It sure seems that way. Yet another tawdry series of escapades by Christianists:
The 80-year-old leader of a suburban Atlanta megachurch is at the center of a sex scandal of biblical dimensions: He slept with his brother's wife and fathered a child by her.
The story has some cheering news, though.
At its peak in the early 1990s, it claimed about 10,000 members and 24 pastors and was a media powerhouse. By soliciting tithes of 10 percent from each member's income, the church was able to build a Bible college, two schools, a worldwide TV ministry and a $12 million sanctuary the size of a fortress.
Today, though, membership is down to about 1,500, the church has 18 pastors, most of them volunteers, and the Bible college and TV ministry have shuttered — a downturn blamed largely on complaints about the alleged sexual transgressions of the elder Paulks.
Ah, I love to see a church imploding.
- Log in to post comments
They reaped what they sewed. Go figure. It bugged me even as a kid that my local churches would always find all this money to spend on making the church bigger, fancier and prettier, and yet while the poor certainly got some help out of the deal, you never heard much about that on Sunday beyond the obligatory Bible sampling.
Yes
I love the smell of incense and cheap wine in the morning; it smells like... well, it smells kinda bad, actually, and it's a mess to clean up, but hey, that's why they get those huge tax breaks, isn't it?
Just remember, all Americans, we all had to pay, literally, for this mega-church to exist and do what it did for years. So much better than having another library, am I right?
Aw, c'mon. Any halfway decent bible-thumper can find an Old Testament justification for that.
In 2001, a 64 year old, San Francisco Catholic priest was found in a parked car with a teenage boy, doing the nasty. When police asked him to step out of the car, he stumbled out with his pants around his ankles.
I found the old article if anyone is interested.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/03/01/MNL91376.DT…
If you build it, they will come. Until word gets out that you're a sex fiend.
It's not anywhere tawdry enough for your usual Mega-church scandal. Perhaps if he slept with his brother's wife's meth-dealing father, this story could get some legs.
Still, I suppose it's got definite "Family Values" potential.
Hey, considering what happens when you don't impregnate your sister-in-law, can you really blame him?
"Is "megachurch" a synonym for "sex scandal"?"
Don't be silly, of course they're not synonyms. There are many potential scandals a megachurch can undergo. They just like the sex scandals best.
If you really want see some "Godly Family Values" in action, google "Warren Jeffs".
I flicked over to the Slog (which I've been reading longer than Pharyngula - heh heh heh), and was not surprised to see this in the ongoing series O They Will Know We Are Christians...
Surprise, surprise, two other stories in the same vein:
Youth Pastor Watch
That Saudi Rape Victim Sentenced to 200 Lashes After Being Raped?
I wonder if I'd get laid more often if I pretended to have faith ...
Nah.
Well, in typical jebus loving fashion, they are also blaming the women who the manipulated into having sex. Ah, the smell of hypocrisy on Atlanta must be overwhelming.
Indeed, nothing warms the heart quite like seeing the hypocrisy of others exposed. At the same time, I can't help but think that even though that church is imploding, most of its members will probably just find or found another one. Still, I hope that this scandal will at least kill off a little faith in the moral authority of religion.
Boy, they blew it. God's totally not going listen to those prayers for rain now.
Nice job, Atlanta.
The early 20th century British rationalist Joseph McCabe spent 12 years in a Catholic monastery and abserved that Catholic clergy contained scoudrels in roughly the same proportion as the general population. Problems arise when religions assume that priesthood eliminates defects in morality.
That's remarkably Old Testament. Though perhaps the patriarch should have had his brother killed first. Just for that extra bit of authenticity, y'know? Also from the article:
You don't say...
Ok, can I throw up now?
When will the followers of any religion finally admit that they are "mere" humans; which means part of the human race, human species, human lives, human wants, human desires, human "needs", human perpetuation. A human is a human, regardless of any given or adopted name including christian, muslim, buddhist, atheist, antitheist, theist, wiccan, pagan, etc. Well, hopefully you get the idea.
Humans are humans, as any animal is an animal, as any plant is a plant, as any star may be a star: Procreation, which in some species is sexual desire, which leads to procreation, whether it be intentional or not. It's all there. It's just that allegedly humans are supposed to be able to think; i.e. intelligence, i.e. contraception?
Homer Simpson, D'oh?!
Oh, LeeLeeOne, they do admit they are "mere" humans. They're constantly tempted to sin. The difference is that they ask for forgiveness afterwards, which makes it okay.
most of its members will probably just find or found another one.
These folks are the Bullwinkles of life, pulling rhinos, Rocket J Squirrel, and everything else out of the hat but the rabbit... but this time for sure!
Would they could find a Kerwood Derby.
