The Lemon Fool

I wonder how regular church attendees feel after seeing the BBC2 programme 'Exposed the Church's Darkest Secret'.

I have my own opinions about organised religion and though not surprised by the programme's findings, it confirmed my worst suspicions.
The conclusion I come to is that the CoE is every bit as guilty as the RC church in the manner they have behaved over many years. In both cases it goes right to the top. The protection and support of offenders in face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

So do we have any regular Church goers here? If so, what are your thoughts?

not a churchgoer at all - except to view the buildings.

shocking cover ups and absence of care for victims - more exploitation of vunerables.

bishop carey and "prince" charles dont come out of this at all well.

The church has a long history of turning a blind eye. Back in the 1940s our vicar had a live in boy friend. Nobody was bothered and of course the law was different back then.

Protection of minors is the area where the church has fallen down. Secrecy and unwillingness to complain or report unacceptable behaviour has been a major factor. Those who read the News of the World in those days will have been well aware of prosecutions of choirmasters, cub and scout leaders, etc. for their various peccadillos.

There seems to have been a reluctance to do the same for men of the cloth. Quite why is probably lost in the mists of time, but I suspect that word of mouth was used to ensure opportunities were kept to a minimum.

Sympathy with those of the pederast persuasion may be a factor.

The increasing numbers of women in the clergy can only have a good effect.

TJH

Snorvey wrote:Religion has been a blight on human history.

There's been so much death, torture and abuse carried out in the name of some mythical deity and yet.....and yet the media still turn to prominent figures in religion when they look for the moral standpoint on an issue.

I totally agree with the first sentiment, yet within various churches are to be found men and women who actually do care about their fellow humans (and the planet in general) and within their ranks people who have spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about morality and ethics.

As an athiest myself, I try to separate the concept of god from the actions of those who believe. Bad, scheming manipulative people have often used the church to further their own ends or to cling to power (and its trappings) whilst hiding from justice. Yet there have been many within those same churches who have provided comfort, help and hope to those in need.

Overall, I think the world would be better without the bad people. Getting rid of the churches would just leave them to crawl under another stone of convenience, such is human nature. In an ideal world the churches would preach humanism and be done with the concept of god, buth that's a bonus I'm unlikely to witness, assuming I'm wrong about reincarnation.

VRD

Yes there are undoubtedly a high proportion of excellent people in the churches with deep moral values but the problem is once you have a creed based on faith – I’m right and everyone who believes differently is going to hell / God is on my side / the unbelievers must be exterminated etc etc you give a cover to the extremists – hence regimes like that in Iran or in many instances in Christian history.

So on balance looking at human history, I have to agree with Snorvey that religion has overall been a very malign influence. Obviously that is not going to stop bad people doing awful things but its absence is one less excuse.

scrumpyjack wrote:... hence regimes like that in Iran or in many instances in Christian history. ...

.. and contemporary christians of course...

didds

I used to be a regular church goer. It is something which any sane person should question why you would continue to attend such an organisation, and question why a loving God would allow or sanction evil behaviour by people who are supposed to represent it.

I do think the CoE does do a lot of good for local communities and there are well meaning people in it, so would be sad to see it disappear completely. Same goes I think for other religions/belief systems.

However given the history of abuse it should be very strictly regulated. I suspect controls are now in place but that they are still no strong enough.

tjh290633 wrote:The church has a long history of turning a blind eye. Back in the 1940s our vicar had a live in boy friend. Nobody was bothered and of course the law was different back then.

Protection of minors is the area where the church has fallen down. Secrecy and unwillingness to complain or report unacceptable behaviour has been a major factor. Those who read the News of the World in those days will have been well aware of prosecutions of choirmasters, cub and scout leaders, etc. for their various peccadillos.

There seems to have been a reluctance to do the same for men of the cloth. Quite why is probably lost in the mists of time, but I suspect that word of mouth was used to ensure opportunities were kept to a minimum.

Sympathy with those of the pederast persuasion may be a factor.

The increasing numbers of women in the clergy can only have a good effect.

