The Founding Fathers on Religion

[Nitro Express]

"[R]eligion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
-James Madison (principal writer of the US Constitution)

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson (principal writer of the bill of rights)

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it"
-John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
- Benjamin Franklin


Interesting is the religious right love to spout how this nation was built on religion but nothing could be further from the truth. It was built on the idea of giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness.

[vh rides again]

I watched a show last night on the Vatican and they touched on the subject of U.S presidents having dialog with the pope.
Kennedy was the first and also refused to kiss his ring to show that he was separating church from state.
He shook his hand instead and clearly in the clip the pope was confused, he looked around wondering what the fuck just happened.
Kennedy was catholic.

I dont think the founders of this country had in mind that religion was useless but more like you had the freedom to follow whichever religion you chose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

Roth And Roll

[Seshmeister]

It's also important to remember that in those days it was quite sensible to be religious since no one knew what the fuck was going on.

If noone is even sure what the fuck is going on when there is a thunderstorm then it's not so irrational to think there is an invisible sky daddy.

They had an excuse but even then guys like Jefferson didn't take it.

For a bunch of tax dodging slave traders they did have some redeeming traits...

[ELVIS]

That's pretty darn smug...

[Jack68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ACyiSPAmE&feature=fvwrel
"Thanks for being Christlike not like Christians.."
Great stuff..

[Panamark]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AOMyS78o5YI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AOMyS78o5YI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[Jack68]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AOMyS78o5YI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AOMyS78o5YI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

One of the greatest songs ever written.

[Panamark]

Hey Jack68

I think so too.
Made me think theres a set of songs out there that are really
from somewhere else. I started a thread in House of Music.
I love this song.

[Jesus Christ]

Admittedly I'm a little biased, but that has always been My favorite Beach Boys song.

[Jesus Christ]

Oh, and as far as this whole question of church/state separation goes, here's a couple of quotes from Me.....

"My kingdom is not of this world".

"Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

[jhale667]

A guy I grew up with has gone all batsh*t zealot in recent years, and regularly posts links from this wacko site called Wallbuilders that's run by a "self-described" "constitutional scholar" who tries to twist quotes from the founding fathers around to make it seem like they actually intended the opposite - for America to be a christian theocracy. It's kind of pathetic, but not unlike what zealots do with scripture on a near daily basis...


Begs the question, if that's indeed what the founding fathers intended, why wouldn't they have just set things up that way?

[Dr. Love]

A guy I grew up with has gone all batsh*t zealot in recent years, and regularly posts links from this wacko site called Wallbuilders that's run by a "self-described" "constitutional scholar" who tries to twist quotes from the founding fathers around to make it seem like they actually intended the opposite - for America to be a christian theocracy. It's kind of pathetic, but not unlike what zealots do with scripture on a near daily basis...


Begs the question, if that's indeed what the founding fathers intended, why wouldn't they have just set things up that way?

um... there's so much about this country that ended up contrary to what was intended that it's shocking.

[Nitro Express]

It's also important to remember that in those days it was quite sensible to be religious since no one knew what the fuck was going on.

If noone is even sure what the fuck is going on when there is a thunderstorm then it's not so irrational to think there is an invisible sky daddy.

They had an excuse but even then guys like Jefferson didn't take it.

For a bunch of tax dodging slave traders they did have some redeeming traits...

Actually the slavery was practiced in the British Empire which the American colonies were part of. The revolution wasn't over just taxes. It was over being taxed an not being represented in the British parliament. Also the colonies due to the lack of gold and silver used continental script paper money. The British government wanted the taxes paid in gold. This essentially ruined the continental currency and created a devastating situation. Basically the whole economy was ruined as a result.

You have to remember most the people in the colonies wanted to remain in the British empire it's just that government policy didn't jive too well with the local situation and the refusal to adapt the tax situation for the local economy sparked off the revolution and the move to have a constitutional republic instead of a monarchy. From what I understand the parliament was against fighting with the colonies but the arrogant King George III pushed the matter. Interesting since he raised taxes to pay off war debts. Basically he sounds like our current batch of knuckle heads.