You guys should check out my blog, it is dedicated to uncovering creationist deception. PZ Meyers mentioned me awhile back:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
Why is it that religiotards think jebus needs money for churches? Can't jebus get his dad to just whip up a couple tons of gold or something?
It's proof that religion rots your brain that religiotards are unable to immediately understand that the church's obsession with money and power in the here-and-now is proof that someone's more worried about money, p*ssy, and power than the allmighty.
Hey, not everyone in Atlanta is a hypocritical bible-thumper.
We've got some brains among us too.
Ah, no one beats the mega-church down in Miami where the pastor claims to be 1) Paul 2) Jesus and 3) the Anti-christ, all simultaneously. The followers tatoo 666 on their bodies, and the leader has managed to parlay this into a formidable empire, include some satellite TV stations for his world-wide flock, and real quality rolexes. It's like scientology for hispanics (we don't go for that sci-fi stuff, we prefer good old-fashioned antinomianism).
What kind of sex scandal can you have when you claim that the "Law" no longer applies? Except for that tithing part - even the most radical antinomian knows good business.
I haven't seen tittering like this since the last 7th grade dance. But then again, I suppose "scientist" and "sex" are not exactly synonyms either...
Just when I thought I had stumbled across a fairly level-headed opposing viewpoint site, too. How disappointing that it predictably devolved into typical chatroom fare, but I will have to admit, I like the website--lots of good info, very impressive in scope and depth in the main.
A thought then: perhaps viewed from the Darwinist paradigm, this fella is actually successful in spreading his genes, if the child reproduces of course. Kinda like a hero to you folks, eh? A "saint" of Darwinism?
Cheers
Scientist and sex may not be synonyms, but they are more strongly correlated than is commonly known.
As far as the word "saint" is concerned, I'm afraid you're confusing it with its near-homophone, "scent", as in the "scent" of hypocrisy. A nasty odor in any neighborhood, but one that's particularly vile when it comes from folks who've made such a comfortable living off the illusion of their own righteousness.
[/trollfeeding]
Does anyone else find this increasingly ubiquitous euphemism exceptionally annoying?
Jeese, it's just so damn sad. That so many people are swayed so precipitously by their 'feelings'.
If I were to act on the basis of what I 'just knew' or what I 'just felt' here is what I would not do:
1) Prophesy.
2) Claim dominion.
3) Dictate dogma.
4) Go to lengths to instruct others on how to avoid oblivion.
Why? Simple. Because I would have to make up too many stories to cover my lies if I were to speak so. So, I don't.. By taking the lazy man's approach I avoid the fluster-cluck that the DI (and christianity in general) finds itself in today.
It's more than a full time job to account for yesterday's lies.
"My uncle is 100 percent guilty, but his accusers are guilty as well," D.E. Paulk said. This is typical big-church lingo.
Here is a simple translation: [I am a dickwad just like my uncle. In fact my entire family are a bunch of asses. Why don't my uncle/father's victims like America?]
Ryan, are you aware that all of the "Ads by Google" on your site are for Creo/ID crap? <*Brrrrrr*>
There's a strange sort of boomerang effect when a church or religious leader suffers a scandal of some kind -- and I don't just mean that the True Believers see it as a test of their faith or whatever and just harden their resolve. What sometimes seems to happen is that the liberal and moderate believers now become more convinced that people have problems with religion ONLY because of crap like this. They think this is really what "turns people away from God" -- not rational arguments for or against the supernatural, but the personal failings of Christians. Spirituality = Good; Man's Religion = Bad.
I've actually had a few atheists tell me that if they could only find a church where people genuinely strive to be honest, fair, and kind, then they'd believe in God and join up. Huh? I find that entire line of reasoning bewildering. Partly because of course there are some very nice congregations -- but mostly because that should make no difference. It's not the issue. It's like they're atheists, but they've read and followed some religious script for why they're really atheists.
That's why I prefer the secular humanist branch of atheism. You don't get that sort of nonsense.
Is "megachurch" a synonym for "sex scandal"?
Is "teacher" a synonym for "pedophile"?
Based upon a 2004 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, sexual abuse by teachers arguably (the report is not without its critics) appears to be a problem of at least similar magnitude to that involving church leaders.
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/index.html
Whatever else is true about the report, it appears that teacher sexual abuse is dramatically underreported. In the current environment, churches and their leaders are easy targets. Indeed, they've earned that position. But the hypocrisy of those who are so eager to see churches implode but offer no outrage toward those within their own profession doing precisely the same thing in similar percentages is hardly surprising. It's all about spin, right? So maybe teacher is a synonym for "pedophile" after all....
Well these things happen in cults. I'm sure the members that fell away, simply joined another and very similar cult.
The endless series of sex scandals are just a sideshow. There is big money in those churches, especially if they really hammer on the members to tithe. 10% of 10,000 suburban incomes is a lot of cash flow per year.
