CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[T.Lex]

I just heard that on the radio this morning... can we seriously start talking about why the RCC has a un-biblical blanket ban on marriage?

Sure. (Although I thought we already did.)

But... uh... do you think that priestly marriage would somehow change whether certain people participate in sexual misconduct?

I believe the 2 behaviors to be independent of each other.

 

[historian]

Sure. (Although I thought we already did.)

But... uh... do you think that priestly marriage would somehow change whether certain people participate in sexual misconduct?

I believe the 2 behaviors to be independent of each other.

Historically, yes, there would have been fewer babies in the bottoms of wells in Europe. Now, I doubt there would be much of a difference, although these latest allegations really raise some eyebrows about the future of nunneries.

I'm more concerned about how Frank just offhandedly mentioned that, "oh, yeah, this is still ongoing, but [FONT=&quot]¯\_(ツ)_/¯."[/FONT]

 

[JettaKnight]

Moved to the other thread.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-all-things-christianity-107.html#post7819943

 

[JettaKnight]

.

 

[Dead Duck]

Holy Hell!
I'd put this in the "Christian" thread but I can't consider what they did very Christian like. If you want it moved, then move it.

Hundreds of leaders and volunteers within Southern Baptist churches across the nation have been accused of sexual misconduct against young churchgoers for decades - many of them quietly returning to church roles even after being convicted for sex crimes.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/hundreds...-leaders-volunteers-accused-sexual-misconduct

 

[T.Lex]

Holy Hell!
I'd put this in the "Christian" thread but I can't consider what they did very Christian like. If you want it moved, then move it.



https://www.foxnews.com/us/hundreds...-leaders-volunteers-accused-sexual-misconduct

This is me keeping my hands off the keyboard on this topic for awhile.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

With Rep Ilhan Omar's comments yesterday... I wonder how a general "modern antisemitism" thread would fly

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not sure that's a religious issue, at least not the last tweets.

If she'd said, "Follow the money" or "Show me the money" - would that have been anti-semitic?

Look, she probably IS anti-semitic at some level. Kinda like Trump is probably racially prejudiced at some level. But, that doesn't make every single thing she says or does a revelation of anti-semitism.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm not sure that's a religious issue, at least not the last tweets.

If she'd said, "Follow the money" or "Show me the money" - would that have been anti-semitic?

Look, she probably IS anti-semitic at some level. Kinda like Trump is probably racially prejudiced at some level. But, that doesn't make every single thing she says or does a revelation of anti-semitism.

Eh, she's failed the 3D test.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_test_of_antisemitism

Delegitimization (Ex: Israel is not a democracy because it is a Jewish state)
Demonization (Ex: Israel “hypnotizes the world" and is "evil")
Double standards (Ex: Israel must be boycotted, but sanctions against Maduro regime are inhumane)

AIPAC isn't even a political action committee. They give no money to campaigns, and receive no money from Israel.

 

[T.Lex]

Eh, she's failed the 3D test.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_test_of_antisemitism

Delegitimization (Ex: Israel is not a democracy because it is a Jewish state)
Demonization (Ex: Israel “hypnotizes the world" and is "evil")
Double standards (Ex: Israel must be boycotted, but sanctions against Maduro regime are inhumane)

AIPAC isn't even a political action committee. They give no money to campaigns, and receive no money from Israel.

Hmmm... those 3 tests are interesting, when applied to other contexts.

Trump delegitimizes/demonizes/double standards all over the place.

I get that there's a significant gray area between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism. But at the same time, I think there's plenty of policy reasons to criticize Israel.

When it comes to domestic support for Israel, what about the double standard that says politicians are bought and paid for by special interests, except if that special interest is pro-Israel. Then, it is just an alignment of interests.

IMHO, this is another variation of the "my preferred politicians are virtuous, but the others are corrupt."

 

[JettaKnight]

This is me keeping my hands off the keyboard on this topic for awhile.

