All Comments (66)

Thank you for writing about making a deal with God. I too made a deal years ago. My arrangement has worked out much the same as yours. It never fails to amaze me that no matter what the circumstances He lets me know that He's there keeping the deal. I guess I'm getting to a point in my life now where I'm looking forward to His ultimate deal and best offer of all. Thanks for writing so beautifully about your personal experience.

"

Booby - I'm sorry I engaged you in further conversation. I'm tempted to rebut your statements, but after your comment about my hypocrisy, don't see the point of continuing.

I just hope people reading through this discussion will come to a more mild conclusion.

October 24, 2007 5:10 PM | "

The proof is in the pudding. People reading this discussion need to merely use the scroll button to reach a similar conclusion.

Would "selective rebutting" be a more milder conclusion to your choice to argue with believers but not atheists regarding the tone of their posts?

Booby - I'm sorry I engaged you in further conversation. I'm tempted to rebut your statements, but after your comment about my hypocrisy, don't see the point of continuing.

I just hope people reading through this discussion will come to a more mild conclusion.

And your hypocrisy is pretty telling E Favorite. You selectively take me to task over "negative energy" in my posts yet are silent when people who share your non-belief in God resort to equal or greater cries of insult, anger and negativity.

An objective poster you are not.

"Mr Mark didn't compare the Bible to the recent atheist bestsellers. He asked if you'd read them."

IN a way he did, when one says that one read the Bible followed by a request to read these books, there seems to me an equation.

"In acknowledging that you hadn't, you made some extremely hateful remarks - using words such as hate spew, loud, biased, angry, insulting, smearing."

I clearly said these things about the literary content of the books. Calling something hateful is not a hateful statement (as you have just proven)

"I agree, "religion remains a strong analgesic for those that believe.""

Again you choose not to scroll upwards. I didnt write or agree these words. Who_Knows? wrote them early on these posts. I was quoting him or her as an example of an atheist being able to reflect calmly on the article whilst still disbelieving in the author's beliefs. Clear enough?

"If you're so sure that atheism will fade out, I don’t see why you waste so much negative energy on an already defeated opponent."

Again, you carelessly read my post. I said atheism will always stick around but not so with militant atheism.

"Mr Mark didn't compare the Bible to the recent atheist bestsellers. He asked if you'd read them."

IN a way he did, when one says that one read the Bible followed by a request to read these books, there seems to me an equation.

"In acknowledging that you hadn't, you made some extremely hateful remarks - using words such as hate spew, loud, biased, angry, insulting, smearing."

I clearly said these things about the literary content of the books. Calling something hateful is not a hateful statement (as you have just proven)

"I agree, "religion remains a strong analgesic for those that believe.""

Again you choose not to scroll upwards. I didnt write or agree these words. Who_Knows? wrote them early on these posts. I was quoting him or her as an example of an atheist being able to reflect calmly on the article whilst still disbelieving in the author's beliefs. Clear enough?

"Mr Mark didn't compare the Bible to the recent atheist bestsellers. He asked if you'd read them."

IN a way he did, when one says that one read the Bible followed by a request to read these books, there seems to me an equation.

"In acknowledging that you hadn't, you made some extremely hateful remarks - using words such as hate spew, loud, biased, angry, insulting, smearing."

I clearly said these things about the literary content of the books. Calling something hateful is not a hateful statement (as you have just proven)

"I agree, "religion remains a strong analgesic for those that believe.""

Again you choose not to scroll upwards. I didnt write or agree these words. Who_Knows? wrote them early on these posts.

And I hope that you find some peace, Bobby.

Mr Mark didn't compare the Bible to the recent atheist bestsellers. He asked if you'd read them.

In acknowledging that you hadn't, you made some extremely hateful remarks - using words such as hate spew, loud, biased, angry, insulting, smearing.

If you're so sure that atheism will fade out, I don’t see why you waste so much negative energy on an already defeated opponent.

I agree, "religion remains a strong analgesic for those that believe."

Are you satisfied with religion as medicine? Dos it matter to you that it's foundation is complete myth and its dogma is completely made by humans to keep others humans under control and that some of it's history is incredibly gruesome?

To me this is too high a price to pay for an analgesic. I think society needs a more reasonably priced medicine with fewer side effects, that’s available to all without having to believe or feign belief in the supernatural.

"

Dear Bobby -

In all of your posts in this thread, not a word of apology from you for the actions of the child-rapist priests in the RC Church.

Why?
"

Because I dont apologize for something I did not do. Here's another shocker: Im not even Catholic. I actually belong to a Church that the Catholic Church considers "wounded". BUt that doesn't change my belief that most of what the Catholic Church is for the past 300 years (post-Reformation) is good and the abuse scandals are but a small stain.

