Baptists decide against pedophilia database

studiorat

The very same who would condem all and sundry outside of their own church ignore calls to make a list of their staff who have been convicted or indicted on charges of molestation.

Facing calls to curb child sex abuse within its churches, in June the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest U.S. religious body after the Catholic Church — urged local hiring committees to conduct federal background checks but rejected a proposal to create a central database of staff and clergy who have been either convicted of or indicted on charges of molesting minors. The SBC decided against such a database in part because its principle of local autonomy means it cannot compel individual churches to report any information. And while the headlines regarding churches and pedophilia remain largely focused on Catholic parishes, the lack of hierarchical structure and systematized record-keeping in most Protestant churches makes it harder not only for church leaders to impose standards, but for interested parties to track allegations of abuse.

Time Magazine article.

"The largest Protestant denomination in the USA -- 16.2 million members -- refused to even attempt to implement the sorts of proactive measures for routing out predators that other major faith groups have."

For a Baptist minister, there is no one with the power to remove his credentials or to say that he can no longer be a minister. This is unlike the Catholic system where, if a bishop suspected a problem with one of his priests, and did nothing about it, he could be held accountable.

Baptist structure gives abusers free rein and makes Baptist churches accomplices to predator pastors who are recycled from one unsuspecting congregation to another.

And finally a quote

" We shouldn’t enjoy this Catholic mess too much. We’re waiting on the other shoe to drop, and when it does, don’t be surprised if there is more and more within our ranks.”

Bobby Welch, prior president of Southern Baptist Convention, 2002

lostexpectation

presumably convictions would be listed in the federal search, would indictments be? im don't think that list would be accurate enough.

PDN

Mountain out of molehill.

You can go online in the US and check if there are convicted sex offenders in your area. The website gives you their names and addresses - so anyone can check it out to see if any staff at a church have such a conviction or not. So a denominational database will not add anything new.

The point made in the article is valid when it refers to the autonomy of local churches. The Southern Baptist Convention is not a denomination with a hierarchical structure such as Roman Catholicism (or indeed my own denomination). It is a loose federation of individual churches which are separate legal entities (think of Catholicism as being centralised like Tesco whereas the SBC is like all the individually owned stores that trade as Mace).

pH

Ahhh paedophilia.

I can't see what business it is of the Churches.

If a person has been convicted of sexual crimes against children and is on some form of register then it's up to individual organisations who deal with children to check people and obey whatever civil regulation exists in relation to those who have access to kids.

It is not up to the Churches to be "proactive" they are not investigatory bodies (that would be the police and the judiciary), nor have they the right to implement witch hunts.

Matters of criminal sexual abuse of children are police matters, and those who protect or assist these predators should also be subject to investigation and prosecution. It should not be necessary (or desirable) for private institutions to maintain lists of offenders, investigate them nor define arbitrary punishments for them.

studiorat

pH wrote: »

Ahhh paedophilia.

I can't see what business it is of the Churches.

It is not up to the Churches to be "proactive" they are not investigatory bodies (that would be the police and the judiciary), nor have they the right to implement witch hunts.

The churches are obviously covering this up just as the CC did.

• Pastor Steve Gaines knew at Bellevue and kept quiet.
  
  
• Minister Tom Messer knew at Trinity and kept quiet.
  
  
• Pastor Larry Reynolds paid "hush money" in child molestation case with BGCT as a party.
  
  
• Minister James Crittenden urged newspaper not to run Southmont story.
  
  
• Senior Pastor Mike Roy "allowed Davies to continue working around the church's children" despite the allegations against him - and 2 more boys were molested.
  
  
• Minister James A. Moore knew for decades at FBC-Farmers Branch and kept quiet, and then made the same mistake a second time.
  
  
• Pastor Sam Underwood's church threatened suit against child molestation victim who made report.
  
  
• Baptist General Convention of Texas keeps secret file of ministers reported for child molestation.
  
  
• Baptist General Convention of Texas ignored victim's attempt to report pastor at Bolivar Baptist.
  
  
• Long-time BGCT attorney sought secrecy contract from still another child molestation victim.
  
