Child Sex Abuse And Atheists

[Salvador]

The most important point to make, with regards to this is that you do not differentiate in any way between what is called "sexual harassment" (in education per Wikipedia) and "sexual abuse," such as that which is causing such a major disruption in the Church right up to this day. Much of the "harassment" in schools (which comes from staff, teachers and other students) is simply verbal or visual suggestion of an "unwanted" nature. Thus, saying to somebody "you're hot!" would be considered harassment if it were unwanted. That is hardly the same thing as the abuse referred to in the church scandals.

Beware of conflating too much.

And the second thing to point out is that the "sexual harassment" described in schools, while it may be unwanted, is not yet criminal. Maybe some day laws will be passed so that we are not permitted to even say "hello" unless a proper welcoming signal is given, but that day hasn't come yet. On the other hand, the touching a little boy's or girl's genitals by an adult -- whether priest or teacher -- or making them touch the adult's, are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.

Although I've never been a parent, I can assure you of this -- if a child of mine ever came home and told me that his priest, or his teacher, or the mailman -- had touched his weenie and put a finger in his bum, the police would be there before anybody had time to catch another breath. And only then would I turn my attention to the church, the school or the post office.

Nowadays, a functional security surveillance camera near the Church altar, or a review of the web browser history of each Priest can likely identify which of them are pedophiles and who aren't pedophiles; the technology is there to likely catch any Priest in the act of sexually abusing any young parishioner, or at least identify any Priest who is apt to sexually abuse some youthful parishioner.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"A major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees."

Sexual harassment in education in the United States - Wikipedia

Okay, so that's a study showing self-reporting by victims of sexual attention by school employees. Not denying it's an issue, but it means there is no proof required, and the constitution of what is 'sexual attention' is left to the child.

According to a 2004 research study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been plausibly (neither withdrawn nor disproven) accused of under-age sexual abuse by 10,667 individuals.

That is a far higher bar, in so far as this only counts instances of actual accusation of abuse, and further, where those are neither withdrawn nor disproven. This is a LONG way from comparing apples with apples.

Basically, use the same measure on the church, and the figures you are reporting here would be exponentially higher.

The report itself claims that 4.4% of priests were actually accused of sexual abuse. There are 3.6 million teachers in the US, so that would equate to accusations against well over 150,000 teachers. That's not a completely fair way to assess it (gender skewing, for a start), but hopefully you can see my point here.

However, let me just state that harrassment and abuse in schools is a problem, and the solution to that is increased transparency, training and reporting.
Harrassment and abuse in churches is a problem, and the solution to that is......?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The statistics do indicate a Catholic child is nearly 400 times less likely to have been sexually harassed by a Priest than the likelihood a public school student has been sexually harassed by a public school teacher or administrator.

You haven't supplied evidence to back this claim up. And, suspiciously, stop providing data a couple steps before we can crunch the numbers for ourselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

The statistics do indicate a Catholic child is nearly 400 times less likely to have been sexually harassed by a Priest than the likelihood a public school student has been sexually harassed by a public school teacher or administrator.

I'm curious about these statistics.
Public school teachers don't have a global organization to protect sexual
assailants, pay off the victims, wage a PR campaign against them, get
police protection, & move the offenders to new venues to begin anew.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I just re-watched Spotlight.
It illustrates the power of a religious organization to subvert
the law & church in order to hide & continue raping children.
I know, I know...it's a movie.
But the assaults & cover ups did really occur.
Ref....
Spotlight (film) - Wikipedia

All over the world....

 

[Revoltingest]

All over the world....

Aye, a global evil....like Spectre or Kaos, but more horrible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Aye, a global evil....like Spectre or Kaos, but more horrible.

I would have said, "like humans." I do most heartily believe that under our various disguises (races, religions and the rest) we really are of one kind. And as some of our more remarkable specimens, like Stephen Hawking and Yuval Noah Harari have pointed out, we share a remarkable number of utterly stupid qualities for what is, for however long, such a successful species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aye, a global evil....like Spectre or Kaos, but more horrible.

I thought we were not supposed to talk about Spectre and Kaos.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would have said, "like humans." I do most heartily believe that under our various disguises (races, religions and the rest) we really are of one kind. And as some of our more remarkable specimens, like Stephen Hawking and Yuval Noah Harari have pointed out, we share a remarkable number of utterly stupid qualities for what is, for however long, such a successful species.

