The Hazards of Belief

Goduznt Xzst · 09-09-2009 10:06AM

More crazy religious bias from across the pond:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m7d1-Indiana-man-denied-No-Gods-though-state-offers-In-God-We-Trust-license-plates

Skrynesaver · 10-09-2009 03:29PM

Sometimes even prayer won't help

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/devout_catholic/

5uspect · 10-09-2009 03:36PM

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Sometimes even prayer won't help

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/devout_catholic/

I'm just back from Vienna and visited many churches, and survived unscathed.

Dades · 10-09-2009 03:56PM

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Sometimes even prayer won't help

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/devout_catholic/

The Final Destination films spring to mind. :eek:

pH · 12-09-2009 02:50PM

The dangers of attending church regularly.

Many Women Targeted by Faith Leaders, Survey Says
One in every 33 women who attend worship services regularly has been the target of sexual advances by a religious leader, a survey released Wednesday says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090901724.html

kiffer · 12-09-2009 05:11PM

pH wrote: »

The dangers of attending church regularly.

Many Women Targeted by Faith Leaders, Survey Says
One in every 33 women who attend worship services regularly has been the target of sexual advances by a religious leader, a survey released Wednesday says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090901724.html

1 in 33? that's ~3% that's not all that surprising ... Men are men.
a more interesting number would be how many religious leader types used/abused their influence to gain sexual favours... and is either this or that number any different from other groups such as employers or police officers.

Also... 33? that was Jesus's age when he died... 1 in 33? take 1 from 33 you have 32! 3 + 2 = 5! All Hail Eris!

philologos · 12-09-2009 05:28PM

What defines a "sexual advance" according to this study? Is it merely the claim that one has been "sexually advanced" or by evidencing that the act actually took place?

Interestingly pH leaves out the section in the article dealing with measures that have been taken by people in religious groups to try and limit sexual abuse in the article from the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Rabbis to the United Church of Christ. This is something which can only be praised.

pH has additionally avoided this line:

Researchers say they don't know whether the incidence of clergy sexual misconduct had changed over the years. Nor do they know whether sexual wrongdoing by clergy is more, or less, frequent than in other well-respected professions.

Hm, it doesn't seem that this is an argument to suggest that sexual approaches are higher within church settings than in other secular settings.

5uspect · 12-09-2009 06:09PM

Interesting development from the Mormons:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/deluded_but_with_good_intent.php

It seems that some degree of critical thinking may yet exist, however small.

pH · 13-09-2009 08:25AM

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

@Jackass - I guess if what you're saying is that you're happy that those wielding religious power, those who dedicate their life to your God and telling others how to behave, you're happy that they're no worse than a non-religious person?

If you set the bar so low, you can hardly fail to be impressed - Christian Morality - "A lifetime of reading and preaching the bible - doesn't make any difference" - an impressive claim I'm sure.

philologos · 13-09-2009 08:42AM

pH wrote: »

@Jackass - I guess if what you're saying is that you're happy that those wielding religious power, those who dedicate their life to your God and telling others how to behave, you're happy that they're no worse than a non-religious person?

It just feels ironic, that you are claiming that this is any more of a hazard than in the real world.

Clearly the people in these denominations of Judaism and Christianity have already shown themselves to be more vigilant in ensuring that this doesn't happen within their own groups than secular groups have been outside of it.

I'm not particularly happy that these things happened, what I am pleased about is that the churches are actually doing something to stop these things from being repeated.

pH wrote: »

If you set the bar so low, you can hardly fail to be impressed - Christian Morality - "A lifetime of reading and preaching the bible - doesn't make any difference" - an impressive claim I'm sure.

Again, see my main point in the first paragraph. I'm still curious as to what defines a "sexual advance" for the purposes of this study. It's strange that they don't give a definition in the article.

Are the claims just taken on their word, or are they substantiated?

pH · 13-09-2009 10:15AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Are the claims just taken on their word, or are they substantiated?