[Nitro Express]

um... there's so much about this country that ended up contrary to what was intended that it's shocking.

Very true. Once politicians figure out they can use the public treasury to buy votes and the public accepts that, it's the begining of the end. What nails the coffin shut is when the money is issued by a private central bank that prints money like there is no tomorrow and the congress raises debt to run the country while future generations of tax payers get saddled with it, so the private bank board and their friends can live lavish lifestyles. They basically have turn the future unborn generations into collateral that they can borrow against several hundred times. In fact, they just print obscene amounts of money that will never be paid back, the taxes are just there for the illusion to make the money look like it's actually valuable to where the government needs it.

Quite the ponzi scheme I would say. Probably the biggest one ever in world history.

We went from a nation where immigrants wanted their children raised here for the opportunities to where if you are born here you will be saddled with more debt than any other citizens in the world. If this situation isn't remedied soon you will see people leave the US in droves until to stop the drain the government will stop immigration out of here. But then the problem is bigger than the US. We just had the most resources to steal. Other countries are being screwed by the same banking cabals and corporations. It's corporate globalization and it's in bed with the banks and it's become more powerful than whole nations. This is the Hitler of our day we have to fight and the war is economic. The US was not bombed out with bombs. It was infiltrated and sold off and ruined economically. A few people got filthy rich from it and most were ruined. Instead of armies financial institutions were used and debt and outsourcing were the weapons of mass destruction.

[jhale667]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/JeffersonvsFAUXbot.jpg

:lmao:

[Dr. Love]

Here's some more Jefferson quotes for you, then. May you take them to heart.



"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

"Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism."

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"So confident am I in the intentions, as well as wisdom, of the government, that I shall always be satisfied that what is not done, either cannot, or ought not to be done."

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

"When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property."



Think about those and how they apply to the person in the White House, and those that seek to be there.

[Seshmeister]

Don't forget

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

[Nitro Express]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/JeffersonvsFAUXbot.jpg

:lmao:

I love it. It's so true. The church's do side with the dictator to save their own asses and keep the scam going.

[Seshmeister]

http://schikelgruber.net/images/NaziPriests.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

Interesting is the religious right love to spout how this nation was built on religion but nothing could be further from the truth. It was built on the idea of giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness.

I'll agree with your second statement, but your first statement uses examples that are completely out of context. I assume your next argument is that the "Founding Fathers" were not Christians, but Deists? Funny thing Deism/Deist - it meant something different to different people 250 years ago. For every quote you used in your first post, I can come up with several countering your point, often from the same person.

While I agree that this nation was founded without an establishment of a state religion on purpose, and justifiably so, to say that no Christian or religious concepts or doctrine played a part in the formation of this nation is just ludicrous.

[kwame k]

For every quote you used in your first post, I can come up with several countering your point, often from the same person.

Yet, as usual, you give none!

[Nitro Express]

The point I was making was not that the founding fathers were not christian but they believed one's religion or spiritual beliefs had no place in the government. If anything they agreed it was the government's duty to protect individual freedom as long as what you are doing doesn't jeopardize everyone else. Such a system at it's best becomes very creative. One reason things are so boring now is a few corporations have taken over and say they are in charge and individual rights be damned. Then you have all these organized religions siding with the corporations or whatever flavor of the month tyrant is in power.

If anything the founding fathers understood tyranny. What it is and how it gains control. They also knew organized religion will side with the tyrant as Sesh's photo clearly shows.

So yes you have the right to believe in what you want but you don't have the right to push it on others and it has no place in the public government.

[jhale667]

So yes you have the right to believe in what you want but you don't have the right to push it on others and it has no place in the public government.


BINGO. And that's the part that makes zealotards heads explode.

[Jesus Christ]

Just remember, it was the organized religious establishment (Scribes and Pharisees) who demanded My crucifixion. Even the tyrant (or his local representative, Pilate) actually tried to back out of it.

[Nitro Express]

Good point there Jesus.

[Nitro Express]

BINGO. And that's the part that makes zealotards heads explode.