I am a tad centric on the issue and hope it is a long time more, but given what I am reading about climate change and the potential extinction of large swaths of insect fauna, I am growing concerned.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought we were not supposed to talk about Spectre and Kaos.

We don't work for Control or MI6, so we're allowed to openly speak of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We don't work for Control or MI6, so we're allowed to openly speak of them.

We don't work for thos...Oh yeah. That's right. We do not work for those organizations.

I was thinking of fight club.

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't work for thos...Oh yeah. That's right. We do not work for those organizations.

I was thinking of fight club.

I don't work at all, so I can gossip about anyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't work at all, so I can gossip about anyone.

That is an excellent cover. It must leave you with plenty of time to gather intelligence, er gossip.

 

[Pudding]

I mean atheists as a group in general do not....if you know otherwise please show me the evidence

Just asking for clarify and thanks.

 

[Salvador]

Okay, so that's a study showing self-reporting by victims of sexual attention by school employees. Not denying it's an issue, but it means there is no proof required, and the constitution of what is 'sexual attention' is left to the child.



That is a far higher bar, in so far as this only counts instances of actual accusation of abuse, and further, where those are neither withdrawn nor disproven. This is a LONG way from comparing apples with apples.

Basically, use the same measure on the church, and the figures you are reporting here would be exponentially higher.

The report itself claims that 4.4% of priests were actually accused of sexual abuse. There are 3.6 million teachers in the US, so that would equate to accusations against well over 150,000 teachers. That's not a completely fair way to assess it (gender skewing, for a start), but hopefully you can see my point here.

However, let me just state that harrassment and abuse in schools is a problem, and the solution to that is increased transparency, training and reporting.
Harrassment and abuse in churches is a problem, and the solution to that is......?

I couldn't find any comprehensive surveys done for Catholics responding to the question if they've ever been sexually harassed by a Priest. The ratio of Catholic priests to young age parishioners who regularly attend Church is somewhere around 2,500 :1. Whereas, the ratio of public school students to public school teachers and administrators is somewhere around 12:1. So then, a public school student is probably going to be alone in the presence of a public school teacher or administrator around 200 times the amount of time that a young age Catholic parishioner is going to be alone in the presence of a Priest. Hence, this factor will make it somewhere 200 times more likely that a public school student will be sexually harassed/sexually assaulted by a public school teacher or public school administrator than the likelihood that a young age Catholic parishioner at Church would be sexually harassed/sexually abused by his Priest. If the number of Catholics who were to respond yes to the question of being sexually harassed/sexually assaulted were 2-3 times greater than the number of them who've formally complained about being sexually harassed/sexually assaulted, then this would indicate that Priests have the same likelihood of acting on pedophilia urges as do public school teachers and public school administrators.

Nowadays, a functional security surveillance camera near the Church altar, or a review of the web browser history of each Priest can likely identify which of them are pedophiles and who aren't pedophiles; the technology is there to likely catch any Priest in the act of sexually abusing any young parishioner, or at least identify any Priest who is apt to sexually abuse some youthful parishioner.

 

[Salvador]

You haven't supplied evidence to back this claim up. And, suspiciously, stop providing data a couple steps before we can crunch the numbers for ourselves.

My use of statistics, which show that a Catholic is nearly 400 times less likely to have been sexually harassed as a child by a Priest than the likelihood of somebody having been sexually harassed as a public school student by a public school employee, is for a couple of reasons misleading towards making it appear as though a Priest is far less likely to sexually harass/assault a young age Parishioner attending his Church than the likelihood of a school teacher of sexually harassing one of her/his students attending her class/school.

I couldn't find any comprehensive surveys done for Catholics responding to the question if they've ever been sexually harassed by a Priest. The ratio of Catholic priests to young age parishioners who regularly attend Church is somewhere around 2,500 :1. Whereas, the ratio of public school students to public school teachers and administrators is somewhere around 12:1. So then, a public school student is probably going to be alone in the presence of a public school teacher or administrator around 200 times the amount of time that a young age Catholic parishioner is going to be alone in the presence of a Priest. Hence, this factor will make it somewhere 200 times more likely that a public school student will be sexually harassed/sexually assaulted by a public school teacher or public school administrator than the likelihood that a young age Catholic parishioner at Church would be sexually harassed/sexually abused by his Priest. If the number of Catholics who were to respond yes to the question of being sexually harassed/sexually assaulted were 2-3 times greater than the number of them who've formally complained about being sexually harassed/sexually assaulted, then this would indicate that Priests have the same likelihood of acting on pedophilia urges as do public school teachers and public school administrator.