  
• Journalist lost job at Illinois Baptist newspaper for covering story of minister who pled guilty to sexual assaults on teens.
  
  
• Deacon leaders at First Baptist Church of Atlanta were twice informed about their prior children's minister who sexually abused a kid in Dallas, and about the written apology of the Dallas church. Yet, when SNAP members attempted to pass out flyers informing church members, they were run off the property.
  
• Charles Wade, BGCT executive director, remained quiet after receiving a substantiated report about Baptist clergy child molester.
  
• 18 Blind Baptist Leaders in four states, including former SBC president Bobby Welch, received a substantiated report about a minister's sexual abuse of a kid - and kept quiet.
  
• Southern Baptist Convention headquarters wrote that it had no record a reported minister was still in ministry....and yet the man stood in the pulpit of a Florida megachurch talking about his childen's ministry
  
• Numerous Illinois church and denominational leaders kept quiet about a convicted sex offender in the pulpit at First Baptist of Romeoville.

How the hell do you make out that it's not the churches business.


Now answer me this, what does the "Ahhh Paedophillia" thing mean?
You think this is some sort of atheist plot I suppose? Or am I stirring up something else in you?

Dades

pH wrote: »

I can't see what business it is of the Churches.

I can't see what business it is of the A&A forum, neither.

studiorat

wouldn't have been my first choice either. You wanna move it next door for me? Save them the journey over here...

actually I believe it's a perfect example of religions beliving they are above the law.

pH

studiorat wrote: »

How the hell do you make out that it's not the churches business.

I has nothing at all to do with the Church. If people have committed crimes it's up to the police to gather evidence and then it's off to the courts for a trial. These are *civil* matters pure and simple, if other members of society (who happen also to be members of a church) have assisted these people in carrying out their crimes or in covering them up then they should also be prosecuted by the authorities.

It's absolutely nothing to do with the church, any more than it is for any private organisation. How exactly should this private organisation manage this database? Who has access to it? Who decides who goes on it? who comes off it? What information does this private organisation store? Names? Addresses? Photos? DNA? Fingerprints?

Your complaint seems mainly to be with the legal authorities, and blaming churches is a step in the wrong direction. Here in Ireland the Gardai have escaped *almost* entirely with the blame being heaped on the Catholic church, who have no responsibility whatsoever for the detection, prosecution and punishment of criminals.

actually I believe it's a perfect example of religions beliving they are above the law.

Actually it's a perfect example of *you* believing they are above the law!

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

wouldn't have been my first choice either. You wanna move it next door for me? Save them the journey over here...

actually I believe it's a perfect example of religions beliving they are above the law.

No, it's a perfect example of religions being covered by the same laws as everyone else rather than having special religious laws. Churches have the same legal duties and responsibilities as do sports groups, chess clubs or any other group that works with children.

If they fail to comply with those laws then they should be sued for every penny they've got - just like anyone else. Secularism means treating the religious like everyone else - not singling them out for special laws because you've got a bee in your bonnet either for or against religion.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

actually I believe it's a perfect example of religions beliving they are above the law.

i would say that so much (are they legally required to do this?), more a cause of them being reluctant to try that hard to safe guard against this problem.

a centralised database would really be required but it would cost a lot and require cooperation from a large number of groups which would be difficult.

studiorat

So let me get this straight you are saying that although these criminals are working for the church and members of this church know what's happening it's not the churches business to intervene?

It's not a question of them happening to be in the church, they are representatives of the church. And that church in an attempt to defend itself decides to hide this information and so more are abused.

This private organization should control their database in the same manner as other organizations like schools, youth groups etc. Most ministeries have a youth database for their marketing already.

The important issue really is the structure of that church does not have an accountable leadership structure like PDN's Mace analogy.

The Southern Baptist Church prevaricates the issue of a database by saying that as there is a comprehensive federal database of abusers, the creation of a Baptist database would just confuse matters.

The way SBC officials make it sound, the issue is now dead and individual churches should just do their own individual background checks. Never mind that such checks would be profoundly easier and more likely to be thorough if an intra-organizational database could be consulted.

