Dear Belly,

<<You speak in tongues, as far as I can make out.>>

Allow me to simplify then:

I am no expert on detecting child abusers.
So why ask me? Ask the experts.
I don't think it matters whether the abuser is a priest or not,
but I may be wrong, so ask the experts, not me.
You asked me a question, so I was obliged to answer,
but I can only offer a layman's advice.

I can tell you about religion and God,
but the people of the church are not necessarily people of God,
they are not necessarily religious
and their behaviour has nothing to do with God and religion.
This whole abuse thing is a social issue, not a religious one,
so go ask such questions to those who do social stuff,
not me, it's not my expertise.

Thanks.

Bloke know I take no ill thoughts about you from this thread.
I see an intelligence coming from you.
But it is not convincing me now or ever, you feel as bad as I do about specifically the Catholic Church and its victims.
Your words do not offer hope, or answers, why is it children going to the church of their parents faith.
Seeking shelter in the very house of thier God,in all churches and such.
Are treated so badly.
I can not avoid the Catholic Church, is the worst, in western country,s.
Or that it wants men to remain virgins for life.
What type of men assault these children, do they even believe in any God?
What man wants the job.
Words, no matter how well intended can not hide the raw truth, Children torn and life ruined in?
A place of WORSHIP?

<<Your words do not offer hope, or answers, why is it children going to the church of their parents faith.
Seeking shelter in the very house of thier God,in all churches and such.
Are treated so badly.>>

Sorry Belly, I have no answer.

<<I can not avoid the Catholic Church, is the worst, in western country,s.
Or that it wants men to remain virgins for life.>>

If you feel that what you can lose in the Catholic Church is more than what you can gain there, then don't go there, then stay away from it.

<<What type of men assault these children, do they even believe in any God?>>

Most likely, No.

<<Words, no matter how well intended can not hide the raw truth, Children torn and life ruined in?
A place of WORSHIP?>>

Any place is suitable for worship.
It is YOUR worship which counts, not somebody else's.
The environment may be impure, but all it takes to worship is a pure heart.

It is somewhat chicken-and-egg, I grant you Yuyutsu.

>>Dear Pericles, Nice try, but before science can ask 'why' some are religious, it must first find out 'who' are religious.<<

A scientific approach to this might involve asking people a series of questions about their religious, moral and philosophical beliefs, from which it would be possible to derive a statistically valid working definition of "religious", that can be applied across a population. If I were running such a programme, one of the defining questions would be "are you religious". This would enable me to cross-reference the traits held equally by religious and non-religious people, which I would then discard, leaving only the defining traits.

I would then use a technique such as neuroimaging, to compare the high-order patterns across all participants as they respond to various stimuli, to determine whether there were any significant differences in the stimulation/response profiles.

From this, I might be able to determine whether "being religious" is in fact a response to some form of brain activity, in which the religious respond differently to feelings of e.g. fear, hurt, loneliness, alienation etc.

That would certainly satisfy my own curiosity, principally on the basis that it is probably better to allow individuals to determine whether or not they consider that they are "approaching God", rather than establish some form of external benchmark.

If we were to find that there is absolutely no discernible difference in the characteristics of the "religious" and "non-religious", then the chances would be far higher, I would venture to suggest, that Belly's question, "Religion do we need it", would be confidently answered in the negative, would it not?

As is often the case, religious believers will often defend religion, when other religious believers sexually abuse children. ALL the "excuses" in the world are offered to exonerate religion, religious belief, religious practice, religious history etc etc etc. This is done not just with child abuse, but with all the other evils throughout history that have been embraced by religious believers.

These defenders display an inhumane lack of empathy towards abused children, are mostly "male", and they are aggressively defensive regarding religions and religious believers.

That horrible man Cardinal Pell has now been removed as the Catholic Church's spokesman. The church is trying to now put on a more gentle and responsive "veneer" ..... but it's a con. It's just public relations, in order to reduce further damage to the church.

They care MUCH more about their church than they do about children abused by their clergy. Nothing "really" changes.

Let the "excuses" continue. Come on Yuyu and Shocky .... what other "excuses" can you make up? I'm waiting .....

DP unless my memory fails me you are of an age that says answers may or may not come soon.
I confront an issue, soon to know one way or the other, that puts me there too.
I am content to know no God exists.
Unafraid of death my burial will not be Christian.
I wade through the words of Y unable to understand the need to not talk, in truth about victims.
I remain concerned at so many Gods, each the only one.
We have less political party s than Gods.
Maybe we know we will find little joy in them.
And how do we confront a single world , while divided by? GOD?
WE LEAP, me too, in indignation at FGM find it so easy, for me needed, to target Muslim actions.
Yet is FGM any worse than the Catholic Church?
Both are unforgivable crimes against children and the God being followed.