I'm sure if you follow the money, the heads of these churches are wallowing in cash. They might have legally paid themselves a handsome salary, benefits, perks, and retirement plan. Or they might have done that and diverted a bunch more using creative accounting techniques. Hey, Arthur Anderson ex-employees need to eat too.
Oh, wow. A cultist trying to pretend to be a normal person. Give it up, you are not convincing.
So, what does your cult do for fun? Entertain us.
The choices are:
1. Child sex rings
2. Child abuse.
3. Sex scandals
4. Lying for Jesus
5. Killing MDs and Evolutionary biologists for Jesus
6. Disrupting funerals for returning Iraqi vets.
7. Stealing money and socking it away.
8. Trying to overthrow the US government.
9. Setting up a new Dark Age.
10 Pursuing heretics and blashemers.
11. Running affinity group scams involving perpetual motion machines and similar.
12. Running a demon exorcism racket.
13. Importing 3rd world converts as slave labor.
14. Running charities that pay out less than a slot machine.
There are more choices, I'm sure. And it is OK to pick some or all of the above.
I think it's already been established on other threads that this sort of conclusions from the recognition of a consistent pattern of failure is invalid, unfair, and biased.
(Or is that only in reference to attempts to justify the status quo by appealing to inherent biological natures?)
Back on topic.
I'm happy about this, though I'd be happier if it didn't seem to be one of the slightly more socially progressive churches. I'd rather see Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson displaced in this fashion rather than someone whose denomination was noted for
Hey ding dong. This is an evolutionary biology site, not a teacher site. Take your meds if you aren't clear on the difference. Most scientists, if they teach at all, are teaching university, postgrad, and professional i.e med schools etc.. Since you've never been near a university, I'll spell it out for you. There aren't many little kids taking classes there.
So, what does your cult do for fun? I posted a list above, feel free to go into detail. From your incoherent post, one activity seems to be mutilating children's minds until they don't work anymore. Maybe you can sue them or something.
Shorter Sinbad:
HEY! WTF? YOU'RE NOT SPENDING EVERY SINGLE POST TALKING ABOUT WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT! HOW DARE YOU, YOU HYPOCRITES?!
Shorter shorter Sinbad:
ME ME blah blah blah ME ME blah ME...
(By the way, I rather doubt that any of PZ's colleagues are engaging in "pedophilic" relationships with their students, for reasons that ought to be obvious).
I also thought those religious cults considered themselves the source of morality in our civilization -- that they were the keepers of family values and the ne plus ultra of goodness and light and wisdom. Why is it that their first defense when caught with their pants down is to whimper, "we're no worse than [random secular institution]..."?
I'm willing to concede that as soon as they abandon their pretense of being any kind of guide to morality at all.
I should also add that when a teacher is caught abusing his or her position to take sexual advantage of students, there is no sympathy from society at large -- this is a person who gets fired, banned from the profession ever after, may be jailed, and is censured as a pervert.
Contrast that with church pedophiles, who get moved to new hunting grounds or get supported by their congregations. If they are briefly condemned, they just find Jesus once more. Notice that the story is of a church with a history of sexual predation by the church leadership that is only gradually eroding away membership. Compare it to a school if you want, but you don't see teachers who molest kids getting to hold their positions while the PTA makes excuses for them, so the comparison only makes the religious look worse.
Schooner, what was your point in demonstrating that your understanding of evolution is on par with that of Herbert Spencer (or, to make an analogy that you might get, a Mormon's or Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of Christianity)?
And Sinbad,
If you can't understand why teachers (or whatever profession you think you can buffalo with statistics) don't go claiming that Teaching is The Way To Heaven, that Teachers don't go claiming that all non-Teachers will be punished for eternity, that only Teachers can be moral, that Teaching is a better way of life ordained by the most unappealable Authority possible, that you'd better forgive and respect Teachers no matter what their crimes due to their hotlink to said Authority, and that's what makes your comparison to religious authorities inaccurate, then you'd best find something else to yammer on about. Because that kind of poor argumentation is just irritating.
You often make very well thought out and insightful comments, but then sometimes, geez.
Dammit PZ! You said what I was going to say, but quicker, and with less words (and less parentheses).
Raven: One thing we don't do is assume we know everything about a total stranger from three lines of text. Now that I think about it, that's stock cult behavior in its own right.
Mr/Ms Brownian: It's painfully obvious how bad my science is (proabably worse than y'all's theology). Lighten up. It's called humor. That's the point.
It looks like a duck.
It walks like a duck.
It quacks like a duck.
It protests too much when it's called a duck.
There, four lines. Happy now?
1) The term "humor" is customarily reserved for things that are, in some meaningful sense, funny, and
2) Is it really EVERY coward's first impulse to try to excuse their trolling, when confronted about it, with the lame excuse that they're "only kidding?" I thought that was specifically a middle school thing.