I'm above your gods law, the laws of this country I'll respect.

Rev Hellfire

studiorat wrote: »

actually I believe it's a perfect example of religions beliving they are above the law.

I'm curious as to how this is an example of "religions beliving they are above the law". The database in question is not a legal requirement plus its one they'd have to administrate themselves. Or do you believe that all religious organisations should be required by law to maintain a database of sex offenders?

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Or do you believe that all religious organisations should be required by law to maintain a database of sex offenders?

Or is it simply a case of a poster having a run in with a Baptist on the Christianity board (even though Wolfsbane's Baptist Union of Ireland has no connection whatsoever with Southern Baptists in the US) and feeling that a thread linking Baptists with paedophiles is a nice form of payback?

Rather sad really.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

So let me get this straight you are saying that although these criminals are working for the church and members of this church know what's happening it's not the churches business to intervene?

No, I'm saying the churches don't want to try to properly intervene because it involves a lot of effort and money, and possibly result in with the out come being that they can't do anything anyway because they can't force people to send information to a centralised database.

studiorat wrote: »

The Southern Baptist Church prevaricates the issue of a database by saying that as there is a comprehensive federal database of abusers, the creation of a Baptist database would just confuse matters.

As someone who works in databases I doubt that assessment, but again they probably see their own database as being expensive and difficult to manage and update and unnecessary.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Rather sad really.

Er, why are you posting here? What is your motivation?

Galvasean

I think organizations such as churches should be made compile such lists by law. Of course IMO it should apply to any and every organization that has dealings with children, not just the religious ones.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, why are you posting here? What is your motivation?

Shining the sweet light of reason in dark places.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Shining the sweet light of reason in dark places.

*Hiss* it burns!

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Shining the sweet light of reason in dark places.

Does the sweet light of reason shine from a dark place too?

robindch

studiorat wrote: »

How the hell do you make out that it's not the churches business.

There are law courts, prisons and federal and state registers for sex offenders which are arguably adequate for dealing with the problem -- at least there's documented, legally-backed read/write control, judicial oversight, appeals procedures, governance and all the rest. The SBC, quite rightly, does not want to get involved in any of that.

And while the SBC may or may not have a problem with pedophilia, it's certainly no business of the SBC to register its more questionable members, any more than it's its business to lock them up.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see religious people develop a more convincing moral outrage against pedophilia, and give their omnipresent distaste for gay man a rest. Though I can't see that happening -- some immoralities are so awful that religious people seem markedly reluctant to address the issue, and the bible, of course, provides no unambiguous guidance.

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Having said that, it would be interesting to see religious people develop a more convincing moral outrage against pedophilia, and give their omnipresent distaste for gay man a rest. Though I can't see that happening -- some immoralities are so awful that religious people seem markedly reluctant to address the issue, and the bible, of course, provides no unambiguous guidance.

.

Absolute nonsense.

Most Christians I know speak, indeed rant, against paedophilia in the strongest terms.

And, on these boards at least, it is atheists who seem obsessed with homosexuality. Most of the religious people's comments on the subject take the form of answering questions.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Shining the sweet light of reason in dark places.

And we are all thankful for that PDN, but perhaps a little less of the self-righteousness.

Going onto an internet bulletin board to complain about the it being "sad" that someone else feels the need to complain on internet bulletin boards makes you worse than Hitler.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Most Christians I know speak, indeed rant, against paedophilia in the strongest terms.

I'm happy to hear that this is your experience. My own is that religious people discuss, publish, rant, dissertate, broadcast and so on about gay sex maybe five to fifty times as much as they do about pedophilia. Whatever about the relative moral evils of either, the two certainly do not get equal airtime which is my point.

PDN wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Where exactly does the bible address pedophilia in the same general terms as its prohibitions against gay sex?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And, on these boards at least, it is atheists who seem obsessed with homosexuality.

Well yes, the question is why are Christians not more obsessed with homosexuality, consider the huge amount of injustice done to them, often in the name of the beliefs of Christian religion?

