Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Hardly a shock though.
About time these people were held to account.
About time these people were held to account.
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Imagine a world without religion or religious buildings
-
- Posts: 18088
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3863 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
It won't be long with all the dodgy wiring in these churches that keep setting on fire.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:13 pmImagine a world without religion or religious buildings
This user liked this post: LeadBelly
-
- Posts: 7443
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2249 times
- Has Liked: 2161 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Not that straight forward is it, what fills the void?claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:13 pmImagine a world without religion or religious buildings
I don't subscribe to any religion but equally accept that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been filled in atheistic regimes in which the state becomes 'God's..... but that's a whole different debate
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”CoolClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:11 pmNot that straight forward is it, what fills the void?
I don't subscribe to any religion but equally accept that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been filled in atheistic regimes in which the state becomes 'God's..... but that's a whole different debate
(G.K.Chesterton)
These 3 users liked this post: Zlatan longsidepies edenclaret
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.CoolClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:11 pmNot that straight forward is it, what fills the void?
I don't subscribe to any religion but equally accept that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been filled in atheistic regimes in which the state becomes 'God's..... but that's a whole different debate
Why do we need something to fill a void?
As an Atheist I've yet to murder or assault anyone in anyway shape or form, same for every other Atheist I personally know.
Just like every religious person I personally know hasn't as yet killed or assaulted anyone.
People will commit horrible crimes regardless of their religion or lack of, just Atheists don't hide behind a God or seek forgiveness from a god to absolve them of responsibility for their crimes.
If someone truly needs something to worship then by all means crack on, but the fact that it's been common knowledge for a good number of years now that the Catholic /Christian Church protects child abusers within its ranks and people still support the church in all it does is more than a little odd.
The church has been doing this stuff across the world for centuries, it was raised by a Pope a long time ago as a problem.
This user liked this post: Jenny55
-
- Posts: 7443
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2249 times
- Has Liked: 2161 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
This is a massive debate and I can't really be bothered about getting into it, but it's a highly simplistic view that simply taking religion out of the world = a much better place.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:12 pmI'm not sure what you're saying here.
Why do we need something to fill a void?
As an Atheist I've yet to murder or assault anyone in anyway shape or form, same for every other Atheist I personally know.
Just like every religious person I personally know hasn't as yet killed or assaulted anyone.
People will commit horrible crimes regardless of their religion or lack of, just Atheists don't hide behind a God or seek forgiveness from a god to absolve them of responsibility for their crimes.
If someone truly needs something to worship then by all means crack on, but the fact that it's been common knowledge for a good number of years now that the Catholic /Christian Church protects child abusers within its ranks and people still support the church in all it does is more than a little odd.
The church has been doing this stuff across the world for centuries, it was raised by a Pope a long time ago as a problem.
You are also looking at it from an n=1 viewpoint of you and your actions- which I'm sure are of virtue.
We'd have to decide what ethical code laws are set based on - who decides that? Do we start utilising utilitarian principles about the collective when it comes to ethical decisions?.. Pretty sure in the USSR it was collective > individual.
I wholeheartedly don't support the church but can also appreciate some of its teachings and the way in which it is woven into Western culture.
I'd actually wager as people have become less religious and going to church theres been a less communal feel - what is uniting folk?...
All things to consider - but by no means am I an apologist for cover ups by the church, they are absolutely disgraceful
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I'm just going to throw a hand grenade into the discussion by saying it's a bit quiet for a paedo thread, this one.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Wrong religion to get a heated discussion on here.
Decades of white religious folk doesn't really bother people that much.
This user liked this post: fidelcastro
-
- Posts: 5829
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:38 pm
- Been Liked: 2491 times
- Has Liked: 1477 times
- Location: On the high seas chasing Pirates
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Let's crucify them.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
We had laws, ethics etc before the current religions took over.CoolClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:42 pmThis is a massive debate and I can't really be bothered about getting into it, but it's a highly simplistic view that simply taking religion out of the world = a much better place.
