Human organizations and the tendency to defend one's own

[Pete at Home]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35658398

It's happened ... again.

    Hall assaulted 21 females, the youngest aged 10, between 1967 and 1991
    Two senior managers were "aware" or "probably aware" of Hall's sexual assaults on BBC premises

Dame Janet said there had been a "culture of separation, competition and even hostility between different parts of the BBC, so that concerns arising in one part would not be discussed with others".

"Staff were reluctant to speak out to their managers because they felt it was not their place to do so," she said.

She said celebrities were "treated with kid gloves and were virtually untouchable".

A decade ago, in discussions about Catholic church scandals, I argued that what the church had done was what any large, entrenched, powerful human organization would have done under the circumstances.

This isn't the first time I've been proven right on that.   I would love to be shown wrong.  Can anyone show me a counterexample?

[D.W.]

I don't know anything about these two but your comparison strikes me as odd. 
Maybe to you it's just an organization protecting itself from being smeared by the actions of some in their ranks.  That much makes sense.  Though honestly in this case I feel they had more to gain as an organization by booting them out immediately but I have no idea how integral they were to operations from before I was born through when I was in jr. high...  I'm not even sure I could have told you what the BBC was in jr. high.   

The outrage and scandal related to the church (in my opinion at least) has a lot more to do with betrayal of trust from those specifically tasked with teaching morality to those they abused.

Sadly, we accept that awful awful things happen to our fellow humans all the time.  We accept that corruption thwarts justice all the time when those awful things happen.  We try to root it out where we can but defeatism creeps in when faced with the scope of it at times.

What really gets people's blood boiling though is when you pair that with hypocrisy.  When a "bad person" does "bad things" that's one thing.  When a person who claimed to be good, and regularly condemned "bad people" and "bad things" then turns around and does those exact things, we can hardly contain our outrage.

I guess what I'm saying is don't expect the same level of outrage directed at the BBC, because it IS different.  So I guess I can't give a counter example as I don't feel you have compared apples to apples. 

[AI Wessex]

I agree with DW.  You can't compare the moral failings and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church with similar seeming events in a business environment.  It's apples and oranges, but both strange fruit.

[Seriati]

D.W. why do you think your logic doesn't apply here?  Ween't these two men in fact just as big of hypocrites as members of the priesthood?  Where they in fact directly exploited their fame, including with respect to children's programing, and their good works (as is the case in using fame and charitable connections to "help" sick kids, and then molest them when you visit them)?

[D.W.]

I don't know what "Top of the Pops" is.  Maybe there are more correlations than I'm seeing?

I laid out my logic on why they are different.  When an individual sets themselves up as a moral authority, they are held to a different standard.

This is why police killing someone unjustly is huge news and a random citizen killing someone else is a fleeting headline (unless they kill 4 or more). 

This is why when your neighbor cheats on their spouse nobody much pays it any attention but when a politician shouting about family values does it's a huge scandal.

[Pete at Home]

Don't understand the question.  You don't think the Catholic church is comprised of humans?  Or you don't think that a national news organization inspires and relies upon the public's trust?  You don't think that non religious organizations provide their own opiate for the masses, or exercise authority in a way that's in any way analogous to that of a church?

I'm not saying that what the Catholic church did was newsworthy.  What I'm saying was that it was not particular to Catholics.

Ween't these two men in fact just as big of hypocrites as members of the priesthood?

Oh, I don't think that they were as big hypocrites as the raping churchmen.  But isn't religious hypocrisy rather small potatoes compared to the issue of conspiracy to commit and cover up child rape?

[D.W.]

But isn't religious hypocrisy rather small potatoes compared to the issue of conspiracy to commit and cover up child rape?

I don't think it is.  I mean, it SHOULD be, but I don't think it IS. 

We, as news consuming Americans, are presented with atrocities on a regular basis.  Somehow, and I can't explain it well but I'm positive I experience it, the hypocrisy makes all the difference.  I don't know why.  I don't think it SHOULD be that way, but I think that it is that way right now.

[Pete at Home]

And isnt that a religiousl hypocrisy im itself? that we would rather usurp God's judgment and pass judgment on the human soul, rather than doing our job as humans and citizens and protecting the innocent?

[D.W.]

