CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[Ziggidy]

The pope is socialist who seemingly is trying to refocus attention towards another area. He is hoping to drown out all the recent chatter about his cover up with the gay priests and pedophile priests. He needs to be steadfast on that pollution first. When he cleans that up, then do what he wants. He is a do nothing pope. The church is crying out for leadership and resolve in this area; of which time there has been none. It is actually shameful.

 

[Ziggidy]

I hear people talk about all the "good" that people do and it never gets reported, and I think about that. I think if all of us are doing our work as we should, that is actually a norm we strive for. People should not get a raise for doing what they are hired to do; unlike getting a demotion or pay cut for not doing what they are hired to do. Likewise, if you exceed; go above the expectations, a raise is due. Life is no different. I pay my bills on time (rent, mortgage, etc) I do not get to pay less because I am doing what I am expected to do; however I do have to pay more (penalty) for not doing what I am expected.

Our society has changed. Rewards for hard work is not what is used to be. Raises, promotions, pats on the back are an expectation from the employee just for their existence. I'm the employee, I deserve to make more money, this job is hard! I want a pay raise to 15.00 so I can live and because I say so. The era of great expectations has changed. We demand praise, just because we want it, we demand money just because we want it, we demand prime time news about me doing what I was hired to do, just because I want it.

When I do what I am supposed to do, when a doctor does what he supposed to do, when a priest does what they are supposed to; it should not be news. It's when we fall below the expectation or above the exception that gives reason for news.

So when one makes the statement that the good works of priests do not get reported, I say, so what.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Anyone else see the video of a pastor groping Ariana Grande at Arethas funeral?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So when one makes the statement that the good works of priests do not get reported, I say, so what.

Because it skews perception due to the availability heuristic. Combine with people don't interact with some objective reality, they interact with their perception of reality. So when only the negatives of some group get attention in the media, and when that's many people's sole touchstone for availability of information, their perception and their reality are altered.

I grew up having pitbulls around, having had 3 of them over the years as a kid. I've also had to shoot someone's pitbull that attacked me while I was jogging. If I had no experience other than the attack and news stories, am I more or less likely to overreact to the sudden appearance of a pitbull? To support legislation banning them?

It's just how our brains work. Without stereotypes and heuristics we'd be literally paralyzed as we don't have the "processing power" to consciously examine every single object and experience we have as we have it.

 

[Ziggidy]

Because it skews perception due to the availability heuristic.

I truly believe that most people who even hear about the unfortunate priest dilemma, I truly believe they are well aware of the goodness that comes from or should come from a priest; otherwise the acts of such would not be as announced as it is. Likewise, it would not be covered up to the extent it is.

That in fact is what makes this sad. People KNOW the good priests should exhibit. When the extreme contrary surfaces as it has and continues to, that is what people cannot grasp.

It not shocking to hear about a priest who may smoke, drink heavily, become somewhat neglectful and even leave the "hood" so to speak. I went to a catholic grammar school. 1 priest left to become on the board of a local junior college, my 6th grade nun left, my 7th grade nun married my godfathers brother who lived kiddie corner from the convent, my 8th grade nun left and became a teacher at a Illinois college.....none of this is really over the top. None of it really should make national news, because it does happen in life itself. But when a godly man lives a life of sin, bringing children into the picture - now that is not anywhere near the norm. That is news.

Most know the "characteristics" of a priest - they are mostly good, godly men. MOST know that. We do not need to be told when they do what they are supposed to be doing.....which is good stuff. GO above the norm or below the norm......that may be newsworthy, especially when it goes against the church itself and again the law of the land.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I truly believe that most people who even hear about the unfortunate priest dilemma, I truly believe they are well aware of the goodness that comes from or should come from a priest

They aren't. I saw it first hand in a "implicit bias" training session with LEOs and civilians. The question was "groups you would dismiss as not a threat". I said "priests" and a large chunk of the room looked at me like I had lived in a cave for the last several decades and immediately started "but pedophiles..." and the like. Boy Scout leaders, same PR issue. Pedo until proven to not be in the eyes of the masses who's only exposure is via media.