Again, I like your thinking on this! Taking the claims of "[those] who attend worship services regularly" on their word is definitely something we shouldn't do lightly. Glad to see you're as sceptical as me about how honest the religious really are.

philologos · 13-09-2009 11:12AM

Considering that false claims against church ministers are also quite common, these things do need to be assessed before ruining peoples reputations over it.

See this for one: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mhkfmhsnsnoj/

Its a fair question to ask how these cases of "sexual advances" are defined.

I just found it interesting the way you took one line in that article, and ignored many other important points that were contained in it.

Galvasean · 13-09-2009 11:55AM

pH wrote: »

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

What creeped me out was this:

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated

1) How can people of such authority hold such ill-informed views?
2) How the heck is that a film review?

kiffer · 13-09-2009 12:24PM

yeah... Wasn't Hitler a Lamarckian Eugenics type...
Also having spoken with the creationists on the other forum at length we know that: a. Even most of them accept that at least basic selective breeding works...
And b. It would not have been morally wrong to kill off all the male lines of an entire tribe keeping only unbred females of their tribe to breed with... Thus selecting against the genetic male rather than the culture itself... Otherwise the the possibly pregnant women would not also have had to die.

Thus it can be claimed that selected breeding of humans is not biblically wrong (do not allow your enemies to breed by killing even unborn or infant males)...
And we also know selected breeding of humans would work... although I do imagine it could back fire pretty quickly...

Does the bible prohibit castrating slaves, prisoners, criminals or so on? It clearly allows the wiping out of undesired male lines by killing at the very least... :-D

Stercus Accidit · 13-09-2009 01:36PM

Jakkass wrote: »

What defines a "sexual advance" according to this study? Is it merely the claim that one has been "sexually advanced" or by evidencing that the act actually took place?

Scepticism of claims of sexual abuse of the clergy hasn't proved to be a good thing yet, cough cough, ryan report. After all, they have been placed on a moral platform often for no good reason, they are in a position of power and righteousness over others, there is a community stigma about even coming forward about such an abuse, they have been forced to live an unnatural sexual lifestyle because of superstitions.

While it is valid to want a clearer definition of the accusations, the church has proven to be an exploiter of their position, so I'd be a lot less sceptical of an accusation brought against them, especially given the risks to the accuser.
I'd be happy enough if these advances were limited to grown single women or men and with normal social norms of dating, rather than the alternative.

Interestingly pH leaves out the section in the article dealing with measures that have been taken by people in religious groups to try and limit sexual abuse in the article from the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Rabbis to the United Church of Christ.

Limit sexual abuse? How about informing the authorities and pursuing prosecutions where necessary, rather than acting on the premise that the church is the one true law, its members above the laws of the plebs.

This is something which can only be praised.

Except for the endemic nature of cover ups and self imposed slaps on the wrist, example, RCC. Leave the policing to the police, and maybe long term jail sentences and public prosecution will limit sexual abuses.

philologos · 13-09-2009 04:21PM

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

While it is valid to want a clearer definition of the accusations, the church has proven to be an exploiter of their position, so I'd be a lot less sceptical of an accusation brought against them, especially given the risks to the accuser.

Your basically saying, accept the study as it says without thinking about the finer detail.

pH's article also shows us in detail how the churches and the synagogues in the USA have put measures in place to stop this from happening in their churches again. Isn't that to be praised?

I'm quite aware that this has happened in the past, I question the figures and their accuracy nonetheless.

As for "the church", what church, this study includes numerous different denominations.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I'd be happy enough if these advances were limited to grown single women or men and with normal social norms of dating, rather than the alternative.

As would I, I hardly support adultery.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Limit sexual abuse? How about informing the authorities and pursuing prosecutions where necessary, rather than acting on the premise that the church is the one true law, its members above the laws of the plebs.

Read the article. Please just do.

