I have added a serious new part to my page "Child Abuse by Christian Priests: Horror, Paedophilia and the Clergy" by Vexen Crabtree (2009):

The Human Rights Council of the United Nations met in Geneva on 2009 Sep 22, where the Catholic Church was challenged over its response to its child abuse horrors. The Vatican's official UN observer was present, Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi. This religious body's presence at the UN HRC is nowadays matched by the non-religious secular representative of atheism and suchlike, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, who in this instance was Mr Keith Porteous Wood, who is also the director of the UK's National Secular Society, a body that lobbies for politics and religion to be kept seperate.

Keith Porteous Wood set the context by recalling that in 1990 "the Holy See acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It submitted its first and only report in 1994 - about which CRC expressed several areas of concern. But since then - nothing". The RCC has breached five of its Articles. Some of the most serious complaints which he then iterated were that the Church had not taken claims of child abuse seriously, had not acted on cases that were clearly within its power to act upon, had accused many victims of making up stories and has moved offenders to one place to another instead of reporting them to authorities as instructed to do.

Bishop Silvano Maria Tomasi's reply contained some quite odd reasoning. Some of his arguments were that actually, homosexuals were to blame, that abuse has occurred in other institutions too, not just in the Catholic Church, and that the church has acted on at least two occasions by issuing statements to its priests. Probably as a result of continued revelations of cover-ups and scandals, the Archbishop also mentions that the Catholic Church, in its second report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, will devote an entire paragraph to the problem of child abuse by the clergy. I hope it is a truly efficiently-written paragraph, as I do know how busy the Church is tackling other problems, such as the evils of contraception. The Vatican's defence of child abuse by its staff rests on a few further points that Archbishop Tomasi raises:

• Most cases of child abuse are by relatives of the child in question. Also, pupils in public schools are also given 'unwanted sexual attention' by staff.
• Protestant Churches in the USA have more cases of child abuse by its clergy than do Catholics.
• Also, Jews have a higher rate of child abuse too.

“From available research we now know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases.”
Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi (2009)

Something which highlights the odd and elusive arguments of the Archbishop, is the response of a Rabbi as reported in The Guardian:

"Representatives from other religions were dismayed by the Holy See's attempts to distance itself from controversy by pointing the finger at other faiths. Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, said: "Comparative tragedy is a dangerous path on which to travel. All of us need to look within our own communities. Child abuse is sinful and shameful and we must expel them immediately from our midst.""

His condemnation of child abusers is clear and his comment is directed solely at those who commit such crimes. He didn't pass the buck, play down the problem or indicate that homosexuality was the real problem, as opposed to paedophile priests. His quick response shames the Archbishop's politics and games.

The fact that many pagan religions had many of the same dates, beliefs and practices as Christians led later Christians to denounce them as 'satanic imitations'. Theologians made the famous argument that the Devil had created these pagan religions so that people would think that Christianity was just a developed copy of them. The Cardinal Newman argued that (be it God or Satan's fiat) these pagan religions merely prepared people to accept Christianity. In other words, god made pagan religions in order to teach people Christianity, before revealing actual Christianity.

“To Newman, 'Pagan literature, philosophy and mythology were but a preparation for the Gospel.' His Protestant counterpart, Bishop Westcott of Durham, praised Greek thought for representing several stages in the unfolding of divine purpose. Gladstone determined 'to prove the intimate connection between the Hebrew and Olympian revelations', and told the House of Commons that Greek mythology had prepared minds for some of Christ's teachings. Kingsley agreed that it contained essential lessons in the human relationship with the divine.”

"The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft" by Prof. R. Hutton (1999)

I've added section 2.2, on modern critics of religion, which mentions the attainments of Richard Dawkins and Paul Kurtz. If I can find two more people who have done as much, in modern times, to bring people away from religion, then I will add them to the list too.

The contents of "Anti-Religious Forces: Specific Factors Fuelling Secularisation" by Vexen Crabtree (2003) is now:

1. Anti-Religious Forces
   1. Communism
   2. Intelligence
   3. The Ancient Greeks
   4. Science
   5. Individualism
   6. Multiculturalism
   7. Human Rights
   8. Christian Intolerance for Magic and Gods
2. People of Historical Importance
   1. Those Who Became Historical Movements: Nietzsche, Weber, Freud and Marx
   2. Outstanding Critics of Religion in the Modern Era
3. Blows to Religion According to Moojan Momen

1. The Positive Reasons to Intentionally Blaspheme
2. Reasons Why Blasphemy Laws Should Never be Enshrined in Law
3. Satanism
4. A Blasphemous Religion
5. What is Blasphemy Against Satanism?
6. The Realities of Blasphemy Laws
7. A Religions' Territory
8. United Kingdom's Blasphemy Laws

We have dysfunctions, genetic junk, evolutionary dead-ends and obscure morphologies (birds that can't fly, male nipples, etc) and countless other little imperfections that belie the any idea that evolution 'knows' what it is doing. It merely gets by with whatever comes up, and doesn't make future plans. Take the human eye as an example. The history of the eye has been carefully documented by evolutionists; from its basic form in ancient fish, to designs of ever increasing complexity and functionality: the eye is a good example of the haphazard nature of evolution. There was no foresight in its development. This is why us humans have ended up with inside-out retinas. The nerves that carry signals from the rods and cones in our retina lay on the sensors instead of under them. This is because once something starts evolving, there is no easy way to restart the design. Things move on, and new designs build on old ones.

As the eyes increased in resolution, more and more nerves lay on the inside of the retina; their way to the brain remains a hole in the retina which now features as the blind spot in our vision. A little foresight on the behalf of nature would have led to a much more sensible design! The biologist and philosopher Daniel C. Dennett comments, "no intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process".

“The religious professionals in each religion will usually look down upon the manifestations of popular religion. They will often refer to them as a corruption of the true religion or as evidence of the ignorance or sinfulness of the mass of the people. The truth is somewhat more complex than this. Popular religious practices fill some of the needs felt by ordinary people - needs that the official religion ignores. Thus, for example, most varieties of official religion disapprove of, or even forbid, recourse to talismans, spells, charms and other forms of magic. They are also against necromancy, astrology and other occult practices. Yet, in almost every society, these elements can be found in popular religion. [...] People regard these popular elements as an integral part of the religion and they are thought to derive their power and efficacy through the spiritual forces of the religion. For example, in most Muslim countries, amulets are worn as a magical protection against danger. These amulets usually contain verses from the Qur'an, which is considered to be the source of their power. Such practices persist despite the prohibition against them in the official religion.”

"The Phenomenon Of Religion" by M. Momen [Book Review], p387-389</p>