You are also looking at it from an n=1 viewpoint of you and your actions- which I'm sure are of virtue.
We'd have to decide what ethical code laws are set based on - who decides that? Do we start utilising utilitarian principles about the collective when it comes to ethical decisions?.. Pretty sure in the USSR it was collective > individual.
I wholeheartedly don't support the church but can also appreciate some of its teachings and the way in which it is woven into Western culture.
I'd actually wager as people have become less religious and going to church theres been a less communal feel - what is uniting folk?...
All things to consider - but by no means am I an apologist for cover ups by the church, they are absolutely disgraceful
As for me and my actions, I'd be going to hell if it existed, which it doesn't.
Religion would have me down as a massive sinner and I'm not apologetic about that
Religion may not need to be taken out of the world, but it certainly needs to have far less influence on the world, on laws, governments, wars etc.
It needs to be treated like what it is, a cult.
Also we need to stop teaching kids that God, heaven, hell etc are real things when there's no proof, or maybe make it age related.
If you're gonna read a holy book that contains stories of genocide, slavery and other acts of violence against sinners etc maybe it shouldn't be something kids are allowed to read until they're 18.
Using fear to control people under 18 isn't really a good thing.
-
- Posts: 7401
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
- Been Liked: 2309 times
- Has Liked: 2172 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Pathetic thread
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I'm open to discussion if you'd like to expand on your comment.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Religion - yes. Religious buildings - no.claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:13 pmImagine a world without religion or religious buildings
Many of the most beautiful buildings in the world are religious buildings.
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2625 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Damn straight! I love mooching about some ludicrously grand church or cathedral or temple when abroad. No interest in all the nonsense spouted inside, but you've got to marvel at the buildings. That said, they're all built now, so maybe call it a day on the actual religion.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”
― Christopher Hitchens
― Christopher Hitchens
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Its nice to have a thread about this sort of thing, where we nobody appears to be defending the perpetrators.
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2625 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
There's a church in the centre of Bologna that's got a Meridian Line (the largest in the world) running right through it and a tiny hole made in the ceiling 90ft up so the sun shines through at noon, hitting the line and giving the correct time/date still today. Apparently they made all sorts of astronomical calculations using it, first created about 450 years ago and then restored a couple of hundred years after that. Well worth a look if you're ever in that part of Italy.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:32 amSalisbury Cathedral always impresses me.
The spire couldn't be made any straighter using today's technology, that's how well built it is.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Perhaps you could point me to the threads where people are defending child abusers. I’d like to have a word with them, if you’ve not just made them up.
It is, however, nice to have a thread like this where innocent folk who happen to believe in the same version of God as the abusers aren’t being tarred with the same brush.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I just did a quick search, and it appears the threads I'm thinking of have been deleted.Greenmile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:04 pmPerhaps you could point me to the threads where people are defending child abusers. I’d like to have a word with them, if you’ve not just made them up.
It is, however, nice to have a thread like this where innocent folk who happen to believe in the same version of God as the abusers aren’t being tarred with the same brush.
Obviously when I say defended, I don't mean outright defended the people doing it. I meant the sly dog whistlers and the whataboutery people who seem to get angry when these threads pop up
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Sly dog whistling like the suggestion that anyone who doesn’t condemn all Muslims for the actions of a few is implicitly condoning child abuse, you mean?Damo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:11 pmI just did a quick search, and it appears the threads I'm thinking of have been deleted.
Obviously when I say defended, I don't mean outright defended the people doing it. I meant the sly dog whistlers and the whataboutery people who seem to get angry when these threads pop up
-
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
- Been Liked: 111 times
- Has Liked: 71 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Scepticism. Critical thinking. Curiosity. To name but a few.CoolClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:11 pmNot that straight forward is it, what fills the void?
