The Glade 4.0

Oh I see... so its ok for you to move the goal posts to defend Aizle's position, but when called on it, you get to feign indignation?

Or would you like to rethink your statement that links pedophile to the "repressive and conservative views on sex" from religion?

Uh...this doesn't make sense. I didn't move any goalposts. Aizle said nothing I haven't already expressed in various forms. And it's not feigned. You just implied religious morality is the only reason people would believe pedophilia is a problem. Authoritarian repressive and conservative views on sex are certainly an issue here, because they make people more vulnerable to pedophilia, but "taking a dim view of pedophilia" is not a repressive and conservative view on sex. The two are not connected in any way that makes your argument relevant. Your argument is non-sequitur.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yet, when I questioned Aizle's shift to include all of religious clergy instead of the population in general, despite the similiar statistics of occurrence, you are the one that asserted his narrow consideration is valid because of "repressive and conservative views on sex" from religious institutions.

If you didn't want to draw the link between pedophile and those view directly, better consider your statements before leaping at the chance to condemn something you clearly hate. Or, were you shifting the goal posts as I suggested, to include other forms of sexual repression, such as LBGT lifestyles without recalling this conversation is about pedophilia?

Well, my perspect on that is this.

Either the various religious organizations do absolutely no amount of screening in terms of the quality of someone's character, or something within the structure of their organizations and environment in effect "undoes" any effect of that screening. In either case, it would seem there is a problem there.

First of all, the numbers (while rather sketchy) pretty much universally estimate that the occurence of acts of sexual abuse of minors among the catholic clergy are at least 50%, at most 600% greater than the general population including non-clergy of all denominations.

Secondly, I've stated more than once in this thread already that I don't doubt the problem exists across many or all religions, but he we are discussing catholics. I certainly don't find the Catholic church any more reprehensible except by nature of it having been around the longest, holding the most power, and therefore committing the most wrong. The others would have been no different in its place.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You edited while I was typing, but rather that erase my other response, I'll address this one directly since it has some meat to it.


I don't believe you correctly read any of my comments to you.... so I will break it down.

You defended Aizle's position to expand his "problem group" from catholic clergy to all clergy, despite the statistics that imply at best the rate of abuse is the same as the general population, to slightly under (depending on which stats you use) with this exact comment:


I bolded the important part for you.... without religion... so the issue that has been discussed for 10+ pages... pedophilia in the clergy... has its root problem in conservative and repressive positions on sex.... or, you are shifting the goal posts and bringing into the discussion topics of fetishes, lifestyles, etc.

So, by your statement, you seem to be claiming that without religion and their oppressive views on sex, this wouldn't be a problem, despite the fact the general population, which encompasses far more religions, or lack there of, have the same rate of abuse against children... so you seem to be implying that without this ethical construct from the church, all manner of things (including this topic presumably, since its been the sole focus for 10+ pages) is no longer taboo.


No, I disagreed with your assertion that religion dictates social mores, rather than society dictating its own. Society creates its ethical constructions (religion is a societal construct), so even if you were to remove religion from the equation, you still have society. You still have the problem people, and you probably still have the same protection of children from sex (lets ignore societies were sex with what we consider children is the norm and accepted). I used you as an example, since you clearly feel that sex with children of this age is inappropriate, yet you are not a religious person, and clearly reject most of the other conservative religious views on sex.



Authoritarian positions are the problem, and are not limited to religious institutions anymore than other forms of corruptions are limited to some other societal construct.

The rest of your post makes no sense.

edit - fixed some quote tags

This does not match the posts made by Vindi and Aizle on the topic, unless I have completely misread something. Both implied that the rates were at best (or worst, depending on your position) the same to a slightly lower occurrence in the clergy.

Or do you mean in terms of victim count and not number of molesters?

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning, but perhaps its because not being a religious person myself and not directly familiar with non-media based portrayals of the Catholic church.

However, I believe the point of clergy, from a monastical standpoint, is to openly accept anyone seeking to follow the teachings of the church, despite their background, in an effort to help reform those people. I'm not sure how you can screen to keep out the undesirables, when its the undesirables you are trying to help...

Do you feel the same way about halfway house and prison-to-work programs?

