Faith Healing and Government's role in religious belief..

[Asguard]

It's not just about children or solely relegated to the US. Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches are making inroads in African countries and popping up in countries like the UK.

Faith leaders in the UK are telling vulnerable people to stop taking life-saving drugs and their HIV can be cured through prayer in many African community groups, a new study has warned.

In seven different groups, members said they were pressured into stopping taking antiretroviral medication, according to the African Health Policy network.

Most respondents to the AHPN survey said they were "aware of more than one case of faith healing claims and pressure to stop taking medication. One member was aware of five cases."

And most said they believed the pastors, the majority Evangelical or Pentecostal Christians, when they said they could cure them.

---

Last year, BBC London identified three people with HIV who died after they stopped taking antiretroviral drugs on the advice of their Evangelical Christian pastors.

One of the churches allegedly involved in the practice was the Synagogue Church Of All Nations, which has a UK base in Southwark, south London.

The BBC reported that the SCOAN website showed videos of people who say they have been cured of diseases.

Videos have been posted on the site of people in Nigeria who say they have been cured of HIV/AIDS.

The church is led by Pastor T B Joshua, Nigeria's third richest clergyman.

But Power said it was not an problem which occurred exclusively in African churches. "There are people of all races and religions who follow someone called Professor Peter Duesberg, who believes it is the HIV medication which can make you ill.

"They discourage the taking of HIV drugs too, and that can make people very ill indeed. It's not just a problem that happens in the African community."

The charity has been awarded £7m by the government to raise HIV/AIDS awareness among gay men and the African community, identified at the two most "at risk", in partnership with the Black Health Agency.

Some of the funding will go towards educating people about faith healing and medication.


​

There is a difference though between that and what you posted about the US. Adults are allowed to be stupid, to refuse treatments which will cure them. What your not allowed to do is impose that onto children. If that is happening in the UK I would be seriously surprised if the government is allowing it. Its the same as Blood Transfusions for children here, parents can refuse it for themselves but not for there children, the hospital and the guardianship board will automatically overrule it.

 

[Hapsburg]

The objective test for right and wrong is found in civil law, not religion. Hence, you harm your kid for Jesus and you go to jail.

I never said religion was. Religious notions of morality are just as made-up as secular notions of morality. There is no objective right or wrong.
There is, however, social stability; best secured by the government ensuring the welfare of the people. Which, to me, includes the ability of individuals and groups to do as they please so long as they avoid harming others. This is clearly an instance where someone gets hurt, so yes it's proper for the state to be involved. But if it were not such a clear-cut case of someone getting hurt, I would figure that religious freedom is good for social stability.

 

[Greatest I am]

It is a well known fact that religions lie constantly to the gullible.

Our legal services, police and courts are supposed to protect our weakest and most gullible from scams. Churches are scams.

Should we expect the authorities to do their duty and close the worst offending churches?

I would say yes.

The question then becomes, how do we get those we pay to protect the weak minded and gullible from extortion by religions?

Regards
DL

 

[quinnsong]

It is a well known fact that religions lie constantly to the gullible.

Our legal services, police and courts are supposed to protect our weakest and most gullible from scams. Churches are scams.

Should we expect the authorities to do their duty and close the worst offending churches?

I would say yes.

The question then becomes, how do we get those we pay to protect the weak minded and gullible from extortion by religions?

Regards
DL

As any Christian in a Capitalist economy will tell you, BUYER BEWARE!

 

[quinnsong]

Oooh, I just got the name for it in another thread (thanks Tiassa) Prosperity Gospel, works so well in America!

 

[Greatest I am]

As any Christian in a Capitalist economy will tell you, BUYER BEWARE!

Not good enough if a community or country wants to be seen as caring for it's most vulnerable citizens.

Regards
DL

 

[quinnsong]

Not good enough if a community or country wants to be seen as caring for it's most vulnerable citizens.

Regards
DL

No Way, where's the PROFIT in that kind of thinking.

 

[Greatest I am]

No Way, where's the PROFIT in that kind of thinking.

It is the moral duty for the strong, who are supposed to care about their weak friends and neighbors, to do so.

That is what we call community building where I come from.

Have you noted that the some of the Western nations are losing much of that sense of community?

Did you notice a year or two ago how some countries in the E. U. were making all kinds of moral noises against the Vatican for their pedophile protecting but on this side of the Atlantic, all our governments were quite silent.

Does that tell you who cares about their children and who does not. It sure does to me.

Regards
DL

 

[wellwisher]

Did you notice a year or two ago how some countries in the E. U. were making all kinds of moral noises against the Vatican for their pedophile protecting but on this side of the Atlantic, all our governments were quite silent. Does that tell you who cares about their children and who does not. It sure does to me.

The main problem with solving this problem, has to do with the mixed signals the church is getting. Most of the child abuse scandal is male on male or priest and alter boy, which is also defined as gay/homosexual. Nobody is talking about the gay aspect of the problem, since it is taboo to discuss it like this. It is harder for the church to solve a problem, when the problem description is limited to the sanitized half-truth version of PC, since the problem is two fold. What has to happen we need to speak out against "the gay pedophilia" in the church, to clarify. If we address the problem properly, 90% of the problem is solved almost overnight.