If someone was going around persecuting homosexuals under the banner of "atheism" I would be very vocal about opposing that. Surprisingly the Christian moderates remain some what silent on this issue, as you yourself say.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Whatever about the relative moral evils of either, the two certainly do not get equal airtime which is my point.

Of course they don't - because the public find it more titillating to read about a crackpot with followers you can count on the fingers of one hand who rants about homosexuality (Fred Phelps) than about the hundreds of thousands of young Christians who work to end child prostitution and human trafficking (Stop the Traffik).

As long as people like you are prepared to swallow, and perpetuate, the tired stereotypes peddled by mass media then the crackpots will continue to get all the airtime.

Where exactly does the bible address pedophilia in the same general terms as its prohibitions against gay sex?

It addresses it in much stronger terms, asserting that for those who harm children it would be better for them to have a millstone put around their neck and cast into the sea.

It was this Scripture that inspired William Booth and his Salvation Army to campaign tirelessly to have the age of consent raised to 16 in Victorian Britain, thus outlawing a truly horrific systemic abuse of children by paedophiles. (Google "Maiden Tribute" to read up on this neglected bit of history. For some reason most people know nothing about this, yet are much better informed about the ill treatment meted out to Oscar Wilde).

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, the question is why are Christians not more obsessed with homosexuality, consider the huge amount of injustice done to them, often in the name of the beliefs of Christian religion?

Any injustice or oppression against homosexuals is wrong - and I have always been ready to say so.

So you think we should all keep apologising for anything that was done in our name? (Slumbering elephant raises one eyelid quizzically).

If someone was going around persecuting homosexuals under the banner of "atheism" I would be very vocal about opposing that.

No you wouldn't. You would simply argue that atheism per se wasn't the real reason for the persecution. Then you would accuse theists of being dishonest in arguing that atheism and persecution of homosexuals goes hand in hand - even if no-one had actually made that argument.

pH

studiorat -

Going back to your original list, I still don't see what the problem is.

Take the people who you say knew and kept quiet on your list. I have a simple question, did they commit a crime? If they did then they should be prosecuted and punished.

The actual offenders working in churches is trickier. However, until we start executing paedophiles (or exiling them to a desert island), once they have finished their custodial sentence they return to society and have the right to have employment (though conditions of their release may specify no contact with children). I see no problem with them working in a church (or anywhere else with adults).

If you are calling for all convicted sex offenders to forever have to identify themselves as such to everyone they live with or work with for the rest of their lives then fine, but that's not specifically a church issue. Maybe we could pass a law forcing them to be easily identifiable at all times, perhaps something like a pink triangle sewn on their clothes?

PDN

pH wrote: »

The actual offenders working in churches is trickier. However, until we start executing paedophiles (or exiling them to a desert island), once they have finished their custodial sentence they return to society and have the right to have employment (though conditions of their release may specify no contact with children). I see no problem with them working in a church (or anywhere else with adults).

I understand that in the US it is a legal requirement that a church (or any other organisation that works with children) must get clearance from the police before employing anyone or even allowing unpaid volunteers to work with children.

If a church employs a convicted child molestor, or allows one to remain on staff, then they know that they will be sued for millions in the event of any case of abuse.

I can't speak for the Baptists, but I serve on the International Executive Council of a large denomination, and I know our legal guys are paranoid about this. All local churches are instructed to avoid employing anyone where there is even the slightest whiff of allegations concerning child abuse. Our minutes state that any clergy guilty of such acts are automatically dismissed and lose their ministerial credentials with no possibility of future reinstatement.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Of course they don't - because the public find it more titillating to read about a crackpot with followers you can count on the fingers of one hand who rants about homosexuality (Fred Phelps) than about the hundreds of thousands of young Christians who work to end child prostitution and human trafficking (Stop the Traffik).

Must be the leftover altar wine or something, but you're the second religious poster in the last hour or two who's having intractable problems understanding what I'm writing!

I'm not referring to the "mass media", however you choose to define that. I'm referring to what religious people produce themselves. The clue was in the phrase "religious people discuss [...] gay sex maybe five to fifty times as much as they do about pedophilia" (relevant text highlighted in bold).

