20 miles away.

At the time I was an 18-year-old and on my way toward atheism, but still a member of that church. I approached the pastor and demanded an explanation of why that young man was still a youth minister. I was young, but not stupid, and had a habit of asking difficult questions. Somewhat arrogant, I suppose, in many people's minds.

The answer I got was unsatisfactory in the extreme. The pastor said that the young man, in his 20s, had sincerely repented of his actions and had been forgiven. My parting words were, "By the 14-year-old girl he seduced?" I received no answer. So, I wrote a letter to the pastor of the church where that offender was employed. I detailed what had happened in the church I attended and explained that I did not understand how he could be trusted with young teens.

I never got an answer from the other pastor, but that person no longer worked at that church.

The girl? Well, she didn't fare so well. I learned, while I was off at college, that she had taken her own life. Early 1960s. I doubt things have changed, though. That incident was just one of those that led me to a total rejection of religion.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, there are many such stories.

Far, far too many. Ugh!

[Mariana]

17. Why did you put the word "religious" in quotes?

There's no reason to believe that these perpetrators' faith is not genuine.

[thucythucy]

19. I imagine sometimes it is

and sometimes it isn't.

I've run across "religious" people--especially when I was younger--who I'm pretty sure were professing their belief as a way to trick the rubes. Other abusers no doubt are people of faith, who rationalize their actions in whatever way they do.

I don't know that it makes a difference to the victims.

[trotsky]

22. It doesn't matter to victims, no.

But it matters to non-believers.

It's unfair and prejudicial to assume that bad religious people aren't really religious.

[thucythucy]

24. Well, in my experience

some are and some aren't.

Which I think is what I said.

You're saying there are never any people who pretend to be religious in order to dupe the rubes?

[trotsky]

27. What I'm saying is that you have absolutely no way to know.

So don't help spread bigotry against non-believers please.

[thucythucy]

28. If we have no way of knowing

how is you're not spreading bigotry against believers by assuming all charlatans and abusers who claim to be religious actually are?

I had a landlord once (slumlord was actually more like it) who praised Jesus with every other breath. Got him drunk one time and he told me how it was all a ruse--good for his various businesses to be prominent in a mega-church since it steered customers his way. Then he went on and on about what a bunch of losers these church goers were, how easy it was to pitch them bogus deals once he had them convinced he was one of them.

I would count him as a con artist who wasn't religious at all.

Shit, Donald fucking Trump claims to have faith. So did Ronald Reagan. You honestly believe them, just because they said so?

[trotsky]

29. What reason do you have for NOT believing Trump and Reagan?

Careful, you're doing it again.

[thucythucy]

30. Are you serious?

What reason do I have to NOT believe Trump and Reagan?

Well, the fact that they were/are both congenital liars, for starters.

Honestly, you're touting the veracity of Donald Trump to make some point about, what exactly? Oh, right, my thinking that some "religious" people, especially some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm--might actually be lying about their beliefs is somehow evidence of my bigotry against atheists.

I think you're trying too hard to take offense.

[trotsky]

33. So what?

Does that mean they lie about everything?

Why can't liars have sincere beliefs too?

Clearly you still think that sufficiently bad people are automatically excluded from the "believers" club. Good people are believers. Bad people are non-believers.

That's bigtory, and it's ugly.

[thucythucy]

34. Clearly, I never ever said "sufficiently bad people are automatically excluded"

from being religious. Not anything I've ever said, not anything I've ever believed.

I merely said that not all people who claim to be religious are. Some are definite scam artists, in it for the money or (in some instances) easily targeted victims. You're saying it's impossible for anybody who claims to be religious to be disingenuous about it?

Your straw man argument is not appreciated, nor is your charge of "bigtory." If there's anything "ugly" here it's your facile willingness to ascribe "bigtory" where none exists.