And as to your repetitive challenge to read Dawkins/Hitches/HArris and you equating them with the Bible (re:TW - I've read the Bible a couple of times. Have you read any of the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins et al, or are you criticizing them through your hat? Just asking.)

I have flipped through all of them dozens of times at the bookstore and read a few pages each time. FRom the drivel I read I could not bring myself to spend my hard earned money on crap like that. An investment in frappacinos would yield more value in my life. I pass such judgement on the literary value of these books (not on the people who wrote them) not as a RELIGIOUS person but because Im an EDUCATED person.

It would be more equitable if you said that you read Ann Coulter's Godless and Bill O' Reilly's Culture Warrior to get a balanced perspective on Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. I also dont think much of the literary value of COulter and O'Reilly.

And while we are on that wavelength, (at least in my humble opinion) these new militant atheists are to atheistic arguments what Fox News is to journalism: loud, biased, angry, insulting, smearing.

Now I have read MArx, Spinoza, Sagan, Kant, Nietzsche: Now those works have literary worth, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions I marvel at their arguments and their depth.

FOr you to compare dawkins et al to the Bible is a joke. The Bible is a tome compiled over the course of a few thousand years that (whether you believe it or not) describes vividly the evolution of the relationship between God and man, the myriad of human complexities, emotions, anger, joy, sadness, upheavel, tragedy, poetry that stirs the soul, the concept of sin, the price of sin, the redemption of Man, the hammering of the message of hope, love and faith, the sacrifice and humility of God.

Disagree with it fine. Declare it a hoax, fine. But dont compare it to some issue-du-jour bandwagon book that mixes a handful of tenuous philosophical arguments with hate spew.

The Bible has influenced humanity for millenia and till this day. You can debate whether that influence is good or bad, fine. But just because atheists lack an equivalent inspiring book, to jump on what were top-bestsellers on Amazon.com and bring to par with the Bible...well, you may truly believe it but THAT is the real Delusion, and I honestly feel sorry for you.

Although atheism will stick around, the Dawkins/Hitch/HArris brand of Militant atheism will fade I promise you. Not because of sinister right-wing forces, but because people tire of rage and anger and hate spew. Every hundred years atheist predict the death of religion and it never happens. Because people choose hope, love and peace over anger and rage. Look at you, MrMark. You read the above innocent post that attacks no one yet you look for something, anything to make the weakest of links to something dirty so you can soil what is a reflection of peace and hope. Even an atheist poster wrote gentle words while still mentioning his disbelief in God:

Who_Knows?: A beautifully expressed example of how deeply ingrained religious beliefs and devotion can bring temporary relief to the human soul. Although God apparently did not agree to the deal, she continues to honor her offer and thereby receive some degree of temporary relief from the pain she feels.

Religion remains a strong analgesic for those that believe.

I simply don't believe and am amazed by those that do."

I will pray for you to find peace MrMark.

Dear Bobby -

In all of your posts in this thread, not a word of apology from you for the actions of the child-rapist priests in the RC Church.

Why?

Bobby - thanks for responding to my request for "specific examples of hatred directed at Tracy for finding comfort."

In my opinion, only Yoyo comes close, using words like "drivel" and "scary." while certainly insulting, they are not words of hatred.

Chaotician prefaced his/her remarks with something very kind, I thought, "Sad, I suppose getting solace anyway you can is valuable...."

Nothing hateful there. then Chaotician finished by expressing an opinion held by many people - even many Christians: "looking for support from a Catholic God is pure hockum." This is harsh, but falls far short of hateful, and is not directed specifically to Ms Grant.

Mr. Mark then says, "Ms Grant still doesn't get it..." This is about as mild a criticism as one can offer these days. Mr Mark directed no expression of hatred towards Ms Grant. He saved it all for the Catholic heirachy.

"Could you provide specific examples of hatred directed at Tracy for finding comfort?"

How about ATTACKING her for not mentioning the abuse scandal, something that has NOTHING to do with the subject matter of the article?

Its amazing that I have to cut and paste the quotes when all you have to do is scroll upwards!

YOYO wrote:
"What utter drivel.Scary too.
To brag about how deluded you are
is most bizarre, bearing in mind that
the likelyhood that a god exists is just about nil."

Chaotician:
Sad, I suppose getting solace anyway you can is valuable, but looking for support from a Catolic God is pure hockum!

If there is any support it has to come you from yourself or other living things, preferably human.

Giving the Priests or the Church money is graft! Especially the Catholic Church which will pay off the kids exploited by the pedophile priests by throwing the Sisters into the cold while the same Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and the heirachy of the church continues to live in comfort and plenty.