It's clear the founding fathers feared tyranny and perfectly knew if religion entered the government, it could become a theocracy. That was the last thing they wanted. You have to allow freedom of worship but you have to keep it out of the government and the number one priority of government is to make sure people's individual rights to pursue their own dreams is protected. This country was supposed to be diverse. It's why they allowed the states to have so much power. You could live where you best fit in. I often think if you don't fit in where you are at, then fucking move to where you do. Not everyone wants the same lifestyle. What irks me is these groups that want the big daddy federal government to force everyone to live according to how one group sees fit. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are gay, you probably would fit in better in West Hollywood or San Fransisco. If you are a bible slapper, hey, move to the bible belt. Live where you fit in.

[Seshmeister]

Just remember, it was the organized religious establishment (Scribes and Pharisees) who demanded My crucifixion. Even the tyrant (or his local representative, Pilate) actually tried to back out of it.

Sources required.

[BigBadBrian]

So yes you have the right to believe in what you want but you don't have the right to push it on others and it has no place in the public government.

Give an example. A person's faith is their moral compass. I'm want to know how you're totally going to leave faith out of the thought process when a politician of faith goes to work.

Liberals, even Heathen monkeys like those that post on this board, have some set of values they use to come up with the ridiculous viewpoints they share. Shall we leave their morale compass out of the government also?

[ELVIS]

Just remember, it was the organized religious establishment (Catholics and Mormons) who demanded My crucifixion.


:elvis:

[Nitro Express]

Sources required.

It's in the New Testament. Have you read the bible Sesh?

[Seshmeister]

Of course, actually reading the thing is how a lot of people end up atheists. :)

[Nitro Express]

Mormons didn't exist until 1830. The Catholic Church didn't exist until emperor Constantine founded it. Christ was executed by the roman empire because it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to enact the death penalty. Pontius Pilot put it up for a vote and the Jews said "crucify him!" Pilot washed his hands saying it was not upon him but the Jews. The roman empire allowed religious freedom as long as you worshiped the emperor as a god, paid your taxes, and didn't cause trouble.

[Seshmeister]

Give an example. A person's faith is their moral compass.

A person's faith is their irrational belief of something to be true without any evidence.

It's nothing to do with a moral compass. If you have faith that you will be punished for all time by a resurrected sky god and that is the reason you don't kill or steal then that's not a moral compass, that's just a fear of zombies.

[Seshmeister]

Christ was executed by the roman empire because it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to enact the death penalty. Pontius Pilot put it up for a vote and the Jews said "crucify him!" Pilot washed his hands saying it was not upon him but the Jews.

According to an uncorroborated novel written from second and third hand camp fire stories.

[Nitro Express]

According to an uncorroborated novel written from second and third hand camp fire stories.

Basically. There never was a christian church or scripture at the supposed time of Christ. We know Harrod existed and they even found evidence that a man named Pilot was indeed governor of that area at the time. The cities and geography are all still there. All that is missing is actual evidence of Christ because nothing was written down at the time and nothing was organized. So all there is written accounts that came much later.

Living in Israel I came to realize if the Catholic church didn't build churches over the supposed holy sites they would be built over and become part of the more modern city. They would have commercial or residential buildings on them. There would be nothing for pilgrims to go to in the Jerusalem area. They would be under the foundation of a tower full of apartments or underneath an office building. The Catholic church has kept the legend alive all these years and the protestant thing is nothing more than reformed catholicism.

[jhale667]

A person's faith is their irrational belief of something to be true without any evidence.

It's nothing to do with a moral compass. If you have faith that you will be punished for all time by a resurrected sky god and that is the reason you don't kill or steal then that's not a moral compass, that's just a fear of zombies.


What annoys me is conservatards like Brie who can't keep two disparate ideas in their head have to create a false equivalency between the two (and rail against anyone who - rightfully - disagrees). You can have a moral compass without subscribing to any faith or religious BS - it's not a requirement.

[Seshmeister]

The cities and geography are all still there.

Even a lot of that is very dodgy, especially the Old Testament. There is a history of the archaeology being done from a theological front so that when they found some ruins wherever they would give it a suitable name from the bible.

What is certain is that there is no evidence of Jewish slaves in Egypt or an exodus from there. Again like the Romans we have lots of contemporary written evidence but nothing to back up the bible myths.