[trotsky]

35. Yeah, you did.

Here's your exact quote:

my thinking that some "religious" people, especially some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm--might actually be lying about their beliefs

You have given absolutely NO evidence that the people to whom you are referring aren't religious. You just assume they aren't. Because they're "dishonest scumbags." I.e., clearly dishonest scumbags can only be non-religious.

This kind of bigotry is so insidious, people like you don't even realize it's affecting your assumptions.

[Voltaire2]

36. What is interesting is that you can repeat what

they just said back to them and they will deny that it.

[thucythucy]

38. See my post 37.

BTW, I happen to be an agnostic.

It never would have occurred to me that the notion that some people who profess to be religious are actually liars and con artists would be so controversial among some of the atheists here at DU.

Wonders never cease.

[thucythucy]

37. Notice I said "some" not "all."

And I said "especially" not "exclusively."

You have given no evidence that all of the people who say they are religious are, other than their word, which I don't necessarily take at face value. I doubt, for instance, that Donald Trump worships any god other than himself.

Frankly, I think your position is absurd. You're saying it is absolutely impossible than any person anywhere who claims to be religious and commits an egregious act could ever possibly be lying about their beliefs. Not ever. Not once.

I'm saying sometimes people who commit these crimes are religious, and sometimes they're not, even if they say they are.

Some people who say they're progressive Democrats are actually GOP ratfuckers. Some people who say they are feminists--especially on line--aren't, and are only shit stirrers. And some people who say they're religious are con artists and liars. You disagree?

The odd and ironic thing is that, as an atheist, you seem to give those who profess religious belief far more credit than I do. I say some of them are charlatans. You say nope, never happens. People who say they are religious are absolutely and completely sincere about their beliefs, always and in every instance.

I guess my agnosticism extends to this aspect as well--when someone tells me they're religious, I often take it with a grain of salt. You evidently don't. Kind of makes you a person of faith, doesn't it?

[Mariana]

41. We know some of them are charlatans.

However, we don't try to divine which are genuine and which are lying, because there really is no reliable way to tell the difference between a true believer and someone who is pretending.

You said: "my thinking that some "religious" people, especially some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm--might actually be lying about their beliefs"

There is no evidence to support your hypothesis that "the worst and most dishonest scumbags" are any less likely to be genuinely religious than anyone else. There is nothing about religion that magically transforms true believers into good people. Sometimes the very opposite is true. The idea that someone who is among "the worst and most dishonest scumbags" is more likely to be an atheist is bigotry.

[trotsky]

43. Thank you.

Well put.

[Mariana]

44. How does someone come to the conclusion

that he or she can read other people's minds and judge whether or not their religious faith is genuine? Seriously, the idea is ridiculous on its face.

[thucythucy]

47. Never said that.

Not once.

I did point out an instance up thread when a "religious" (very definitely in quotes) person actually admitted to me that their supposed piety was a ruse to drum up business and trick the rubes. Didn't require any mind reading at all, only a generous infusion of alcohol.

And I have heard it said that, if you plan to be poor or sick or unemployed in the Bible Belt, the best thing you can do is join a church. Indeed, many of the church goers I know seem to go more for the socializing than the sermons. Choirs, coffee hours, women's clubs and such. Not that I have any problem with that--to each his own.

What's "ridiculous on its face" is the idea that everyone who says they're religious actually is. I think I'm safe in assuming, for instance, that when Donald Trump bows his head in "prayer" in a roomful of right wing evangelists, he's doing it for show. Just as him mouthing what he thinks are the words to the national anthem doesn't make him a patriot.

As for the others, I admit I can't tell who's truly religious and who isn't. But human nature being what it is, I suspect not everyone who says they're tight with God actually believes it.

Anyway, sorry if I've offended all the atheists out there. Oh, make that, "some of the atheists." Wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of being a bigot.

[Mariana]

49. No one here has ever said anything like

"everyone who says they're religious actually is".

None of the people you describe in this post, whom you know are insincere, are "the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm". Please do remember that you emphasized "the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm" as being most likely not to be truly religious.