I don't know.  I don't go in for the whole, "leave judgement to God" belief. 
I think part of protecting the innocent (something we suck at as a human race) is to be weary of and harsher to punish anyone claiming to have derive their authority from God.

It is that claim, that status that affords them their victims.  Yes, those offering fame and money do much the same, and we should hold them to task.  But for someone who really believes in the religion, the helplessness would be overwhelming. 

This isn't just the usual fears of; "Who would believe me?  Maybe this is just how the world works?  Maybe it's worth it for what I'm getting in return?", that a child may face from an abuser.  This is someone who is an emissary to God.  Someone who may very well have a say or the final say on what happens to your immortal soul.  Those who would exploit that are sicker than the garden variety rapist/molester in my book.

[Pete at Home]

I don't know.  I don't go in for the whole, "leave judgement to God" belief

But i am not saying dont judge anything.  It just seems .... Well, hypocritical for a matgerialist or atheist to focus on judging spiritual hypocrisy, and making that a priority over outrageous crimes against humanity.  I'm not saying leave all judgments to God; i am sayin g leave offenses against God, to God's judgment.  I suspect that on reflection you will agree with me. 

[D.W.]

Ahh I get it now.  I don't see it as an offense against God.  I mean, it (probably?) is, but I don't care.  That's His deal, not mine.  I am worried about the offense against humanity that is manipulating people in the name of God.

We are already capable of truly horrible things with all the material, emotional and physical leverage we can exert on each other.  When that just isn't enough for someone, and they need to leverage the acceptance, love or punishment of a divine being and your immortal soul and potential punishment beyond simple physical abuse for all time?  That's some twisted poop right there.

That is a level of evil, I just can't get over.  I suppose if I was a true atheist rather than an agnostic or pseudo-Christian I could brush it all off as similar to someone telling a child to keep quiet or Santa Clause wont' bring them any presents or something.  I however have enough faith that the concept of cooping God as an accomplice to rape is sickening.  I don't think it's enough to content ourselves with, "Well God will punish them in the afterlife."  I think it is a greater offense against humanity and should be treated by humanity as such.

If it is sounding like I'd rather we punish and exploit every sign of weakness in religion and let "regular" child molestation slide, I'm not.  I'm just saying that MY (and I think most people's) emotional reaction and sense of outrage is heighten when the perpetrators of evil hold themselves up as examples of good.

[Pete at Home]

Ahh I get it now.  I don't see it as an offense against God.  I mean, it (probably?) is, but I don't care.  That's His deal, not mine.  I am worried about the offense against humanity that is manipulating people in the name of God.

We are already capable of truly horrible things with all the material, emotional and physical leverage we can exert on each other.  When that just isn't enough for someone, and they need to leverage the acceptance, love or punishment of a divine being and your immortal soul and potential punishment beyond simple physical abuse for all time?  That's some twisted poop right there.

Oh hell, I absolutely agree there.  But that sort of sexual priestcraft you describe occurred in Jonestown and Waco where false prophets said that "God said let me bone your wife and daughter."  Exmormon polygamist apostate groups do the same thing.  As do some fundamentalist Muslim, Jewish, and Christian arbitrators who tell abused women and raped daughters to shut up and respect the head of the household.  But AFAIK, most of the Catholic pedophiles didn't engage in that level of evil.  And AFAIK no Catholic has been excommunicated for coming forward.  Am I mistaken?

[D.W.]

I have no idea if you are mistaken or not.  I wasn't actually making that claim.  I consider it an implied threat due to their position.  AFAIK they made it verbal as well.  If we want to play that game.  I certainly didn't read through transcripts so that I could confirm or deny that.  I also didn't suggest this was an exclusive criticism to one scandal or one religion.

[Pete at Home]

AFAIK they made it verbal as well.  If we want to play that game. 

No game.  I have no dog in that fight, not being Catholic.  I think we can safely say that we agree on principle, that if the victims were made to feel that it was a religious obligation to submit and/or shut up, that it's something much worse than what happened at BBC.  Otherwise, I think it's exactly as serious as, say, a trusted teacher or police officer, etc., abusing kids.  You saw the article I posted about cops raping women they'd pulled over?  Abuse of power is a big deal and IMO deserves more attention.

I also didn't suggest this was an exclusive criticism to one scandal or one religion.

No, you didn't.  This is a philosophical discussion, not personal.  Sorry that I'm so personal on a lot of other issues.