[Seshmeister]

What annoys me is conservatards like Brie who can't keep two disparate ideas in their head have to create a false equivalency between the two (and rail against anyone who - rightfully - disagrees). You can have a moral compass without subscribing to any faith or religious BS - it's not a requirement.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

US physicist (1933 - )

[ELVIS]

A person's faith is their irrational belief of something to be true without any evidence.

It's nothing to do with a moral compass. If you have faith that you will be punished for all time by a resurrected sky god and that is the reason you don't kill or steal then that's not a moral compass, that's just a fear of zombies.

You got it all wrong...

[ELVIS]

You can have a moral compass without subscribing to any faith or religious BS - it's not a requirement.

Right, but that moral compass is instilled in you by your creator...

[jhale667]

Right, but that moral compass is instilled in you by your creator...

Prove it. Oh that's right, you can't! :hee:

[Seshmeister]

Right, but that moral compass is instilled in you by your creator...

Your parents?

They are an important part of it but you are also effected by your environment, peers and the cultural context.

For example if you had been brought up with the Mayan superstition rather than the current US Christian one, combined with your inherent nature of throwing yourself into religions then it's very likely your moral compass would have been fine with human sacrifices.

[LoungeMachine]

Right, but that moral compass is instilled in you by your creator...

Where exactly is "true north" on this compass that is in pedophile priests?

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

I'll agree with your second statement, but your first statement uses examples that are completely out of context. I assume your next argument is that the "Founding Fathers" were not Christians, but Deists? Funny thing Deism/Deist - it meant something different to different people 250 years ago. For every quote you used in your first post, I can come up with several countering your point, often from the same person.

While I agree that this nation was founded without an establishment of a state religion on purpose, and justifiably so, to say that no Christian or religious concepts or doctrine played a part in the formation of this nation is just ludicrous.


The only quotes you're going to "come up with" are ones deeply out-of-context or from stump speeches pandering to the religious masses. Secondly, what was the difference between Deism then and now? There really aren't many self-identified "Diests" anymore...

[FORD]

Hell, I'm beginning to think we would all be better off if we all called ourselves "agnostics". Truthfully, it's the only honest response.

Believers cannot prove there is a God. Atheists cannot prove there isn't one. Anything beyond that is faith, no matter which direction you go.

[Seshmeister]

I can't prove there are little invisible fairies dancing about your house, you can't categorically prove there are not.

Are you agnostic about the fairies or do you believe that they aren't there?

[jhale667]

Hell, I'm beginning to think we would all be better off if we all called ourselves "agnostics". Truthfully, it's the only honest response.

Believers cannot prove there is a God. Atheists cannot prove there isn't one. Anything beyond that is faith, no matter which direction you go.


Atheists don't have to. The onus of proof falls upon the believer, as they're the ones stating something exists that can't be proven to. Empircal evidence is already (pretty much overwhelmingly) in Atheist's favor...


If believers were honest with themselves, they'd admit, based on the definition of faith - they believe something they can't prove, and that they are suspending logic in insisting that it does - so why do they then insist (and try to legislate) that EVERYONE has to check reason at the door? It's beyond arrogant. "No no, I can't be bothered with your FACTS..." :rolleyes:

That's a huge difference between liberals and conservatives...the liberal mindset is that you can basically believe anything you want, but conservatives think you should have to lock-step to THEIR beliefs only, and they have the right to FORCE you to. Again, pretty f*ing arrogant!

[chi-town324]

Very well said J !!

[FORD]

I can't prove there are little invisible fairies dancing about your house, you can't categorically prove there are not.

Are you agnostic about the fairies or do you believe that they aren't there?

That depends. Were they wearing boots??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvuI8d57N9I

[hambon4lif]

That's a huge difference between liberals and conservatives...the liberal mindset is that you can basically believe anything you want, but conservatives think you should have to lock-step to THEIR beliefs only, and they have the right to FORCE you to. Again, pretty f*ing arrogant!Very well said Jay....but it goes even beyond that.