In the United Church of Christ, ministers must attend a workshop on clergy sexual abuse every three years, and those seeking jobs in the ministry must have their names checked against government sex offender lists, said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, spokesman for the 1.2 million-member denomination.

Most already do cooperate with the police and authorities.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Except for the endemic nature of cover ups and self imposed slaps on the wrist, example, RCC. Leave the policing to the police, and maybe long term jail sentences and public prosecution will limit sexual abuses.

Why do you assume that I am supportive of this? I'm not here to defend the Catholic Church and their involvement in child abuse.

1 in 33 is actually quite low in comparison. It shouldn't be happening at all, but the churches in the US seem to be getting their acts together to deal with it.

Considering that 1 in 4 females in Ireland are sexually abused as children, this rate is very good.

Galvasean · 13-09-2009 04:29PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering that 1 in 4 females in Ireland are sexually abused as children, this rate is very good.

Woah! Are you serious? Source?

philologos · 13-09-2009 04:36PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Woah! Are you serious? Source?

Apologies, one in five, but still an atrocious statistic.
One in six for males.

http://www.oneinfour.org/about/irishstatistics/

Dades · 13-09-2009 05:59PM

^^ I don't believe those statistics. ^^

As in, I question their validity.

kiffer · 13-09-2009 06:06PM

1 in 5 women reported sexual contact before the age of 17... Then by the next paragraph sexual contact becomes abuse... How do the define abuse?

To be blunt I don't count sex between 'consenting' 16 year olds as being anything close to child abuse... I've a funny feeling this site might count it as such

Galvasean · 13-09-2009 06:10PM

kiffer wrote: »

1 in 5 women reported sexual contact before the age of 17... Then by the next paragraph sexual contact becomes abuse... How do the define abuse?

To be blunt I don't count sex between 'consenting' 16 year olds as being anything close to child abuse... I've a funny feeling this site might count it as such

I was thinking along these lines myself. Those numbers quoted in the site look incredibly high.

Flamed Diving · 13-09-2009 06:25PM

Dades wrote: »

^^ I don't believe those statistics. ^^

As in, I question their validity.

'Afourist'

Stercus Accidit · 14-09-2009 05:56PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Your basically saying, accept the study as it says without thinking about the finer detail.

I'm more concerned with the instant cynicism you met the claims with, it reminded me very much of how it used to be with these accusations, and how that worked out.
Fair enough, look into the study more before jumping to conclusions, but saying the claims are bogus or implying they are is also a conclusion.
You may argue you weren't jumping to any conclusions but it was clear you were defending the organisations in question, by casting doubt on the study, without good reason.

pH's article also shows us in detail how the churches and the synagogues in the USA have put measures in place to stop this from happening in their churches again. Isn't that to be praised?

About bloody time more like.

I'm quite aware that this has happened in the past, I question the figures and their accuracy nonetheless.

Aye question them, but don't imply they are bogus before those questions are answered.

As for "the church", what church, this study includes numerous different denominations.

Any church, I don't hold any in higher regard than another.

As would I, I hardly support adultery.

Just as long as any sexual activities (not necessarily adultery) was consenting and not based on an exploitation of position of power/influence. Really, until the forced celibacy is removed from the churches that enforce it, unnatural sexual behaviour will occur. I think it was Freud who said that the only unnatural sexual activity is no sexual activity.

Read the article. Please just do.

I made a statement with consideration to an extreme example outside of the scope of the article, fair enough, not completely relevant to the article.

Most already do cooperate with the police and authorities.

All of them already should be, I won't criticise them for doing so but I won't be singing their praises either for doing the bog standard bare minimum right thing that should always have been the case.

Why do you assume that I am supportive of this? I'm not here to defend the Catholic Church and their involvement in child abuse.

1 in 33 is actually quite low in comparison. It shouldn't be happening at all, but the churches in the US seem to be getting their acts together to deal with it.

Considering that 1 in 4 females in Ireland are sexually abused as children, this rate is very good.