The time-honored Ann Coulter defense. When she finally gets busted tweakin it, she'll probably say she was just huffing crank as a joke.
I wonder if he tastes like a duck. If he's a troll duck, we'll have to force-feed him real good before we can make a foie gras ballotine with Calvados and blackberry with a grape confit in Gewurtstraminer and (of course) a toasted brioche. 'Tis the season, after all.
You know how it works: when your guy is caught in an indefensible act, pin it on the other side. That's the only tactic available when there's no defense - other than making an honest admission, of course. Mark Foley is a Democrat, haha. Father Sisterfucker is a Darwinist, haha.
You gotta admit, Schooner - your quip reeked (reeked, I say!) of these tactics.
Now, if (for example) Dustin had said it, it would have more obviously made with tongue-in-cheek.
As for Sinbad (hi Sinbad) it may be true that, by the numbers, the preachers aren't any worse than the teachers. Anyone who abuses that kind of position of trust must be held accountable, but we all know why the spotlight is brighter and the public outcry is louder when a holy man is involve. I don't have to restate it. I agree that public awareness of the problem in the education profession should be higher than it is.
As for hypocrisy, well, I think I have to side with PZ on this one, and save my outrage against the educators for the time when a Superintendent with the scope and power of a Catholic Cardinal is found to have been quietly shuffling unindicted pedophile teachers around from school to school and district to district as a way of "handling" the problem internally, and who finally gets his just desserts when's finally removed from his position of authority and thrown into... errr... moved into a cushy public relations position in Heidelberg.
I'd like to chime in and say that I've seen this first-hand, minus the pedophilia. An assistant pastor in a church my parents attended (and I as well, to my detriment) got caught screwing somebody else's wife. Cue fervent apologies to the sheep, a few months of counseling from the other staff, after which he was back in the pulpit.
I think he was, in his own fashion, quite sincere when he appologized, but he didn't have the sense to call it quits. Don't preach to me about the incredible awesomeness of your sky dude's twelve-step plan when you're living proof that it's no more effective than anyone else's twelve-step plan.
('cept maybe the Buddhists. I've been quite impressed with theirs since studying it in a religious philosophy class, probably because it's not full of big-beard-in-the-sky nonsense.)
I imagine that people have been having these discussions (ok, vaguely similar discussions involving holy men and their sexual peckerdildos) for centuries, for millenia. Clearly, those who've been holding the reins of "absolute moral authority" just aren't getting it done. Could it be that The Church, by expending dozens of centuries and unimaginable resources trying to impose and enforce a mediocre and massively inert moral code upon the rest of mankind - with very little to show for it - has in fact been holding us back from making real moral and social progress?
[note to self - refrain from philosophizing at 2:30 a.m.]
With all the money spent on tithes, we could be nearly off of fossil fuels.
Sure we do. Why not? Fundie cultists are ubiquitous and readily identifiable trollish creatures, not very bright and completely dishonest. It's not hard. A liar for Jesus troll. How banal. At least when you murder a few MDs or scientists, you get to be on the evening news.
Don't forget the wonderful news coming out of Tulsa and ORU.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3706360
My favorite part is how Lindsey Roberts apparently spends the wee hours after closing time chatting up young college boys. But I wonder if that's just Richard borrowing her phone. :)
Actually teachers can, and do, lose their jobs for the mere suggestion of inappropriate behavior let alone actually engaging in sexual activity. Those that are accused of criminal acts with their students do not only face criminal charges, they also face indictment by their peers and superiors regardless of the outcome of the courts.
Interestingly enough, the imbalance is reversed in teacher cases from what you normally see in society. Female teachers involved with their male students aren't seen in as negative a light as male teachers involved with female students. In a recent case a female teacher was given probation rather than jail time for her affair with an underage student. According to the judge it was her immaturity which led to her poor decision and her certificate was not revoked. None of my coworkers believed for even a moment that, had that teacher been male, would probation have been an option let alone maintaining certification.
Unlike organized religion and their shell game approach to sexual improprieties, not to mention their ubiquitous "blame the victim" approach, education takes an aggressive approach that borders on violating the accused's rights as they are considered guilty until proven innocent and often guilty regardless of verdict.
As others have alluded to, it's not clear just what the problem is supposed to be. At least he didn't spill his seed. Was there something spotted or blemished about this particular sister-in-law? Didn't she chew the cud and cleave the hoof, or something?
dogmeatib,
I understand your point, but ORU is anything but an educational facility. It is a cult. If you don't believe me, look at their honor code:
http://admissions.oru.edu/code-of-honor-pledge.pdf
It may seem innocent to some people, but it's really just a brainwashing tool.
