this is what happens when religion is in charge

[BlaqueKatt]

story here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html)

The catholic church was in charge of social services and to "save" children from the horrors of being raised by loving yet possibly poor or unwed parents, they stole the children and sold them to "good" families. Told the mothers their babies died, this was done from 1939 to 1989(and a few into the early 90's), and accounted for up to 15% of "adoptions"(considering the children were given false birth certificates with the buying parent's names, I'm guessing the number is probably higher)

In reality, the babies were sold to childless couples whose devout beliefs and financial security meant that they were seen as more appropriate parents.

that is disgusting

[SkullKing]

To make matters worse, I doubt anyone will pay for it.

[Blue Ginger]

I heard about similar things happening between UK and Aus when I was about 10.

A family friend found out that he was 'adopted' just after birth. He managed to track down his birth mother to the UK. Like the Spanish mothers, she was told he had died just after he was born. Her parents forced her to go to a church run home for unmarried soon-to-be mums. This was in the late 50's.

I hope they establish a national database in Spain. And hope that the mothers go after the church, the hospital and the staff that helped it all happen.

[Kheldarson]

Not that I agree with this practice at all, how about taking into consideration the fact that 1) the practice started off politically motivated and probably remained so for at least 40 years (since that's how long Franco ruled), and 2) it wasn't just the Church involved? Doctors and nurses were also taking money, and we're only given three examples with direct involvement with a priest or nun.

[tropicsgoddess]

Wow...that's just fucked up. :no: :burnup:

[Gravekeeper]

Not that I agree with this practice at all, how about taking into consideration-

Yeah, I'm no fan of the Catholic Church's shenannighans, but this started as a way for Franco to swipe children away from families that opposed his politics. As well as a convenient way for people to get rid of children out of wedlock to avoid shame.

That said, the Catholic Church in Spain definately shares the other half of the blame for the practice continuing beyond that point. However, I highly doubt it goes up the ranks outside of Spain in any way. Ist certainly not helping the Catholic Church's image any though.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, I'm no fan of the Catholic Church's shenannighans, but this started as a way for Franco to swipe children away from families that opposed his politics.
Aw... Here you go bringing facts in to get in the way of a good anti-religion rant.

I've never been a fan of the Catholic Church, but this didn't happen because of religion - it happened because of politics.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

As terrible as that is, it has nothing to do with religion. Its a political move. The fact that religion is INVOLVED doesn't make it BECAUSE of religion.

[Iseeyouthere]

As terrible as that is, it has nothing to do with religion. Its a political move. The fact that religion is INVOLVED doesn't make it BECAUSE of religion.

While there is truth in that, both political and religous individuals were involved and they will share the equal amount of blame for what they have done.

[Kheldarson]

My main issue is that every article I've read on this has the same three stories in it to show the involvement of the Church. This doesn't really support the theory that there was massive Church involvement. Maybe a few Church run hospitals had a continuation because of the priests and nuns, maybe the doctors and nurses were still driving it in the hospitals and the priests and nuns just wanted to make sure the kids went to good homes in that case. I don't know. And the articles don't reveal much either besides a few incendiary cases.

[Hyena Dandy]

While there is truth in that, both political and religous individuals were involved and they will share the equal amount of blame for what they have done.


Yes, but the fact that religious individuals were involved doesn't make religion in general at fault. It would be just as reasonable to take the fact that politicians were involved and say "This is what happens when you let politicians have control over things."

The people may have been RELIGIOUS, but that does not mean religion was what MOTIVATED them.

[Iseeyouthere]

I beg to differ.

The motivation behind doing this way to take a child away from either a young or unmarried girl, who would of been seen as unworthy of a child in their religious view and then given to families of devout belief (and good finances), who they see as better parents.

Also, they would make a lot of money out of this... And, sorry to say, certain (<- key word) religious groups will use their religion and its loopholes to do unquestionable things... like selling a child of a young mum to someone else because they believe it to be the better choice.

So... I can see two motivational forces behind this already. Money and Religious beliefs. Combining the two make more evil.

[Ghel]

In addition, it appears that all of these incidents happened in Catholic-run hospitals. Now, it may be that all of the hospitals in Spain were, at the time, Catholic-run, but there still seems to be a strong correlation between religion being in charge and the devout doing horrible things.

[smileyeagle1021]

The people may have been RELIGIOUS, but that does not mean religion was what MOTIVATED them.

It kind of does.
For a religious person, religion is such a large part of their lives that everything they do is at least indirectly motivated by religion (if at no other level than it affects their moral worldview).
Even things we consider trivial can be influenced by religion, for example, do I cut this person off in traffic.
Now, if my religious belief is that Christ commanded us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, I wouldn't even consider cutting the person off.
If my religious belief is that I have been predestined to be saved I won't think twice about cutting them off, because after all, in the scheme of things it doesn't matter.

So, to say that these religious people weren't (at least in some way) motivated by their religion is a bit naive.

[Andara Bledin]

It kind of does.
For a religious person, religion is such a large part of their lives that everything they do is at least indirectly motivated by religion (if at no other level than it affects their moral worldview).
No. No, it's not. For some, yes. But to say that is the case for everybody is ignorant.