I posted a rather comprehensive essay a few pages earlier. The rate of occurence of abuse in the general population is estimated to be at 1% for all adults. (nearly double that if you just include males -- it seems the main perpetrators are men.) The estimates for rates of abuse within the church are 2%-6%. (Aizle listed 3%-6%. I didn't see a figure there for the general population.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Well to be fair, I'm making some assuptions based on the standing that the Churches hold their various ministers and priests, as well as tidbits of information that I've gleaned from friends who are or have gone through the seminary. I'm sure that the monastaries will accept anyone into the program who expresses interest. However, I would have to assume that not everyone graduates or whatever term is used. I would hope there are standards that have to be met, and I would hope that at least some of those standards have to do with having sound moral character. Now as I think you're trying to point out, I suppose it's possible that the Churches are just too believing and trusting that when some pedophile says that he's seen the light and renounced his sin that he's "cured", but again one would hope that in organizations as old and experienced as the various major church denominations they'd be a little skeptical or at least cautious. But then again, perhaps they believe that God will take care of everything. Really in either case, the conclusion is the same. Either their screening process is lax and they are accountable, or their environment is a contributing factor and they are accountable.

I honestly don't have a lot of info on halfway houses and prison-to-work programs. I'm all for giving folks chances to show they can be productive members of society, but I also advocate a heathly level of realism and skepticism in people's claims of being reformed. I also think it's prudent to exercise some caution based on past behavior as well. So just as I would not put an ex-con who was in for vehicular manslaughter for driving drunk at a job at a liquor store, I would not put a priest who is a reformed pedophile in a position where he'd have regular contact with children.

You mean the one that ends with the comment that priests have a lower rate than the general male population?

Apples to oranges. We are not talking about instances of clinically validated "pedophilia," which isn't the point. We're speaking solely on the rate of occurence of sexual assault toward minors.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Your comment about giving people a chance is great, and I can appreciate that sentiment, but in this case, it doesn't apply unless your assumption is that the people in question are seeking a second chance, and not seeking discipline to confront their nature. If no one has done anything wrong, why are you giving them a second chance? And how does this tie into your position that celibacy causes pedophilia?

I agree 100% with the position that someone caught doing this should never have contact with children again... but... you seem to be of the opinion that these people are coming into the clergy as pedophiles (again, is it celibacy or nature?) and seeking a second chance.

Yeah, you kept trying to dismiss the critique of your article earlier with claims of "clinical", when the end of that article clearly uses non-clinical definitions to reach that conclusion, after clearly stating at the start of the mental exercise that not enough data exists to actually make a determination.

I'm not assuming anything about the people entering the seminary really, I'm making assumptions about the process of becoming ordained. As I stated, I would think that during the course of becoming a priest there would be a fairly intense process of indoctrination and observation of the candidates. And that part of that process should be evaluation on their suitability to being a priest and priest life. Through that process one would assume that anyone coming in with a pre-disposition to sexual abuse would be weeded out or at least identified as a risk and be placed into positions that would mitigate that risk. If that doesn't happen, then there's an issue with the training program and the church is accountable. The alternate posibility is that someone who doesn't have any pre-disposition or any pre-disposition is too minor to detect initially is over time unable to cope with the rigours of priest life and the contraints put on them and eventually crack. In this case the issue is with the environment and restrictions and again the church is accountable.

And I do want to clarify here again. I have never stated that celibacy directly causes pedophilia. What I have stated is that I think there is an argument to be made for celibacy along with other restrictive viewpoints on sexual activity may be contributing factors in someone acting out on their sexual urges in inappropriate ways.

Fair enough, but some would argue that the 'indoctrination" period of clerical training is pretty intensive... I mean seriously.

But, what level does this screening take? Making potential priests view various forms of porn while being monitored physiologically? And why stop here? Shouldn't this same process be used for screening teachers, club leaders.... parents?

Just crawl back under your bridge already. I know you think it's cute, but your nonsense is just cliche at this point.

I know that it can be intensive, I have some friends and aquaintences that have been in or through seminary school.

Honestly, I'm not sure what processes should be used. I doubt that watching porn would be effective or appropriate for some institutions, but I do think that it's an area that has been overlooked based on what I read. Some of the internal critics of the Catholic Church (i.e. priests already within the Church) have argued that the training doesn't adequately prepare priests for celibate life. I do think part of why there is a problem in this area is that many religious organizations seem to have a difficult time with self examination and holding themselves accountable in general. But in the end, I would hope that the organizations would reach out to professionals within the various fields of study to help (or develop their own internal professionals) to help guide and mold their programs.

