Christian Apologist Sexually Assaulted Several Women

[Paul of Tarsus]

The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias (died 19 May 2020 (aged 74)), has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women including his groping them, masturbating in front of them, and propositioning them. Wikipedia quoting Christianity Today says of the apologist's alleged misconduct:

Zacharias masturbated in front of one of the women more than 50 times, according to her recollection. He told her he was burdened by the demands of the ministry, and he needed this "therapy." He also asked her to have sex with him twice, she said, and requested explicit photos of her...

"He would touch my leg, which was kind of by his hand, but then he would run his hand up to the middle of my thighs and then to the private area," one woman said. Another woman recalled Zacharias touching her lower back. It seemed friendly, almost comforting. Then he moved his hand down and inside of her pants. Several other times, he moved his hand up her side and touched her breast.

These allegations are especially revealing considering that Zacharias often blamed society's ills on unbelief.

How are other Christian apologists responding to these revelations? Frank Turek, who worked with Zacharias at times, admits that Zacharias is guilty of the allegations but that Christianity is not to blame.



Is it true that we cannot blame Christian faith for these sad events, or is Christian faith responsible in some ways?"

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you think that sexual abuse among the clergy might be a result of Christianity suppressing natural sexual urges? To do so seems like asking for trouble.

I think that is debatable. Some religions (like Catholics) prohibit their leadership from marriage and presumably sexual activity, but I am not sure even that can be proven to have a causal link with sexual abuse.

In any case, most Christian groups do not prohibit their leadership from marriage; My own religion for example, does not prohibit marriage for anyone and (although we do not have a "clergy class") the men in a position of leadership are normally married men with families. As to whether a celibate clergy is "asking for trouble" the behaviour you presented in the OP seems particularly deviant (groping women, masturbating in front of them without consent), which indicates to me mental or moral degredation neither of which is an inevitable consequence of abstinance.







JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[JoeyKnothead]

Do you think that sexual abuse among the clergy might be a result of Christianity suppressing natural sexual urges? To do so seems like asking for trouble.

I think that is debatable. Some religions (like Catholics) prohibit their leadership from marriage and presumably sexual activity, but I am not sure even that can be proven to have a causal link with sexual abuse.

I tend to put it down to human behavior, but note that covering up abuse, and shuffling abusers around various churches, while claiming moral superiority, well that aint right. NOT that you imply otherwise.

In any case, most Christian groups do not prohibit their leadership from marriage; My own religion for example, does not prohibit marriage for anyone and (although we do not have a "clergy class") the men in a position of leadership are normally married men with families. As to whether a celebate clergy is "asking for trouble" the behaviour you presented in the OP seems particularly deviant (groping women, masturbating in front of them without consent), which indicates to me mental or moral degredation neither of which is an inevitable consequence of abstinance.

We just don't know to what degree pedophiles become clergy in order to prey on others. That said, asking me to be celibate is like asking a duck not to waddle when he walks.

I submit the following data for consideration, only for informational purposes. I dont know how accurate it is, the information...

Are Catholic priests more likely to be pedophiles than the general public?

I note that JehovahsWitness is a, well, Jehovah's Witness, so the data may (does?) not apply directly to that bunch.

(A couple small edits for clarity and grammaw)

[JehovahsWitness]

We just don't know to what degree pedophiles become clergy in order to prey on others.

I think it has already been mentioned in this thread, pedophiles will by nature go where they can find vulnerable victims, adult or children; so yes it must happen. And no I dont think anyone can say with any certainty to what extent. If a religion (or any organisation) is institutionally corrupt it will attract individuals who hope to commit their crimes with impunity.

But that's different from suggesting being a clergyman makes a normal person a sexual deviant. Most child sexual abuse is in the family but nobody is suggesting becoming a father (or a mother) causes child abuse. In the same way, I don't believe religion or celibacy of itself makes a person (or a percentage of people) a rapist, a child abuser or a sexual pervert.




JW

[otseng]

We can see here that Zacharias used or tried to use Christian faith to cover up his sexual abuse. I have personally known Christians who have used their beliefs to harm me. So like Ravi's victims, I know what it's like to be hurt that way. It's a truly terrible experience.

