You're becoming very emotional about this, Yuyutsu, quite unnecessarily.

>>Yes, I know some Catholics personally, lay people who run their church, lead religious discussions, childrens' nativity play and youth camps, and do a beautiful job<<

As I pointed out before, these individuals are not the issue. It is the organization whose rules protect the paedophiles that are under the microscope. Guilt by association does not apply. In other words, no-one is saying "you are a Catholic, therefore you must be a paedophile". It simply doesn't work that way.

>>Humanism and atheism are quite two different things:<<

Really? Do you know many humanists who also believe in God?

The British Humanist Society describes humanism thus...

"Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason and experience."

No hint of blind worship. In fact, worshipping anything would be a contradiction.

>>By punishing those who are not perpetrators, not even Catholic priests, not even Catholics, not even Christian, just punishing every religious person on earth? You call that "justice"?<<

You see, that's the sort of emotional outburst that I don't understand.

Exactly how are these innocents being punished? And by whom?

Also, I'm not sure your revisionism with regard to the original question is going to be particularly helpful.

>>"Do organised religions do more harm than good?"<<

One of the consistent undercurrents created by religion - any religion - is the exclusion of facts and logic from their belief system. While it is quite often benign, the fact remains that when you allow people to ignore what is going on around them simply because they consider themselves answerable to some kind of "higher power", it is only a short step to their ignoring the rules and laws that society has created in order to live harmoniously.

The example in front of us is of people who consider that "absolution" by a priest equates to innocence of crime.

But the problem, it can be argued, is endemic to the very concept of religion. Which is why, I suspect, the question was phrased the way it was.

Josephus, with nothing but respect,and being an ex committed Christian, words like yours are water of a ducks back.
In fact no more likley to bring folk to Church or God than any others.
It is not a crime to believe.
But too, it is no crime not to.
If Christianity is to survive it must find better ways to sell its message.

Dear Pericles,

<<It is the organization whose rules protect the paedophiles>>

I understand, but those rules are not religious rules, but rather the distorted remains of what once were religious instructions.

When people say that religion is the culprit (rather than the degeneration of religion), then all religious people are in danger.

<<"Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason and experience.">>

That's how they like to describe themselves.

<<Exactly how are these innocents being punished? And by whom?>>

"579" threatened here to make religion illegal.
Tony Lavis replied that religion should only be considered a misdemeanour.
Others threaten to take away the children of religious parents and force them through secular brainwashing in public/state schools.

<<One of the consistent undercurrents created by religion - any religion - is the exclusion of facts and logic from their belief system.>>

When a religious person makes a wooden artifact, they still hit the nail on its head and use the same side of the hammer just like anyone else. This is an example of proper use of facts and logic. The difference is that religious people know the limits of facts and logic and do not attempt to apply those in areas where they do not belong.

<<it is only a short step to their ignoring the rules and laws that society has created in order to live harmoniously.>>

And so they should!

Why should religious people (or anyone else for that matter) be obliged to follow the rules set by others? What right have you anyway to force your rules and your ideals about that society-thing on others without their consent?

Most religious people reach a stage where they need to live outside society, to isolate themselves and concentrate on God without the distraction of material life. Society has no right to interfere where they have asked nothing of it, not even for protection.

(continued...)

(...continued)

It is but secular propaganda as if society created its rules and laws in order to live harmoniously. The reality beneath that thin layer of civility, is yet another case of Alpha-males wanting to control the rest of their tribe. No harmony is possible so long as we identify with an animal body.

The only way to live harmoniously, is to realise that we are not separate human bodies. Once, or to the extent that we know ourselves to be God and not a human body/mind, and that so is everyone else, we wouldn't knowingly want to hurt another because by doing so we would be hurting ourselves.

Religious people are less likely to murder, rape, steal, cheat, etc., not because they care about society, but because such actions would remove them away from God. It's clear, however, that society must protect itself from such people who make false religious representations, so here's a simple principle:

Society may punish those of its members who fail to follow its laws. However, society may not punish those who never agreed to be part of it to begin with. Instead, it should deal with those outside who pose a threat to its members as enemies and even kill them if that's what's required to protect its members.

<<The example in front of us is of people who consider that "absolution" by a priest equates to innocence of crime.>>

But that's just half the story. The crime has been made and the karma of the crime is still going to reach the criminal. The repercussions must come regardless (including perhaps a jail sentence, or violent attacks by relatives of the victim). What absolution does, if exercised in the right spirit and preceded by genuine contrition, is that the same repercussions, otherwise painful, will subjectively not be experienced in a negative way.

<<But the problem, it can be argued, is endemic to the very concept of religion>>

According to Buddha, what is endemic, is the inevitable corruption of all established religions (he even predicted that his own teachings will become corrupt in 500 years).

Y thanks for those two posts.
For me it clears up quite a lot.
You said I was trying to change the conversation at this late stage.
Then showed me you and I are having a different conversation to each other.
You may well be very smart I have no doubt you are, but your words have little effect on me.
I see ZERO relation to what I thought we would talk of on starting the thread others may, so go for it.

The Humanist Society of Britian can make a definition that defines their groups values and include atheism at their core. However the activities that are humanist in nature do not exclusively belong to that society. For instance the Salvation Army or Fred Hollows are great humanist expressions in our society and are not based in atheism. The word humanism does not have exclusive meaning to one organisation.