Australian Roman Catholic Church admits child sex abuse

[Russian Crushin]

any evaluation that i make of religion will be made from an academic perspective. that's where my background lies, and from there i draw my expertise.

no, my son. the church is not religion. religion (with the lower case R,) has nothing to do with the acts that were allowed to continue under this specific Religion (big R,) catholicism, and specifically the roman catholic church. the institution of relgigion didn't rape those boys, or allow them to continue to be raped. that was the catholic church.

religion itself, the process by which people are ordered through a shared collection of beliefs, is objective. religion is the shared order, not the rules theselves. that people are ordered does not inherently include that young boys are raped when that order is exploited. therefor your supposition (that religion itself is to blame,) is wrong.

Religion isn't about the belief in a specific god or gods, it's about the shared beliefs that order people. that's what religion does. if you study it academically that is how you view it. that's what religion is.



that people are ordered through religion does not include inherently the process by which that order is exploited, which is what you are talking about. therefor religion is not the issue. the issues are the specific Religions. catholic priests have been raping people. radical islamists have been killing people. american evangelicals have aligned themselves with the republican party, etc.


you're not talking about the institution of religion when you say that "religion is the issue." you're talking about catholicism


i'm sure you know this, but it's very hard to explain an academic subject to somebody when they lack your background in it, and any clarification that you might need i'll provide. you'd have a very hard time explaining anything but the most basic of teachings in your scientific studies, given that i have no background in that academic area. i can also point you in the direction of a few writers and lecturers who will do a much better job in explaining the processes than i can in my 20 minutes before i leave for work.

Yes religion is the problem, some religions are worse then others, yea but all religions are corrupt means of keeping power over people, its that simple.

I have taken many religion classes and jewish studies lol is actually my minor in college. Its the study of religion that actually opened up my eyes to what religion is as a whole

[New England]

Yes religion is the problem, some religions are worse then others, yea but all religions are corrupt means of keeping power over people, its that simple.

I have taken many religion classes and jewish studies lol is actually my minor in college. Its the study of religion that actually opened up my eyes to what religion is as a whole

you're talking about religions


not religion. religion is simply a collection of belief that people share
it's a culture of belief. it doesn't include the bad things you are talking about inherently. those bad things (in our case, the rape of boys,) happen for the purpose of religion, or through the agency provided by religion, but they aren't inherent to religion.

perhaps i'm not understanding your argument, so i'll try and explain my own and see if that gives you a better understanding of what i think you're trying to say.

money often makes people corruptable, greedy, and selfish. not always, but often. that doesn't make money evil. money is not the problem. money is objective.

gun's can blow people away if you point them at somebody and pull the trigger, but the gun itself isn't inherently evil. gun's aren't a problem when they sit in a case. a gun is objective. when acted upon subjectively and for the wrong purposes, a gun or money can be or make somebody evil. it's the same way with religion.


the process itself is objective. you're talking about it like it's not.

religion (shared belief) itself is objective.

[Russian Crushin]

you're talking about religions


not religion. religion is simply a collection of believe that people share
it's a culture of belief. it doesn't include the bad things you are talking about inherently. those come through for the purpose of people being or believing that they are religious, but they aren't inherent to religion.

perhaps i'm not understanding your argument, so i'll try and explain my own and see if that gives you a better understanding of what i think you're trying to say.

money often makes people corruptable, greedy, and selfish. not always, but often. that doesn't make money evil. money is not the problem. money is objective.

gun's can blow people away if you point them at somebody and pull the trigger, but the gun itself isn't inherently evil. gun's aren't a problem when they sit in a case. a gun is objective. when acted upon subjectively and for the wrong purposes, a gun or money can be or make somebody evil. it's the same way with religion.


the process itself is objective. you're talking about it like it's not.

If you wanna take "religion" as simply a definition, then yea it sounds good

Communism sounds good on paper too

[New England]

If you wanna take "religion" as simply a definition, then yea it sounds good

Communism sounds good on paper too

communism sounds great on paper. so does capitalism.

both are objective processes. they're not inherently evil.

they often end up doing harm, but that's not the fault of communism or capitalism. they're objective and cannot be at fault. people are subjective.



i'm curious about your jewish studies program. it sounds very interesting. are your professors secular? or are they rabbis, etc?

[Russian Crushin]

communism sounds great on paper. so does capitalism.

both are objective processes. they're not inherently evil.

they often end up doing harm, but that's not the fault of communism or capitalism. they're objective and cannot be at fault. people are subjective.



i'm curious about your jewish studies program. it sounds very interesting. are your professors secular? or are they rabbis, etc?

Ehhhh religion has shown to basically be inherently evil throughout history.

