Religious Persecution

» Ben Hughes - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

I'm not saying that they're better or more important than other people, but I believe that religious leaders of all faiths and all places of worship need to be higher on the agenda of crime reduction.
These places of worship are important to so many people and the religious leaders are counsellors and guides to so many. Places of worship should be community centres and places of sanctuary where we should be able to go and feel safe and warm and at home.
It's not that these people and places deserve more than others. I just think they deserved more than they're getting.

» redback - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

In response to Should religious leaders be given more protection? posted by benhughes:

"This includes the best of society and the worst of society and in many ways edges towards the bformer..."

I think you meant 'latter', eh?

Your article skims over the 'WHY' of it, doesn't it?? But this was interesting:

http://www.nationalchurchwatch.com/image...

Over here, churches are involved in partnerships with government on helping people get into jobs and meeting criteria for getting paid public wlfare assistance. (In fact, our Prime Minister wannabee, Kevin Rudd's wife has a major (secular) such agency in the UK)

So, churches are walking in harms way on a political and social level...in these interesting times?

The most reported 'crime', if I read it correctly is minor aggression to verbal abuse. Sure, people should NOT be abused for simply doing their job and if they are, should receive effective support from their employer. But from experience, public service almost has 'abuse' as a given and variable support for affected workers. Those in welfare, including vicars, aren't insulated. We were instructed, trained not to take abuse personally. There are countless reasons why a person seeks help and we understood they simply all can't sanitise their approach.

AND there are risks to having high expectations. If it's OK...IN THEORY...to think churches should be safe havens and vicars should be trusted as effective counsellors, then what of the expectations of a person in need...IN FACT...fronting up to such havens of theory. The 'church' calls on those who are lost, sinful, downtrodden with great promise...the Bible tells me so...yet hopes they're not when they front up??

Vicars are walking in harms way on a spiritual level?

-- posted by redback

» Ben Hughes - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

In response to Should religious leaders be given more protection? posted by redback:

Thanks for pointing out the typing error. Whoops!

The information points to vicars being an easy target because of their job and the perceived view that vicars won't fight back. Yes, vicars have put themselves on the fringes of society (in a way) due to the nature of their job and in doing so they have put themselves in the firing line for attacks. This is what they're called to do but it doesn't mean there shouldn't be protection for them.
The problem at the moment is that verbal abuse is turning to physical attack and in some cases, murder. I think there's a difference between beng trained not to take abuse personally and someone physically attacking you because of your job. No-one deserves or asks for that.

The time seems to have gone where churches are respected by everyone, even those without a faith. And the same goes for ministers. But the problem is that because it is something to do with religion, it doesn't make the headlines in the same way as if it was in a school or on focused on a big company.

» redback - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

In response to Should religious leaders be given more protection? posted by benhughes:

I agree with you, as I mentioned in my post. They shouldn't be subjected to crime. I tried to get some objective data for vicars alone, for others in such harms way and the general population...for the UK, without much luck.

There has to be a sense of outrage or shock but unrealistic expectations will only exacerbate it. Right or wrong, vicars, church etc are not on a pedestal in the circles I mix in. I also don't genuflect the doctor or Prime Minister. The homeless, the mentally ill seem to be far softer targets for crime and at seemingly a far higher rate, here.

Truth be told, Google searches along the lines of 'crimes or assaults against priests, vicars' gave far more links to the reverse.

OR the priest or retired priest got injured intervening such as a frail 88 year old priest in a nursing home confronting a robber in July. The reporting of that clearly seeks public sympathy along the lines you ask for. Was he assaulted because he was a priest (SHAME) or because he was a frail old man (SHAME) Robbers here are accused of singling out the terminally ill etc if (a memento) is stolen from an anonymous (to the burglar) house.

Are we seeking respect from antisocial people who by definition, show no respect? Or are we seeking more reaction from an increasingly jaded society?