The whole truth creates political problems for the liberals. If the church is seen as having protected gay pedophiles, for decades, you can't use the anti-gay propaganda against the church. If you trace it back, the church has been protecting gays before gay was labeled as a liberal only thing. To maintain the perception that only the liberals care for the gays, the liberals can't label the problem correctly, or else they could be accused of gay bashing. Their own game against others can be used against them, spoiling years of propaganda. The liberals seem to prefer to let the problem float, as a half truth thing, so they can bash the church on two fronts; anti-gay and pedophilia.

If we address the problem as gay-pedophilia, initiated by gay adults, the church could screen for gay to remove the problem before it occurs. They could place such priests in positions where there is less contact with boys. But if the liberals can maintain the 1/2 truth approach, this solution can be called gay bashing adding more expense to the unrelated pedophile problem. The church have to walk slow around scammers and con artists less the walk you into a trap based on their own propaganda and a dumb down audience.

How should the church deal with the gay pedophiles?

 

[Asguard]

The main problem with solving this problem, has to do with the mixed signals the church is getting. Most of the child abuse scandal is male on male or priest and alter boy, which is also defined as gay/homosexual. Nobody is talking about the gay aspect of the problem, since it is taboo to discuss it like this. It is harder for the church to solve a problem, when the problem description is limited to the sanitized half-truth version of PC, since the problem is two fold. What has to happen we need to speak out against "the gay pedophilia" in the church, to clarify. If we address the problem properly, 90% of the problem is solved almost overnight.

The whole truth creates political problems for the liberals. If the church is seen as having protected gay pedophiles, for decades, you can't use the anti-gay propaganda against the church. If you trace it back, the church has been protecting gays before gay was labeled as a liberal only thing. To maintain the perception that only the liberals care for the gays, the liberals can't label the problem correctly, or else they could be accused of gay bashing. Their own game against others can be used against them, spoiling years of propaganda. The liberals seem to prefer to let the problem float, as a half truth thing, so they can bash the church on two fronts; anti-gay and pedophilia.

If we address the problem as gay-pedophilia, initiated by gay adults, the church could screen for gay to remove the problem before it occurs. They could place such priests in positions where there is less contact with boys. But if the liberals can maintain the 1/2 truth approach, this solution can be called gay bashing adding more expense to the unrelated pedophile problem. The church have to walk slow around scammers and con artists less the walk you into a trap based on their own propaganda and a dumb down audience.

How should the church deal with the gay pedophiles?

To bad once again you are wrong (and just showing your homophobia again)

An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.

For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.

A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.

http://www.livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html

 

[Syne]

To bad once again you are wrong (and just showing your homophobia again)


http://www.livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html

Where did he say that homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles? Seems he was referring primarily to this statistic:

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002:

• Around 81% of these victims were male.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#United_States​

So what he seems to be saying is that pedophiles in the Catholic clergy tend to overwhelmingly prefer the same sex. Whether screening for homosexuality would help deter clergy pedophilia is unclear.

 

[Magical Realist]

So what he seems to be saying is that pedophiles in the Catholic clergy tend to overwhelmingly prefer the same sex. Whether screening for homosexuality would help deter clergy pedophilia is unclear.

"Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.


The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."---http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

"Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in “Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders”, that when a man molests little girls, we call him a "pedophile" and not a "heterosexual." Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, "homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society's aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to "family values," many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. Today, gays face the same kind of prejudice. Most recently, we've seen gay men unfairly turned out of the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of this myth that gay men are likely to be child molesters. Keeping gays out of scouting won't protect boys from pedophiles.

In reality, abuse of boys by gay pedophiles is rare, and the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still. Nicholas Groth is a noted authority on this topic. In a 1982 study by Grot, he asks, "Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children, and are pre-adolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual." Herek writes, similarly, that abuse of boys by gay men is rare; and that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still."---http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm

 

[Greatest I am]

To bad once again you are wrong (and just showing your homophobia again)

l]

I am pleased you corrected our friend.

Pedophilia is a control by sex crime. In the case of clergy, there is also a breach of trust.

Being gay has nothing to do with control.

It is just sexual seeking within ones own gender and not a crime at all.

Regards
DL

 

[Dinosaur]

My life partner suffers from asthma. Her opinion is the following (paraphrase, not an exact quote):

If the parent suffered from asthma & had an attack, I am sure he/she would seek medical assistance. I am also sure that he/she would allow the child to suffer & very likely die.

Not being able to breathe is a horrifying experience.

 

[Greatest I am]

My life partner suffers from asthma. Her opinion is the following (paraphrase, not an exact quote):Not being able to breathe is a horrifying experience.

For sure.

O.T. God does not seem to mind using slow drowning. Then again, eternal does not know time.

Regards
DL