 

[Ziggidy]

They aren't. I saw it first hand in a "implicit bias" training session with LEOs and civilians. The question was "groups you would dismiss as not a threat". I said "priests" and a large chunk of the room looked at me like I had lived in a cave for the last several decades and immediately started "but pedophiles..." and the like. Boy Scout leaders, same PR issue. Pedo until proven to not be in the eyes of the masses who's only exposure is via media.

Ok, I'll give that to you - there is a dark shadow over the church at this time. Over all, if I was a betting man, I'd say the majority of people overall would think priests are good people - OR - SHOULD be good people.

It's like those assault rifles. Most know they are not really an assault rifle, but those few......really know how to use the media.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, I'll give that to you - there is a dark shadow over the church at this time. Over all, if I was a betting man, I'd say the majority of people overall would think priests are good people - OR - SHOULD be good people.

Well, that's two different things. Everyone, priest or not, SHOULD be a good person. If they think they actually are is another issue. Polling has shown a consistent decline in trust of clergy overall, but particularly priests.

Less then half rate clergy as "high" or better for ethics and integrity, although few rate them as "low" or worse, but you can see the trend.

Trust in priests in particular has followed news cycles. This most recent resurgence into headlines again will effect that. Back in '02, roughly 2/3 of Americans reported believing priests frequently molest children. Older article now, but: https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

There's a reason organizations like the ADL exist. Note how much socially acceptable it is to criticize the Catholic church or Islam then it is to criticize Jewish faults. Regardless of your beliefs, the over representation of negatives without any balancing representation of positives leads to a distorted image. The opposite applies as well, of course, which is why marketing and PR is a thing. We simply *can't* evaluate every single question or experience, as I mentioned earlier, as we'd be literally paralyzed. Media coverage and the biases it introduces are a much bigger deal then you seem to think. Everything from the belief of how prevalent kidnapping by strangers, how many mass shootings there are to how dangerous to kids the neighborhood priest is are not critically evaluated in an objective reality with equal access to information on both sides of the issue.

So, yes, it matters. But it doesn't sell. News is a business, not a public service. They don't care in the slightest want harm is done to society as long as they profit. Same as "social media" and the like. Facebook doesn't care about fake news/hate speech/astro-turfing UNTIL it hurts their PR, which hurts their profits.

 

[Ziggidy]

^^^^ I am beginning to understand what you are explaining; I stand corrected.

I wonder if one can factor in the decline in morality overall with the decline in opinion of clergy. Even if all clergy were honest and ethical, would the decline of morality influence the survey? I'd also love to see the what population they questioned.

I also wonder about the term honest and ethical. I believe individuals can have differing opinion about each, there may be some crossover. Can someone reach the right and proper conclusion (goal) by doing unethical practices? A honest conclusion by unethical means? I wonder how well defined that survey may have been.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

^^^^ I am beginning to understand what you are explaining; I stand corrected.

I wonder if one can factor in the decline in morality overall with the decline in opinion of clergy. Even if all clergy were honest and ethical, would the decline of morality influence the survey? I'd also love to see the what population they questioned.

I also wonder about the term honest and ethical. I believe individuals can have differing opinion about each, there may be some crossover. Can someone reach the right and proper conclusion (goal) by doing unethical practices? A honest conclusion by unethical means? I wonder how well defined that survey may have been.

I'm on my phone, so pardon brevity. Some occupations go up, some stay same. Nurses consistently do very well.

Survey has been conducted for decades. Any error would be consistent.

 

[Ziggidy]

Survey has been conducted for decades. Any error would be consistent.

The last election may have suggested polls/surveys can be terribly wrong; just ask Hillary.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The last election may have suggested polls/surveys can be terribly wrong; just ask Hillary.

Sure. I took a statistics class in college, and I remember the highlights. Polls aren't proof, and there's a lot of ways errors can enter. But I think a wide body of polling done consistently over decades is at least indicative of the trend. Gallup is one of the better ones out there because they use large sample sizes. Now the down side is they do telephone polls, and more and more people don't have a telephone or won't talk to strangers figuring it's a scam or telemarketer. Even over 20 years ago when I took the class it was understood telephone surveys biased toward older people. In this instance, I think that's likely more damning, as older people are both more likely to be religious and trust clergymen AND more likely to have a home phone. I'd suspect if there's any error, it's more favorable to trusting priests than not.