I don't assume that, again I went to an extreme example not related directly to the churches in the article, fair point, but the underlying issues that lead to abuses of power of any kind all come back to a lack of transparency, and in the past the stigma of making an accusation, and the immunity and protection offered by churches to their members, combined again, with the unnatural life of celibacy imposed on many of them.
Sure, its a good thing that there is now greater protections in place, but I will still maintain that these are just moderation of the existing problem, and a forced and delayed reaction, with much of the damage already done.

robindch · 08-10-2009 10:11AM

Seems that the Mississippi Department of Human Services runs a number of no-sex-please-we're-Mississippians! events each year. This year, at the largest of these events, the state ran a competition to find the best "abstinence-only cheer". More from Arianna here, including a video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sexual-justice/god-and-abstinence_b_213462.html

The winner was a team which cheered to tune of "Stop, don't touch me there! You know this is my no-no square".

09-10-2009 07:24PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299991.stm

Two people have been reported dead and about 19 others taken to hospital after being overcome while in a sauna-like room at a spiritual retreat in Arizona.

Police said about 50 people were in a so-called "sweatbox" structure at the Angel Valley resort for about two hours before many became ill, reports say.

A Yavapai County sheriff's office spokesman said the two people who died were a middle-aged man and woman.

Police are investigating what may have happened, the Associated Press reports.

Homicide detectives are working to determine whether any criminal factors may have been a factor in the incident, AP quotes sheriff's spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn as saying.

Twenty-one people were taken by ambulance and helicopter to hospital on Thursday night, he said.

Two people were listed as being in a critical condition on Friday. Half a dozen others were said to have been discharged.

The 70-acre retreat near the town of Sedona, about 115 miles (185km) north of Phoenix, offers holistic treatments and spiritual retreats in a natural setting, according to its website.

According to local news reports, the sweatbox structure comprised a dome-shaped frame covered by tarpaulins and blankets, with steam generated by pouring water on to hot rocks.

The sweatbox is used in rituals by some Native American cultures.

kiffer · 10-10-2009 10:07AM

Deleted User wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299991.stm

Hazards of saunas?

ZorbaTehZ · 14-10-2009 05:26PM

A man is facing the death penalty in Texas, after jurors in trial consulted the bible... yes, you read that correctly THE ****ING BIBLE!!!!!!!

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

The passage in question is Numbers 35:16:

"And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death"

which apparently is relevant because he has been accused of striking the dead person with the butt of a rifle after shooting him.

.... :eek:

robindch · 22-10-2009 10:27AM

The "Quiverfull" families in the USA are producing kids at unbelievable rates, motivated by biblical instruction. It'll be interesting to see if this propagates down the generations, but at this rate, they'll overrun the USA within a century or two.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8287740.stm

With 10 and more kids around, you'd wonder how much one-on-one time any of them get with their parents.

Galvasean · 22-10-2009 12:01PM

robindch wrote: »

The "Quiverfull" families in the USA are producing kids at unbelievable rates, motivated by biblical instruction. It'll be interesting to see if this propagates down the generations, but at this rate, they'll overrun the USA within a century or two.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8287740.stm

With 10 and more kids around, you'd wonder how much one-on-one time any of them get with their parents.

From what I can tell their logic seems to be 'have enough kids and one is likely to be a success'.
I can forsee the lak of 'one-to-one time' leading to a high lebel of 'drop outs'

robindch · 22-10-2009 02:13PM

Galvasean wrote: »

I can forsee the lak of 'one-to-one time' leading to a high lebel of 'drop outs'

Maybe, but I wouldn't be sure. Personally, I'd expect them to be better than average at integrating with peer groups, and from that, perhaps better adapted to getting ahead in society at large? Who knows?

Anyhow, I hope some sociology department is following them generation-on-generation all the same. Should make interesting reading in a few hundred years!

The Hazards of Belief

Comments