So, when you mention 'protection', exactly what? Your post suggests a change in society's attitude is needed. Just because it's not receiving media attention in the UK doesn't mean it's also not receiving police action, does it? The innumerable stories of pain that volume alone means can't make it to the media-for-profit suggest it's not just vicars getting a raw deal.

But the media telling us all of the UK or OZ is outraged or happy or whatever doesn't actually make it so.

-- posted by redback

» Ben Hughes - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

In response to Should religious leaders be given more protection? posted by redback:

I think one of the problems of crimes against religion (to put it very broadly) in the UK is that the police here don't make a distinction between, for example, the battering of an elderly man and the battering of an elderly priest. I think there's some recognition to distinguish between crimes against places of worship and crimes against other non-religious places for example. I've got a feeling the capacity to make this distinction is increasing but there still seems to be some reluctance in accepting that they are different categories of crime. (Just as technically there's no category of arson (or at least there never used to be) but it was just lumped together with other types of crime.)

I think it's difficult to accept that there are some people with no degree of humanity, who cannot show respect to other living creatures. Why is it society is becoming increasingly jaded as you put it? I think we should still expect basic manners and levels of civilisation from everyone. Shouldn't we?

This also means we should protect those who are at risk from suffering at the hands of these people. In terms of protection, I'd say a police recognition would be a good start (which is happening) and possibly the use of CCTV cameras and things like anti-vandal paint at churches. Regular police patrols and "external" methods would help, but also within the clergy, some improved methods of working so clergy work in teams (at least on a contact basis if it's not appropriate to physically be together) and as Churchwatch have suggested, some risk awareness and self-protection courses for the clergy. Would this help? Only a joint effort would do and, as you suggest, not some story blown out of proportion for the profit of the media.

» redback - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

In response to Should religious leaders be given more protection? posted by benhughes:

Crimes that are singled out here are those against people serving or protecting the public eg police and ambos. Extra penalties are available not always applied. In fact, in my previous life for a time there was an offence if someone 'hindered' me in the performance of my duty and that included by means of assault. But it's theory vs practice.

"I think we should still expect basic manners and levels of civilisation from everyone. Shouldn't we?"

Well...it'd be nice to get it from those I care about...but tis not part of any realistic universal rights and obligations for 2007. There are certain laws here...and I'm sure in the UK...such as those re anti-discrimination that aim to enforce what we won't self regulate...with variable success. BUT we're then left with an abused concept of 'political correctness' as a put down.

So, is anyone exploring your suggestions? The church door is left open for the arsonist, lifelong career-vicars-at-risk are not trained in self defence, the church itself is ambivalent about how pro-active (aggressive) its stance should be...suggest there is any number of existing policies to be re-visited.

Do you close down churches in high-risk areas? Make suburbs no-go areas? Withdraw from public services that attract abuse? If not...audit the cost to be tolerated. There are nuns in cloistered convents AND at the coal face.

Maybe as one strategy, the church ought to require internal compulsory reporting. To be analysed by some one in the church outside the crisis area. This would show the believed cause of the problem and the actual consequence. Good hard data that is evidence of the rate of the offences and what specific training of vicars is needed. And to encourage the police to take it more seriously.

-- posted by redback

» Ben Hughes - Should religious leaders be given more protection?

In response to Should religious leaders be given more protection? posted by redback:

"Maybe as one strategy, the church ought to require internal compulsory reporting. To be analysed by some one in the church outside the crisis area."

This is a good point and I don't know how much of this sort of thing is happening at the moment. The problem is that everyone (as in the media and the general public) don't think that crimes against places of worship or religious people are as serious as crimes against business places or the ordinary person in the street. Maybe it's partly the sort of area I work in but there is a general dislike and distrust of anything and everything religious and this permeates people's lives.

But I still think that we should expect some basic manners from people. No, there are no laws about it but isn't it just civil and polite to treat each other well, regardless of what the law says. If we don't expect certain behaviour, can we really complain if we haven't set the barriers for people to reach?