And the ever angry MrMArk:
"Not a word about the pedophillia that runs rampant in Ms Grant's church. No word for the sorry victims of decades of child rape. No lighting a candle to the prayer that the child rapists within the Catholic Church will be fully expunged from its ranks. No donation offered to pay full restitution to the children who were the victims of rape at the hands of their trusted priests.

Golly gee. I guess all one can say is, "His will musta been done."

I'd say that Ms Grant still doesn't get it, no matter how many thousands of times she's uttered her prayers."

I shudder at your inevitable reply claiming that these posts are not hateful merely opposing opinions....

Dear Deacon V:

Could you provide specific examples of hatred directed at Tracy for finding comfort?

Thanks

Wow...why all the hatred that one person has found some comfort in his world during what appears to be a very trying time. Could it be ya'll are envious of that peace?

Tracy, for me, it was a beautifully told revisting of a place I've been before, both figuratively and physically. Please know that you are not alone...just because these anonymous bloggers haven't allowed God into their lives for whatever reason does nothing to disprove He exists! You know it, I know it, and hopefully we'll both continue to pray that one day soon they too will know it.

Ms Grant, your piece was very moving, and I am sure it took a lot of courage to expose publicly such private pains and thoughts. All of us who read it had the opportunity to learn from it. I am saddened that some readers chose to ridicule or attack your faith, and debate scandals of your religion that have nothing to do with the solace you generously shared with us. I do not share your faith but recognised what is commun to all religions: a way to understand the world around us, to answer major questions, to confort us during difficult times. Peace, Christiane

Bobby -

One final point the the statistics you cited, in re: "A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002."

I wonder when knowledge of this problem first presented itself to the church. Could the RC Church have been aware of the problem as early as 1950 but did nothing? Or, did the Church more recently discover the problem and did it investigate back to the 1950s?

It's not clear from the article when who knew what. That said, I would have hoped that the RC Church would have acted immediately, rather than allowing these crimes to go on for a single minute longer, let alone another 52 years.

Bobby, when you say "Pleeeze..." after I point out that sexual misconduct, molestation and rape are not the same thing, what does that mean?

That you are aware of that? that you disagree? what? My concern is that an article with "sexual misconduct" in the title gets misrepresented as an article strictly about rapists. Is that distinction of any importance to you?

Correction to my post of OCTOBER 22, 2007 1:06 PM:

I opined that, "One would want to apply the same considerations to Catholic priests over a 40-50 year period (surely, more than 100,000 priests have worked for the church over that 40-year period. Were those 4400 cases of abuse representative of 4% of priests working over that 40 years or .004%?)."

Re-reading Bobby's earlier post of OCTOBER 22, 2007 9:06 AM, I see that his citation from the cnn article says, "A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002."

That means that there was a total of 110,000 RC priests employed in the USA between 1950-2002. Ergo, the 4% rate of child rapists among US RC priests stands.

Dear Bobby -

Let me answer your questions:

1. Will you look at teachers the same way you look at Catholic priests?

No, because it's an apples-and-oranges situation. Nowhere in the article you cited did I read that the US Public School System/Teachers' Unions HARBORED offending teachers and shuffled them from job-to-job, city-to-city to keep them employed by the system. Can the same be said of the RC Church? No.

No, because teachers in general don't present themselves as acting under the auspices of the ultimate in higher authority, god. A teacher might force rape upon a child because they are an authority figure, but the priest couples his same authority with the added authority of god when raping his victims.

2. Will you harbor the same resentment towards teachers' unions as the bishops who ignored the warning bells?

Again, one needs to ask if the teachers' unions were somehow complicit in hiding these abuses from the public and were they complicit in transferring teachers who were sex offenders to different districts simply because they were members of the teacher's union? If not, then how can you possibly compare the teacher's union to the RC Bishops who did aid and abet priests who engaged in child rape?

You characterize the Bishops are "ignoring the warning bells," when the truth is that the tocsin had sounded long ago, the crimes had been committed and admitted to, and after all that, the Bishops THEN decided to aid and abet these rapists by transferring them to different parishes.

So one must ask, did the teachers' unions follow a similar path as the RC Bishops and aid and abet cild rapists, or did they take an active role in outing and ousting these sex offenders from their ranks (I don't know, I'm asking)?

3. Will you accept that maybe, just maybe, its not religion's fault of those regrettable tragedies (that represent a small minority) but rather that as human beings we are all capable of evil REGARDLESS of being atheist or believer?