TJH

Re, choirmasters etc, I remember many cases where teachers were charged with offences, but they often got away with it due to their 'in loci parentis' status and the fact that courts in those days made no allowances for cross-examining children in court. Consequently, a good lawyer could completely destroy a child on the witness stand, making a prosecution very difficult. Teachers were usually very intelligent, and providing no actual penetration took place, they got away with almost everything. The stories I heard about the private school near us were disgusting, but the abuse never went quite far enough for a successful prosecution - at least in those days.

Similarly, I was told well over 30 years ago that child abuse was rampant in Childrens Homes and Orphanages, and the employees had to sign some sort of contract to remain silent or risk losing their pension. I have no idea how much truth there is in this, but it's always seemed strange to me that these places used to exist all over the place (I was told that even our village had a small orphanage till the 1970s) yet I never hear much about the abuse.

Steve

scrumpyjack wrote:Yes there are undoubtedly a high proportion of excellent people in the churches with deep moral values but the problem is once you have a creed based on faith – I’m right and everyone who believes differently is going to hell / God is on my side / the unbelievers must be exterminated etc etc you give a cover to the extremists – hence regimes like that in Iran or in many instances in Christian history.

So on balance looking at human history, I have to agree with Snorvey that religion has overall been a very malign influence. Obviously that is not going to stop bad people doing awful things but its absence is one less excuse.

It is often said that if God didn't exist man would have to invent him. Well anybody with the briefest knowledge of the last 4000 years knows that he has, many times over, unless you can reconcile the myriad mono and polytheistic belief systems which have emerged around the globe in to a single coherent Pantheon. Religion hasn't been an influence on human development, it doesn't exist outside humanity, it is the expression of a number of the fundamental aspects of human psychology.

It should come as a surprise to no one that power structures attract people who wish to wield power, and whilst you can use almost any difference you like to differentiate us and them nothing gives you quite the latitude that a handwritten note from the Creator of the Universe gives you. Kings are a somewhat distant second, and anyway they are generally appointed by the Creator so something of a letter from the Almighty's secretary.

Then you are down to more problematic baseis for your right to whatever you like, such as nationality, race... none of which lead to prettier conflicts than religion, but if religion hadn't been such a convenient and culturally acceptable way to express your desire to capture your neighbour's town, sleep with his wife and eat his cattle over the history of mankind there wouldn't have been fewer wars, there would have been different pretexts.

BobbyD wrote:Then you are down to more problematic baseis for your right to whatever you like, such as nationality, race... none of which lead to prettier conflicts than religion, but if religion hadn't been such a convenient and culturally acceptable way to express your desire to capture your neighbour's town, sleep with his wife and eat his cattle over the history of mankind there wouldn't have been fewer wars, there would have been different pretexts.

Well we'll never know whether that's true or not, but I don't think one can assume it would be so. What religion does is to remove reason and logic from any argument because by definition it is not based on them.

scrumpyjack wrote:

BobbyD wrote:Then you are down to more problematic baseis for your right to whatever you like, such as nationality, race... none of which lead to prettier conflicts than religion, but if religion hadn't been such a convenient and culturally acceptable way to express your desire to capture your neighbour's town, sleep with his wife and eat his cattle over the history of mankind there wouldn't have been fewer wars, there would have been different pretexts.

Well we'll never know whether that's true or not, but I don't think one can assume it would be so. What religion does is to remove reason and logic from any argument because by definition it is not based on them.

Religion doesn't do anything, anymore than a hoe or an AK47 does.

The doing is all done by humans.

Religion doesn't cause suffering, humans do.

Sometimes they utilise religion as a means of inflicting that suffering.

Religion doesn't have an existence independent of humanity. It isn't an external factor exerting a malign influence. It is a human construct wielded by humans. The cause of the unpleasantness, is humans.

scrumpyjack wrote:What religion does is to remove reason and logic from any argument because by definition it is not based on them.

In the same way that membership of a gang, supporting a football club, or even choosing a position on Brexit does (for some people).

Humans are social animals. We have evolved exploiting the advantages of working in a group, whilst at the same time retaining our inate selfishness, which allows exploitation of that very same group should conditions allow.

