Whenever I see or hear of Christian ministers or religious leaders who victimize

[MineralMan]

children sexually, it raises serious questions in my mind. Obviously, those people know that what they are doing is wrong and harmful to their victims. Yet, they do it anyhow. Do they think that the blanket forgiveness of sins they preach about covers their foul behavior? They must think that.

For me, such behavior is the best evidence that it's all a sham, this belief that the sins of individuals are forgiven because they believe that some guy a couple thousand years ago died and rose from the dead. So, today, they're forgiven each time they sexually molest some child? Nope. That makes no sense.

Mostly, they are educated people, those offenders. They have attended seminaries, have learned all the things they need to know to become religious teachers. And yet, they commit such offenses against innocent youngsters and believe they are forgiven for doing so. Something is missing, and that something is simple logic.

No, you're not forgiven for your horrible behavior. You harm children in ways that affect them their entire lives. You don't get to just walk away from that and live eternally in paradise with your deity. Not a chance. Any deity that would set up such an arrangement is not a benevolent deity, but rather a demon. Your belief is simply incorrect and invalid.

Those priests, pastors, ministers and religious leaders who do such things or who hide such behaviors are criminals, and should be punished in this world. Harshly. They should not get a pass on their crimes. In fact, their training and professed beliefs should mean even harsher punishment, since they believed they could get away with it and did what they did based on that belief.

Feh!

[Nitram]

1. You'd might be surprised how many child predators rationalize their actions by blaming the victim

for coming on to them and enjoying the activity that ensued.

[MineralMan]

2. I actually wouldn't be surprised, really.

They're lying to themselves, of course, and almost all of them know that. They know. They just don't want to know, so they rationalize. I have zero tolerance for child molesters. Zero. Just lock them away where they cannot access children, once they are convicted of their crimes. That won't stop sexual abuse of children, but it will stop that person from doing it.

[Major Nikon]

11. Either that or it's an attempt to further victimize them

Some are just unapologetically evil.

[Nitram]

14. True that.

[Karadeniz]

3. poor Christianity

You're right: It's utterly misguided for people to think that due to their faith in Jesus, their misdeeds will be forgiven. The good news: that's not what Jesus taught. The bad news: You won't find people who understand what Jesus taught because the parables are much more difficult than people think. I read a great book...let me know if I need to find it for the title...by a scholar (I had to read one page 5 times before I could sort it out!) which demonstrates that their never, ever was one Christianity. There were always two. If that sounds weird, remember Paul's frustration at his "infant" people who weren't ready for the mysteries. Paul's groups were at different levels. Jesus said his teachings needed to be hidden from the masses, but those who had "eyes" and "ears" could understand them. Also, remember the sower and the seed parable; only 1 of the 4 "soils" could profit from receiving spiritual truths.

If you want the parable that spells out that sins won't be forgiven, look at the one...I think at the end of the sermon on the mount...where Jesus explains that when you go before the judge (a level of the God System), he'll just pass you on to some officer (another part of the God System) who'll throw you in jail, to remain there until you've paid every last cent of your debt. If we're in the God System, where Jesus always is, then "you" is the soul and it will stay in "prison" until the (spiritual) debt is satisfied. The Catholics have interpreted the "prison" as limbo, but that's not right and doesn't fit into the parable's construction. I'll leave it to you to figure out what would imprison the soul...it's not hard! The point that even someone who can't pinpoint every symbol should take away is that debt must be paid, even at the soul level; no forgiveness of debts. The letter of James says the same thing in his famous "jot and tittle" verse about the Law, but he's talking about Jesus soul Law, not Hebrew law which everyone thinks he's talking about. The key is the exactitude with which the Law must be satisfied, both in Jesus' parable and in James' letter. No one notices that! Also, in the Prodigal Son, where a thumbnail sketch of the entire God System is laid out, we don't see the father/source god helping his "son" out when the kid is drowning in swine.

Christianity, as practiced today, doesn't even qualify for Paul's "infant" level. Those followers had to at least renounce materialism and learn to control their disruptive passions. So now you know more than the infants do! Christians don't much talk about Jesus' example of people someday coming to him and his response: go away, I don't know you.

There's a whole lot more to Christian teachings than is understood, unfortunately...my opinion.