Finishing my coffee and reading this story now...




OK, OK, OK, ... ... .. T.Lex is right: Catholics don't have a lock on perversion.




Also, refraining from dancing doesn't prevent the pastor form diddling the kids.



This one part has me curious:

In 2008, Vasquez went to Indianapolis to share her story and plead with officials at the Southern Baptist Convention to implement changes at their estimated 47,000 churches to help prevent future sexual assaults. Days later, they reportedly rejected almost every proposed reform, and the alleged abuse continued.

What changes did she ask for?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

regarding Omar's comments.... David Duke is backing her. Prominent Democrats are chastising her.

 

[historian]

Just read the article. A couple of things jump out:

1. 220/380 were convicted. That is pretty darn good for things that are allegedly swept under the carpet. Per the original article, 100 are still in prison.
2. 35 were able to find jobs afterwards (10%)
3. The guilty parties were not moved around by the SBC (autonomy of the church is a good thing)

That being said, people like to think of the SBC as a monolithic organization, but it really isn't. It is a bunch of independent churches who pool their money for missions (really, that is it). The churches can leave at any time and some are a pain in the butt (First Baptist Dallas is the worst of them all). So this really isn't a systematic failure but rather a bunch of individual failures. I also echo JK.

 

[historian]

Also, this is really annoying. Apparently, the SBC should be a monolithic monster, because that would help. Can't win for losing around here:

SBC churches and organizations share resources and materials, and together they fund missionary trips and seminaries. Most pastors are ordained locally after they've convinced a small group of church elders that they've been called to service by God. There is no central database that tracks ordinations, or sexual abuse convictions or allegations.All of that makes Southern Baptist churches highly susceptible to predators

I mean. If the SBC were organized it would be a direct threat to our democracy, if it isn't a monolith, will no one think of the kids?

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I've been kinda formulating a post on how both the RCC and SBC structures "allow" for this kind of thing to get covered up. There are organizational tradeoffs that just mean the systems are different. There are different ways of exploiting the structures to get away with bad stuff.

 

[HoughMade]

Finishing my coffee and reading this story now...

OK, OK, OK, ... ... .. T.Lex is right: Catholics don't have a lock on perversion.

Also, refraining from dancing doesn't prevent the pastor form diddling the kids.

This one part has me curious:

What changes did she ask for?

That's a good question. I don't know.

I happen to be Southern Baptist and a member of an SBC church since 1995.

Bad people do bad stuff everywhere. Assuming the correctness of the reporting, that people with actual criminal convictions for sexual crimes were allowed in leadership positions, that is deplorable (real deplorable, not HRC deplorable). I have served on pastoral search committees more than once and the vetting we go through, you would not believe. For instance, of course we do criminal background checks, but in addition to several other things we do, we contact people who were not listed as references from their previous places of ministry, affirmatively seeking out people who may have had disagreements with the person we are considering. Obviously, we also talk to references, but it goes far deeper. we would not consider a person that even a partially credible accusation has been made about, let alone someone who was actually convicted. (We also subject everyone who works with kids to criminal background checks and other vetting procedures, myself included).

What I sense was probably going in in many of these situations was that the church leadership (if not the membership) knew about these issues and just couldn't believe them or fell for a tearful repentance. Here's the deal- Christianity is all about repentance and forgiveness, but spiritual forgiveness doesn't mean you are not disqualified. A sexual sin, in my belief, is disqualifying for pastors and church leadership. Forever. There are other places to serve, but you will never be in leadership or work in any capacity with kids or other vulnerable persons again. Never. Of course, other sins fit the "disqualifying" category as well.

People love their pastors like some people love Trump. Doesn't matter what he says, does or did- he's my guy. In churches, this is dangerous.