When you do whatever you can to improve the conditions around you, your situation automatically improves, because naturally, there's less pull. That's not just something you learn within the first two weeks of Economics class, it's also common sense.
The conservative mindset apparently seems to be "fuck you, I'm getting all I can, and if I happen to take yours too, and you end up with none, then you're just gonna fuckin' die".

.....not exactly being "your brothers keeper" is it?

They pick and choose parts of religion that are convenient to them, and completely disregard the rest. That's what makes them such pieces of shit....

[hambon4lif]

dupe!

[Guitar Shark]

A bit of a broad brush there, but I understand the sentiment.

[Seshmeister]

Yeah but it's true that almost no one really believes the bible.

If they really thought it was definitely true they wouldn't take any chances. If the Christians thought that you were going to live forever in paradise or be tortured forever in hell you would give away all your money like Jesus said. Who would not take that chance? And if they gave even a remote shit about anyone else they knew they would plead with them to do the same. Maybe the crazy people with the placards that shout the end is nigh at passers by are the only real Christians?

They would also have to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who murdered people and claimed God told them to.

I guess FORD is on to something with the agnostic thing.

[LoungeMachine]

I describe myself as "Agnostic with Buddhist Tendencies"

:gulp:

No one KNOWS anything, so why not just live your life being kind to others, and accepting people as they are, and respecting all creatures?

My "Christian" friends claim I'm hedging my bets, but so be it.......

[Nitro Express]

I describe myself as "Agnostic with Buddhist Tendencies"

:gulp:

No one KNOWS anything, so why not just live your life being kind to others, and accepting people as they are, and respecting all creatures?

My "Christian" friends claim I'm hedging my bets, but so be it.......

Sounds like a good program to me.

I find Christians a bit paranoid. Also they want someone else to do their work for them. They blame the devil for their mistakes and then expect Jesus to save them. They totally blame someone else and expect someone else to fix their problems for them. No working on enlightenment and paying off karma. If you are lazy and like to blame someone else, become a Christian.

[chi-town324]

How some people feel happy and at peace inside a church, I have always felt just the opposite. I get a very uncomfortable feeling. And I have been to many different ones. Organized religion in general creeps me out.

[FORD]

There's not really a lot of incompatibility between Buddhism and the actual teachings of JC (as opposed to right wing church doctrines that He would hate as much as I do).

Aside from the whole reincarnation thing, there's a lot of the same things there. " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is pretty much the same as Karma. Or the Wiccan belief that "whatever you do to others is going to come back on you three times", for that matter.

And if you're an atheist and can't relate to the spiritual parts of any of that, it's still a pretty goddamned logical way to live in this world.

[Dr. Love]

Where exactly is "true north" on this compass that is in pedophile priests?

:gulp:

It spins like crazy when they get too close to little boys' southern poles.

[Nickdfresh]

I'm a Pantheist Deist who believes in Me'ist...

[jhale667]

How some people feel happy and at peace inside a church, I have always felt just the opposite. I get a very uncomfortable feeling. And I have been to many different ones. Organized religion in general creeps me out.

I actually dig the symbolism in Catholic Churches, the stations of the cross, stuff like that...I'm a MichaelAngelo (sp) fan. I used to like to go when the place was pretty much closed - quiet, peaceful, almost serene. It's when the place starts filling up with hypocrites I want to run for the exit.

Going to a parochial school, once we got to be 12-13 they started giving us the hard-sell about how they "needed" us to become priests as less and less people were going into the priesthood - almost like a guilt trip. It was creepy. One of the speaker was even doing what's called in sales the "presumptive sell" - we didn't really have a choice in the matter, it was our duty, sign here...no thanks. Plus, once they told me girls were off the table - FUHGEDABOUTIT. ;)

[FORD]

One of the things I miss the most about Tucson is the San Xavier Mission.....

http://www.sanxaviermission.org/71765020.cfml7Ej5.jpg

I've never been Catholic, and never been remotely interested in joining that church. But that Mission is fucking cool anyways. And one of the oldest buildings in the country too, built in 1797.