My non-pedophile teacher colleagues and I have noticed a trend. If it's a male teacher, he gets the book thrown at him. Jail time for sure. If it's a female teacher, she gets the book thrown at her. Unless, of course, she's hot - and then she just gets probation. My male colleagues are pretty good at predicting whether or not a female will get probation or jail time, just by looking at the mug shot.
BTW, there's big difference between scumbag preachers and scumbag teachers. The teachers don't tell everyone that God talks to them and that they are models for society. The preachers tend to set themselves as examples for their flocks to emulate. It's not always a bad thing, given that there are preachers out there who are good people. But when it's a preacher who does the worst sinning, that's just shameful.
If the sky fairy didn't want pastors to abuse their positions, he wouldn't have led thousands of mindless thralls to them.
Paulks? I wonder if they are any relation to John Paulk, the "ex-gay" posterboi of the 1990s, who was later caught prancing around a WashDC gay bar.
Well, I don't have a picture of Lindsey Roberts. I could look that up, of course, but I really don't think it matters whether she's hot or not. And, as I said before, I'm not even sure it was she who decided to call or send text messages to male students after hours. The fact is that ORU lies to its students and persecutes whistleblowers. It's a cult of personality, and if you don't believe that, just visit the campus.
Power corrupts in most areas, but conservative Christian theology emphasizes a few concepts which apparently make it easy to exploit its followers:
1.) In religion, you can judge the character of a person by how willing they are to trust and remain loyal to a prior belief or leader even when the evidence is against it. Unshakable faith is strength.
2.) We were put on this earth in order to discover for ourselves that we will always fail when it comes to self-control: it is impossible to be 'good enough.' That's why Jesus' atoning sacrifice was absolutely necessary. Every time we backslide we are humbled and given another opportunity for sincere praise, gratitude, and a closer relationship to our Creator. Failures are therefore blessings in disguise.
3.) The golden heart of Christian love is forgiveness. If you wish to be Christ-like, you will forgive others as you wish to be forgiven. Remember, all our sins are equal in the eyes of a lofty and superior God.
Even without the money angle, I think those 3 suppositions combine to make a rather comfortable habitat for frauds -- conscious and unconscious.
Perhaps this ex-Catholic is naive, but I generally figure that most "mere" humans don't do things like diddle pre-adolescent boys, or help those who do so avoid punishment, or violate positions of trust to force sex on underlings, or steal vast amounts of money from charities. Some of these religious scandals are garden-variety sexual misconduct, but many of them go well beyond what most "mere" humans would do -- at least I certainly hope so.
dogmeatib,
I understand your point, but ORU is anything but an educational facility. It is a cult. If you don't believe me, look at their honor code:
http://admissions.oru.edu/code-of-honor-pledge.pdf
It may seem innocent to some people, but it's really just a brainwashing tool.
JRS, you lost me, I wasn't making any attempt to defend, or even discuss ORU, I agree with you completely that it is a cult; definitely not an institute of higher learning. I was, as Heather mentions as well, discussing the state of affairs (no pun intended) for teachers accused of sexual assault. I agree with Heather that pedophile teachers are bad enough, but preachers (claiming to be a moral authority) is far worse. To defend them, or worse yet blame the victims is just sick.
Also, my fellow non-pedophile teachers have also noticed the trend that she has pointed out. Hot young female teacher, probation; male teacher or unattractive female teacher hard jail time. The one that got me was the recent one where she got misdemeanor probation and didn't lose her certification ... I just shake my head at that one.
I was 12 when our church broke apart because it was revealed that one of the church elders had fathered a child by one of the other elder's wives.
Highlights:
1. She named the kid after the real father (not her husband) and nobody understood why until this all came out...
2. He stood up in church and told us that "God told me to do it".
And people wonder why I'm an atheist...
Tulse (#58), I'm with you in spirit, but we might need a tighter definition of "mere". All humans are flawed, and in that sense we're all "mere humans". As Sinbad suggests, we should be equally outraged at these crimes and transgressions regardless of who commits them or what position they hold. But we're not, because - being mere humans - we feel that context matters and that certain positions naturally require more rigorous adherence to the standards to which the occupants of those positions hold not only themselves, but the rest of us as well.
Yes, the distinction is important, for the difference between adultery and child rape is huge. It takes two to tango and, in many countries, consenting adults can do what they want in the bedroom - that is, if they're willing to risk their relationships and reputations - without the risk of being thrown in jail. (I'm not condoning it; adultery may not be a crime in some countries, but it's never victimless.)
Indeed. Certainly the cases involving Catholic priests molesting children contain an additional, ironic transgression: the perps have also broken their holy vow of celibacy. Listen up, pedophile priests! If you think you're in trouble now, just wait till your Father gets home!
