US Christian group accused of covering up sexual abuse of minors

submitted by ActuallyNot from theguardian.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]UbiquitousCultOfSelf 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Not OP, but really, what the genuine cluck? lol An NIH government study for a source? They couldn't be biased!

You may be responding to the wrong comment.

I linked to two papers. The first author's affiliations of the first is School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University; and of the second is Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

Neither is an NIH government study.

Right, but you did because I wasn't limiting what I replied to to your OP. You did so in the comments

For example: Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8008535/

But you don't make clear why you think a government study would be biased.

That would be like asking me to explain to you why Nabisco Oreos and Starbucks are biased supporting pride parades.
The answer to both of those would be, constituency/consumers/lobbyists. The FDA/USDA has provably bad science because they were bought by "big aggra" / big sugar. Scientific studies and experiments should be done without bias, therefore there's the control group and the experiment. If the litmus test is faulty, the results will be skewed. Right?

And to claim that Christians and the LGTBQ+ community have similar rates of minor abuse? It honestly flies in the face of logic.

That's right. LGBTQ+ are the same as the community at large. Christians are worse.

So incredibly incorrect. Christians have a guide book, a rule set and a moral compass in the form of the Bible and "Jesus".
The queer community has the Disney and Sheryl Crow philosophy that if it "it feels good" go with it, it can't be wrong. Go with your inner self.

This is flawed thinking and gives rise to perversions and abominations.
Even evolution states, survival of the fittest. In nature, if you don't procreate you stagnate and die. Therefore in every generation, such types will be rendered feeble and obsolete. They have no capability of replacing and replenishing human stock.

Which of the two has "pride" displays and trans-sexual crossdressers featuring children in sexually explicit compromising exploitative roles in their marches, front and center?

Neither.

I don't understand your one word answer. The pride parades are synonymous with LGBT, etc. And yes, such things have indeed happened.
Not to mention the push by affiliate groups to de-criminalize pedos. They have lobby groups doing such.
Not so with Christians.

Try this: which has an exploitative power structure backed by the threat of hell, and teaches that the blame for sins is external, and everything can be forgiven?

So then, are you claiming it's at the systemic level with Christianity? That's a horrible lie that you'd have to prove.
Post a single piece of literature or any media work pointing to this claim in a favorable light? Or using such methods as you describe.
Otherwise what we have is an individual taking advantage of and preying on the vulnerable. When they are discovered, at least by their fellow believers not involved in the abuse, they are shunned and handed over to authorities.
Catholicism is a different animal. It seeks to protect the "priest class" at all costs. Therefore the Catholic structure is much like the bias inherent in government studies with vested interests.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You did so in the comments

Which comments?

That would be like asking me to explain to you why Nabisco Oreos and Starbucks are biased supporting pride parades.

Okay, why are they biased?

The pride parades are synonymous with LGBT, etc.

Not exactly

LGBT people have been around throughout history. Pride parades are a recent phenomenon: They're about standing bravely against the recent violence and hatred.

But you also said "trans-sexual crossdressers featuring children in sexually explicit compromising exploitative roles in their marches, front and center". Which doesn't happen.

Not to mention the push by affiliate groups to de-criminalize pedos. They have lobby groups doing such. Not so with Christians.

The Christians are doing more than their fair share of pedophillia. They'll be more involved in attempting to legalize it. They've certainly been influential in seeing up statues of limitations so that the victims can't sue them as adults: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/us/sex-abuse-statutes-of-limitation-stir-battle.html

So then, are you claiming it's at the systemic level with Christianity?

Isn't that what the paper i linked to shows?

That's a horrible lie that you'd have to prove.

I've offered some proof of mine. What's your proof that the LGBT community are more likely to be pedophiles?

[–]UbiquitousCultOfSelf 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

this will be no less than the third time I quote your own words, so I'm starting to naturally question your cognative uptake. Sorry, I don't mean to, and didn't start off this back and forth that way... but come on!

There are studies that show that religiosity predicts child molestation. Religious Affiliations Among Adult Sexual Offenders

religiosity was linked to a higher number of sex offense victims and more convictions for sex offenses. Those sex offenders who reported regular church attendance, a belief in supernatural punishment, and religion as important in their daily lives had more known victims, younger victims, and more convictions for sex offenses than the sex offenders who reported irregular or no church attendance and no or less intense allegiance to religious beliefs and practices.

And there's a stack of literature that shows that LGBTQ are not more likely to molest children than the general population.

For example: Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?

Those bolded links are yours, that you commented to lolz or lulz with and the links were both to gov sites, one being the NIH.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

this will be no less than the third time I quote your own words, so I'm starting to naturally question your cognative uptake. Sorry, I don't mean to, and didn't start off this back and forth that way... but come on!

Please accept my humble apologies. I made the mistake of trying to read your comments with the erroneous assumption that you have a clue. I will try to do better in our future conversations.

Those bolded links are yours, that you commented to lolz or lulz with and the links were both to gov sites, one being the NIH.

The paper "Religious Affiliations Among Adult Sexual Offenders" was written by Donna Eshuys of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Queensland, 4001, Australia. It was published in the scholarly journal "Sexual Abuse", which is one of the Sage journals, which is an independent publisher.

Because journals are a money making business, the version of the paper on the publishers site cannot be read unless you have a subscription. So for free, I found you the full paper elsewhere on the web. This is why the link points to a department of justice hosted page. You have confused the hosting of a version of the paper with being associated with the authors or publishers.

I wondered if this might be the case when I copied out the author affiliations for you, but you didn't seem to understand.

Similarly the paper Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals had the lead author at the Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, and was published in Pediatrics, which is one of the journals of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the main professional association of pediatricians in the US. Again it is independent of the government.

Since I found you a link to the whole paper, in this case at a NIH hosted page, you have confused this will affiliation with the NIH. It is not. They just host some papers relevant to their work.

In my defence, the author affiliations and the publishing journal are pretty clear at the links. But perhaps I've made the situation sufficiently clear enough even for you now?