 

[Salvador]

I'm curious about these statistics.
Public school teachers don't have a global organization to protect sexual
assailants, pay off the victims, wage a PR campaign against them, get
police protection, & move the offenders to new venues to begin anew.

I've now revealed in post #175/#176 the truth about my use of statistics, which show that a Catholic is nearly 400 times less likely to have been sexually harassed as a child by a Priest than the likelihood of somebody having been sexually harassed as a public school student by a public school employee, is for a couple of reasons misleading towards making it appear as though a Priest is far less likely to sexually harass/assault a young age Parishioner attending his Church than the likelihood of a school teacher of sexually harassing one of her/his students attending her class/school.

The truth shall set us free! ....

 

[Revoltingest]

I've now revealed in post #175/#176 the truth about my use of statistics, which show that a Catholic is nearly 400 times less likely to have been sexually harassed as a child by a Priest than the likelihood of somebody having been sexually harassed as a public school student by a public school employee, is for a couple of reasons misleading towards making it appear as though a Priest is far less likely to sexually harass/assault a young age Parishioner attending his Church than the likelihood of a school teacher of sexually harassing one of her/his students attending her class/school.

The truth shall set us free! ....

I have some issues.

From your post #176....
"...a public school student is probably going to be alone in the presence of a public school teacher or administrator around 200 times the amount of time that a young age Catholic parishioner is going to be alone in the presence of a Priest. Hence, this factor will make it somewhere 200 times more likely that a public school student will be sexually harassed/sexually assaulted by a public school teacher or...."
....There is no basis to assume equal propensity of sexual predation.
Instead, it appears that priests are far more likely to sexually abuse
a child because of the whole celibacy situation, & the knowledge that
the church will cover up the assaults.

From #175...
"Nowadays, a functional security surveillance camera near the Church altar, or a review of the web browser history of each Priest can likely identify which of them are pedophiles and who aren't pedophiles; the technology is there to likely catch any Priest in the act of sexually abusing any young parishioner, or at least identify any Priest who is apt to sexually abuse some youthful parishioner."
Surveillance could be used in both church & public education venues.
So this doesn't change the relative risks to children. But given the
clergy's greater propensity to abuse children, they're still the greater
risk. And they'd be in a position to know where surveillance is, & where
it isn't. I'm not convinced that churches place the welfare of children
above the desire to protect the clergy.

 

[Salvador]

I have some issues.

From your post #176....
"...a public school student is probably going to be alone in the presence of a public school teacher or administrator around 200 times the amount of time that a young age Catholic parishioner is going to be alone in the presence of a Priest. Hence, this factor will make it somewhere 200 times more likely that a public school student will be sexually harassed/sexually assaulted by a public school teacher or...."
....There is no basis to assume equal propensity of sexual predation.
Instead, it appears that priests are far more likely to sexually abuse
a child because of the whole celibacy situation, & the knowledge that
the church will cover up the assaults.

From #175...
"Nowadays, a functional security surveillance camera near the Church altar, or a review of the web browser history of each Priest can likely identify which of them are pedophiles and who aren't pedophiles; the technology is there to likely catch any Priest in the act of sexually abusing any young parishioner, or at least identify any Priest who is apt to sexually abuse some youthful parishioner."
Surveillance could be used in both church & public education venues.
So this doesn't change the relative risks to children. But given the
clergy's greater propensity to abuse children, they're still the greater
risk. And they'd be in a position to know where surveillance is, & where
it isn't. I'm not convinced that churches place the welfare of children
above the desire to protect the clergy.

We could easily determine if Priests are more inclined than public school teachers to act upon pedophilia urges; this could be done If there were a comprehensive survey done for Catholic men, who were altar boys of their Church, asking them if they were sexually abused or sexually harassed by their Priests; and if the results from this study were compared with the survey done for public high school students, who responded to the question asked of them if they were ever ever sexually harassed or were sexually assaulted by their public school teacher.