[trotsky]

58. Because they think lying scoundrels are less likely to be sincerely religious.

Which is anti-atheist bigotry.

[thucythucy]

45. Again, please notice I said "some" not "all."

"especially some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags...might actually be lying about their beliefs."

If only "some" are lying about their beliefs, it's only logical to assume others are not.

I never ever said that there is anything about religion or religious belief that "magically transforms true believers into good people." Never said it, never believed it.

"Sometimes the very opposite is true."

Indeed. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

Holding this belief is controversial? Evidence of "bigotry"?

Bizarre how quick some folks are to take offense.

Notice I said "some," not "all."

I guess it's a distinction that must be pointed out, again and again and again and again....

[Mariana]

46. I did notice you said "some" and not "all".

And I said: The idea that someone who is among "the worst and most dishonest scumbags" is more likely to be an atheist is bigotry.

You see? I did notice you said "some" and not "all" and I responded appropriately.

[marylandblue]

50. She also didn't say that the scumbags are more like to be atheist

And seems to be denying that's what she meant.

[thucythucy]

51. And you'll notice how my critics on this thread

(who keep accusing me of bigotry) keep ignoring the fact that I have made this denial, and have made it now repeatedly.

Am I to understand that it is really controversial in this forum to say that people who use their position of authority to abuse children are the worst of the worst, and that therefore some of them might also be lying about their professed faith? That people (mostly men) who rape children will not then draw the line at lying about this alleged faith? That even Donald Trump might be a bald (and orange) faced liar when he professes to be religious? And that to say any and all of this is somehow an attack on all atheists?

Indeed, I've seen some folks in these forums assert that pedophiles actively seek to join the Church in order to get access to vulnerable children (which I suspect is true in at least some cases). So, none of these people might be slimy enough to lie about their "calling" in order to do this. None? Absolutely none?

Some people here (but not all, please please please don't accuse me of thinking it's all of them) seem to have enormous, indeed cathedral sized chips on their shoulder. So sorry if I knocked these off with a few sentences in a single post.

[trotsky]

59. I don't believe you are bigoted.

But I believe you have internalized a form of religious bigotry.

And while you're berating others for saying you've used extreme words (like "all" or "none" ) when NO ONE HAS, you turn around and use them against those who disagree with you.

So, none of these people might be slimy enough to lie about their "calling" in order to do this. None? Absolutely none?

No one said that. Literally no one.

[Mariana]

61. "...have internalized a form of religious bigotry."

That is obvious. Look at the examples the poster gives of people who are faking. Are any of them "some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm"? No. They are ordinary, decent people who aren't hurting anyone, who are just doing what they have to do to get along best in their particular society. Yet these people are offered up, apparently, as examples to reinforce the earlier argument that "some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm" are "especially" likely to be lying about their faith.

[Mariana]

60. You still don't explain how you came to the conclusion

that "especially some of the worst and most dishonest scumbags--people who lie their way into children's confidence to do them harm" are any more likely to be lying about their religion than the ordinary and decent people whom you know are faking it.

[trotsky]

42. And yet underlying ALL of that carefully crafted response is still an assumption.

That if someone is *truly* religious, they'll be a good person. That's what I've been objecting to this entire time.

Frankly, I think your position is absurd. You're saying it is absolutely impossible than any person anywhere who claims to be religious and commits an egregious act could ever possibly be lying about their beliefs. Not ever. Not once.

That's not my position. Strange, coming from someone who accused me of using a straw man argument!

I simply believe that pious, sincere religious people can be horrible people too. You seem to think that if someone exhibits reprehensible behavior, then you have good reason to doubt their religious beliefs too. That's where the bigotry comes in.

I guess my agnosticism extends to this aspect as well--when someone tells me they're religious, I often take it with a grain of salt. You evidently don't. Kind of makes you a person of faith, doesn't it?

