10
   

Boy Scouts/Discrimination

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:08 pm
Being married to a former scout leader and having working in and for the Church and other social organizations for a lot of years, I have been privy to know of child molestation cases that never made it onto the front page or evening news broadcast. The fact is that pedophiles present themselves as normal, likable, everyday kinds of people, and they intentionally seek out professonal positions or volunteer work that involves a lot of opportunity for initimate contact with kids. Because they are members of the clergy or respected men volunteering for respected organizations, there is an extra element of trust that gives them even more access to the kids than they might otherwise have.

Unless they are publicly exposed/prosecuted, when they are busted they have no problem finding another post where they can continue pursuit of their goals. Too often organizations are frightened of negative publicity and/or lawsuits, send the pedophile packing, and then sweep cases under the rug hoping and praying that it never comes to light.

So, we saw the extensive public scandals of pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church. Almost every mainstream Protestant Church now does extensive background checks on all their employees, male and female, to be sure there is no history of sexual misconduct. And the Boy Scouts finally had to implement their no gay scoutleaders policy as the incidents of sexual misconduct by heterosexual family men was virtually nil. No prudent organization of girls/young women, however, would hire that straight family man and give him extensive, unsupervised time alone with the girls.

It is a problem where protecting the children simply must take precedence over any politically correct considerations. Certainly it is true that the vast majority of people, gay and straight, working in such organizations would never molest or otherwise harm a child. But the fact that people who would molest children do actively seek out such organizations makes extra caution necessary.

Quote:
Studies about pedophiles (adults who prey sexually on children) have not investigated the extent of this crime within the ministry, or whether the ratio of pedophiles in the ministry is higher than that of comparable high-risk professions. Experts agree that the molesting minister is a subset of the dangerous class of "respected members of the community" who betray their position of authority and trust by sexually assaulting children. Many warn that molesters are often "good Christians."

The social myth persists that a child molester is most apt to be of a low-class breed lurking in dark hallways, interested in abduction of children he does not know. In fact, most sexual abusers of children are respectable, otherwise law-abiding people who cultivate friendly relationships with their chosen prey, and may escape detection for precisely those reasons. Research agrees that the typical child molester is able to harm large numbers of children without being caught, in part, because he has already established a trusting relationship, playing on children's sense of loyalty, vulnerability, shame, and naivete, and fortifying his power to silence them through bribery, coercion and violent threats. In the case of a molesting man of the cloth, add to these threats the supernatural ones of God's wrath or hellfire.

The largest study of pedophiles was directed by researcher, physician and psychiatrist Gene G. Abel, M.D., of Emory University School of Medicine, for the Antisocial and Violent Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health. The landmark eight-year study revealed that, "Molesters often become youth ministers, day-care workers, Boy Scout leaders, teachers, Big Brothers and pediatricians" (Dr. Abel and Nora Harlow, "The Child Abuser," Redbook Magazine, August 1987). They add, "He is often an active Christian who is involved in his church."

Abel's study discovered that 403 pedophiles had molested more than 67,000 children! Pedophiles who targeted male victims averaged 282 victims, while pedophiles who targeted girls averaged 23 victims. Other studies have uncovered more traditional findings of higher incidences of abuse of girls.

Some figures are available about ministers who are child abusers. The Church Mutual Insurance Company, of Merrill, Wisconsin, which insures 46,000 churches, has seen about 200 claims against ministers for sexual abuse of children in the late eighties. The company estimated that in 1990 there were as many as 2,000 cases of sexual abuse by clergy in the courts.
Whole article here: http://ffrf.org/timely/pedo1992.php
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:11 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

I had hear it is as high as 50/50.

What is the source of this allegation ?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
the incidents of sexual misconduct by heterosexual family men was virtually nil.


This is the stupidest thing you have said on this board for a long while.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:18 pm
@ebrown p,
Fine. Trot out the cases of all those married men who have molested boy scouts on campouts. If you can do so, I'll agree it is a stupid statement. I do believe the statistics are squarely on my side, however.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:27 pm
@Foxfyre,
foxfyre said
Quote:
I do believe the statistics are squarely on my side, however.
this is not the first time we have heard this from foxfyre and won't be the last. one thing she does have is determination in spite of facts. A laudable characteristic i some cases.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:30 pm
You're welcome to post any statistics disputing my opinion Dys. Go for it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 06:15 pm
@dyslexia,
Quote:

Quote:
I do believe the statistics are squarely on my side, however.