I figure this is as good a time as any to cross-post a link that andyo posted over on the "noose" thread. It's interesting reading, and speaks to the disillusionment many people feel about the clergy in general, particularly around the child abuse issue. For example, concerning the case of Msgr. Michael Harris:
(Holy Flaming Euonymous, Batman! It's snowing outside!)
Could this be the selfish gene at work? A manifestation of group selection driven by sexual selection? (Mysterious are the ways of Mother Nature!)
If the rate of increase of the scandals keeps rising at the current pace, we can turn this into a daily drinking game by January.
Part of what probably drives the treatment of female teachers who exploit their (usual male) students is the double standard around sexuality. If an underage female student is exploited by a teacher then it's bad because it damages her "purity" and "innocence." But if a male student is exploited by his female teacher it's all right, especially if she's supposedly hot, because he's just living out every teenage boy's supposed fantasy. I've seen comments along those lines more than once in discussions of female teachers having inappropriate relationships with teenage boys. Apparently such commenters never bother to consider that a lot of teenage boys aren't interested in having sex with women sometimes old enough to be their mothers, or that the victims in these cases are being threatened with things like bad grades if they don't put out.
Absolutely right about the double standard, Tim. The concept of "age of consent" exists for a reason, and the average adult (male or female) is probably going to be able to manipulate the average an adolescent (male or female) beyond what the constraints of comfort and consent would normally permit.
Hormones push us in all kinds of directions that our consciences (usually) resist. A couple of years ago I found myself in conversation with a male peer about his experiences with his mother. He was an only child in a single-parent home, and when he was a teen, she would come into his room at night and... you know... pleasure him in some way. On one hand he fed the "adolescent fantasy" stereotype, and I quote: "I thought it was pretty cool at the time." On the other he was vaguely troubled and confused by it. I believe he hasn't yet figured out quite how he feels or thinks about it. He's still only 22, so... Anyways, even disregarding the incest aspec, according to the law he was too young to make an informed choice about whever it was he wanted to have happen or not happen.
Oh, wow. A cultist trying to pretend to be a normal person. Give it up, you are not convincing.
Newflash to Raven: Normal is not the first adjective that comes to mind based on your posts--nor is it the second, third, or fiftieth. Four things are readily apparent from what you have chosen to reveal about yourself:
Launching into unprompted tirades against total strangers--not normal. In fact, doing so without any evidence kinda goes against the stated beliefs of this forum, wouldn't you say?
Evolutionary Biology, or whatever you folks are doing here--honest work, but not exactly normal.
Raven as a user-name--a little touch of the nepenthe, perhaps? Or do you sit around in your basement wearing your "mistress of the night" costume? Definitely not normal.
Generalization and stereotyping--a handmaiden to unprompted tirades. Obviously there are rotten people in all groups, but all people in some groups are rotten and/or stupid? Actually, this may be your best approach to normalcy as this world is replete with narrow-minded bigots with myopic conceptions of the world that exists outside their basements where they sit around in mistress of the night costumes.
With that said, I suggest you stay within the comfortable confines of this weblog (and your basement) where you can continually reinforce your narrow views without having to measure them against a competing thought.
You gotta admit, Schooner - your quip reeked (reeked, I say!) of these tactics. Kseniya
Kseniya: Thanks for recognizing it as a quip. Loved the "reeked, I say!" EXCELLENT. However, there is really no tactic involved. If there was a perceived assertion on my part, it was unintentional. I don't know what sort of traffic you folks get in here on a regular basis, but to suggest that I posted in order to proselytize or change someone's mind is sheer ridiculousness.
The simple fact is that I enjoy studying viewpoints that are different and perhaps contradictory to my own, unlike another particular individual who will remain unnamed. OK, so it's a puerile and obvious reference to the cellar-dweller, but it is a JOKE. (It appears you folks believe humor is the random--yes, I realize there are psychological and evolutionary factors, etc., so spare me the rhetoric and introductory arguments--by-product of natural causes, so your ability to recognize it in all cases may be impaired, but I encourage you to hang in there. Loosen up on the reductionism a bit and you might see it more often.
Really though, this stuff is great book fodder for my writing. Hold on, it's fiction. No worries, don't feel like I am attempting to perpetrate the commonly wrought creationist sin of jerking an evolutionary quote out of context for use in a creationist polemic. The wealth of characterization from the site and the short conversation we are having will be invaluable (disclaimer: none of the events or people depicted here represent or resemble real persons whether living or dead). So there you have it. Now whoever it was that accused me of utilizing Coulter-esque tactics can apologize.
I gravitated to the sight because your fearless leader appears to have enough moxie to actually say what he believes without mincing words. That is an uncommon and admirable trait, especially when he is able to marshal the amount of rationale he does to support his claims. Very nice job he does with the pen as well.
