E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
This is no different from the Kevin Spacey thing or the countless other scandals coming to light as a result of #MeToo. A man - usually - in a position of power who uses that power to abuse others, and an organisation that is too blinded by the man, to intimidated or just to ignorant to know how to react. You’ll find similar scenarios in schools - is there a conspiracy of silence among teachers? Among estate agents? Among dentists? Because it’s everywhere that someone is in a position to abuse their power.
Oh, come on, PF: after the endless scandals about sexual abuse by clergy in the RC, Anglican, and other churches, and the cover-ups for decades, one case, dealt with quickly and firmly by the Yank atheists, rather pales into insignificance.
nobody here (be they theist or atheist) wishes to see any delays in dealing with any examples of problem behaviour within organisations.
I agree with you 100% Rhiannon, this is not a religious or non-religious issue. If anything the American atheist society has the benefit of knowing about the blunders by the religious (& other tight organisations), in attempts to deal with and cover up & understand how to proceed in such a case.
you are becoming tiresome in that nobody here (be they theist or atheist) wishes to see any delays in dealing with any examples of problem behaviour within organisations.
I don’t think you can compare the systematic cover-up and often enabling of child abuse by the various churches with the situation at the Old Vic, say, or this one. The latter is a case of individual bad apples using their power to bully and abuse; the former is about collusion and self-interest and protection at all levels. However it isn’t confined solely to religion; a similar systematic failure has occurred within local authority childrens’ homes, for example.
Yes, I understand that.Private Frazier doesn't seem to realise that he is highlighting this particular case in such a way as to point a wagging finger at the organisation - which is what has happened with past cases involving religious and other organisations, in an attempt to tar everyone who is a member with the same brush. It's not fair and not kind. Atheists have not taken a stand of moral superiority, all they've said is that religion doesn't give anyone moral superiority. In other words, we're all human.
Followers of this forum can judge for themselves peoples' responses to the Silverman and Krauss allegations.
So they can: and they do seem to be supportive of prompt and effective action to address problem behaviour within organisations.So unless you can detail any reluctance among members here to encourage prompt effective action why don't you go and find another drum to bang.
Vlad seems to have lost sight of the fact there are real victims here. Using their stories to point score is pretty low.
So the matter just lies?I'm not talking about the two or three members who you are using to represent many posters. I'm talking about the many who read but don't contribute and of course those who might look at this forum in posterity.
Then you are no better informed than I regarding what these non-contributors actually think - are you?.
As I said before I am happy to let them judge. Rather than say they are all fully on board for this or that.
Why didn't say, you, bring them to attention then?
Moral superiority to religion and the religious is at the very heart of New atheism and antitheism.
Atheism says nothing about morality. It's just about not believing in gods.
Was it not Dawkins who challenged us with the question ''Religion....Root of all evil?Was it not Hitchens who told us that ''God is not great''?
and ?
Having dispensed with the Abrahamic God Atheism needs to account atheistically for morality. That I would have said is an unavoidable given.
Drivel
