If rabbis and preists are pedophiles, then what the fuck do you have to do to qualify for hell?

Isnt religion grand?

We often are shocked when its a priest, a rabbi, or a school counselor that abuses children in such ways. Fact is we shouldn't be. The truth is we have it backwards.

Its not a dedicated rabbi/priest/teacher etc. that has become an abuser. No, it is an abuser who entered that profession to get access to kids.

A bank robber robs banks because that is where the money is. A child abuser works in positions of trust and access to children because that is where they can get the best access TO the target of their desire...children.

That in no way absolves the institutions of their complicity in cover ups (though after the hysteria of the 1980s we might offer some small measure of understanding to their quandry), but we have to keep the facts straight.

Abusers think, "hmm, I got seminary, I can get a job at a church where people will trust me and I can touch children with impunity for years, and probably even be believed if I claim innocence."

Lets keep in mind, most people go into those jobs to help, but some get those jobs just to hurt.

I agree with Robert -- to an extent. The pervs are attracted to jobs that give them access to children.

However, that said, the even higher shame to religious ones that give them access to kids as opposed to things like teachers, Little League coaches and troop leaders is not only that they are in positions of trust but positions that are not to be questioned. That and religion's guilt of frequently aiding and abetting, their nasty little fucking habit of shuffling the guilty off to a fresh crop of victims to shut up the villagers that have gathered the pitchforks and torches and are coming after Frankenstein. The "villagers" think the religious leader has been "fired" and the church is no longer giving them unquestioned access to innocent little kids when, in fact, they are so often guilty of the direct opposite -- sending them to a new candy store and saying enjoy, they don't know you here. And, please, don't even suggest they thought the pedophile cured. Yeah, right.

BTW, The Freedom From Religion Foundaton (ffrf.org) has been reporting these in their newsletter's Black Collar Crimes column for years before there was ever a scandal. They report abuses from all religions -- from the wacked out to the mainstay -- and all crimes, not just pedophilia. Got to say, lot of damn embezzlement and thievery too. Some murders even. But sexual abuses do seem to outnumber everything else combined by far.

Personally, I think it's a dual thing. The pervs are attracted to the unquestioning access to children and the church/temple/whatever covers it up and enables it to grow and grow. Frankly, their aiding and abetting and that makes them damned guilty in my book.

Here is one thing that I can't get my head around. As much as I have issues with the church for my own reasons I can't understand why these men are protected. They and the churches actions to defend them put a black mark on all priests, rabbis etc.. Why is the church defending these monsters? Also is it the church defending them or just small isolated parish leaders?

I have no idea if this occurred or not. If it did, it is wrong, and should be exposed, and the pedophiles should be arrested.

But I wouldn't trust anything Hagerty has to say on this issue (or any issue).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100608

She is NPR's "Religion Correspondent." This doesn't mean she reports on religious issues in any sort of objective manner. 99% of the stories from her I've ever heard are absolutely some puff piece about Catholicism (and/or Christianity.)

I am not saying this abuse did not occur. I don't know. I am saying that from Hagerty, this smacks of a "Tu quoque" reporting piece.

(In general, I really dislike NPR's assigning various reporters to some "desk" for years and years. It may get a knowledgeable reporter, but it definitely institutionalizes bias and on occasion, incompetence.)

Make sure you find at least one other report.

If you google her name, you'll find a lot of left wing hate for her. The reasonable portions of that criticism form only a portion of my dislike for her. I can proudly say I've disliked her reporting for many years due to her constant cloying reports on how fun and cool born again Christians are.

But among the reasons:
a) She became born again during her career as a reporter and changed her topics of reporting to fit her new found religious thinking.
b) She is affiliated with the World Journalism Institute, whose mission at one point was:

"There is one primary reason why the World Journalism Institute should be committed to the education of young journalists: it comes directly from the need to be faithful to the Christian example of accurately reporting (e.g., being reliable eyewitnesses) the work of God in today's world.

We at WJI believe it is now time to implement a new phase of this statement in order to help turn out journalists capable of presuppositional reporting. ...

The practical need for Christian worldview journalists in our contemporary society is self-evident, ...

For decades, WJI's parent corporation, God's World Publications, has stood against the cultural, intellectual, and spiritual degradation of our society. GWP has placed its focus on reporting from a unapologetic Christian point of view.

Now we have grouped together an outstanding stable of Christian journalists, editors, and graphic artists. To this group we have added nationally known Christian theologians and apologists. A truly unique learning experience for current and aspiring Christian journalists has been created. "

and is now:
http://www.worldji.com/mission.asp

Mission

The mission of the World Journalism Institute is to recruit, equip, place and encourage journalists who are Christians in the mainstream newsrooms of America.

Rationale

The World Journalism Institute seeks to identify aspiring journalists who are Christians and help them become proficient and professional in their calling of journalism. Our focus is mainstream media as opposed to Christian media, because the daily newspaper and broadcast news media outlets are primary sources of information about the world. Christians, joining those of many persuasions in the newsroom, can be beneficial in accurately understanding and reporting the events of the day.

...

2) We believe in the spiritual fall of all humanity which has affected our moral and rational judgments. Each individual is influenced by upbringing, education and environment. Choices are made in any given story development -- choices that require value judgments on the part of journalists and editors. The Christian in journalism aims to be fair, accurate, honest, impartial and humble in chasing the story. This approach, of course, is not a uniquely Christian position.

However, that said, the even higher shame to religious ones that give them access to kids as opposed to things like teachers, Little League coaches and troop leaders is not only that they are in positions of trust but positions that are not to be questioned.

Teachers, coaches and troop leaders are to be questioned?

