Podcast #123 – Study on US Catholic Child Abuse

Assuming the world hasn’t come to an end or that you haven’t been Raptured away…

The US Catholic Church reveals The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010, a study into the causes of priestly child abuse in the late 20th century.  It’s a mixed bag of things that should have been obvious, things the Church won’t want to hear, and some feeble hand-waving about the Sexual Revolution being sooo confusing.

Michael Newdow has lost.  Again.  The US Supreme Court has turned down his appeal in a lawsuit to prevent the president from saying “so help me God” after taking the oath of office.  While we can’t disagree with Newdow that “so help me God” is a bad idea, insulting to nonbelievers, and potentially blasphemous to believers, we also think this was a bad fight to pick–a losing battle that has now set bad precedent.

Holey Scripture!  What does the Bible have to say about Indiana governor Mitch Daniels?The answer may surprise you, and will surely flummox most Christians.  (And this already came up a while back during David Plotz’s “Blogging the Bible” series at Slate.com.)

Announcements

Atlanta Skepticamp is June 11-12th at the Doraville Community Center in north metro Atlanta.  If you’ll be in Atlanta that weekend, sign up to give a presentation and/or help with the organization.

John Snider will repeat his “20th Century Twain” presentation, July 3rd for the Fellowship of Reason, at Atlanta Freethought Hall.

This entry was posted in children, christianity, civil rights, cults, ethics, gay rights, history, politics, religion, religious rights, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Podcast #123 – Study on US Catholic Child Abuse

  1. Workin’ on it… might be a day or two before I get it figured out. Sorry!

  2. Jim Phynn says:

    While I’m not disagreeing with your overall thesis about the need to pick the right battles, I think the problem with “so help me god” after the oath of office isn’t Obama saying it; it was with Chief Justice Roberts telling him to say it, which is not a part of his constitutional duties. (if you don’t remember, just look for the clip on YouTube.)

    That’s why Roberts and not Obama was the defendant.

  3. Christian Morley says:

    Regarding Mitch Daniels and his supposed truce where social issues are concerned, please see this article.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2296187/?from=rss

    Mr. Daniels is going to destroy the lives of thousands of his own citizens over his party’s despicable ideology surrounding abortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>