There seems to be a grammar mistake in your title. "Religion" has no leader. What you meant was "Religious leaders." I can't speak for anyone else, but I see it as such: - the leader is not supposed to be perfect, there is no such thing as perfect. - if religious leaders engage in practices that are in direct contrast to their teachings, they are hypocrites. While hypocrisy may just be a fun term to throw around on the internet, in terms of an actual crime I find it extremely egregious. There is hardly a worse way of life than that of a hypocrite. - I would not lose faith because my faith does not rest in men and women, it rests in the divine. I welcome any direct discussion with my points as long as it's respectful, otherwise someone gets to officially be the first person I mute on B.Next.

Church leaders aren't perfect. If they -blam!- up then they -blam!-ed up. The religion has nothing to do with his short comings. You shouldn't treat a church leader like his some kind of perfect being. The important thing is the doctrine. That's my view anyways. I feel weird talking about religion here.

[quote]When your religion's leader does some atrocious crime, how do you not fall away from that religion?[/quote] The religion isn't responsible for the actions of its followers. [quote]That leader is supposed to be perfect, then he decides to do the worst possible?[/quote]Nobody ever claimed he was perfect. Are you referring to a specific event? [quote]So what are your thoughts on religious men who do the worst of crimes?[/quote]Just about the same as that of non-religious men who do the worst of crimes. [quote]How would that not make you lose faith?[/quote]Again, the faith isn't responsible for the man's actions. Nor is the belief system/culture (usually)/religion/dogma. Just his interpretation (or chemical balancing in his brain) was off. All this is coming from an agnostic atheist by the way.

Mine has never committed a crime. Bam!

What does religion have to do with faith?