Quote:

this is not the first time we have heard this from foxfyre and won't be the last.
one thing she does have is determination in spite of facts.
A laudable characteristic i some cases.

Maybe Dys requires his allegations to be accepted on FAITH.
Maybe that is required by political correctness.





David
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
An NBC report on celibacy and the clergy found that "any where from 23 percent to 58 percent" of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. Other studies find that approximately half of American priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented. Sociologist James G. Wolf in his book Gay Priests concluded that 48.5 percent of priests and 55.1 percent of seminarians were gay. The percentage appears to be highest among priests under forty years of age. Moreover, the percentage of gay men among religious congregations of priests is believed to be even higher
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:37 am
@BillRM,
I posted links for my evidence, are you just going to assume we all take your word for it?
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:38 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
the incidents of sexual misconduct by heterosexual family men was virtually nil.


I call BULLSHIT.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 07:49 am
@majikal,
Interesting and thank but I think it is complete nonsense however.

NAMBLE membership consider themselves part of the gay community and keep showing up at gay events.

True they are not very welcome for some strange reason<grin>.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 08:57 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

An NBC report on celibacy and the clergy found that
"any where from 23 percent to 58 percent" of the Catholic clergy
have a homosexual orientation.
Other studies [???????]
find that approximately
half of American priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented.
Sociologist James G. Wolf in his book Gay Priests concluded that
48.5 percent of priests and 55.1 percent of seminarians were gay.
The percentage appears to be [????]
highest among priests under forty years of age.
Moreover, the percentage of gay men among religious congregations
of priests is believed to be [????] even higher

Bill, with the fullness of respect,
if u want to be taken seriously,
u can t present proof that way.

In order to have persuasive effect, u need to IDENTIFY
the authority to whom u cite, and that authority must be
someone who your reader will respect enuf to believe his allegations;
(e.g., saying that William F. Buckley, Jr, or Ludwig von Mises,
or George Washington said " yadda, yadda, yadda ... " designating where
we can find that declaration, by page number or maybe by hypertext link).
Therefore, citing to "other studies" is not logically persuasive
because we have no way of knowing who was studying nor
how well, how logically, those studies were conducted.
The anonymously cited "other studies" might have been of
my cousin Biff while he was closely observing and consulting with spiders
on his wall during one of his LSD trips.

When u allege that something " ... appears to be... "
u fail to tell us TO WHOM it so "appears"
nor do u even allege how nor Y it so "appears".

The same objections apply to your claim that
something "... is believed to be ... " whateverthehell.
BY WHOM is this believed ?
Is there a reason that we shoud think that this belief is logically justified ?
How & Y did he arrive at this belief ?
There are other logical defects in your display of evidence,
but this is enuf for now.

In order for your claims to even begin to support your conclusions
u must identify who is supporting your reasoning
(if u are citing to someone for support of your conclusions)
and show the process of his logical reasoning so that
your readers can decide whether his analysis is worthy of belief.

Meaning no disrespect, Bill (truly, I don 't wish to hurt your feelings)
what u submitted is not evidence of anything
because it does not tend to show that anything is true or false, except
that u DID cite to "Sociologist James G. Wolf" in a designated book;
if your readers have enuf respect for him, then thay might well
accept his findings, based upon their faith in him.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 09:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Dear friend I am not going for a PHD here and doing a reserch paper. Time and life is way too short.

My statement in any case was I had read that the ratio of gay to striaght in the clergy of the catholic church is far from the ratio found in the general population and on being challenge I had post some of the material that would seem to show that is indeed true.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 09:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Here are some more materal that seem to show a higher ratio of gay to striaght in the church. And once more I am not trying to do a formal research paper here!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlight of March 2000 article by Judy L. Thomas, Knight Ridder Newspapers published in The Arizona Republic

Some blame lack of training by the church.

Hundreds of Roman Catholic priests across the U.S. are dying from AIDs or living with HIV.

It appears priests are dying of AIDS at a rate at least four times that of the general U.S. population.

The deaths are of such concern to the church that most dioceses and religious orders now require applicants for the priesthood to take an HIV-antibody test before their ordination.

In a survey of 3000 priests, most said the church failed to offer an early and effective sexual education that might have prevented infection in the first place. Three of four said the church needed to offer more education about sexual issues.

