So much for my religion-bashing rota. (The Catholic Church--again.)

I'm going to just devote a little more blog-space to my irritation with the Catholic Church, because really, they have gone out of their way to get my notice. (I'd been meaning to get to Mormons at some point, but well, really--Glenn Beck. He bought into it, look at the general quality of things he buys into, draw your own conclusions.) But right now, I'm back to the Catholic Church, and not just because of the stupid Catholic Cardinals, who are tampering with the decision-making consciences of our elected congress-critters, denying Communion to some of them. I'm not even all that pissed about finding out how much money the church spent on lobbying against a basic civil right, which came to about half a million. (Yeah, I guess the collection plate doesn't all go to overhead and tending to the "least among us.")

What I'm astonished at is two stories that sum up one of the most persuasive arguments against the main claim of organized religion. Oh, not the "God exists" part. That part is just quaint. I've always been a bit more peeved at the "Morality stems from religion" part. See, it would seem to me that if morality did stem from religion, then the people with the highest personal morality--in practice, should be the clergy. But this story regarding the conspiracy to cover up a massive network of child abuse in Ireland, along with another story regarding rife sexual abuse and bullying within cloisters in India, make it clear that there definitely is confusion about what is moral and immoral and that religion did not improve upon the conduct of people most intimately familiar with it

Is it not written, " And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matthew, again. So, I have a favorite gospel--in an atheist, there could be weirder things!) Also, doesn't the Bible say, "And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me. 6 But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Also Matthew.) How does any of the religious know these verses and believe in them, and then either abuse a child or really any other person, and not believe they are offending Jesus? And how can it be covered up: is that a pious fraud--a lie better than truth? It's bullshit. How can the church persecute people for what they think--but fail to chasten people in the clergy for the real damage they did?

If their actions don't show faith in the creed, than how should they expect to exert moral authority on others asserting that it comes from that creed? If they preach what by and large isn't practiced--isn't it hypocrisy?