Anyhow, I thought I'd check this to make sure that I'm being as accurate as possible -- turns out I was well within the range I mentioned. Here's what happens when you count the hits for "pedophile/pedophilia/child abuse" vs "gay/homosexual/lesbian" on a few prominent religious sites, in alphabetical order (btw, google will count hits for you by doing a "site" search).

www.answersingenesis.org (5+9+28 vs 348+243+30, or 33 vs 621), ratio = 15 to 1.
www.cbn.com (37+8+241 vs 2190+349+151, or 286 vs 2690), radio = 9.5 to one.
www.higherpraise.com (1+0+21 vs 118+39+3, or 22 vs 160), ratio = 8 to one
www.sbc.net (0+69+455 vs 653+2590+4, or 524 vs 3247), ratio = 6.2 to one
www.vatican.va (4+10+132 vs 56+94+3, or 146 vs 153), ratio = one to one (unusual result, low as well as equal)

Overall = 1011 vs 6781, or around 6.8 "gay" hits for every one "pedophile" hit. These ratios are not corrected for traffic figures, which may well boost the ratio upwards (aig and cbn probably have higher traffic than the other sites).

PDN wrote: »

As long as people like you are prepared to swallow, and perpetuate, the tired stereotypes peddled by mass media then

I think my figures from these high-traffic christian websites themselves demonstrate my point quite conclusively.

But, up to a point, you are right -- certain people enjoy worrying themselves about gays much more than they do worrying themselves about child abuse. And, bearing in mind that religions broadcast what their target audiences want to hear, or what they think they should hear, I think it's reasonably safe to conclude from this highly informal, twenty-minute study, that the producers of these religious websites seem to believe that their target audiences need/want/read around seven times as much anti-gay stuff as they do anti-pedophile stuff.

Interesting difference, eh?

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Must be the leftover altar wine or something, but you're the second religious poster in the last hour or two who's having intractable problems understanding what I'm writing!

In that case maybe you should leave off the wine before posting?

I'm not referring to the "mass media", however you choose to define that. I'm referring to what religious people produce themselves. The clue was in the phrase "religious people discuss [...] gay sex maybe five to fifty times as much as they do about pedophilia" (relevant text highlighted in bold).

Anyhow, I thought I'd check this to make sure that I'm being as accurate as possible -- turns out I was, at least at the lower end of the range. Here's what happens when you count the hits for "pedophile/pedophilia/child abuse" vs "gay/homosexual/lesbian" on a few prominent religious sites, in alphabetical order (btw, google will count hits for you by doing a "site" search).

www.answersingenesis.org (5+9+28 vs 348+243+30, or 33 vs 621), ratio = 15 to 1.
www.cbn.com (37+8+241 vs 2190+349+151, or 286 vs 2690), radio = 9.5 to one.
www.higherpraise.com (1+0+21 vs 118+39+3, or 22 vs 160), ratio = 8 to one
www.sbc.net (0+69+455 vs 653+2590+4, or 524 vs 3247), ratio = 6.2 to one
www.vatican.va (4+10+132 vs 56+94+3, or 146 vs 153), ratio = one to one (unusual result, low as well as equal)

Overall = 1011 vs 6781, or around 6.8 "gay" hits for every one "pedophile" hit.

Come on, Robin, you know better than that. Many of those sites are dealing with controversial issues where the agenda is largely set by one's critics.

Simply reading the posts by you and other atheists on the Christianity forum shows that you raise the issue of homosexuality with evangelicals such as myself at least ten times as often as you raise the issue of paedophilia. Therefore a statistical search of the Christianity forum would probably reflect a 10 to 1 ratio.

With Catholics however, given their recent history, the issue of paedophilia comes up much more often - which would explain the statistics from www.vatican.va which you seem to find such a puzzling anomaly.

If such websites had existed 1700 years ago then the bulk of references would have been about the Trinity, since that was the aspect of church/belief practice that was under external attack.