I don't have my moral worldview because I'm religious; I'm my religion because it fits in with my moral worldview.

Also, it's worth noting that larger percentage of vocal "religious" people aren't religious at all; they're just vocal fakers. What I refer to as Churchians. They only go to church and claim religion so they can act superior and be general douchebags. They're not douchebags because they're religious; they're "religious" because they're douchebags.

^-.-^

[smileyeagle1021]

I don't have my moral worldview because I'm religious; I'm my religion because it fits in with my moral worldview.

^-.-^

To some extent that is a chicken and the egg.
While this does not apply to everybody, most people form their worldview based on what their parents believe, which is often based on the religion they have chosen, which then the child chooses because it matches the worldview they learned from their parents, and then they have kids and the cycle continues.
Like I said, this does not apply to everyone, but it happens often enough that it can easily be called a trend. How else would you explain how the vast majority of people chose the same church as their parents?

[Andara Bledin]

If religion didn't exist, I'd still be me.

And if religion didn't exist, Franco would still have stolen the children of those who didn't support him.

Corruption exists just fine without religion. It just finds religion a handy tool and scapegoat.

^-.-^

[KabeRinnaul]

So... I can see two motivational forces behind this already. Money and Religious beliefs. Combining the two make more evil.

Money and politics are the motivation. Religion is the excuse.

In addition, it appears that all of these incidents happened in Catholic-run hospitals. Now, it may be that all of the hospitals in Spain were, at the time, Catholic-run, but there still seems to be a strong correlation between religion being in charge and the devout doing horrible things.

We've been given two or three examples, in something that took place over the course of what, 40 years? And everything I look up, I keep seeing those same 2-3 examples, from the same 2-3 witnesses, over and over. And any group, regardless of religion, has members who will abuse power.

There's a correlation between religion being in charge and the religious doing horrible things.
There's a correlation between atheists being in charge and the atheist doing horrible things.
There's a correlation between conservatives being in charge and the conservative doing horrible things.
There's a correlation between liberals being in charge and the liberal doing horrible things.

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter who has it. The inherent hypocrisy just hits harder when the ones doing horrible things are supposed to be moral beacons.

It kind of does.
For a religious person, religion is such a large part of their lives that everything they do is at least indirectly motivated by religion (if at no other level than it affects their moral worldview).

Some people are just assholes. Again, religion just becomes an excuse. The kind of person who would follow Jesus's teaching to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is probably the kind of person who would treat others with respect regardless of their faith. The kind of person who would be a dick because they figure they're morally pure anyway (such as your Already Saved example) would be on that same high horse and treat others poorly anyway. Religion just gives them a warm fuzzy feeling when they do it.

Which they'd probably get by just dwelling on their perceived personal superiority anyway.

[Ghel]

And any group, regardless of religion, has members who will abuse power.

...

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter who has it.
This strikes me as very likely to be true. Religions, though, tend to cover up such abuses of power in order to protect the religion. Other groups, such as atheist organizations, will call out the corrupted in their midst and say, "that person doesn't speak (or act) for us." Religious groups rarely do that.

The inherent hypocrisy just hits harder when the ones doing horrible things are supposed to be moral beacons.
On this, we agree.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, there are plenty of us who are religious who will call out such people as not representing us.

We're usually told by people who aren't part of whatever religion we follow that we're not "real" followers. :rolleyes:

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Oh, there are plenty of us who are religious who will call out such people as not representing us.

We're usually told by people who aren't part of whatever religion we follow that we're not "real" followers. :rolleyes:

^-.-^
And sometimes by those within, too.

Any group, just like any individual if not moreso, has an interest in protecting its reputation. Some, whether religion-based or not, choose to put that ahead of ethics and justice. Others do not.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think that the Protestant Reformation is a good example of people within a religion calling bullshit on corruption.

[Kheldarson]

I think that the Protestant Reformation is a good example of people within a religion calling bullshit on corruption.


It is...but it isn't at the same time. Up until Luther decided to pull away from the Church entirely and ignored the pope, it was a good example. But when he decided to start working outside the system, then it was a bad example. Plus, at that point, it was more politics than religion anyway.

[Hyena Dandy]

It is...but it isn't at the same time. Up until Luther decided to pull away from the Church entirely and ignored the pope, it was a good example. But when he decided to start working outside the system, then it was a bad example. Plus, at that point, it was more politics than religion anyway.


No, its still a good example. He was a member of the religion. He called bullshit on fellow members of the religion. That is what Ghel said doesn't happen. That happened.He left because they didn't LISTEN, but that's not what Ghel said. And, after time, they DID change. So it is a good example.

[Kheldarson]

Actually, he got kicked out because he, as a member of a religious order, refused to obey orders by the head of the religious order. He was told to not write anything else and come down to talk directly to the pope. He refused and published the Babylonian Captivity. It was then that he was excommunicated. He was told that if he would come down and talk to the pope, the ban would be lifted. He still refused. And then went into hiding with the local princes. That is not a good example of working within the system.

Also, for a guy who was supposedly not listened to, he did a lot of accusing on topics that weren't even relevant to his main complaint the single time he went before any authority figure.