Look at kids in the school playground - they form gangs, have "cool" kids and "outcasts", bullies and heroes. Very few will cite a religious excuse for their actions. It's only later that some people realise that the a religious veil is yet another means to exploit and control.

Religion can also be plane daft - like the outrage generated by apparently not wearing a scarf. Is this really 2020?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/worl ... chess.html

Leothebear wrote:
So do we have any regular Church goers here? If so, what are your thoughts?

Surely the Church's Darkest Secret is there is no God and there was no Resurrection ?

moorfield wrote:

Leothebear wrote:
So do we have any regular Church goers here? If so, what are your thoughts?

Surely the Church's Darkest Secret is there is no God and there was no Resurrection ?

=====================

god is mans invention..

jackdaww wrote:god is mans invention..

As is the apostrophe

Sorry, couldn't resist

--kiloran

scrumpyjack wrote:

BobbyD wrote:Then you are down to more problematic baseis for your right to whatever you like, such as nationality, race... none of which lead to prettier conflicts than religion, but if religion hadn't been such a convenient and culturally acceptable way to express your desire to capture your neighbour's town, sleep with his wife and eat his cattle over the history of mankind there wouldn't have been fewer wars, there would have been different pretexts.

Well we'll never know whether that's true or not, but I don't think one can assume it would be so. What religion does is to remove reason and logic from any argument because by definition it is not based on them.

Yet , perversely, it has also aided the spread of learning to a wider society.

It is hard to know what advances in human knowledge would have occurred when they occurred without various religions- advances in learning tend to arise when states are financially stable, whilst religions have caused instability they have also caused periods of stability.

History has had a lot of moving parts and it is pretty hard to be certain what might have happened if one significant part had not been there.

Charlottesquare wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

BobbyD wrote:
Yet , perversely, it has also aided the spread of learning to a wider society.

It has a varied score card on this one and on balance I think it's going str... I'm not sure I can say that (see Forum Rules). For example,
plus 100 creating Church Schools.
Plus 1 million creating monasterys which were the precursors of Universities.
Minus 1 million opposition of translation of the Bible from Latin (Ironic as the Latin is a translation)
Minus 1 Million Burning of Heretics who wanted poor people, women, etc. to read or learn or know that the Earth wasn't the centre of the Universe.
Minus 1 Million inventing superstitions about sexual taboos (this is a kind of misinformation/spread of ignorance)

... there are variations of this for various churches and faiths and their history is poor.

Charlottesquare wrote:Yet , perversely, it has also aided the spread of learning to a wider society.

Religions are methods of dispersing learning. Now some might quibble about the veracity of the lesson, but a religion without teachings isn't going to stick around very long, whether you are talking about the local preacher giving a sermon or a Missionary travelling to unknown, for his part of the world, lands to spread the word of God, it's hardly perverse that those structures also came to disseminate other information.

AWOL wrote:

BobbyD wrote:Yet , perversely, it has also aided the spread of learning to a wider society.

It has a varied score card on this one and on balance I think it's going str... I'm not sure I can say that (see Forum Rules). For example,
plus 100 creating Church Schools.
Plus 1 million creating monasterys which were the precursors of Universities.
Minus 1 million opposition of translation of the Bible from Latin (Ironic as the Latin is a translation)
Minus 1 Million Burning of Heretics who wanted poor people, women, etc. to read or learn or know that the Earth wasn't the centre of the Universe.
Minus 1 Million inventing superstitions about sexual taboos (this is a kind of misinformation/spread of ignorance)

... there are variations of this for various churches and faiths and their history is poor.

Minus 4 quadrillion for misattributing a quote to me.

The tendency to discriminate is all human. In a religious society that discrimination is cloaked in the word of God, in the age of science when women were still prevented from taking degrees and homosexuality was classed as a mental illness whose physical acts were criminal offenses you got Eugenics, and in an American classroom children were easily persuaded to form a social hierarchy based on eye colour. The common factor shouldn't be too difficult to spot, it isn't religion, it's humanity, and I've yet to come across a society which developed scientific theory without first developing religion - it would be akin to developing the motor car before you've even thought of the horse cart.

Cutting off a teacher's head for religious reasons is unlikely to be something that would have been done anyway without religion?