So, can we now be friends since my motive is clear? I won't be around long I suppose...but one thing is for sure: if you folks want to set up a debate at the University, I will buy a plane ticket, fly to Minnesota, and intellectually humiliate basement boy. Forgive me bell, basement girl just doesn't have the same ring to it...
"I don't know what sort of traffic you folks get in here on a regular basis, but to suggest that I posted in order to proselytize or change someone's mind is sheer ridiculousness. "
Yes, we do get that sort of traffic on a regular basis. When the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, we had a fellow in here trying to score cheap points for his religion. And yes, we regularly get pompous twits who come in and make complaints along the lines of "where's the science?" and "you guys are supposed to be SINE-tists, so stop making jokes and being rude!" and other such pompous twittery. And yes, we regularly get folks making lame jokes based on gross misunderstanding of "Darwinism". Believe me, we know the signs.
"It appears you folks believe humor is the random--yes, I realize there are psychological and evolutionary factors, etc., so spare me the rhetoric and introductory arguments--by-product of natural causes, so your ability to recognize it in all cases may be impaired"
Boy, you are just a laugh RIOT!
"So, can we now be friends since my motive is clear?"
We'll see.
Sastra writes:
You left out:
4.) Submission to authority -- in theory, God (which in itself may be benign or malignant, depending on the god-concept in play); but in practice, some guy (almost always a guy) claiming to speak for him. That way, dissent from a congregational leader who is (by any reasonable standard) a manipulative con-man gets cast as rebellion against God -- a much tougher dude to go up against.
OK, now we know your cult specializes in warping young minds into incoherent hash. So what else do you people do for fun?
Try to focus, stay on topic, and say something concrete for once. So far all you've done is post a series of complicated, oblique, and not very interesting insults.
Hey ding dong. This is an evolutionary biology site, not a teacher site. Take your meds if you aren't clear on the difference.
If you think that evolutionary biology is all that is discussed here, you might check your own meds.
Most scientists, if they teach at all, are teaching university, postgrad, and professional i.e med schools etc.. Since you've never been near a university, I'll spell it out for you. There aren't many little kids taking classes there.
Indeed. At that level it's sexual harassment rather than pedophilia.
So, what does your cult do for fun?
How long have you been beating your wife?
I posted a list above, feel free to go into detail.
I saw your lame list, but none of the entries apply.
By the way, I rather doubt that any of PZ's colleagues are engaging in "pedophilic" relationships with their students, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
The connection relates to the unwarranted generalization PZ makes, which ought to be obvious.
Why is it that their first defense when caught with their pants down is to whimper, "we're no worse than [random secular institution]..."?
In no way do I suggest that it's a defense of any sort. I'm merely drawing attention to your unwarranted generalizations and general hypocrisy on the matter.
I should also add that when a teacher is caught abusing his or her position to take sexual advantage of students, there is no sympathy from society at large....
Except that the linked study suugests that teachers are "caught" in only rare instances. That failure may be largely due to a failure to report but also suggests that cover-ups happen often in the academy too.
Since you've never been near a university, I'll spell it out for you.
By the way, Raver, your deductive skills match the quality of your alleged arguments. I actually have multiple degrees, including a terminal degree from here:
http://www.duke.edu/
Of course, why should you start letting facts get in the way of what you perceive to be a good insult...?
Schooner, Rey Fox said most of the things I wanted to communicate to you in comment comment 67, but I'd like to add that if you're going to gleefully criticise us for stereotyping, you'd best avoid doing it yourself (which you have in numerous comments, and particularly in those to Raven). Either acknowledge that it's a thing humans are often guilty of and get off your high horse, or demonstrate that you actually are above that sort of thing.
Having said that, please stick around if you'd like to share and learn. There are all flavours of folks here, and as long as you can post honestly and meaningfully, you'll be welcomed. If you can't, well then, it won't be good for anybody.
For the record, I am a Mr., but you can call me Brownian, Mr. Genius-Guy, Mr. Jerk-Face, or whatever monikers my posts might inspire in you. If they are to be insulting, at least try to keep 'em funny.
Good luck to you with your writing and your book.
Thank you, Fox. I figured that was the case and didn't want to be lumped in, despite what bird-brain says.
"SINE-tists." Beautiful.
Same here - Rey sorta said what I was going to say.
Schooner, you give me too much credit. I was late to the thread, and had already read your disclaimer ("it was a joke!") before commenting. Though we'll never know for sure, I likely would have read it the way most of the other readers did - as a standard-issue, anti-"Darwinist" creocrap jab, which is something you'll see a lot of here, depending on the topic. I only used the word "tactic" with regard to comments of that variety. It wasn't meant to apply to your quip.
Brownian: fair enough and agreed--thanks for the invite, much appreciated. I should have had enough awareness to realize you folks get a lot of "standard issue, anti- "Darwinist" creocrap as noted by Ksenyia. My apologies...