My point is the Christian tenets is not a direct cause. The Bible doesn't promote his sexual immoral behavior, actually quite the opposite. Sexual immorality is considered a sin and it is clear it is wrong. Yes, he could've religion as a threat to enable his immoral behavior, but this behavior of justification of sins is also not endorsed in the Bible.

Knowing that other Christians would not tolerate his looking at porn or strippers or something else that would be a harmless outlet for his lust, he went "under cover" to get his sexual gratification with women who should have been out of bounds for him sexually.

If porn would be considered unacceptable, then why would sexual gratification in massage parlors be considered acceptable?

I would think most sins would fall in "under cover". People do not want to expose themselves doing something that is considered to be wrong.

Christianity has a very negative view of human nature characterizing our natural sexual urges as evil and sinful.

This is not quite true. Sex or urges are not evil or sinful. Within the boundaries of a married couple, it is a gift of God and to be enjoyed. One of the first commands God gave man was to be fruitful and multiply. Obviously sex is required to do this. Where it falls into sin is when sex is outside of a marital relationship.

And I do hope you agree with me that we need to protect people from sexual abuse and all abuse, and we can perpetuate that abuse if we give a higher priority to what we'd rather believe.

Of course.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Do you think that sexual abuse among the clergy might be a result of Christianity suppressing natural sexual urges? To do so seems like asking for trouble.

I think that is debatable.

Yes. That's why we're debating it.

Some religions (like Catholics) prohibit their leadership from marriage and presumably sexual activity, but I am not sure even that can be proven to have a causal link with sexual abuse.

I would not say that a person's lack of sexual activity can necessarily lead to sexual assault. Many people, both men and women, are celibate and do nobody any harm sexually or otherwise. The problems arise when basic and harmless ways to get sexual gratification, like porn, extramarital sex, open marriages, gay marriages and masturbation, are demonized. When people want to have sex yet have difficulty accessing one of these outlets for their urges, they may turn to some kind of vice to satisfy their sexual instincts. In Ravi's case, his only opportunities to have sex or sexual gratification involved his being around women who should have been out of bounds for him sexually. He then took advantage of those women as the only way to get sexual gratification.

In any case, most Christian groups do not prohibit their leadership from marriage; My own religion for example, does not prohibit marriage for anyone and (although we do not have a "clergy class") the men in a position of leadership are normally married men with families.

That's a good example of how marriage is no cure for sexual assault and misconduct because many married men, some of whom are Jehovah's Witnesses, do get involved in sexual misconduct. I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses have covered up sexual assault within their ranks.

As to whether a celibate clergy is "asking for trouble" the behaviour you presented in the OP seems particularly deviant (groping women, masturbating in front of them without consent), which indicates to me mental or moral degredation neither of which is an inevitable consequence of abstinance.

Again, mere sexual abstinence is not really the cause of sexual misconduct; creating a negative view of sex and sexuality is more likely the root of the problem. I say allow people to freely enjoy harmless ways of getting sexual gratification without laying guilt trips on them, and these sexual scandals among the religious should become far less common.

[JehovahsWitness]

The problems arise when basic and harmless ways to get sexual gratification, like porn, extramarital sex, open marriages, gay marriages and masturbation, are demonized.

I dont believe any of the things listed are "harmless" but more relavant to the thread, I dont believe anyone can prove that abstaining from such behaviours increases the chances of becoming sexually abusive.

“I’ve lived in prison for a long time now and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me and without exception, every one of them was deeply involved with pornography. Without question, without exception, deeply influenced and consumed by addiction to pornography,” - Ted Bundy, Serial Killer

Self control is no more a vice than indulgence is a virtue.

When people want to have sex yet have difficulty accessing one of these outlets for their urges, they may turn to some kind of vice to satisfy their sexual instincts.

Indeed they may (they may decide to murder their whole family in their beds or blow up the Whitehouse) ... I would be interested to know if you have any comparitive studies to support the position that they do.

...mere sexual abstinence is not really the cause of sexual misconduct; creating a negative view of sex and sexuality is more likely the root of the problem.

That may be true; Christianity* however does neither.


* By CHRISTIANITY I mean the teachings and behaviours promoted by Christ as depicted in the bible canon



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses have covered up sexual assault within their ranks.