And absolutely a similar process should, if it doesn't already, exist for teachers and other leaders of child organizations. Obviously the level of authority and interaction will determine the practical level of screening that is possible. I believe for instance that the Boy Scouts does some background checks on parents before allowing them to lead dens, etc. And there are screenings that are performed for public school teachers as well. Although I don't think there is a uniform federal law on that and it varies state by state.

As for parents, that's a really sticky subject. There is part of me that thinks that one should have to show suitability to becoming a parent before actually having children. However, I've also seen plenty of people who I thought would be terrible parents end up getting their **** together after they had a child and becoming not only great parents, but also better people themselves. And non of that even takes into consideration the concerns about overbearing control of one's personal life. So while I think an argument could be made for it, I think it's a bad argument.

I think you're confusing a background check with an examination for suitability.

A background check is a check of what has actually already occured in a person's life. It is not a check of their attitudes, beliefs, desires, or other thought processes except insofar as their past actions predict future ones, and even there one must be careful not to assume that the person has not learned from past mistakes. In the case of molesting minors, it doesn't matter if they learned or not because of the severity of the consequences, but the important point is that a background check does not, and cannot, determine if a person is likely to do something unless they have already done it.

Suitability examinations which include things like psychological exams, interviews, oral and written boards and tests, etc. are more suited for determining what a person might hypothetically do in a position they have not been in before.

The distinction between the two is important; a background check verifies existing facts, while a suitability examination predicts future events. A background check is easy: A person with a record of committing sexual acts with minors is not suitable to be a priest, teacher, cop, firefighter, etc., period. A suitability examination is much more chancy. How do you determine if the person is likely to? Aside from getting them to admit it, you pretty much can't. Showing porn would be obviously unsuitable because you'd need to molest children to create it in the first place.

It's very easy to go from "suitability examination" to "wild specualtion". More importantly, if a person has an illicit urge but has not acted on it, their background indicates that they can control it no matter what the nature of it. Some people have urges to have sex with children. If they don't act on them, it's very risky to start excluding them from things, especially when we are only inferring the desire exists (as would be the case with anyone not explicitly admitting they have such feelings). We very quickly get into the territory of essentially assuming they will commit a crime just because they want to. If we did this with stealing, where would we be?

In any case, you are still wildly exaggerating the effects of celibacy. Celibacy is hard, but it does not prevent a person from exercising normal adult control over their own actions by burdening them with some uncontrollable sexual urge.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh I'm well aware of both the differences and limitations of background checks and examinations for suitability. Both however, are a type of screening.

For relatively low contact situations, like for instance maybe a little league coach, from a practicality standpoint all you're likely to get is a background check. And as you pointed out it's only going to weed out those who have a record that indicates they might endanger the kids.

However, for more regular contact I think suitability examinations are appropriate. You are also correct that there is some risk of going overboard with speculation on those examinations and I completely agree it's a tricky topic to navigate.

This is the primary issue I typically have with your positions Aizle. Even when I agree with your premise, in sometimes the same post, you contradict yourself when it comes to a position.

In this case, as DE pointed out, you seem to be advocating for suitability testing for priests, while giving a pass to the background screenings for teachers, and a complete pass for parenthood, on the basis of nothing more than your anecdotal experience.


Do those changes in the text change your feeling in the process?

Let's see.

A few religious folks are pedophiles, so let's condemn all religious folks. So,

A few humans are pedophiles, so let's condemn all of humanity.

That sounds reasonable.

I think where the issue is, and to be frank where most of them here come from, is that too many people on these boards view things as black and white. They attempt to apply something to everything and assume that it makes sense for everything.

Priests are people who are put into positions of fairly great power over their followers. They are setup by their various organizations as pillars of the community. Guides for both moral and spiritual issues, and in some cases supposedly blessed with divine authority. Because of those realities they have a higher standard that they need to hold themselves to.

As for the parenting thing, no that change of text doesn't change my opinions. The reason why I view parenting differently is based on reproductive rights mostly and one's ability to do with their body what they wish. That said, I do support the idea of organizations such as Child Services that will intervene in cases of abuse, etc. It's certainly not a perfect system, but I haven't really heard of a better solution.

I'm also a realist, which means that while in an ideal world it might be great for every T-ball coach to get a suitability examination by professionals, the reality is that no community rec organization is going to have those kinds of resources to pull that off. So you do the best you can, and play the odds.

No one is saying that. It's this kind of bullshit that is killing these forums, please stop.

You should pay more attention.