I don't subscribe to any religion but equally accept that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been filled in atheistic regimes in which the state becomes 'God's..... but that's a whole different debate
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Innocent folk who are still attending the churches of the same organisations that have been proven to protect the abusers are part of the problem.Greenmile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:04 pmPerhaps you could point me to the threads where people are defending child abusers. I’d like to have a word with them, if you’ve not just made them up.
It is, however, nice to have a thread like this where innocent folk who happen to believe in the same version of God as the abusers aren’t being tarred with the same brush.
The CoE and Catholic organisations are littered with child abusers, in the Catholic Church that includes someone who was once touted as a potential Pope.
Why people keep going to church I'll never understand.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Presumably they get something out of it. Maybe they just think they’ll end up in Hell if they stop attending. Or perhaps it’s just an excuse to get out of the house and meet people. It’s hard to find a reason for any act of faith.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:56 pmInnocent folk who are still attending the churches of the same organisations that have been proven to protect the abusers are part of the problem.
The CoE and Catholic organisations are littered with child abusers, in the Catholic Church that includes someone who was once touted as a potential Pope.
Why people keep going to church I'll never understand.
I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that innocent church (or mosque) goers are “part of the problem”, though. You could argue that organised religion in itself is part of the problem, but it’s a stretch to blame everyday believers for the crimes of The Church.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Imagine committing a crime like murder because a made up sky fairy from a book told you to
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Organised religion needs its brainwashed attendees.Greenmile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:02 pmPresumably they get something out of it. Maybe they just think they’ll end up in Hell if they stop attending. Or perhaps it’s just an excuse to get out of the house and meet people. It’s hard to find a reason for any act of faith.
I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that innocent church (or mosque) goers are “part of the problem”, though. You could argue that organised religion in itself is part of the problem, but it’s a stretch to blame everyday believers for the crimes of The Church.
If those attendees woke up and took a stance against what their branch of the religion was doing then I'd have more respect.
The fact is they don't, they keep rocking up, donating money and ignoring what's happened despite it being in the news for a fair old while now, that's why they're part of the problem.
The same can be applied to communities who ignore what the men are doing and blame the victims.
The CoE will pay lip service to this issue, just like the Catholic Church has done, because they know that their attendees will just keep on turning up...
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Well yeah - that’s how faith works. As Swift said, you can’t reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:33 pmOrganised religion needs its brainwashed attendees.
If those attendees woke up and took a stance against what their branch of the religion was doing then I'd have more respect.
The fact is they don't, they keep rocking up, donating money and ignoring what's happened despite it being in the news for a fair old while now, that's why they're part of the problem.
The same can be applied to communities who ignore what the men are doing and blame the victims.
The CoE will pay lip service to this issue, just like the Catholic Church has done, because they know that their attendees will just keep on turning up...
It’s pretty unfair to blame someone who’s been brainwashed for having been brainwashed.
Edit - what’s funny is that, in the eyes of a true believer, you and I are probably more likely to spend eternity in a lake of fire than the child abusers or the folk that covered it up. As I say, there’s no way to persuade these people with facts or logic.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
You may have spoken too soon haGreenmile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:04 pmPerhaps you could point me to the threads where people are defending child abusers. I’d like to have a word with them, if you’ve not just made them up.
It is, however, nice to have a thread like this where innocent folk who happen to believe in the same version of God as the abusers aren’t being tarred with the same brush.
Lots of valid points and plenty of sweeping statements on here. It would be just as fair to say every church member is either a child abusing or enabler as it would to call every football fan a racist and hooligan... in that, it wouldn't be fair - But there's lots of non-football fans that would say it.
It wouldn't be suggested to ban football and knock down grounds until it was ended, but hopefully the churches would actually do something about it as football does try.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Church goers who attend without demanding reform are basically allowing the churches to get away with child abuse.JTClaret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:50 pmYou may have spoken too soon ha
Lots of valid points and plenty of sweeping statements on here. It would be just as fair to say every church member is either a child abusing or enabler as it would to call every football fan a racist and hooligan... in that, it wouldn't be fair - But there's lots of non-football fans that would say it.