As for the report and requested reforms, again, I don't know what they were, however, for non-baptists, you have to understand something- The SBC has no power or authority to control local churches. None. The only thing it can ever do is remove a church from the SBC. The SBC has no authority to impose policies, reforms, rules, or anything else. Certainly, it can call for churches to make changes and suggest the adoption of policies, it can not enforce anything. The local churches hire their own clergy. They are not assigned from any central anything. Each local church is completely autonomous. I would not want to see that change.

If churches were knowingly hiring and retaining sexual abusers, I think that it would be appropriate to consider putting them out of the convention. Even then, questions of how long ago that was, what were the circumstances and is anyone there now who was in leadership then are questions worth asking.

I have questions about what a "substantiated report" or "credible accusation" is outside a confession or a conviction. I don't know what people mean by that unless they explain their criteria. There is potential for unjust harm if the criteria is not appropriate.

As an attorney and litigator who is also a deacon in an SBC church, about 3 years ago, I was called upon to investigate an accusation made against our then interim pastor. I will not go into details, but I will say that I took it very seriously and, had the accusation ended up having any validity, I would have led the charge to both oust him from our church and to make sure he never served in a church again AND reported my findings to the police. In fact, I discussed the matter with the police both before and after I had made my conclusion, and the police flat out told me that their investigation concluded that it was a a false accusation.

At the risk of being immodest, my investigation was more thorough than theirs. I interviewed more potential witnesses and I gathered digital "footprint" evidence that they never considered. The accuser described 2 incidents, graphically and specifically, with specific dates and times of the day. Again, without going into detail, I was able to pinpoint where the pastor was all day on both of the days in questions with gaps no larger than 8 to 11 minutes in the digital "footprint". He was miles from where he was accused of being and with other people on one day, and with timestamped GPS tagged photographs bracketing the time at issue about 20 miles away on the other day. Towards the end of my investigation, the police detective I had worked with revealed that the same person had made at least 2 other accusations that turned out to be unsubstantiated in the past. I went through a lot more than I detailed here, but you get the idea.

It eventually became clear to me that he was innocent of this accusation. This man had never been accused of anything in the same zip-code as this in the past, and to me, after I concluded my investigation, justice required that report to the church my findings to try to clear his name. I authored a 12 page (single spaced) report and held a special meeting with a powerpoint where I detailed everything I had done and my conclusion. Most in the church were satisfied with my findings, some never would be because pastors always have enemies for any number of reasons. In the end, he wanted to become the permanent senior pastor, but the vote did not go his way (need a 75% majority, he got about 68%).

I say all that to say this. This is a complicated problem. The abusers need to be rooted out, prosecuted where possible and dealt with harshly....but accusations themselves, even untrue ones by any evaluation of evidence, can harm a reputation, a ministry and a career beyond repair. True victims deserve justice, care, love and consequences against their abusers...but we have to be very certain that we are doing the right thing by everyone involved.

 

[JettaKnight]

What's it like to be falsely accused?

The Hunt

It's in Danish, but well worth watching. Very powerful.

 

[rvb]

Not sure how the SBC is culpable in the actions of its members....

Kinda like saying NRA should be held responsible if members use their guns in bad ways.

Sure, a church can go to the SBC if you need helping finding a new pastor, for instance. but it's just a place to link to churches with prospective job applicants, like looking for an instructor on the NRA webpage. The SBC doesn't "place" pastors.

NRA is an org funded by its members, sim to the SBC. Not a perfect analogy, but the SBC has no more "control" over churches than the NRA does gun owners...

Individual churches have to own responsibility for the people they hire.

-rvb

disclosure: never been a part of the SBC. My church is now part of the NAB, after leaving the ABC.

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

Not sure how the SBC is culpable in the actions of its members....

It's really not. But, there's the implication it does, well, because that sells papers. Historian detailed it out.

And if you've ever seen the annual meeting, you'll quickly realize that the leadership really has very little authority when it comes to making rules or regulation.

 

[foszoe]

The Catholic discussion is in the Christian section and the Baptist discussion is in the general section....Wow!