I didn't know if Gallup controls for that in some way, though, and I did satisfy my own curiosity that they do, but the methodology is probably further down the rabbit hole then we need to go here. If you find yourself wanting to know as well, though: https://www.gallup.com/178667/gallup-world-poll-work.aspx#1 and this one talks about trends in some occupations, including the clergy (but does not break out priests specifically): https://news.gallup.com/poll/224639/nurses-keep-healthy-lead-honest-ethical-profession.aspx

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Ex-Muslims banned from Houston Hilton Starbucks for Atheist shirts

 

[Dead Duck]

Ex-Muslims banned from Houston Hilton Starbucks for Atheist shirts

I saw the video and read the whole thing.
I don't have a clue what this group is pushing but obviously they are trying to get people to react to them while they act stupid and oblivious. Do they even know what they are about? Maybe they ARE just stupid and oblivious?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ex-Muslims banned from Houston Hilton Starbucks for Atheist shirts

Meh. I'm sure Starbucks will close for half a day to have sensitivity training and this will be the most publicity the organization has ever gotten before they fade back into obscurity.

Maybe they ARE just stupid and oblivious?

That's probably decent odds when "there I was scrolling through my phone at a coffee shop" is part of the statement.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ex-Muslims banned from Houston Hilton Starbucks for Atheist shirts

Their property, their rules. Logic and consistency...not so much.

 

[Ziggidy]

I still question the polls. Healthcare, public service and such are different from one's spiritual stance. Healthcare is something everyone sees and experiences at some time of their life. Spiritual awareness can take many different faces based on many many experiences, traditions, countries and such. I believe we are seeing a decline in moral issues, not only within organized religion, but as an outsider also. In other words, as we see an increase in "openness" we see an increase in what I would call sinful living, although outside of any church, it influences active participants within the church. We see this as we experience "reformed" religions or efforts to modernize the traditions that would include gay clergy, same sex unions, the liberation women and the feminization of man......just to name a few. People have a different view of the church not solely because of the unfortunate findings in recent years, but also (and IMO mostly) due to the so called liberation of man/women....focus on the flesh rather than the spirit.

Healthcare is different. There is no real outside influence, per se'. Nurses and such can be the "angel" regardless of the tradition that mankind brings. They are there to help no matter what, accept you for what and who you are regardless of their own position. This is totally different from clergy.

While I might agree with the numbers, how we get there and why we get there is still in question for me. I certainly would like to see a a deeper study that can better define who is taking the poll and why they answer what they do. 1000 people random and such, IMO, is hardly enough to provide accurate data. We got to those numbers, explain to me in detail how e got there and what does that limited information really mean? (not asking you specifically)

I never took statistics so I may be way way off base.

 

[foszoe]

Because it skews perception due to the availability heuristic.

It's just how our brains work. Without stereotypes and heuristics we'd be literally paralyzed as we don't have the "processing power" to consciously examine every single object and experience we have as we have it.

Combine availability heuristic with confirmation bias and I could probably explain why most people aren't Orthodox Add in cognitive dissonance and I could pretty much explain American Christianity as we know it today.

 

[T.Lex]

Diocese of Lafayette's page that centralizes (sorta) their responses to the clergy abuse issues.
https://dol-in.org/response-to-current-news-events

Also, this specifically was a good recap/rebuttal.
https://dol-in.org/documents/2018/8/TCM 9-02-18 WEBedition.pdf

The TL;DR version is that, especially since about 2003, there have been concrete steps taken to address this problem. So, I'm not sure how saying again how much is being done really helps. If anything, it draws attention to the past failings. Which, if that's what someone is in to, then so be it.

 

[Ziggidy]

So, I'm not sure how saying again how much is being done really helps. If anything, it draws attention to the past failings. Which, if that's what someone is in to, then so be it.

I found the last sentence funny, disturbing, but funny.

What I perceive you as saying, is that one's background or experiences is not reason to formulate an opinion.

If a repeated sex offender, who has been to rehab, moves next door to you, are you willing to let your children associate with the offender as one would otherwise? After all, they have been through rehab - would you be someone who is into drawing attention to past failures? When is profiling acceptable and when is it bad? When does one act on that opinion, if at all?

Well, you can count me in, so be it. I will draw attention to past failures until the time comes what trust can be reinstated; if it can.