[Seshmeister]

I actually dig the symbolism in Catholic Churches, the stations of the cross, stuff like that...I'm a MichaelAngelo (sp) fan. I used to like to go when the place was pretty much closed - quiet, peaceful, almost serene. It's when the place starts filling up with hypocrites I want to run for the exit.

Going to a parochial school, once we got to be 12-13 they started giving us the hard-sell about how they "needed" us to become priests as less and less people were going into the priesthood - almost like a guilt trip. It was creepy. One of the speaker was even doing what's called in sales the "presumptive sell" - we didn't really have a choice in the matter, it was our duty, sign here...no thanks. Plus, once they told me girls were off the table - FUHGEDABOUTIT. ;)

It's important to remember that the child rape isn't anything to do with the specific superstition itself it's about the power and repression it brings.

For example there is more and more evidence coming out now that child rape is endemic in the horrific Hasidic Jewish cult.

[binnie]

It's important to remember that the child rape isn't anything to do with the specific superstition itself it's about the power and repression it brings.

For example there is more and more evidence coming out now that child rape is endemic in the horrific Hasidic Jewish cult.

And that most child abuse occurs WITHIN familes. Which is also horrifying.

The issue of faith/religion is something of a red herring - it is about opportunity and the limited chance of being caught.

[Seshmeister]

I have heard that argument made but it doesn't stand up at all.

Faith/religion created the opportunity otherwise how could someone have the opportunity. The religious superstition creates BOTH the opportunity and limits the chance of being caught.

You are being naive, religion was the lubricant of the mass rape of children and systematic means of covering it up. The pope himself sent out a decree that anyone that did not cover up the raoe of children would be tortured in hell for eternity.

Saying that because children are also abused sometimes by their parents is frankly kind of offensive but illustrates you haven't escaped the damage done to you as a kid.

[binnie]

I have heard that argument made but it doesn't stand up at all.

Faith/religion created the opportunity otherwise how could someone have the opportunity. The religious superstition creates BOTH the opportunity and limits the chance of being caught.

You are being naive, religion was the lubricant of the mass rape of children and systematic means of covering it up. The pope himself sent out a decree that anyone that did not cover up the raoe of children would be tortured in hell for eternity.

Saying that because children are also abused sometimes by their parents is frankly kind of offensive but illustrates you haven't escaped the damage done to you as a kid.

You're missing my point. I'm certainly not trying to diminish the crimes committed by the Priests or the Church's frankly astonishing inability to deal with the issue (or even understand it).

I'm pointing out that there is a danger here of arguing - or assuming - that 'someone is more likely to commit child abuse because they have religious faith'. I don't think that is a tenable argument. The faith is not the deciding factor - the power/control is (just as it is with parents/siblings/relations who commit similar crimes, and with rapes that happen to adults in relationships). For it to be a tenable arguement we would need evidence that faith alters the psychological/biological impetus of a person to make them more predisposed to become a paedophile - without that evidence the arguement/suggestion is made on assumption/prejudice which is equally as 'irrational' as the belief in God (because it is not empirical).

Most child abuse occurs within the family - not necessarily by parents - in the same way that most rapes are committed by someone who the victim knows or is in a relationship with.

Not sure what you mean by 'the damamge done to me as a kid' - I was not raised in a religious household (or abused - unless you count the odd whack here or there).

[Seshmeister]

I guess it comes down to a few things.

Does being a celibate priest make you a paedophile or do paedophiles deliberately become priests for easy access. Because there are 10000% more paedophiles who are/were priests than you would expect demographically.

That's a tricky one because as a science thinking person it's obvious that any ethically collected data on that is going to be problematic.

Sorry for being a dick with the catholic upbringing assumption but the fact remains that either way the religious superstition resulted in the repeated and systemic rape of children and it's cover up that would not have happened without it's power.

[jhale667]

I guess it comes down to a few things.

Does being a celibate priest make you a paedophile or do paedophiles deliberately become priests for easy access. Because there are 10000% more paedophiles who are/were priests than you would expect demographically.

That's a tricky one because as a science thinking person it's obvious that any ethically collected data on that is going to be problematic.

Sorry for being a dick with the catholic upbringing assumption but the fact remains that either way the religious superstition resulted in the repeated and systemic rape of children and it's cover up that would not have happened without it's power.