Oh so clever. Well, almost, if your assessment of what I've been telling you had been accurate.

[GemDigger]

11. Every abuser should be talked about.

Every abuser should be reported and his/her face known to the public. No. Matter. Who. They. Are!!

[Voltaire2]

13. That was indeed bizarre.

I tried to dig into it but got nowhere.

[MineralMan]

15. I'm not surprised, somehow.

My posts are, I guess, somewhat inconvenient. See how I am?

[Permanut]

21. Keep on posting, MineralMan..

These cases should be on the front page every time.

[thucythucy]

25. Absolutely!

[WhiteTara]

26. I find it particularly odious when

anyone is a position of power - man "of the cloth," teacher, doctor, therapist, older friend, and any others that I can't think of in the moment, use that to sexually assault anyone who puts their faith and trust in that person for their own sexual gratification, should spend life times as hell beings and then start the chain of life again; first as an amoeba and so on.

[thucythucy]

31. The military is another hierarchy

that has been loathe to confront the abuse that almost inevitably comes with any great imbalance of power. Especially (and I'm tempted to say--almost entirely) when men are the ones in power.

[NeoGreen]

32. They're all part of the gang...

...and culpable.

'Cause you joined the gang, man!

[thucythucy]

39. The latest report about the abuses perpetrated (and covered up)

by the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania is just the latest revelation of how deep the rot extends.

It's long past time that state and federal authorities did a Robert Mueller style special investigation into the Catholic Church specifically, and any other religious group in general where such abuses have been reported. The fact that these groups have been left to "investigate" and "police" themselves for so long is an atrocity in itself.

And we should demand that offenders shipped out of the country be extradited. And sanctions imposed on religious groups who refuse to turn over offenders--just as we would impose sanctions on any nation or entity that refused extradition for these crimes.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean churches are exempt from criminal law. Sadly, under the current administration we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

[MineralMan]

40. Law enforcement has traditionally taken a "hands-off" position

on crimes committed by religious professionals. There are a number of reasons for that, but often, prosecuting a religious leader, like a priest, pastor, or Bishop, leads to backlash from powerful political people who are associated with those leaders. Boston is a pretty good example, where the Roman Catholic Church was a strong social force and the most prominent denominations in the city.

If you remember, the child abuse scandal in Boston was the first that was investigated and revealed by independent investigators. That protective attitude exists almost everywhere. Part of it is due to the separation of church and state and the freedom churches have from taxation and other public responsibilities. Part of it is a social structure that makes much of high church officials being part of that structure.

That only some places have had child sexual abuse scandals go public does not mean that others have no such activities going on. We may well soon learn of others where long-standing abuse and cover-ups have taken place. People who were abused and then intimidated into silence are finding their courage from cases that have come out.

I suspect that when all has been revealed, we will learn just how widespread this problem is in the United States and globally. That must be a sobering thing for leaders in church hierarchies going forward. This was not limited to just those areas we know about, I'm certain. The structure is the same everywhere, and the conditions that allowed the abuse to take place are also the same everywhere.

Pennsylvania is just the latest disclosure. More will come.

[thucythucy]

48. I agree with everything you've said here.

Best wishes.

[gtar100]

52. Colorado has a statute that I wish were universal

Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-3-405-3.html

It is particularly heinous for anyone in such a position to hurt children. It's a pain that lasts a lifetime.

[guillaumeb]

53. "I have been told..."

By whom exactly?

[MineralMan]

54. Why do you ask?

[guillaumeb]

55. It is in your own chosen title,

and assuming that you deliberately chose to title it in that way, one might ask how often you have been told this, and by whom.

If, however, the title is simply a rhetorical device, that is another matter.

[MineralMan]

56. I see.

I also chose not to call anyone specific out in my title. I'll continue not to do that, if you don't mind.

As far as I know, you are not the arbiter here.

[guillaumeb]

57. I also see.

As do others, whom, following your own example, I will not name.