It wouldn't be suggested to ban football and knock down grounds until it was ended, but hopefully the churches would actually do something about it as football does try.
I'd need to double check but there's never really been massive outcry by the Catholics about what their church has been found guilty of doing across the world.
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I’m not sure that a lot of church-goers are particularly invested in what’s going on with the organisation as a whole. If child abuse was prevalent in a particular parish and the congregation turned a blind eye then I’d agree with you. But you can’t pin the blame for the institutionalised issues on the average church goer.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:27 pmChurch goers who attend without demanding reform are basically allowing the churches to get away with child abuse.
This user liked this post: Greenmile
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
When it's reported on the news, social media and in a sodding Oscar winning movie, Spotlight, then maybe they should be more invested.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:53 pmI’m not sure that a lot of church-goers are particularly invested in what’s going on with the organisation as a whole. If child abuse was prevalent in a particular parish and the congregation turned a blind eye then I’d agree with you. But you can’t pin the blame for the institutionalised issues on the average church goer.
The fact that they aren't and are turning a blind eye to it just reinforces my point.
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
So, as a cinema-goer I presume that you’re turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of women in the film industry?GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:10 amWhen it's reported on the news, social media and in a sodding Oscar winning movie, Spotlight, then maybe they should be more invested.
The fact that they aren't and are turning a blind eye to it just reinforces my point.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Nope, never turned a blind eye to it and I'm more than glad that the pervs in the industry are getting their comeuppance when enough evidence is found for a conviction.
I hope they nail some more and lock them up.
I used to be a fan of Steve Mcqueen until I read about his drug taking and wife beating, now I don't bother with his films.
I still don't understand why he's feted by Hollywood as some sort of Mr Cool when he was a hard drinking, cocaine sniffing wife beater.
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
So your example is, I’m sure, the same as many church-goers, who no doubt want to see dirty priests exposed (not literally) and convicted. And like your Steve McQueen example, I’m sure the majority of church goers would stop going to a church that was presided over by a known sexual abuser.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:44 amNope, never turned a blind eye to it and I'm more than glad that the pervs in the industry are getting their comeuppance when enough evidence is found for a conviction.
I hope they nail some more and lock them up.
I used to be a fan of Steve Mcqueen until I read about his drug taking and wife beating, now I don't bother with his films.
I still don't understand why he's feted by Hollywood as some sort of Mr Cool when he was a hard drinking, cocaine sniffing wife beater.
And similarly to the church goers, you’re not doing anything to provoke reform in the film industry.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Ah so you're going to flip this on me?Rileybobs wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:50 amSo your example is, I’m sure, the same as many church-goers, who no doubt want to see dirty priests exposed (not literally) and convicted. And like your Steve McQueen example, I’m sure the majority of church goers would stop going to a church that was presided over by a known sexual abuser.
And similarly to the church goers, you’re not doing anything to provoke reform in the film industry.
Fair enough.
I can make a choice to not watch films from certain actors/directors/studios.
As per the example above, if I find out something I don't like about someone in the film industry then I won't watch their product.
Church goers just keep on going even when they know what's been going on.
The Catholic Church has had concerns about the actions of its own clergy abusing women and children for approx 1700 years, they've put the odd thing in place to reduce/temporarily stop the problem, but then they go back to ignoring it and covering it up.
It's almost like they're more concerned about the brand image for their business to ensure the money keeps rolling in then they are about the well being of the common people.
That's all religion is, a money making machine with a brand image.
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I’m not flipping anything on you. I’m using an example of a pastime that you enjoy to demonstrate why I think it is ridiculous to say that anyone who attends church is turning a blind eye to, and allowing people to get away with child abuse.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:08 amAh so you're going to flip this on me?
Fair enough.
I can make a choice to not watch films from certain actors/directors/studios.