[MineralMan]

5. I'm familiar with all of the parables.

I'm not talking about ideal Christianity here, but about the religion as it is actually practiced. I'm talking about people who should know what the lessons meant, but choose not to. I'm talking about cynical people who abuse children sexually.

See, I'm an atheist, but that does not mean that I do not understand scripture. Not at all. There are many interpretations of scripture, both institutional and personal. As many, really, as there are Christians. Nobody has a single set of understandings that is shared with everyone else.

[LuvNewcastle]

12. I once knew a guy who is now in a Florida prison

for sex crimes. He used his church as a hunting ground for his perversions. He was finally caught when some boys, all from the same family, told authorities what he had done to them. They caught him with a large cache of child porn and later found evidence that he had molested dozens of boys over the years. This sicko had told the boys that the Bible said it was okay.

He was married and had a daughter, and he outwardly seemed to be a decent, hardworking member of the community. Of course, that's usually how they appear.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. Youth ministers, too, are relatively common

offenders. Some seek out those jobs, while others take advantage of those who develop trust in them. The second group seems to be a matter of opportunity.

In any case, it is never acceptable, nor tolerable.

[Nitram]

15. MineralMan, do you see any difference between a predator who is an atheist as opposed to one that is

a Christian?

[MineralMan]

16. No, not especially. I mean there is a notable difference, of course:

One believes in a deity and the other does not. Why do you ask?

[Nitram]

17. Because your post could just as well have been worded, "Whenever I see or hear of atheists

or agnostics who victimize children sexually, it raises serious questions in my mind. Obviously, those people know that what they are doing is wrong and harmful to their victims. Yet, they do it anyhow. Do they think that because there is no God they will not be punished for their foul behavior? They must think that.

I know you have an axe to grind with Christianity, but when it comes to pedophiles who ruin young people's lives, I make no distinctions. I have a lot of problems with hypocritical Christians, and many of the weird things many Christians believe in, but I don't think it is being Christian that drives a pedophiles to commit their crimes.

[MineralMan]

18. Try searching Google for "atheist arrested"

Then search for "pastor arrested"

So, post any news story you find about an atheist sexually molesting children, and I'll post an occasional one of the many stories about pastors sexually molesting children. First, though, you have to find a story about an atheist doing that. When you do, please post it here.

See the difference?

Think about it for a while.

[Nitram]

21. That's right. We don't identify such a people as atheists. We identify them as predatory

pedophiles. So why do we identify them as priests or Christians? Sounds like a double standard, don't it?

[MineralMan]

22. Religious leaders put themselves forward as

Representatives of a deity and a religion. They are seen as moral leaders. Atheists do not. If you do not understand, nothing I can say will mean anything to you.

[Nitram]

30. What makes you so sure I don't understand? That was quite a leap.

My point is not that complicated. I'm surprised you don't understand. The fact that someone is a predatory pedophile is more significant to me than whether or not they believe in god. The whole god thing seems entirely irrelevant to me. A child the suffers the same harm whether a pedophile is Christian or an atheist.

[Voltaire2]

37. The fact that people use their status and power

to facilitate their abuse should be ignored?

[Nitram]

39. Um, when did I say that? I said the religion aspect means nothing to me. Priests, athletic coaches,

monks, doctors, teachers, yogis, Boy Scout leaders - pedophiles try to get into positions where they will interact with young people with the balance of power on their side. They are all evil. They all destroy lives. Even when Uncle Bob uses his family status and power as an adult family member to molest a child he should be punished. Severely. I'm just saying I don't think the religious aspect is different in any way from anybody else who uses their status and power to commit crimes against the innocent and defenseless.

[marylandblue]

23. Priests and pastors use their position to commit their crimes

Their position gives them access to children, an aura of authority and morality to make them seem better than others, and all too often the church hierarchy protects them. There is no comparable atheist position from which to do this.

Society's shock when pastors do it is not an anti-religious thing. We feel the same sense of betrayal when teachers do in and then their occupation does become part of the story. But then we'd be talking about it in the education forum and perhaps blaming the school system.

[Nitram]

31. A teacher, Boy Scout leader, doctor, or athletic coach has just as much authority in their position

as a priest or pastor, if not more so. Whether they are religious or not is irrelevant. Look at the hundreds of children have been harmed by just one Olympic coach or doctor. It doesn't matter if a pedophile is religious or not, the crime is the same.