Why no such study has yet been done, does remain a mystery to me.

Would I be able to conduct a research survey in the Catholic section of RF, asking Catholics if they ever had been an altar boy at Church, if so, then were they ever sexually harassed/sexually abused by his Priest?

 

[nPeace]

No. I am summarizing the deflection I am witnessing.

I am not surprised to see it happen. It is a common tactic I encounter. Things like accusations of some vague hidden agenda. It is typical means of deflection.
Another vague, passive aggressive deflection and insult.

Saying that you are putting words in someone's mouth, and that you object when persons do it to you, is an insult?
If that's the case, can you count on you fingers and toes the number insults you have dished out?

What is my agenda that you keep referring too? I do not know it. The OP is about known child abuse cases in religious organizations and a questions of why you do not see the same in atheist organizations. You and others on here seem to think that religious organizations should operate under special and separate rules and avoid the law. I do not. That is it. It is not a problem unique to religious organizations and on that I agree, but you bring that up along with evidence both on point and off to deflect away from the fact that it happens in churches too. You sweep away the fact, that in house of God, it should never happen at all. And there should never be a cover up or that legal processes and the rights of victims be excluded.

Which one of my posts did you find that idea, and since it's me and others, why did you target me? I haven't seen you talk to those others. No agenda?
Let's start with my first question - Which of my posts gave you the idea that I seem to think that religious organizations should operate under special and separate rules and avoid the law?

Since you never reveal any true motives that you keep talking about, I cannot address them. You have my reasons for being interested in this thread. That is as true as it gets. I do not think that a church should get a pass just because it is a church. Any Christian should feel the same way as I see it. I cannot understand why they would not considering the basis for Christian faith.

I didn't realize the OP had anything to do with the church getting a pass for anything.
Maybe I need glasses, as someone here suggested.

I thought it had to do with first, the topic. Second, the questions in the OP.

My first post. My point was made clear - people, religious or not, commit crimes against children. It not about religion.

My second post. Again I made my point clear - people, religious or not - including atheist -, commit crimes against children. It not about religion.

All of what I was discussing was dealing with the so-called "lopsided difference" between Atheists and Christians - as though only Christians were involved in this problem.
The question - Could it be that, for whatever reason, the Christian religion either attracts child sex abusers or turns people into them?
If not, how do you explain such a lopsided difference?
My arguments were to show that to be a myth.
Afterwards I was engaged in conversation.

Now enter you.
Your first post. 911 in the United States.
What does that have to do with anything here?

Your second post.
It's obvious you are looking for a way to engage, so I bite.

You third post.

One thing I noticed in the responses is the rush to find anything that is remotely associated with secular, agnostic or atheistic groups to show that it is not only Christian organizations that have problems with child abuse. It is important to find child sexual abuse and stop it wherever it is found, but these rushes to show it does occur outside of church gives a sense that we can ignore it in church because it happens elsewhere. The point about all this as I see it, is that church should be the last place it should happen and not even that. It should not happen there at all.

To me, this highlights your agenda.
First, you say people rush to find anything ... to show that not only Christian organizations are involved.
Then you talk of what is important is to find it, and stop it.
Those rushes to show it occurs outside the church gives the sense that we can ignore it in church, because we have shown it happens outside.
Then you get to your point - It should never happen there - not in church.

I'm not going to point out the agenda directly. I think it's clear to everyone. However, you mentioned your main point a few times, so I want to deal with it...since I think it can contribute in a meaningful way, to the OP.

Why don't you think this sort of thing should not happen in church?
I think this is very important so let's zero in on this.

I do not know what that means. Did you just make that up? It looks silly. I am not being willfully ignorant, if that is what you are claiming. Quite the contrary. Based on what you have posted, I interpreted--correctly as far as I can tell--your position. I can accept that I could be wrong about that interpretation, but that is not evidence for willful ignorance on my part and this looks like more deflection to me.

It looks silly? You should see the image I had in mind to post. Do you want to see it?
It's just showing that your accusations, and assumptions are made willfully even though you have no knowledge of them being right, so yes, I made it up Effective Willful Wrong, in order to fit my feelings toward what I consider baseless accusations.

Spoiler: EWW