I waded through the 5 pages briefly and didn't see the argument so I'm going to mention it. Apologies if it was brought up already.
I think the very sore spot about church sexual abuse is that for a long LONG time it was basically sanctioned. It was definitely tolerated. There were priests and bishops (and other 'holy' men) that didn't hide it from their peers or their elders. And only when it became a problem with the congreation were they moved. Read: Not disciplined, not kicked out, not arrested. Moved to another parish/church.
It was a full blown conspiracy that the church has only admitted to and started dealing with very recently in terms of the story's age.
I'm not saying that priests are more likely to abuse than others. (Though some might) Nor am I saying that religious people behave worse than sickos on the playground.
The difference that DID exist for a very long time though, was that the sicko on the playground got charged when he was caught. The priest just got a job transfer.
Add that to the fact the these people are put into a position of trust AND attempt to hold themselves above others, it all lends itself to what makes people very sore about the subject.
I can see how it might feel that religious organizations get picked on. But the sad fact is, the backlash is just natural balancing out for these organizations past (and still sometimes present) behaviour. There are many MANY differences between the priest and the sicko on the playground. Both in practicality and morality.
No that doesn't include everyone, and no that doesn't include you, or your friend, or your neighbours dog. So don't read it if you don't want. And don't take it personally.
|