As per the example above, if I find out something I don't like about someone in the film industry then I won't watch their product.
Church goers just keep on going even when they know what's been going on.
The Catholic Church has had concerns about the actions of its own clergy abusing women and children for approx 1700 years, they've put the odd thing in place to reduce/temporarily stop the problem, but then they go back to ignoring it and covering it up.
It's almost like they're more concerned about the brand image for their business to ensure the money keeps rolling in then they are about the well being of the common people.
That's all religion is, a money making machine with a brand image.
So you continuing to go to the cinema despite the reported abuse and cover ups in the film industry is an almost identical scenario to someone continuing to go to church despite the scandals.
This is on the heads of those within the hierarchy of the respective organisations, not its ‘customers’.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
The word "hypocrite" comes to mind here.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Again to bring it to football. We know FIfa was/is corrupt, yet you still go and watch Burnley. That is the equivalent of what you are saying.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:27 pmChurch goers who attend without demanding reform are basically allowing the churches to get away with child abuse.
I'd need to double check but there's never really been massive outcry by the Catholics about what their church has been found guilty of doing across the world.
The vast majority of priests and vicars are not in anyway child abusers, nor will they be aware of any within the church. I do whole-heartly agree they have an obligation to find those that are, but that isn't achieved at your local parish church... unless that particular church is suspected, in which case a report should be made and taken seriously.
Accusing all church goers as a whole of allowing child abuse is quite frankly ridiculous and shows more about your anti-religion views and lack of understanding of the role of a parish church than it does provide a solution to end a horrific issue.
This user liked this post: Bordeauxclaret
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
At the end of the film Spotlight, they list all of the areas where they had suspected/known child abusers in the clergy.JTClaret wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:34 amAgain to bring it to football. We know FIfa was/is corrupt, yet you still go and watch Burnley. That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
The vast majority of priests and vicars are not in anyway child abusers, nor will they be aware of any within the church. I do whole-heartly agree they have an obligation to find those that are, but that isn't achieved at your local parish church... unless that particular church is suspected, in which case a report should be made and taken seriously.
Accusing all church goers as a whole of allowing child abuse is quite frankly ridiculous and shows more about your anti-religion views and lack of understanding of the role of a parish church than it does provide a solution to end a horrific issue.
Reading was definitely on that list, I also think Oxford was.
I'm in between the two...
If people are still willingly funding an organisation that's being repeatedly caught protecting child abusers then why is it wrong to call out those people?
My anti religious views aren't the issue, nor my supposed lack of knowledge about the parish etc.
It's people wilfully ignoring what's going on.
Fifa accepting financial bribes is a tad different to mass child abuse.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
There is a huge difference, my point was your generalisations.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:43 amAt the end of the film Spotlight, they list all of the areas where they had suspected/known child abusers in the clergy.
Reading was definitely on that list, I also think Oxford was.
I'm in between the two...
If people are still willingly funding an organisation that's being repeatedly caught protecting child abusers then why is it wrong to call out those people?
My anti religious views aren't the issue, nor my supposed lack of knowledge about the parish etc.
It's people wilfully ignoring what's going on.
Fifa accepting financial bribes is a tad different to mass child abuse.
Truth is, my dad is a vicar, therefore the sweeping statement that he and the members of any church he has been apart of are there to fund sex offenders and not to support a local community from the hub of a church is quite frankly insulting. I myself am not a church goer, and not particularly religious, however have obviously known a number of vicars, who would be just as upset as the church goers to be labeled the way you flippantly do without knowledge of the work, faith and beliefs they hold.
You sound like the type to decide religion is always bad. In the same way those who don't like football call the fans hooligans and racists and the players all disrespectful millionaires with 'do you know who I am?' attitudes.
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Strange that there is some kind of argument going on when everyone is pretty much in agreement. There is no doubt that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have behaved abominably in putting their own institutional reputation above the wellbeing of abused individuals. Nobody disagrees on that.