Dude, I was even an altar boy for a couple of years, nothing at all weird happened to me or my friends...it was pretty much baffling when it first started getting media attention. Can't imagine any of the priests I grew up around (well, except maybe one creepy one) doing anything like that. My best friend from school was like "Holy shit, did we dodge a bullet, or what?" and because he has a similarly twisted sense of humor, added " But hey, maybe we just weren't hot enough as kids?"


But seriously, celibacy it turns out is not a good thing long-term, because sex is more than a desire, scientists say it's a NEED. So knowing that you could kinda see someone losing it after a decade or so and acting out. And kids would be an easy target, add the fact that they have near-parental authority in those scenarios...parasites will be parasites. The Church helping to cover it up, and in some cases facilitating it? Inexcusable.

[binnie]

I guess it comes down to a few things.

Does being a celibate priest make you a paedophile or do paedophiles deliberately become priests for easy access. Because there are 10000% more paedophiles who are/were priests than you would expect demographically.

That's a tricky one because as a science thinking person it's obvious that any ethically collected data on that is going to be problematic.

Sorry for being a dick with the catholic upbringing assumption but the fact remains that either way the religious superstition resulted in the repeated and systemic rape of children and it's cover up that would not have happened without it's power.

Ok, that makes things clearer. Thanks.

There are several issues here:

1) The difference between 'faith' and 'religious institutions'. Clearly - and horrifically - the Church allowed this to continue by not removing Priests in question or really knowing how to deal with it. Consequently, as you say, the institution of the Church was a vital facilitator for it to happen. That is not the same thing as saying that faith - the belief in Christ - caused it to happen (i.e. that someone with a faith in God is more likely to be a Christian).

2) Data. As you say, it is problematic to get data on these crimes. It's the same with adult rape, too. The issue of it not being reported is crucial. Consequently, the '10000%' figure is problemtatic. Most research on child abuse points to it being most common within families. That doesn't let the Church off the hook - it simply problematises the notion that 'being religious makes you more likely to be a sexual deviant'.

3) Celibacy. Again - do we have any data (phsychological/ biological) which suggests that celibacy makes deviancy more likely, or is that an unfounded assumption?

Sorry for splitting hairs - the issue is very emotive. I think - in the spirit of thinking rationally/scientifically - that we have to acknowledge the distinction between stating 'religious people have done heinous things' and stating 'religion was the defining causal factor in motivating them to do heinous things'.

[binnie]

I meant 'that someone with a faith in God is more likely to be a paedophile'.

That's a Freudian slip :D

[Dr. Love]

3) Celibacy. Again - do we have any data (phsychological/ biological) which suggests that celibacy makes deviancy more likely, or is that an unfounded assumption?



I'll not have anyone sullying this forum's reputation with calls for a fact-based discourse.

[jhale667]

I'll not have anyone sullying this forum's reputation with calls for a fact-based discourse.


:lmao:


Actually, I wish I had a link for that study about celibacy cause weirdness long-term handy, but I don't, and can't spend a ton of time searching for it at the office...

[kwame k]

I'll not have anyone sullying this forum's reputation with calls for a fact-based discourse.

I agree.....facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of a good debate, just ask E;)

As far a pedophiles and priests goes......the simplest way would be to take the number of priests worldwide divided by the number of documented cases and come up with a working average. Use the + or - for the unreported cases and it'll give you a good idea of how prevalent this is.

The Church is clinging on to it's outdated traditions and the results are less priests answering the calling and less people attending church, as far as Catholics are concerned.

Most people have no problem with priests being able to marry, use of contraception and women becoming priests or playing a greater role in the Church.

Either way you'll never find a rational answer for something that is an abhorrent act. As much as we'd like to have it......we never will.

[jhale667]

The Church is clinging on to it's outdated traditions and the results are less priests answering the calling and less people attending church, as far as Catholics are concerned.



Odd that rather than examine what they're doing WRONG to cause this, their answer is (or was in our case) to try to guilt poor kids into "answering the call" they weren't hearing... it's not someone's obligation to join the priesthood, but you wouldn't have known that listening to some of the speakers they brought in at that time! It was offensive.