And rather than slagging me off as uninformed, derivative twit, I suspect -- upon presentation of the unadorned facts which show that you seem unaware of how your religion presents itself -- you might learn something from this exchange.

I didn't slag you off as anything. But I do find your self-description to be very interesting.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, the question is why are Christians not more obsessed with homosexuality, consider the huge amount of injustice done to them, often in the name of the beliefs of Christian religion?

Homosexuality is not a big theme in the Bible. Justice is a big theme.

Injustices against homosexuals exist and are opposed. I would accept that there is a culture in some churches that would make people reluctant to defend the rights of homosexuals (i.e. people might think they endorse homosexuality), and that is wrong.

But on the scale of all the injustice in the world, discrimination against homosexuals is a rather small part of that.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

In that case maybe you should leave off the wine before posting?

It's been a long time since I've had altar wine, but I'll concede that it would help make your posts less tedious. :P

PDN wrote: »

Many of those sites are dealing with controversial issues where the agenda is largely set by one's critics.

Er, so by your logic, the British National Party discusses immigrants so much because the agenda is set by their critics too? Have you not noticed how effective a popularizer one can be by the simple policy of telling people what they want to hear?

Your work involves ensuring the propagation of a religion -- surely you must have some idea of how it all works?

.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Most Christians I know speak, indeed rant, against paedophilia in the strongest terms.

And, on these boards at least, it is atheists who seem obsessed with homosexuality. Most of the religious people's comments on the subject take the form of answering questions.

+ 1 as they say around these parts.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Your work involves ensuring the propagation of a religion -- surely you must have some idea of how it all works?

I understand very well - enough to teach Seminary classes on Evangelism and Church Growth. And, in propagating my religion, I rarely if ever mention homosexuality. In fact the only time I've preached on it in the last 12 months was in order to teach against homophobia - sorry not to conform to your stereotypes.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

www.answersingenesis.org (5+9+28 vs 348+243+30, or 33 vs 621), ratio = 15 to 1.
www.cbn.com (37+8+241 vs 2190+349+151, or 286 vs 2690), radio = 9.5 to one.
www.higherpraise.com (1+0+21 vs 118+39+3, or 22 vs 160), ratio = 8 to one
www.sbc.net (0+69+455 vs 653+2590+4, or 524 vs 3247), ratio = 6.2 to one
www.vatican.va (4+10+132 vs 56+94+3, or 146 vs 153), ratio = one to one (unusual result, low as well as equal)

.

In fairness, Google returns 308,000,000 results for 'gay' as opposed to 2,110,000 for 'pedophile'. A ratio of 145:1.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness, Google returns 308,000,000 results for 'gay' as opposed to 2,110,000 for 'pedophile'. A ratio of 145:1.

So the general googling population is 20 times less likely than Christians to address the issue of paedophilia and more likely to obsess about homosexuality? That sounds about right.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I rarely if ever mention homosexuality.

Oh that it were never, but it's a start.

Still though, I suspect it'll be some time before your approach makes much of a dent in the seven-to-one preference for railing against gays instead of pedophiles.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Google returns 308,000,000 results for 'gay' as opposed to 2,110,000 for 'pedophile'.

You'll recall that I limited the search to religious websites since I was backing up my assertion that "religious people discuss [...] gay sex maybe five to fifty times as much as they do pedophilia" (relevant text highlighted in bold).

Fanny Cradock

As PDN correctly stated, the agenda is often set by critics and responded to by the faithful. Furthermore, that homosexuality is discussed at a higher ratio says nothing about the manner in which these references are framed. The blanket use of the term 'railing' seems inappropriate.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness, Google returns 308,000,000 results for 'gay' as opposed to 2,110,000 for 'pedophile'. A ratio of 145:1.

*Calls cops*

"Just WAIT 'til you see what this guy's been googling!"

PDN wrote: »

So the general googling population is 20 times less likely than Christians to address the issue of paedophilia and more likely to obsess about homosexuality? That sounds about right.

A blatant case of trying to contrive unrelated data to further your own side of an argument.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

*Calls cops*

"Just WAIT 'til you see what this guy's been googling!"