Not every religious sect requires unquestioning obedience; in my experience, religious teachings are to be questioned far more than those other things.

Not in mine, Psued! And I'd venture to guess, not in the majority. They stand, in the end, as the ultimate authority on God's word, even in the most liberal religions when all is said and done.

Not so for teachers, coaches or troop leaders. Picture what would happen if your school district simply shipped an abusive teacher to a different elementary school or if the Boy Scouts (not entirely unreligious but still applicable here) relocated an accused troop leader to another state after sending him through some farce of a psychological retreat. Not exactly what the Catholic church has had to endure for their aiding and abetting.

Hella Winston is mentioned in the article. Much more from her here:

http://www.lilith.org/pdfs/LilithWinter2006_Hella1.pdf

I did want to include this caveat: I'm not Catholic, and it's plausible to me that Catholicism might preach unquestioning obedience, but I can't say that from firsthand experience. My background is in fairly mainstream evangelical Protestant denominations (a couple of baptists and the EFCA); obviously YMMV.

Jerry, those quotes make WJI look pretty good. Who isn't for "fair, accurate, honest, impartial and humble" reporting?

All religions teach blind obediance, Has anyone ever heard of one that didnt?

I included that paragraph because of its contradictory nature.

Contrast:

"We believe in the spiritual fall of all humanity which has affected our moral and rational judgments. Each individual is influenced by upbringing, education and environment. Choices are made in any given story development -- choices that require value judgments on the part of journalists and editors. "

with

"The Christian in journalism aims to be fair, accurate, honest, impartial and humble in chasing the story. This approach, of course, is not a uniquely Christian position."

I would say that any journalist who believes in a spiritual fall of humanity that has affected our moral and rational judgments and is busy making value judgments regarding her story (and the subjects of that story) has slight change of being fair, accurate, honest, or impartial.

A reporter that experiences being "born again" and associates with a group that advocates on behalf of one religious viewpoint is not really a reporter I can trust to be impartial to other religions, or even her own.

A reporter with such beliefs should be open about them and her potential and likely biases and not make some claim that they can put all their religious training and beliefs aside, don the robes of a journalist, and suddenly become impartial, fair, accurate, honest, and objective.

(I have a problem with any reporter (or judge) that makes a claim of being a neutral observer.)

Jerry, other than the first sentence, do you disagree with any part of the first paragraph that you quoted?

Since we agree that no reporter or judge actually is a neutral observer, and since it's clear that most claim to be, what singles out this group or this reporter for criticism, other than their religious bent?

You misspelled "NPR" as "NRP" in the first sentence of this post. The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program doesn't do a lot of reporting on religion.

"If rabbis and preists are pedophiles, then what the fuck do you have to do to qualify for hell?

Isnt religion grand?"

Yeah. There isn't an atheist yet who's ever commited crime or depravity.

Technically speaking neither do mormons.

I do have a question for those who grew up in other christian faiths though.

If god forgives everything how can there be a hell?

Pseudo, I think I already answered your question.

A "closet born-again" with a hidden association with an advocacy group and track record of puff pieces on Christianity cannot be trusted to write anything about any religion objectively. And she has shown that again and again. Is she a closet born-again? Is her association known? NPR uses her and her alone as their religious reporter, and they don't call out either her own religious affiliation or her affiliation when she reports. Contrast that with their recent order to Juan Williams that he not call allow himself to be titled an NPR reporter when he is consulting for Fox.

This group? Is no different from other groups that say in so many words they want to infiltrate journalism with reporters favorable to their cause. Reporters who sign on to that mission should be promptly shitcanned. They get away with it here because they are about the Christianity and not about Islam/Communism/Conversatism/....

unlike the priests, we atheists don't sell you an idea that there's a place called heaven where the good people go, and a place called hell where the pedophiles and other fucking evil people go

Some teach that doing good works gets one to heaven, but that's not an informed opinion. Nobody can be good enough to "earn" salvation.

If god forgives everything how can there be a hell?

God is willing to forgive everything if we ask, but he doesn't want to hang out with people who reject him. The state of having God not hanging out with you (in the afterlife) is what we call "hell", and nobody really knows what it will actually be like, though Jesus compared it to a burning garbage dump.

Jerry, maybe I'm desensitized to advocacy organizations. We can all read between the lines, but what they actually say isn't all that bad. Everybody's biased, everybody wants their p.o.v. to get a fair shake; doing religion stories on NPR doesn't strike me as an effective way to do that, but oh well.

FYI, Jews have no concept of heaven or hell.

Sure we do. Gan Eden = Paradise. Gehinnom = Hell.

Psued, fine and good. I can understand his not wanting to hang out with anyone who doesn't like him.

But HELL!!!

That's being oh, just a tad more hostile than ignoring them. And what exactly is forgiving about it?

Sheesh, what an ego. I can forgive anybody anything except not liking or not knowing me. Egocentric asshole.

Unfortunately this incident DID happen.

The worst part of this for me as an observant Jew is the reaction of the community. There will always be sin and crime. But the reaction of the community is unconscionable and contrary to all our own principles.

The Jewish concept of heaven and hell have nothing to do with physical pleasure or torment.

Depending on how you lived, the revelation of the complete truth (obscured in this material world) will either cause you heavenly pleasure - because you chose to live according to it - or hellish torment - because you chose to live a lie.

We certainly have no concept of an underworld ruled by a devil who is independent of G-d. The Hebrew word "Satan" simply means "deceiver" or "misleader". It represents the possibility of falsehood in a word of free choice.

Nothing like the Christian notion of an evil kingdom that acts independently of G-d.