[Mariana]

24. if a child rapist publicly identifies himself as an atheist

I'm pretty sure the media stories would include that information.

MineralMan's OP is not about predators who are rank and file Christians, anyway. It is about predators who are Christian ministers and other religious leaders. These are people who set themselves up to be examples for their co-religionists to follow, and who usually exert some level of authority over them.

[MineralMan]

25. Exactly. That was just a clumsy attempt to divert from my argument.

I treated it as such. Google News always turns up many, many results for searches related to ministers, pastors, priests and other religous leaders who have been arrested, charged, and convicted of sex crimes against children. Obviously, they are not the only ones doing those things, but they are doing it as "spiritual and religious leaders," which gives them unique positions of trust.

No doubt some atheists have been or are sexual molesters of children. However, they are not presenting themselves as trusted ethical, moral, and religious leaders. Neither are any of the other categories of people who molest, but who are not in positions of trust.

Attempts to divert from those situations are specious and obvious. Apparently the religious organizations for which he worked did not care enough to check him out or, worse, checked him out and still put him in such positions of trust.

[Nitram]

32. I'm disappointed that you would stoop to that sort of belittling of my argument, MineralMan.

"Clumsy attempt to divert?" My intention has been to argue what I feel is a valid point of view, not to clumsily divert from your argument. You sound a bit insecure. It is well known if someone is a priest or pastor, by their dress alone. Many atheists do not announce their atheism, and the police would certainly not ask a pedophile if he was an atheist. That's a very weak argument.

[MineralMan]

33. I suggest that you not be "disappointed" in others. They are not

your responsibility, nor do most seek your approbation. Just a suggestion.

[Nitram]

36. Here's a suggestion, MM: respond to the words and the argument, not to an

imagined "attempt to disrupt" your argument. Jut a suggestion.

[marylandblue]

34. They wouldn't ask if you are Christian either, but they would ask about your profession.

[Nitram]

35. And "atheist" isn't a profession, so it is not surprising we've not seen a lot of stories about

"Atheistic Child Predators!"

[Voltaire2]

38. Or perhaps there aren't a lot of atheists molesting children.

We do however know that just about every week there is another religious authority figure getting caught abusing children. We also know that some people here on DU get upset about posts in this forum discussing this problem.

When prominent atheists act in ethically compromised ways it gets headlines.

[Nitram]

40. And we just read about an Olympic doctor and an doctor at a university

who molested hundreds of young people. How would we know whether or not they are atheists? Atheists don't usually go around telling everybody they meet that they are atheists. Richard Dawkins would be a notable exception.

[Voltaire2]

41. Yes and in both cases their profession was reported.

Are we supposed to not mention the profession of a religious authority figure caught molesting children?

So why do we identify them as priests or Christians? Sounds like a double standard, don't it?

They are priests, parsons, ministers. It is their profession. Is anyone here posting about random people who molest children and just happen to be Christians? If they were you might have a point.

[Nitram]

44. I think you missed the point Volt. I was replying to comments which maintained that

because you don't read about atheists who molest children, and you won't find much if you google it, there must be fewer atheists who molest children that Christians. A totally false conclusion because being an atheist isn't a profession so it is not reported in news stories unless you are a professional atheist like Richard Dawkins. Does that make sense to you?

[Voltaire2]

51. I have no idea if atheists are less likely to

molest children than christians. It is a possibility. In general atheists appear to be a fairly law abiding demographic. But we do know that prominent Christians are being revealed as pedophiles at a rather astounding rate. Perhaps there just aren’t enough prominent atheists to compare, or they don’t have the sort of authoritarian hierarchical institutions with control over children, as many religions do, and which appear to be clearly correlated with sexual abuse.

[Voltaire2]

42. We've seen prominent "professional atheists" caught

up in scandals like #metoo and the meltdown of prominent male atheists over accusations of sexism.

I have no problem with their status as prominent atheists being reported along with their awful behavior.

[Nitram]

45. Atheists who are "prominent atheist" are a very, very small minority of atheists, while all

protests and pastors are identified as such because it is their profession and they dress the part. Right? Do you really want to insist that this is proof that more Christian leaders commit these crimes than run-of-the-mill atheists (among whom I count myself)?