And its a very fascinating program actually. Im currently taking 2 courses, one strictly on the holocaust and then other is "Jews of Morocco". A jewish professor teaches the holocaust class (im pretty sure he's secular, wont say) and the other class is taught by an arab professor from Egypt. Rabbis do teach some classes too. It is ridiculously diverse. Soooo many arabs and dominicans major in it

[Drunken Cat]

any evaluation that i make of religion will be made from an academic perspective. that's where my background lies, and from there i draw my expertise.

no, my son. the church is not religion. religion (with the lower case R,) has nothing to do with the acts that were allowed to continue under this specific Religion (big R,) catholicism, and specifically the roman catholic church. the institution of relgigion didn't rape those boys, or allow them to continue to be raped. that was the catholic church.

religion itself, the process by which people are ordered through a shared collection of beliefs, is objective. religion is the shared order, not the rules theselves. that people are ordered does not inherently include that young boys are raped when that order is exploited. therefor your supposition (that religion itself is to blame,) is wrong.

Religion isn't about the belief in a specific god or gods, it's about the shared beliefs that order people. that's what religion does. if you study it academically that is how you view it. that's what religion is.



that people are ordered through religion does not include inherently the process by which that order is exploited, which is what you are talking about. therefor religion is not the issue. the issues are the specific Religions. catholic priests have been raping people. radical islamists have been killing people. american evangelicals have aligned themselves with the republican party, etc.


you're not talking about the institution of religion when you say that "religion is the issue." you're talking about catholicism


i'm sure you know this, but it's very hard to explain an academic subject to somebody when they lack your background in it, and any clarification that you might need i'll provide. you'd have a very hard time explaining anything but the most basic of teachings in your scientific studies, given that i have no background in that academic area. i can also point you in the direction of a few writers and lecturers who will do a much better job in explaining the processes than i can in my 20 minutes before i leave for work.

I can't go over every point, but you designate big-R vs small-r R/religion. Than you use lower-case for 'catholic', which should properly be big-C. You talk about the supposed 'institution of religion', yet seem to gloss over the institution of the catholic church, which you simply call "the catholic church", without recognizing the institution itself.

Religion is by definition an institution, to the extent that it is a social construct. Institutions are more or less confined to a particular social setting though, so religion is only an "institution" within such a social context; the abstract concept "religion" is not an institution. I think you might agree with this, and I'm not saying it to contrast your statement, just trying to speak on the basis of what 'institution' means.

The catholic church is also clearly a religious institution, the entire organizational superstructure. It is true that the 'catholic church' didn't rape the children, any more than a corporation is a person. However, the institutional superstructure enabled the abuse, and the entire organization is 100% culpable.

[Russian Crushin]

I agree.

Although some priests have been pedophiles, pedophilia has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.

We should not forget the great Roman Catholics like St. Vincent de Paul and Mother Teresa.

There are decent leaders as well as sickos in all religions (priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, etc).

How about rape and murder?

[New England]

I can't go over every point, but you designate big-R vs small-r R/religion. Than you use lower-case for 'catholic', which should properly be big-C. You talk about the supposed 'institution of religion', yet seem to gloss over the institution of the catholic church, which you simply call "the catholic church", without recognizing the institution itself.

Religion is by definition an institution, to the extent that it is a social construct. Institutions are more or less confined to a particular social setting though, so religion is only an "institution" within such a social context; the abstract concept "religion" is not an institution. I think you might agree with this, and I'm not saying it to contrast your statement, just trying to speak on the basis of what 'institution' means.

The catholic church is also clearly a religious institution, the entire organizational superstructure. It is true that the 'catholic church' didn't rape the children, any more than a corporation is a person. However, the institutional superstructure enabled the abuse, and the entire organization is 100% culpable.

i rarely capitalize anything. it slows down my typing something awful. any mention of the Catholic church should be capitalized. the catholic church is an institution and a religious one, and i never said otherwise. nor did i deny the responsibility of the institution for what happened, the coverup, and the continuation of the acts, all to protect their church. the argument i made is that religion is objective.

it would make sense for me to capitalize in such a situation, given that it is an important aspect of the language in the argument, but i don't like to hold that damn shift key down.

[talip bin osman]

I agree.

Although some priests have been pedophiles, pedophilia has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.

We should not forget the great Roman Catholics like St. Vincent de Paul and Mother Teresa.

There are decent leaders as well as sickos in all religions (priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, etc).

but you got to wonder...

up to what extent these people being clergymen of their respective religions has enabled them to do these atrocities? would they be still raping women and children, burning women suspected of witchcraft, men of science suspected of heresy if they were just average people like us?