Yeah, lol. That was the 1st thought that entered my head.

Dades

Just thinking about this one.

Would it be fair to say that pedophilia is less discussed on religious sites because there is no ambiguity as to it's morality? i.e. Everyone knows it is wrong.

Whereas religious proclaimers require airtime for the issue of homosexuality, as they are in a constant battle with the more 'liberal' sections of society to maintain the perception of it as a sin in the eyes of God.

Not sure where that point fits in with the last couple of pages.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

But on the scale of all the injustice in the world, discrimination against homosexuals is a rather small part of that.

Possibly, but in the western world (were we are) discrimination and hostile attitude to homosexuality is one of the few remaining entrenched forms of bigotry. I can see very few examples of discrimination against a group that are more prevalent.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Your work involves ensuring the propagation of a religion -- surely you must have some idea of how it all works?

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Just thinking about this one.

Would it be fair to say that pedophilia is less discussed on religious sites because there is no ambiguity as to it's morality? i.e. Everyone knows it is wrong.

Whereas religious proclaimers require airtime for the issue of homosexuality, as they are in a constant battle with the more 'liberal' sections of society to maintain the perception of it as a sin in the eyes of God.

Not sure where that point fits in with the last couple of pages.

I would say that is a fair assessment. Also, mercifully, there are not nearly as as many paedophiles as homosexuals. Therefore one would naturally expect to see more traffic about the latter. (And before anybody cries out, I have in no way equated the two from a moral perspective.)

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Oh that it were never, but it's a start.

So you think I shouldn't have taught against homophobia?

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

A blatant case of trying to contrive unrelated data to further your own side of an argument.

No it's not.

Robin has tried to construct a contrived argument based on references on Christian websites to gays outnumbering references to paedophiles by 6.8 to 1.

It is therefore entirely relevant to compare that to statistics from the general googling population that reveal a ratio of 200 to 1.

Think of it as a control group that exposes Robin's argument as devoid of merit.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly, but in the western world (were we are) discrimination and hostile attitude to homosexuality is one of the few remaining entrenched forms of bigotry. I can see very few examples of discrimination against a group that are more prevalent.

I think discrimination against the homeless and immigrants is much more entrenched and much worse. I don't agree either that the effort to solve injustice should be limited to the western world, given that the perpetrators of injustice do not limit themselves to the west either.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

No it's not.

Robin has tried to construct a contrived argument based on references on Christian websites to gays outnumbering references to paedophiles by 6.8 to 1.

It is therefore entirely relevant to compare that to statistics from the general googling population that reveal a ratio of 200 to 1.

How? Robin's demograph was specifically Christian websites whereas Craddock's demograph was anyone and everyone.
Think about it, if you simply google 'gay' you will find everything from homosexual porn to gay nightclub ads. Searching a Christian website will (bar a very small number of exceptions) find articles damning homosexuality.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So you think I shouldn't have taught against homophobia?

Er, no. I was looking forward to the time when religious leaders simply don't need to lecture their flocks upon the demerits of homophobia.

PDN wrote: »

Robin has tried to construct a contrived argument based on references on Christian websites to gays outnumbering references to paedophiles by 6.8 to 1.

Contrived? Did you actually read what I wrote? I made a statement about the relative popularities of two topics that christians talk about -- one a clear moral evil, and one a reliable soapboxer. I checked my statement against what christians actually write, and found that my finger-in-the-air guess was completely accurate.

Other than your reaction to it, I can't immediately see what's "contrived" about my description of reality from the christian point of view.

pH

robindch wrote: »

I made a statement about the relative popularities of two topics that christians talk about -- one a clear moral evil, and one a reliable soapboxer. I checked my statement against what christians actually write, and found that my finger-in-the-air guess was completely accurate.

If you were talking about the Pope specifically and not Christians in general I guess your ratio would have to be about a billion to 1.

Here we go again:

Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.


"The pope uses his traditional end-of-year speech to offer his Christmas greetings and say a few words about what he considers the important issues of the day."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7796663.stm