[Nitro Express]

Honestly. Think about it. What kind of person would give up women, to hang with other men who gave up women or ugly women who gave up men? Then you get to wear funny clothes and funny hats and scare people that there is a invisible man in the sky that watches everything you do and if you don't do what he wants you to do, this big red guy with horns who lives under ground will have the glee of torturing you for all eternity. Then to get the golden ticket you have to pay the guys in the funny hats lots of money and do whatever they tell you to do. Don't you think these sicko homos on a power trip would be the kind of people who fuck kids up the ass?

[kwame k]

Odd that rather than examine what they're doing WRONG to cause this, their answer is (or was in our case) to try to guilt poor kids into "answering the call" they weren't hearing... it's not someone's obligation to join the priesthood, but you wouldn't have known that listening to some of the speakers they brought in at that time! It was offensive.

Yeah, I had the same guilt trip.....when asked if I'd consider being a priest I starting laughing.....maybe not a good answer but they got the gist;)

As many people have pointed out numerous times before.....priests were allowed to marry and did for many centuries....it wasn't until they figured out that by having no heirs, meant the Church got to keep all the profits, that the celibacy thing took root.

Most practicing Catholics defy the Pope's or the Church's teachings anyways. 80% of sexually active people use some form of contraception [industrialize nations].

Is there a link between celibacy and pedophiles? Probably........although if you look at most sexual predators they are by no means celibate so the question is kinda circular.

[Nitro Express]

Why religious movements push having children is it's easier to keep people born into the church than to go out and convert new members. Then of course successful religions run schools and universities and most of those are pretty good because they want their slaves educated. Why? Educated people make more money and have more influence in society. The church makes more money and gets more power that way. If the religion is a young one, they tend to promote polygamy because you can build up a population base quicker. The formula is marry another member of the church, stay away from the birth control, have lots of kids, and educate them at a church school and or send them on a mission. Then they marry a member of the church and the cycle continues for another generation while some old men who run things get off on their power trips and count their money. Pretty much the formula.

[chi-town324]

how bout another creepy Catholic ritual...confession...yea go into a little wooden closet and wait for the priest to slide the divider open...and tell him all the bad things you've done...oh and then go say a few hail mary's and all is forgiven....if thats not weird and creepy i don't know what is

[FORD]

how bout another creepy Catholic ritual...confession...yea go into a little wooden closet and wait for the priest to slide the divider open...and tell him all the bad things you've done...oh and then go say a few hail mary's and all is forgiven....if thats not weird and creepy i don't know what is

Well, there actually is a Scriptural basis for that one, to some extent, in Matthew 6:6



But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

So the confession box is somewhat Biblical, even if confessing to a priest itself is not

[Seshmeister]

I always think it's incredibly ironic when priests talk about homosexuality being unnatural.

It's absolutely and fundamentally impossible to think of any action that is more unnatural to a biological creature than celibacy.

Introduced of course to prevent the inheritance of church property by the children of priests back in the day.

Birds do it, bees do it even educated fleas do it...

[kwame k]

Be prosperous and multiply.......

They must of missed that day in bible study;)

[FORD]

Not to mention that priests consider themselves "married" to Christ. Who was a dude, last I heard.

[kwame k]

:biggrin:

So nuns should be :sex: by that logic!

[So this is love]

thats a heavy subject to discuss :bigboobs:on a Friday night guys???:beers8::beers8:

[kwame k]

Nah, I'm not into fat chicks;)

[binnie]

I always think it's incredibly ironic when priests talk about homosexuality being unnatural.

It's absolutely and fundamentally impossible to think of any action that is more unnatural to a biological creature than celibacy.

Introduced of course to prevent the inheritance of church property by the children of priests back in the day.

Birds do it, bees do it even educated fleas do it...

I love it when people use 'unnatural' to criticize behaviour. Can anything which happens in nature be (by definition) unnatural?

'Abnormal', perhaps, but not unnatural - it's the easiest way to undercut arguments posited by homophobes, I find. Of course, they'll usually assume that because you're defending gay people you must be one......:D