Exactly ... Evil is more disappointing when perpetrated by religious entities that lay claim to propagating the improvement of humanity.

I can't read it ether unless I subscribe. So that's that.

I have met non-church going Christians who practice what they believe - treating others with respect. I have read about Muslims who never enter a mosque and they do their prayers at home. They treat others with respect. Places of worship are power structures. Beliefs are private and personal.

@SKH78 your point is well taken BUT more often than not practitioners of these isms try to force their beliefs on everyone else. If they truly kept their beliefs private and personal I’d have no beef with them.

I am sure that you are right ... I just used the brand "Catholic" because it still represent a rather large cohort. Though I have no data to back my assumption, I am somehow convinced that the phenomenon, e.g. sexual and other physical abuse, might be amplified by the rule of celebacy. I am also certain that the phenomenon of sexual abuse and exploitation is not limited to religious organisations.
Hierarchies are prone to developing such phenomena as there will always be an element of competing for the alpha position.
I am curious whether there are any studies on the subject carried out within Muslim communities regarding their islamic office bearer..

Unfortunately I’m pretty sure child abuse isn’t related to religion. It’s related to a power dynamic and attraction to abuse in the first place. Anyone who thinks getting rid of religion will prevent the sexual abuse of children is going to be shocked when they see stats remaining stable regardless of people leaving religion

@girlwithsmiles Yes but religion does provide a very easy route for those who want to abuse power, to obtain that power, and one with, by its very nature, no filters to prevent them doing so.

@Fernapple so does parenthood.

Scout leaders, Hollywood producers, royalty... the list is very,very long!

How refreshing!

How about just no religion?

@AnneWimsey because not all people view "religion" in the same manner as yourself. these "beliefs" didnt start out as some mystical fairy tale. they started off as the rules each little community used to guide their activities. each of these communities started off as its' own little world. people living in close proximity tend to need rules and a little social order when the numbers get above around 150. refer to yuval harari and the rest of the social-evolutionary theorists for that. the whole thing just got perverted or skewed as people factored into it as well as the chaos of no standards and differing conditions etc... . A lot of these community belief sets were more sociology than theology. The various sections of the "aryan" vedas is a perfect example. These are the very first of the so-called "holy books" of the world (along with the tora and koran and bible) with verifiable geographic references made dating parts of them to as far back as 75,000 years ago. Each of the vedas (rig, arthara, sama and yajur) has 4 sections each with a different emphasis. The samhitas are indeed prayers to various gods and good things and people and the brahmanas are rituals. But the aranyanka are different instructions for the elderly and poor living in thee woods or otherwise away from the community. The upanishads are the philosophies of various smart guys sitting around minding their flocks or harvesting grain when thoughts would hit them. Like thoughts from a bunch of dudes hanging around the coffee shop. These were the distilled words without all the prayers and rituals. It ended up being a repository of ancient knowledge, not just or even theology. The mystical part becomes easy to discern and discard. So I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That's dumb.

Exactly