So what is to be done now? GodisaDeejay seems to think that everyone should therefore give up their membership these institutions as the solution, but then he has shown himself to be a fundamentalist in his beliefs and fundamentalists always tend to take that kind of line. Both Churches are institutions much-loved by many millions of people, which bring so much comfort and support. So the obvious solution is to take vigorous reforming action to make sure it can't ever happen again, which seems to be what is being done. So there's no need for any further disagreements.
I say this as one who is not a Christian, and hasn't attended a Church service since my childhood.
So what is to be done now? GodisaDeejay seems to think that everyone should therefore give up their membership these institutions as the solution, but then he has shown himself to be a fundamentalist in his beliefs and fundamentalists always tend to take that kind of line. Both Churches are institutions much-loved by many millions of people, which bring so much comfort and support. So the obvious solution is to take vigorous reforming action to make sure it can't ever happen again, which seems to be what is being done. So there's no need for any further disagreements.
I say this as one who is not a Christian, and hasn't attended a Church service since my childhood.
These 2 users liked this post: JTClaret GodIsADeeJay81
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I'd say GodisADeeJay is right in that it is the responsibility of the church and attendees to do something about it when it is seen, or suspected to be happening. Dismantle and scatter wouldn't help, merely place the issue elsewhere. Obviously I'd like to hope if anyone on the inside suspected something they would be more likely to do something about it, or rather, the powers that be don't turn a blind eye.Erasmus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:26 pmSo what is to be done now?
Both Churches are institutions much-loved by many millions of people, which bring so much comfort and support. So the obvious solution is to take vigorous reforming action to make sure it can't ever happen again, which seems to be what is being done. So there's no need for any further disagreements.
I say this as one who is not a Christian, and hasn't attended a Church service since my childhood.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
Religion isn't always bad, it just seems to have a number of very bad elements that people aren't interested in facing up to.JTClaret wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:45 pmThere is a huge difference, my point was your generalisations.
Truth is, my dad is a vicar, therefore the sweeping statement that he and the members of any church he has been apart of are there to fund sex offenders and not to support a local community from the hub of a church is quite frankly insulting. I myself am not a church goer, and not particularly religious, however have obviously known a number of vicars, who would be just as upset as the church goers to be labeled the way you flippantly do without knowledge of the work, faith and beliefs they hold.
You sound like the type to decide religion is always bad. In the same way those who don't like football call the fans hooligans and racists and the players all disrespectful millionaires with 'do you know who I am?' attitudes.
Child abuse being one of them and continually rearing its head.
Religion has a place in society, but I don't think it should be so prominent simply because its about belief with no facts.
Many societal views stem from religion, anti - Abortion, Homophobia and some others.
That's an influence that it should never have been allowed to have.
This user liked this post: JTClaret
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Church of England guilty of protecting abusers.
I'm not saying people should stop believing in their gods, I'm saying they should demand their places of worship deal with these issues instead of trying to bury or sidestep it.Erasmus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:26 pmStrange that there is some kind of argument going on when everyone is pretty much in agreement. There is no doubt that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have behaved abominably in putting their own institutional reputation above the wellbeing of abused individuals. Nobody disagrees on that.
So what is to be done now? GodisaDeejay seems to think that everyone should therefore give up their membership these institutions as the solution, but then he has shown himself to be a fundamentalist in his beliefs and fundamentalists always tend to take that kind of line. Both Churches are institutions much-loved by many millions of people, which bring so much comfort and support. So the obvious solution is to take vigorous reforming action to make sure it can't ever happen again, which seems to be what is being done. So there's no need for any further disagreements.
I say this as one who is not a Christian, and hasn't attended a Church service since my childhood.
If non attendance helps raise awareness then great.
If peaceful protests etc is the best way then great.
Continuing to attend whilst ignoring the problem isn't the way.
Being called a fundamentalist is interesting
This user liked this post: JTClaret