[Voltaire2]

52. Ministers are also a very small part of the

entire population of Christians. And yes the almost daily revelations of Christian authority figures abusing men women and children cannot be ignored or dismissed. There is something horribly wrong with many religious institutions.

[Docreed2003]

28. Would love to know the title of that book, thanks!

[marylandblue]

4. I don't think they think their sins are forgiven, they are just sick

And they don't seek help or move into jobs where they don't interact with children. So they commit their crimes, and hide them and feel like crap, leading a double life until they get caught.

[MineralMan]

6. I don't think they necessarily "feel like crap" at all.

I think that many are fully able to rationalize their behavior and find a niche to put it in. Too many.

We're about to find out about hundreds more such people and those who helped them cover it up. Again. It will not end.

[marylandblue]

7. How they really feel is an interesting question.

But they mostly don't seem like psychopaths, so I imagine they must feel some guilt. They seem more like drug addicts, unable to control themselves.

[MineralMan]

8. Personally, I think all who sexually abuse children are at least sociopaths.

Perhaps by definition. The cynicism required to groom a child for sexual abuse is sociopathic from the start.

I have zero sympathy for such people. Zero.

[marylandblue]

9. I' try to be sympathetic to everyone, even when it is hard

That's not a popular thing to do.

[MineralMan]

10. My sympathy has some distinct limits.

Sexual abuse of children is one of those.

[Major Nikon]

19. I don't see it as a matter of sympathy

I see it as any measure of correction for criminal acts should serve the purpose of protecting society. Given the resources for accomplishing that goal will always be finite, we need to direct those resources where they will have the greatest effect. Injecting emotion into that process virtually insures a counterproductive result.

[MineralMan]

20. OK...

[Girard442]

26. I think the underlying reality here is that rationality is not as popular as you think it is.

I'll bet that those people who participating in lynchings thought themselves to be morally upright, decent, loving people -- despite massive evidence to the contrary.

[MineralMan]

27. More's the Pity, Isn't It?

[marylandblue]

29. Maybe rationalists need their own religion. This could be the symbol

[guillaumeb]

43. The only real evidence shown is that humans victimize other humans.

Any other interpretation is fitting the evidence into a preferred framework to attack whatever institution one personally dislikes.

[MineralMan]

46. My post is an opinion post.

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2018, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

There is ample evidence of sexual abuse of children by religious leaders, and the cover-up by religious denominations of such abuse. We've been reading that evidence for years. Do you have any comment on that, or are you simply attempting to comment on my expression of my own opinion?

Which is it, guillaumeb? Do you deny the huge body of evidence we've all seen? Or do you require that I repeat it before giving my opinion? I will not do the latter, because that evidence is almost universally known.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. Another patently useless and manifestly uninformative observation.

Well, people are just going to hurt people I guess. No point in trying to understand it. No point in trying to identify the factors that enable it. No point trying to understand the things that encourage it. No point in trying to actually do anything about it. That sounds like too much work. Let's just assume people are born bad. Let's just assume it's human nature. Let's just assume people are always going present dickishness at the same prevalence no matter the circumstances, no matter the context. If you ever feel hopeless you can just pray, amirite?

[MineralMan]

48. Well, lacking anything of substance to say, but needing to strike back,

some people just say any nonsense that comes to mind, because it doesn't really matter, as long as they attack the person who says something inconvenient.

So, we shouldn't be offended or angry that some religious leaders are sexually abusing children, because, well, everyone does it sometimes, I guess. They're apparently not able to deny themselves or some such crap.

We should just ignore those manifestations of evil, because that shit happens, you know...

Bankruptcy of ethics, apparently, deserves no punishment.

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. Tu quoque is Latin for "I got nothin"

Well, maybe not. But if it isn't, it should be.

[guillaumeb]

53. An ironic title,

given your own response.

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. Scathing rejoinder.

We done here? Cuz if you're just gonna continue to trip over yourself in a ruggian effort to get the last word in, I'll just save you the trouble.

[trotsky]

50. And the exact same thing can be said about every bit of positive news YOU post about religion.

The only evidence you've shown is that humans can be nice to other humans.

Any other interpretation is fitting the evidence into a preferred framework to support whatever institution one personally likes.

Ouch gil, you walked right into that one. Again.