Obviously, it's not "religion's fault" because we don't see similar abuses happening in other Xian denominations, let alone non-Xian religions. No, this problem seems to be an entirely Catholic problem, and maybe even a USA-centered Catholic problem. That "small minority" of sex offenders that you mention looks to be ENTIRELY the product of the RC Church, so don't go dragging any other sects or religions down with you into the cesspool of child rape.

That would lead one to strongly suspect that there's something amiss in the process of becoming a Catholic priest. Perhaps the vow of celibacy and the commitment to remaining single both attracts a certain type of person to the priesthood and encourages certain behaviours among the priesthood. What do you think?

And, no, I don't believe that humans are PRE-DISPOSED to committing evil acts and that we are "prone to sin." Sin is something we learn. Do you have kids? Were they born being prone to sin? If so, were they evil from birth? If not, when did you teach them evil so they could become prone to it?

4. Or will you shake your head and repeat the uber-generalist and simplistic Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris mantra : Religion poisons everything

Nothing simplistic about it. Religion does poison everything. Period. Yes, I'll take the atheist mantra over the religionist mantra any day of the week.

BTW - I've read the Bible a couple of times. Have you read any of the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins et al, or are you criticizing them through your hat? Just asking.

"Your reading of the numbers you presented is quite flawed. Resorting to the "these are real human beings" position doesn't change that, and neither does it bolster the point that you tried to make through the statistics you presented.

Let me boil it down in a few simple questions now that we have "discussed" a sex abuse scandal irrelevant to religion:

Will you look at teachers the same way you look at Catholic priests?

Will you harbor the same resentment towards teachers' unions as the bishops who ignored the warning bells?

Will you accept that maybe, just maybe, its not religion's fault of those regrettable tragedies (that represent a small minority) but rather that as human beings we are all capable of evil REGARDLESS of being atheist or believer?

Or will you shake your head and repeat the uber-generalist and simplistic Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris mantra : Religion poisons everything?

Dear Bobby -

My point was that one can make statistics work to support any argument. Your point - which I understood - was made in absence of a few bits of information.

And let's talk about comparing "over the course of 50 years" to "over the course of 4 years." To make an apples-to-apples comparison, one would have to include calculations as to the potential population of both victims and perps over those two time periods. How many students attend public and private schools in the USA (the 2003 figure was just under 50-million)? How many would be considered to be in an "at risk" group for sexual abuse by teachers? How does that break down by age and gender (are girls abused at the same rate as boys? Are 5th graders abused at the same rate as 11th graders?)? If there are roughly 3-million teachers teaching at a given time, what are the new-hire and attrition rates over the four years sampled?

One would want to apply the same considerations to Catholic priests over a 40-50 year period (surely, more than 100,000 priests have worked for the church over that 40-year period. Were those 4400 cases of abuse representative of 4% of priests working over that 40 years or .004%?), what was the total number of Catholic children in the "at risk" group over that 40 years (there are roughly 70-million Catholics in the US right now, but that includes adults and children. Are Catholic boys abused more than girls?), etc, etc.

You ask, "Good lord! Is the abstract percentage number more critical than the actual number of living, breathing victims?" Yes, it is when YOU are trying to support your argument through the use of statistics.

The point is that child abuse by teachers is statistically insignificant, and that may well be true for priests as well (if one took into account the factors I mentioned above). No one is denying the impact that such abuse had on individual human beings, but it's statistically insignificant in the way that tornado damage is insignificant to the vast majority of the 300-million Americans living right now, but is very significant to the guy whose house served as ground zero for a tornado.

Your reading of the numbers you presented is quite flawed. Resorting to the "these are real human beings" position doesn't change that, and neither does it bolster the point that you tried to make through the statistics you presented.

Dear Bobby -

My point was that one can make statistics work to support any argument. Your point - which I understood - was made in absence of a few bits of information.

And let's talk about comparing "over the course of 50 years" to "over the course of 4 years." To make an apples-to-apples comparison, one would have to include calculations as to the potential population of both victims and perps over those two time periods. How many students attend public and private schools in the USA (the 2003 figure was just under 50-million)? How many would be considered to be in an "at risk" group for sexual abuse by teachers? How does that break down by age and gender (are girls abused at the same rate as boys? Are 5th graders abused at the same rate as 11th graders?)? If there are roughly 3-million teachers teaching at a given time, what are the new-hire and attrition rates over the four years sampled?

One would want to apply the same considerations to Catholic priests over a 40-50 year period (surely, more than 100,000 priests have worked for the church over that 40-year period. Were those 4400 cases of abuse representative of 4% of priests working over that 40 years or .004%?), what was the total number of Catholic children in the "at risk" group over that 40 years (there are roughly 70-million Catholics in the US right now, but that includes adults and children. Are Catholic boys abused more than girls?), etc, etc.

