Alonzo Fyfe

Of course there are many things to criticize about religion, but the existence of pedophile priests is not, in itself, a legitimate criticism.

Imagine, if you will, the discovery of some humanist organization that is discovered to have been involved in some crime -- say, some form of terrorism. What would your reaction be?

Indeed, not all atheists are morally perfect people, and it would not at all be difficult to find news articles about crimes committed by atheists.

How would we react to a web site that posted these crimes as if they were representative of all atheists?

It would probably be something like, "These people do not represent our beliefs. We do not condone or accept this activity and ask that you not judge us according to what these other people do. We are as offended as you are."

Indeed, this is the reaction that many Catholics have had to the revelations of the church concerning molestations by priests.

It is a relevant and legitimate reponse, and should be recognized as such.

We pride ourselves on placing a higher value on reason and logic. Logicians, in turn, warn against several fallacies, among them "fallacies of irrelevance." To hold that the Church's handling of pedophile priests is a legitimate criticism of religion is a fallacy of irrelevance.

It should be avoided.

Grizzly

Hello Alonzo,

I disagree. I think it is a very legitimate criticism of the Catholic religion. While they cannot "theoretically" control the actions of its priests, they can certainly do something about it when it comes to their attention. The Catholic Church is guilty of aiding and abetting sexual criminals. Why is this not a legitimate criticism?

Let's take your example. We find out the a small group of humanists is using their powerful positions to sate their desires for children. If the Humanist Organization finds out about this and throws them out, then criticizing Humanists in general might be out of line.

However, if the Humanist organization systematically covered up the crimes of its leadership, and allowed its members to continue to prey on children, then it most certainly is correct to damn the organization. How one could in good conscious remain affiliated with that organization is beyond me.

Brian63

I'm inclined to agree with Alonzo on this.

</strong>

I think we need to differentiate between the Catholic religion and this particular Catholic institution. Your comments that follow are generally legitimate criticisms of the latter, but it says nothing of the former, which is what I think Alonzo is saying too.



When we are discussing whether or not a particular religion (Catholicism/Christianity in this case) is true, this is not relevant in any way, it only points to the immorality of this particular Catholic institution.

You are right. We would be justified in condemning this particular institution of the Humanists, but it says nothing at all about Humanism in general. Similarly, the actions of these priests and any cover-ups that followed are only valid criticisms of those priests, not of the Catholic doctrines.

If the issue we are debating is the morality of the churches, this is a legitimate piece of evidence, but often times here we are instead focusing on whether Catholicism is true.

Brian

Amos

How would NAMBLA fit into this argument?

Nambla is the "North American Man Boy Love Association" and is/was legitimate.

Grizzly

Hi Brian63,

I thought about your points as I was posting my first response. Can you separate the Catholic religion from the institution? Can you say I believe in the Catholic religion, but renounce the pope and the papal hierarchy? Maybe - but I think its called being a protestant.......

sullster

Indeed, Amos, just how does NAMBLA fit into this argument? Please elaborate your point here. The other posters have made good arguments and I want yours.

As for me. I must agree that pedophile priests and an institutional cover-up of their actions does not invalidate the metaphysical claims of the church. We already know that all the other-worldly claims of the church are irrational dreams and thus need no need for invalidation. Yet, there is something very strange going on that such people are attracted to the job of priest and then are protected by the higher ups.
Maybe there is an organization in the church called NAPBLA.(note the "P") It just hasn't come out yet.

Amos

I object to "We already know that all the other-worldly claims of the church are irrational dreams and thus need no need for invalidation.. That's a matter of perspective and you should speak for yourself on this matter.

As for the rest, I would agree that such priest are in contempt with the Church and may belong to an onderground organization called NAPBLA that since our sexual revolution has emerged outside the Church under the name NAMBLA.

I honestly do not know much about it so I can only guess as to what would make one legal and the other not. Maybe that's it, a business licence?

Aethernaut

I don't believe NAMBLA ever was considered a "legitimate" organization by any other organization. They made it clear from the beginning that they were pedophiles and I don't think that anyone in their right mind would support that openly or otherwise.

I do know that they tried to hitch a ride on the coattails of the gay rights movement but recognized organizations within the gay rights movement will have nothing to do them.

-SK

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

Amos

Thanks, I don't even know if they are still around today but their public exposure to seek membership kind of shows that pedophelia is legal in America.

Aethernaut

Uh, pedophilia is NOT legal in the United States.

I believe that the Feds have shut down NAMBLA websites on several occasions as well as engaging in raids and sting operations on their gatherings. The Feds also actively hunt pedophiles and child pornographers.

-SK