Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate how quickly the 'you just hate Christians' point was brought up.
I think the people who say that hate Christians more than anyone else. They seem to want others to hate them.
Look, sex abuse scandals just aren't that common with churches. And yes, they happen in other places, but church stand out since they are often presented as places where people are safe and places that uphold a good moral compass. And that's probably true of most churches. But even then, a pastor sexually abusing a youth or just a member of the church is a story that pops up quite frequently. To say it's a problem within Christianity really isn't off base.
And of course it's silly to say all Christians are responsible. Obviously, that's unreasonable. The person responsible for sexual abuse are the abusers. That's it. Anyone who knew and did nothing has done wrong, but they aren't equally responsible, at least not in my mind. But surely any Christian would want to address this problem. Even if it didn't happen in their church. Even if it wasn't in their denomination. When people who have unfavorable views of religion see stories like this, what do you think they're reaction will be when the reaction from many Christians is "don't make this about us!"
These stories give all Christians a bad name, rather that's fair or not. But certainly going on the defensive does not make that PR any better. But perhaps saying this is a problem that needs addressing within our faith community and actively working to do something about it (saying sex is for sluts near the alter isn't action by the way) would get some skeptics of religion to soften their views a bit. You might even bring back some people who left.
I would have expected the Christian community to the first to protest and to be the most vociferous. It's when church organizations or Christian communities close ranks in defense of the perpetrators within their ranks, that they give themselves a bad name. Those perps are a blight on any society but especially on a religious organization or group.
What kind of animals are these christians to re-victimize these girls, just because the church lost a lawsuit?
WTH drives them to state, ’They should not be able to hide’. Christians talk about the morality they get from their bible, but do they live it when push comes to shove? Heck NO! They are the most moral decrepit organizations, and individuals there is. Scum.
Abuse, whether sexual or physical, of children, and those that enable and excuse it, need to be denounced by all. If you are a christian who doesn't, then you are as complicit as these individuals.
So now rawstory is a credible source? Of course, we only get one side of the story here. I want to hear from the church officials why they would feel it necessary to have the victims names published. Instead, we only get your assumption that they are doing it out of spite and immorality.
Why would it be necessary? Can you think of a possible legitimate reason, regardless of whether or not it applies?
Why would it be necessary? Can you think of a possible legitimate reason, regardless of whether or not it applies?
If the victims or parents are making threats and possible endangering other church members in retaliation then that would be a situation where I think their names should be revealed to the public for their safety.
If the victims or parents are making threats and possible endangering other church members in retaliation then that would be a situation where I think their names should be revealed to the public for their safety.
Revealed to the objects of their threats? Or revealed to the general public?
Human nature being what it is, I would be very surprised if the members of this particular church do not already know the names of the victims.
Revealed to the objects of their threats? Or revealed to the general public?
Human nature being what it is, I would be very surprised if the members of this particular church do not already know the names of the victims.
Well what if they threatened to bomb the church? And someone who is visiting that church for the first time gets hurt. The general public would need to know.
The church gains nothing but more bad PR if there is no legitimate reason so I think there is more to the story.
Well what if they threatened to bomb the church? And someone who is visiting that church for the first time gets hurt. The general public would need to know.
The church gains nothing but more bad PR if there is no legitimate reason so I think there is more to the story.
Are you not aware of what the situation was?
A Bible school volunteer sexually abused two children. The boy (17) had been in trouble for various sexual misconduct related incidents and the parents suing the church believed that the church should have done a better job at ensuring their volunteers are safe. While I can understand the church defending themselves in this position (after all, mistakes do happen and just because the consequences are worse on this one, I personally wouldn't hold the church to too much accountability on this), but that's not what's happening. The church is asking that the courts reveal the names of two minors who were the victims of sexual assault because the lawsuit was bad PR. I fail to see any other motive for their actions.
As to your baseless theory, if they were threatening violence, why would they go to a court to ask to have the names publicly revealed? If there's a threat of violence, they should call the police and if the threat seems credibly, those doing the threatening will be arrested. Asking a judge to open up court documents to publicly display the names of two girls who were under that age of 14 when they were abused really doesn't make any sense if it's an act of self defense.
Well what if they threatened to bomb the church? And someone who is visiting that church for the first time gets hurt. The general public would need to know.
I can see how law enforcement would need to know the names of the victims' parents (assuming that is who made the threats) in this circumstance, but not the general public. All the general public would need to know is that the church had received a bomb threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The church gains nothing but more bad PR if there is no legitimate reason so I think there is more to the story.
I agree that the church has brought bad PR to themselves with their legal request. I too cannot help but wonder why they would do such a thing.
A Bible school volunteer sexually abused two children. The boy (17) had been in trouble for various sexual misconduct related incidents and the parents suing the church believed that the church should have done a better job at ensuring their volunteers are safe. While I can understand the church defending themselves in this position (after all, mistakes do happen and just because the consequences are worse on this one, I personally wouldn't hold the church to too much accountability on this), but that's not what's happening. The church is asking that the courts reveal the names of two minors who were the victims of sexual assault because the lawsuit was bad PR. I fail to see any other motive for their actions.
That's my point. We haven't heard their justification for wanting the names released beyond the suggestion that they are just being jerks. Why would they request an action that will only ignite even worse PR?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
As to your baseless theory, if they were threatening violence, why would they go to a court to ask to have the names publicly revealed? If there's a threat of violence, they should call the police and if the threat seems credibly, those doing the threatening will be arrested. Asking a judge to open up court documents to publicly display the names of two girls who were under that age of 14 when they were abused really doesn't make any sense if it's an act of self defense.
What if they threatened to come shoot up the church on a nameless Sunday? Children make these threats all the time. Police get involved, but I never heard of the kid being locked up for years. If I was a church member, I would want to know who put my life in danger and stay away from that family.
That's just a scenario off the top of my head. There could be a more plausible reason that we don't know yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