If they have they have done so against Jehovahs Witness teachings, practices and policies. It is for this reason I'm happy and proud to be one of Jehovahs Witnesses.


JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , SHUNNING and ... CHILD ABUSE

[Purple Knight]

Do you think that sexual abuse among the clergy might be a result of Christianity suppressing natural sexual urges?

That might exacerbate the problem, but no. I think sexual abuse results from the use of a hierarchical power structure.

On the flip side of this issue, I've often wondered if these corrupt Christian leaders are closet atheists who know they can use Christian faith to take advantage of people financially and sexually.

Common sense would seem to suggest yes. I don't think that if they really believed they were going to Hell for it, that they'd be doing those things. But Christianity may be making matters worse here too, by putting the murdering dismembering rapist who says he's sorry in Heaven and the guy who once picked his nose or stole a cookie in Hell.

[Paul of Tarsus]

We can see here that Zacharias used or tried to use Christian faith to cover up his sexual abuse. I have personally known Christians who have used their beliefs to harm me. So like Ravi's victims, I know what it's like to be hurt that way. It's a truly terrible experience.

My point is the Christian tenets is not a direct cause.

Then they can be an indirect cause of sexual frustration and needless guilt. It doesn't help anybody to be indoctrinated with the belief that a wrathful, all-seeing voyeur will punish them for being human having sex with a willing partner.

The Bible doesn't promote his sexual immoral behavior, actually quite the opposite. Sexual immorality is considered a sin and it is clear it is wrong.

And again, that appears to be the root of the problem. Ravi knew the Bible very, very well, so whatever he was reading in it had a very significant impact on his behavior. That much should be obvious. But whatever he read in the Bible and how he may have interpreted it, he was a man who like most men wanted sex. No "thou shalt not" can change what we evolved to be.

Yes, he could've religion as a threat to enable his immoral behavior, but this behavior of justification of sins is also not endorsed in the Bible.

The Bible does endorse the dichotomy of souls lost and souls saved. Ravi made good use of this idea to frighten his victims into silence regarding his abuse.

If porn would be considered unacceptable, then why would sexual gratification in massage parlors be considered acceptable?

My point is that all of these harmless activities should be considered acceptable. I'd much rather have Ravi masturbate in front of a prostitute than in front of women who were not meant to be his sexual playthings. Prostitutes consent to such behavior, but the women he worked with never consented to it.

I would think most sins would fall in "under cover". People do not want to expose themselves doing something that is considered to be wrong.

If harmless activities are said to be wrong, then people may turn to doing those activities in hiding and harm innocent people in the process. That's what I see had happened with Ravi.

Christianity has a very negative view of human nature characterizing our natural sexual urges as evil and sinful.

This is not quite true.

Sure, nowadays some Christianities (plural--there are many Christian religions) are a bit more liberal about sex, but it wasn't always so.

Sex or urges are not evil or sinful.

Then why did Jesus very clearly label just looking at a woman to be adultery and encourage his followers to abstain from sex?

Within the boundaries of a married couple, it is a gift of God and to be enjoyed.

If sex within marriage is God's gift (an idea nowhere to be found in the New Testament), then it's odd that Jesus preached that people not take "God's gift."

One of the first commands God gave man was to be fruitful and multiply. Obviously sex is required to do this. Where it falls into sin is when sex is outside of a marital relationship.

Then should Elton John be put to death for his lying with another man as the Bible commands? He is married to another man.

[JoeyKnothead]

We just don't know to what degree pedophiles become clergy in order to prey on others.

I think it has already been mentioned in this thread, pedophiles will by nature go where they can find vulnerable victims, adult or children; so yes it must happen. And no I dont think anyone can say with any certainty to what extent. If a religion (or any organisation) is institutionally corrupt it will attract individuals who hope to commit their crimes with impunity.

But that's different from suggesting being a clergyman makes a normal person a sexual deviant. Most child sexual abuse is in the family but nobody is suggesting becoming a father (or a mother) causes child abuse. In the same way, I don't believe religion or celibacy of itself makes a person (or a percentage of people) a rapist, a child abuser or a sexual pervert.

Very much.

As I rail against any real or perceived slight against my atheist brethren and sisthren, so too should I stand against the slighting of my theist brethren and sisthren.