You ask, "Good lord! Is the abstract percentage number more critical than the actual number of living, breathing victims?" Yes, it is when YOU are trying to support your argument through the use of statistics.

The point is that child abuse by teachers is statistically insignificant, and that may well be true for priests as well (if one took into account the factors I mentioned above). No one is denying the impact that such abuse had on individual human beings, but it's statistically insignificant in the way that tornado damage is insignificant to the vast majority of the 300-million Americans living right now, but is very significant to the guy whose house served as ground zero for a tornado.

Your reading of the numbers you presented is quite flawed. Resorting to the "these are real human beings" position doesn't change that, and neither does it bolster the point that you tried to make through the statistics you presented.

"Bobby - regarding rage -- your speaking in caps and multiple exclamation and question marks certainly suggests rage."

CAPITALS indicate EMPHASIS not RAGE.

"Regarding illogic, I notice you start talking about teachers’ sexual "misconduct" which then becomes “molestors” and then “teacher rapists.” All are bad, but they are not all the same thing. Please be careful not to equate or confuse these terms."

Pleeeze....

"think something we can all agree on is that people entrusted with the care of children should not abuse them and those who do should be brought to justice and kept away from children."

Agreed. But it'll be interesting to note the incidence of taking to task anyone who discusses the merit of education without mentioning the sexual abuse. The latter theme being prevalent with authors discussing the virtues of the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.
.

When I write IN CAPITAL ITS BECAUSE IM PUTTING EMPHASIS ON A POINT (Imagine saying the CAPITALIZED word for a second longer than normal)

Bobby - regarding rage -- your speaking in caps and multiple exclamation and question marks certainly suggests rage. Regarding illogic, I notice you start talking about teachers’ sexual "misconduct" which then becomes “molestors” and then “teacher rapists.” All are bad, but they are not all the same thing. Please be careful not to equate or confuse these terms.

Also, please note that the source of the statistics is quite different in each case. For the teachers, the information came from an independent, external study (AP) of recorded cases on public record of teacher “misconduct.” AP is a news organization whose job it is to investigate and report news. Information for the Catholic study came within, from an organization known for secrecy and protecting pedophile priests. Thus, it appears that apples are being compared to oranges, making it difficult to make a point comparing teachers and priests, based solely on this information.

I think something we can all agree on is that people entrusted with the care of children should not abuse them and those who do should be brought to justice and kept away from children.

"So I ask you - which group has the more-widespread problem when it comes to child molestation?"

Aaahh, the excuses begin. Its simple for me, I count the bigger problem being the one with MORE CHILDREN ABUSED not the BIGGER PERCENTAGE RATIO!!!!!!!

Good lord! Is the abstract percentage number more critical than the actual number of living, breathing victims?

Not to mention the fact that your math is BAD: 2750/3000000 x 100=0.09%.

for the priests its indeed 4% but OVER THE COURSE OF 50 YEARS not 4 YEARS. And the ultimate number of victims is the REAL METRIC. A METRIC OF LIVING HUMAN BEINGS. Jesus, aren't you supposed to be a humanist or was that only when you were bashing religion.

And I (and pretty much every Christian I know) has NEVER excused the abuse instances in the Catholic Church. But its people like you who damn the whole Catholic institution because of the crimes of the few. Crimes that are associated not because its a religious thing but because its composed of HUMAN BEINGS prone to SIN (yes sin, you call it imperfections I call it sin, regardless).

You intentionally ignore the countless things the Catholic Church has done to help people around the world whether its the counsleing by priests over the course of believers' lives, the relief efforts in the Third World, the community, even the mild example in the article above that you felt the need to tear the author apart. An author who made no attacks against any group but rather described her own comfort she finds in the church.

Your rage and illogic is NO DIFFERENT than the religious fanatics you use to damn religion altogether. Of course you will calmly deny that, internalize that denial and continue believing that you are immune from illogic. Sounds just like a religious fanatic.

Dear Bobby -

Thanks for the link to the CNN article.

I hope you would agree with me that two wrongs don't make a right. Pointing out the egregious acts of school teachers in no way excuses those of Catholic priests and vice versa.

And one can make of statistics what they will. I notice that you didn't bother citing the statistic in the cnn article that pointed out that there are 3-MILLION public school teachers in the USA. If I did my calculations correctly, that means that those 2750 molesters represent .000008% of public school teachers. On the other hand, those 4400 Catholic priest molesters represents 4% of all priests.

So I ask you - which group has the more-widespread problem when it comes to child molestation?