Many priests and behavioral experts argue that the church’s adherence to 12th-century doctrine about the virtues of celibacy and its teachings on homosexuality have contributed to the spread of AIDS within the clergy. The church has kept priests uneducated about the reality of a sexual world.

Moreover, by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful, the church has scared priests into silence.

Through the years, the issue of AIDS deaths among priests has been so sensitive that many kept their illnesses a secret.

To the surprise of researchers 801 priests responded to a survey of AIDS " a response rate of 27%. Nearly 60% said they personally knew at last one priest who had died of AIDS. And one in three said they knew priests who were living with HIV or AIDS.

The Rev. Tom Casey, an Augustinian priest from the Boston area, said the church bears some of the blame for AIDS deaths. “They have created a tremendous amount of homophobia,” Casey said.

“Gays are in the priesthood, and not all of them are celibate. Both of these issues are explosive that superiors and bishops don’t want to deal with publicly”, said Robert Goss, a former Jesuit priest.

Experts say the incidence of AIDS among priest’s stems primarily from sexual contact.

As long ago as the early 1980’s, the Rev John Keenan found that Catholic priests were contracting AIDS at an alarming rate.

“We looked at what was happening in the gay Catholic population, and there was a lot of concern about the epidemic proportions of HIV”, said Keenan, who runs an outpatient clinic in Chicago for priests.

Keenan now runs weekly support sessions for infected priests. He believes most priests with AIDS contracted the disease through same-sex relations. He said he treated one priest who had infected eight other priests.

Charlie Isola, a New York City social worker and psychotherapist, said all the priests that had AIDS that he has treated are gay men in their 40s to early 60s who became infected through same-sex relations.

But the church tries to argue they could have been infected before they became priests. Some argue that failing to address the issue how the priests were infected shows that the church is in denial about the issue…the church just doesn’t want to admit it.

This excerpt, with full credit, is being shared under the Fair Use provision of the U.S. Copyright laws and International treaties for educational purposes and for no financial gain.



Back To Liberated Christiains Main Menu Page

0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  3  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 10:04 am
Quote:
Inmate interviews in 277 prisons in 45 states, conducted during 1991, revealed:
Of all prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault, two-thirds victimized children;
Three out of four child victims were female;
Offenders typically preyed on children they knew, not strangers;
Eighty-eight percent had a prior relationship with their victims;
Prisoners convicted of attacking children were mostly male (97 percent);
Almost 70 were percent white;
Sixty-four percent were married or divorced;
Child victimizers were generally five years older than those who victimized adults;
About 22 percent of the child sex offenders reported having been sexually abused themselves during childhood; and
Three out of four prisoners who victimized a child reported the crime took place in their own home or in the victim's home. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats2.htm#Offenders
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 10:16 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

Dear friend I am not going for a PHD here and doing a reserch paper.
Time and life is way too short.

My statement in any case was I had read that the ratio of gay
to striaght in the clergy of the catholic church is far from
the ratio found in the general population and on being challenge
I had post some of the material that would seem to show that is indeed true.

OK,
but if I write a book next week with different conclusions,
will u believe MY book ?





David
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 10:21 am
@majikal,
majikal wrote:

Quote:
the incidents of sexual misconduct by heterosexual family men was virtually nil.


I call BULLSHIT.


And, as I have challenged others who share your opinion, I ask you to point out the cases of married guys sexually molesting boy scouts on campouts. If you can do so from any credible source, that would go a long way toward setting the record straight if I have it wrong.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:02 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre,

You are the one who made up this claim. Can you back it up with facts (or are you just trying to pass your prejudice as "truth" with absolutely no facts to back it up)?

This is nuts... you make a claim and then you want other people to find evidence (which you ignore anyway).
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
but if I write a book next week with different conclusions,
will u believe MY book ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David you are free to believe anything you wish to, however in my opinion just because something is in a formal study done to the standards of such studies does not mean that either the conclusions or facts are guarantee to be correct and that information outside such sources are not in fact automatically of lesser worth.

We need to judge information by the filter of commonsense and logic to start with no matter what the source happens to be.

Claiming that only information contain in formal studies are worth consideration is an interesting debate tactic but little else.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:11 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Foxfyre,

You are the one who made up this claim. Can you back it up with facts (or are you just trying to pass your prejudice as "truth" with absolutely no facts to back it up)?

This is nuts... you make a claim and then you want other people to find evidence (which you ignore anyway).



Actually I posted a credible source backing up my opinion. Where's yours backing up yours?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:09:32