In fairness, the stereotype comment was only aimed raven. It wasn't gleeful, only a reaction--mostly in fun, mostly. If you look at raven's first post, it should be obvious why. You ought to be allowed to write a couple of lines without facing a list of pejoratives. But then again, I should have been more aware of the environment. How 'bout I both acknowledge both that it is a thing humans are guilty of and attempt to be above it. And all should display the courtesy of praticiing exegesis and not eisegesis.
OK, then. I promise no more personal posts...only on topic, relevant. This has been a great resource already. Really would like to keep it that way.
He merely fails to win a Darwin Award.
Accenture, you mean.
<sing>It's -- Bill -- Clinton's fault, it's -- Bill -- Clinton's fault, it's -- Bill -- Clinton's fault, Bill Clinton is to blame-o!</sing>
Is that where Krenn is?
Of course, it has still got reincarnation and nirvana.
What evidence would you offer that a failure to report is not adequate to explain this? The above reeks of wishful thinking.
Really though, this stuff is great book fodder for my writing.
You're not Scott Adams, are you?
What evidence would you offer that a failure to report is not adequate to explain this? The above reeks of wishful thinking.
I'd offer a couple of reasons why I suspect more than a failure to report. Firstly, it's only anecdotal but my wife is a teacher in a fairly large school district and has knowledge of a surprising number of cases kept quiet for a variety of reasons, not all bad. Secondly, the report suggests many, many more incidents than with religious figures (due in large measure to there being so many more teachers) but much less public knowledge and reporting. Unless you can think of a reason or reasons why teacher incidents should be underreported relative to religious incidents, that suggests some sort of cover-up.
I'd offer a couple of reasons why I suspect more than a failure to report. Firstly, it's only anecdotal but my wife is a teacher in a fairly large school district and has knowledge of a surprising number of cases kept quiet for a variety of reasons, not all bad.
Sinbad, your evidence isn't anecdotal, it's ethereal. You're talking about 2nd and 3rd hand information from a single school district as if it were representative of a profession. To make matters worse, the study you cite doesn't only talk about sexual assault or just about teachers, it considers all staff, custodial staff, bus drivers, etc., as "educators," and all complaints including unacceptable visual or verbal "assaults" within its data. There is a big difference between looking at someone's body and using your position to influence them into a compromising position.
That you would claim there was some sort of cover-up within education is despicable.
You're talking about 2nd and 3rd hand information from a single school district as if it were representative of a profession.
In some cases the evidence is firsthand. But in any event, I don't claim it as representative. It merely suggests, together with the study, that there's much more going on and many more problems than we know.
To make matters worse, the study you cite doesn't only talk about sexual assault or just about teachers, it considers all staff, custodial staff, bus drivers, etc., as "educators," and all complaints including unacceptable visual or verbal "assaults" within its data. There is a big difference between looking at someone's body and using your position to influence them into a compromising position.
There is, but such problems exist across all categories (including priests). Even so, if the Dept. of Education study is remotely accurate, the problem is schools is vast, likely worse than with religious figures even on a percentage basis. Yet PZ is willing to equate "megachurch" with "sex scandal" unequivocally while you call my questions "dispicable." Spin, anyone?
The study that you site makes a lot of assumptions that increases the potential victims, assumes underreporting and you assume a cover up. The the case of churches we not only have an exceedingly large number of abusive (rather than misconduct) incidents, you also have ample evidence of systematic coverups.
That's not "spin" it's a simple fact.
The best place for a pedophile, sexual predator or philanderer to hide is behind the mask of a "religious" leader.
Assume the mantle of trust... and you get away with more.
They're only, superficially, the "same profession." If you actually had a clue to the professional and group-dynamic differences, you'd realize they're not the same. Kind of like nurses and doctors (though even more pronounced). Both "medical professionals," but vastly different.
You're not Scott Adams, are you?
Posted by: windy | November 20, 2007 4:03 PM
More like Don Adams, unfortunately...
And here's an interesting look into the right wing obsessions. A listing of the top searches on conservapaedia:
Most viewed pages
1. Main Page [1,899,425]
2. Homosexuality [1,516,884]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [516,375]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [417,887]
5. Homosexuality and Parasites [387,602]
6. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [338,936]
7. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [329,035]
8. Gay Bowel Syndrome [328,830]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health [263,379]
10. Homosexuality and Syphilis [262,986]
Can you spot a pattern?
He merely fails to win a Darwin Award.
Accenture, you mean.
<sing>It's -- Bill -- Clinton's fault, it's -- Bill -- Clinton's fault, it's -- Bill -- Clinton's fault, Bill Clinton is to blame-o!</sing>
Is that where Krenn is?
Of course, it has still got reincarnation and nirvana.