Amazing. Ms Grant posts a well-written piece on her own experience with faith in a forum dedicated to the discussion of faith and the responses which follow generally have nothing to do with faith. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It's too easy to place one's sights on the Roman Catholic Church. Like any other large institution, it has problems. Because of it's nature, those problems tend to center on abuses of power - some undestandable, some despicable, and upon CYA. But, the institution has little to do with one's faith. Faith is personal and an institution like the church can influence (sometimes very strongly) the way in which our faith is formed. However, each person's faith is ultimately the result of the choices they make for themselves. I can point out the path which I believe is right, but one has to choose and walk their own path, no one else can walk it for them.

After growing up Methodist, I found myself disenchanted with religion. I had been exposed to Puritanism in school and found that some of that resonated with me. But, I had also delved into existentialism, nihilism, and atheism as well. For twenty years, I struggled with doubt and faith. I looked into various religions. Everywhere I looked, I found something I liked but other things I disliked. Mostly, I found that I disliked the institutions and some of the more outspoken proponents.

Finally, I understood what I had known all along. I alone was responsible for my own faith - just as I alone am responsible for my actions. As I had learned from Camus, Sartre and Kierkegaard, I make my own choices and am the sum of those choices. Free will in its purest form. I can believe and act as I please and I am responsible for those choices. No one can believe or act for me and no one can relieve me of the burden of responsibility.

I choose to be faithful. Not to "have faith," but live my faith. I chose the Christian faith and chose to live a life of faith. However, I did not choose a religion. Although I suppose that I am still officially a Presbyterian, I have not set foot in a Presbyterian church since 1999. I attend a Holdemann Mennonite church but am not a member. I cannot, in good faith, join that church because I do not accept all of the doctrine.

So, why do I attend? I don't believe that church attendance or membership is essential to my salvation. I don't believe that acceptance by any other person on this Earth contributes to my salvation. I don't believe that God is some entity who will give me whatever I pray for. I attend church because I find myself surrounded by others who live their faith and because that shared faith gives me strength and helps me to find my way along the strait and narrow path. Such shared faith is a powerful force which can help to sustain us through difficult times.

I think this shared faith is perhaps what Ms Grant has experienced. I think, too, that she has shared a bit of that experience here. Thank you, Ms. Grant.

Still waiting MrMArk for your about face...

Its even worse when you read the entire article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/21/teacher.sex.abuse.ap/index.html

Teachers: 2570 molestors in FOUR years...
Catholic Church: 4400 in FIFTY-TWO years...

Let me help you with the math:

teachers: 642.5 molestors a year
Catholic Church: 84.6 molestors a year

Thats 7.6 times more. I intend to see if the Catholic bashers will now proceed to bash teachers and their protecting unions (read the article) 7.6 times more...probably not...hypocrites.

Correction:

Teachers: 2570 molestors in FOUR years...
Catholic Church: 4400 in FIFTY-TWO years...

I DARE people to still insist with a straight face that the Catholic incidents are still more egregious than the teacher scandal that got swept under the rug.

Where are the cries for the teacher children victims????

Where is the outrage????

2570 in FOUR YEARS????!!!!!!!!!!!???!!!!

To MrMArk and other CAtholic bashers:

From today's CNN.com:

" Those are the AP's findings after reporters sought disciplinary records in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The result is an unprecedented national look at the scope of sex offenses by educators -- the very definition of breach of trust.

The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, voluntarily surrendered or limited from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. More than half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to the misconduct.

The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002."

Teachers: 1801 molestors in FOUR years...
Catholic Church: 4400 in FIFTY-TWO years...

OK, MrMArk lets hear your excuses for the teacher rapists and their union protectors, and how God poisons everything.

Let me guess, they must have been religious teachers...

Hypocrite, thats what you are. You close your eyes to the great things the Catholic Church has done and focus on a tiny (if terrible) affliction as representative of what the Church is.

Jane-

Can you give some contrete examples of how you become a better person when you "seek him [God]" and "read his Word?"

thanks

To a believer, this piece probably sounds sweet and reasonable. To a non-believer, it is amazingly disturbing. An intelligent person discussing a deal with an entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever!

Is it any wonder religion is considered the only socially acceptable form of insanity?

GOD is a real person. GOD is a Spirit. We commune with GOD through our Spirit. We were created by GOD to give him glory and fellowship with him. GOD is lonely for us. Doestoyevski (spelling ?) once said if GOD does not exist all is permissable. I'm glad he exists. When I seek him and read his Word it makes me a much better person than if I never did this. I'm thankful for his word (The Bible).

GOD is a real person. GOD is a Spirit. We commune with GOD through our Spirit. We were created by GOD to give him glory and fellowship with him. GOD is lonely for us. Doestoyevski (spelling ?) once said if GOD does not exist all is permissable. I'm glad he exists. When I seek him and read his Word it makes me a much better person than if I never did this. I'm thankful for his word (The Bible).

GOD is real. A person. He is Spirit and Truth. We were created to worhip him and give him glory. Doestoyeski (spelling?)once said if GOD did not exist everything is permissable. I find solace in GOD's presence when I seek him, when I read his Word. When I do this I am a better person for it than when I don't do this.

To Tracy Grant: I sympathize greatly with you, for the loss of your husband of 20 years; and with your young sons, for the loss of their father. I empathize with you for finding solace in the cathedral. I’ve often found it in such places. They are created for that purpose.

I regret any further pain you and your family may have experienced reading responses to this essay. I don’t know what to do about it, though. As a Washington Post employee and even as a cursory reader of this blog, you must have known that the responses here can be blazingly straightforward and harsh. Maybe you welcomed that or at least didn’t mind. I don’t know. I certainly hope you weren’t led to expect mainly sympathy and support.

Expressing your experience and feelings so plainly brought forth the anger that many people feel toward the Catholic church. I can understand how the Church angers people. It angers me too. But as a former Catholic, I'm mainly saddened that it draws people in with its beauty and solace and hypnotic power and then traps them in a web of superstition, fear and subjugation. No religion I know of does it better than Catholicism.

Cutting deals?

You mean to get your crown in heaven.

Why not just try and be the best person you can and help those less fortunate than yourself.

Too difficult -- you need a better "deal"?

Mr Mark, guilty as charged.

You're overlooking the hypnotic feeling one gets inside the church. The emotion of the moment when the presence of the supernatural becomes reality. The tall ornate walls covered with statues and held up by pillars of stone, the shiny tile floors, row upon row of pews, the stained glass windows with the sun shining through, the marble slab altar, the confessional, the linens, the gold candle holders ornate with cherubs seemingly holding them, the whole air of the place brings one the feeling that God is there, the spirit of God walks with you as you traverse the aisle...

Then comes the worshipers filling those pews. The priest dressed in official garb carrying the chalice, the altar boys in their cute costumes and the mass begins, "the Lord be with you,, and with thy spirit...."

Aw heck. Just turn on midnight mass from the Vatican. If you can't wait for Christmas then tune in "Hour of Power" from the Crystal Cathedral and see how the po folks do it. If you're on a bummer then visit your local Baptist church.

We can put that to music.

"What the world needs now is religion sweet religion that's the only thing there's just too little of..."

Oops! 12 Turkish troops killed by Kurds inside Iraq. Is religion the cure or the cause?

"Go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" -- for only Devil can help us now. Sorry, meant to say God. God is on our side?

Steve -

One further point - it's not uncommon for a group of people to be stigmatized by the actions of people within their group for years. Certainly, the average German and Japanese were stigmatized for years for the actions of their leaders during WWII. Those people and their countries had to work through a lot of baggage over many years to re-enter the ranks of humanity. It may not have been fair, but again, what is fair when you're dealing with atrocities?

Child rape is something that the Catholic Church needs to deal with openly and honestly if there is any hope that the Church be rehabilitated into something useful. They are making strides towards that - the LA Diocese is making restitution in the billions - but the morally and ethically compromised clergy that perpetrated these acts is still largely being protected by the Church.

What are we non-Catholics to make of the case of Bernard Law who admitted to covering up for child-raping priests, resigned and was immediately appointed to positions of power in the Vatican by John Paul II? Are these the actions of a Church that is truly sorry for the actions of its leaders? Giving sanctuary in a foreign land to a Bishop who coddled child molesters?

Is it too much to ask that the Church do a bit of penance for this, penance that goes beyond monetary pay outs and a few weeks of media attention? Is it time to move on from this? The ill has hardly been expunged from the Church and the insult and injury continues. I don't believe in special pleading for the Church simply because they purport to be doing something in the "name of god."

Perhaps my sensitivity to the plight of the victims of child rape is overwhelming my sense of forgiveness for the institution that continues to coddle the perps. To that, I plead guilty.

Last post was mine

Steve - "Where does the author allude to the pedophilia scandal or the Inquisition? Why in discussing a personal religious experience should she?"

That's the compartmentalization I mentioned, Steve. It's not just about a religious experience, it's about an entity that offers religious experience, pedophilia and torture all in the same package.

The atheists here are providing facts - harsh facts, but plain facts, nonetheless. And you accuse them of "bigotry," "malice," "ignorance" and "hatred." I suggest you try those words out on church leaders and see how they fit.

STEVE writes:
"Case in point. Where does the author allude to the pedophilia scandal or the Inquisition?"

She doesn't. That's the point. One could write a wonderful expose on the genteel life on a plantation if one chose not to mention slavery.

"Why in discussing a personal religious experience should she?"

Thanks for making my point yet again. Her personal religious experience stands in isolation to the reality of her church's engaging in, encouraging and covering up the rape of children. We've seen this kind of compartmentalization before, haven't we? Perhaps the child-raping priests had the same experience, telling their victims to "keep the change" when they raped them more than could be humanly endured. And I'm sure these rapist-priests found the church an ideal spot for people-watching as well, as long as those people were under the age of consent.

As far as my "bigotry and hatred" towards child rapists and the institution (the Catholic Church) that protects them while aiding and abetting the victimization of the defenseless, yes, I absolutely hate them. Hate isn't a strong enough word to describe what I feel. If I am a bigot it is a bigotry brought on by the offending clergy and institution themselves. I might note that this "bigotry" is new to me - ie: I didn't have these feelings before the evidence was presented that the Catholic Church has been aiding and abetting child rapists for decades. I would feel that same hatred towards the clergy of other denominations or the staff of any secular-based institution who engaged in the same vile and inexcusable actions. I'll take my chances in the court of public opinion when my "bigotry" is measured as an an offense against child rapists any day of the week.

You may find that offensive, but again, I would posit that nothing I have said in the above recounting of the facts on the ground comes close to the offensive actions of the child-raping priests and their enablers.

Case in point. Where does the author allude to the pedophilia scandal or the Inquisition? Why in discussing a personal religious experience should she? Your bigotry and hatred are obvious.
And Yoyo... apt name.

so what do you folks do when your god doesn't come through on the deal?

It sounds as if when whatever you're after does come through you take that as proof that there is a god and "he's" actually paying attention, but that when he doesn't come through it's mysterious are the ways of god and thy will be done.

That's a lot of forgiveness, you seem to be even more forgiving of your god that he is of you. I mean, you're not sending this god you so love to permanent torture for eternity because he didn't follow the rules.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

If Ms Grant had written the same thing about Pepsi Cola and left out, childhood diabetes, tooth decay, malnutrition, all the bad things about soda pop in general and the fact that there are many other brands, the same group of people would point it out to her and accuse her of being on Pepsi's payroll, stupid and worse.

The truth - just the fact madam.
The whole truth - leave nothing out please.
And nothing but the truth - no guessing about the facts.

Here's how I read what she said - What she said about her relationship with religion, how it makes her feel dope heads get from sniffing cocaine.

An now my comment - She has the advantage of her addiction being government approved, promoted and at tax exempt crack houses called churches. I notice that Mr GW Bush chips in a tax dollar or two from the government to help her stay addicted.

Steve - I can appreciate the authenticity of both Tracy's experience and Mr Mark's observations.

I hope that in the future, someone like Tracy can find solace and comfort without having to compartmentalize and make deals the way anyone involved with religion, and the Catholic church specifically, must do.

Steve writes:

"The good thing about atheists is that their manners betray their ignorance. They have little to buttress their views except malice."

I'll buttress my views with the reports in the newspapers, the admission of guilt by the church and the massive pay outs they're being force to make here in CA.

Perhaps you feel that child rape is a step up from the church's activities during their Inquisition.

A person gives a real, down to earth account of their religious experience and she's attacked as if by wolves.
The good thing about atheists is that their manners betray their ignorance. They have little to buttress their views except malice.

Mr Mark - perhaps she isn't making any connection between the comfort and protection of the cathedral and priest pedophilia. One is a warm feeling and one is a seemingly unrelated harsh fact.

Not a word about the pedophillia that runs rampant in Ms Grant's church. No word for the sorry victims of decades of child rape. No lighting a candle to the prayer that the child rapists within the Catholic Church will be fully expunged from its ranks. No donation offered to pay full restitution to the children who were the victims of rape at the hands of their trusted priests.

Golly gee. I guess all one can say is, "His will musta been done."

I'd say that Ms Grant still doesn't get it, no matter how many thousands of times she's uttered her prayers.

Come on Down!!

Oh, I suppose that should be:
Come on UP!

LET'S MAKE A DEAL!

I suppose that the BCS will demonstrate the most holy team in America - right there in NO.

As in NO, the holiest team in America will not make it to the BCS.

Let's start our own poll. That would be fun.
Which team do you think is the holiest team in America?

Come on Down!!

Oh, I suppose that should be:
Come on UP!

LET'S MAKE A DEAL!

I su