Who are the "groomers"?

[Jose Fly]

On Sunday, a report summarizing an independent investigation into sexual abuse in US Southern Baptist churches was released. The investigation uncovered some very disturbing details:

1. Top leaders repeatedly tried to bury sex abuse claims and lied about what they could do

The report describes how key Southern Baptist leaders engaged in a pattern of ignoring, stonewalling and even “vilifying” sex abuse survivors. The report details multiple instances when Southern Baptist leaders shot down requests by survivors and other concerned members to maintain a database of abusers. Publicly, the leaders said they couldn’t because of “church polity,” or the denomination’s decentralized structure. But the report found that their attorneys had advised them that they could keep such a list and that the leaders did so in secret.

2. A former SBC president was considered “credibly accused” of sexual assault

3. Unheeded warnings went on for decades

The report also described a series of instances when leaders ignored warnings by sex abuse survivors and advocates. In 2016, a person called to report a pastor’s involvement in abuse of her mother. According to the report, a staff member for the Executive Committee asked Boto, “Do I call this lady back? I suspect no.” No documents indicate a follow-up response, the report said.

4. Leaders seemed to put concern over potential litigation over people’s safety

Southern Baptist leaders appeared to value avoiding lawsuits over preventing sexual abuse, according to the report, which stated, “it is striking that many reform efforts were met with resistance, typically due to concerns over incurring legal liability.” For example, based on outside counsel, leaders recommended removing the word “crisis” when referring to sex abuse.

When we put this together with similar problems in the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormon Church, it's quite apparent that US Christianity has a widespread and long-running problem with sexual abuse and covering it up.

As horrific as all that is, it's particularly galling given recent efforts by Christians across the US to paint LGBTQs as either abusers themselves or "groomers" (people who manipulate and prepare victims for abuse). From they way they tell it, transgender people are constantly lurking in bathrooms, ready to assault unsuspecting children and women, and LGBTQ teachers and school officials are "grooming" students to become future victims. From that hateful and bigoted position they seek to use the force of government to relegate LGBTQs to second-class status.

Yet in reality, children are at far greater risk from being abused in Christian settings! And when that becomes apparent, Christians take deliberate steps to not only cover it up, but demonize the victims and protect the abusers!

So what's going on here? Is this sick and hateful people projecting their own faults onto others? Is it a case of "every accusation is really a confession"? Something else? All of the above?

[Diogenes]

The details are in the article. It amazes me how often evangelicals will continue to follow and support disgraced televangelists, oftentimes even giving them money even after they'd been convicted of fraud (e.g., Jim Bakker).

Yes, over and over, from Jimmy Swaggart to Jim Bakker, from Kenneth Copeland to Ted Haggard to Trump, too many evangelicals continue to fawn over them because they claim to be members of the tribe. I know evangelicals who are not like this, and who are at least as upset over the conduct, exploitation, and venality of these men as the more general public, but sadly, they are not in the majority.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #16]

If it is not a choice? What do you think it is?

I'll create a new thread.

viewtopic.php?t=39520

[Jose Fly]

The details are in the article. It amazes me how often evangelicals will continue to follow and support disgraced televangelists, oftentimes even giving them money even after they'd been convicted of fraud (e.g., Jim Bakker).

Yes, over and over, from Jimmy Swaggart to Jim Bakker, from Kenneth Copeland to Ted Haggard to Trump, too many evangelicals continue to fawn over them because they claim to be members of the tribe. I know evangelicals who are not like this, and who are at least as upset over the conduct, exploitation, and venality of these men as the more general public, but sadly, they are not in the majority.

Yep, I know both types of evangelicals as well. The ones that throw their money at televangelists and buy their junk just fascinate me. I really don't understand how they don't see the obvious.

[Difflugia]

... to Ted Haggard ...

The ones that throw their money at televangelists and buy their junk just fascinate me.

Now, when you say "buy their junk..."

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #16]

If it is not a choice? What do you think it is?

I'll create a new thread.

Fine. Start out by answering the question, "Was your sexual preference a choice?"
In my 70+ years, I've never met anyone who identified as 'gay' or 'straight' who claimed they could have easily chosen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. It is obviously not a choice. I suppose I can only speak for men, but for those of us who are attracted to women and not in the least attracted to other men, it was certainly not a choice. It's just how we are wired. The idea of kissing a man would be like kissing your sister or brother; it would show affection and respect, but would not in the least be sexual.

And science is clearly on the 'side' of it not being a choice.

... as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This tug of war benefits the unborn child, keeping male or female development on a steady course even amid spikes in hormones. But if these so-called epigenetic changes persist once the child is born and has children of its own, some h myof those offspring may be homosexual....

https://www.science.org/content/article ... start-womb

This is consistent with my own anecdotal experience. Neither I nor any of my four siblings are gay. And my father's side, only one guy, a 2d cousin, once removed is gay. On my mother's side, fully a third or more of my cousins and distant cousins are gay. Both sides of my family were raised as conservative Christians, plus our general culture has long rewarded being straight and condemned being 'other.' No one would choose to be 'other,' the harder path, if it were truly a choice.

So, no, I certainly won't follow over to your new thread where the antiquated and absurd, disproved and prejudicial 'choice' argument gets thrown out there for petty tribal 'debate.'

[Diogenes]

... to Ted Haggard ...

The ones that throw their money at televangelists and buy their junk just fascinate me.

Now, when you say "buy their junk..."

I suppose the reference is to the fake coronavirus cures Jim Bakker and other TV evangelist's hawk, along with their junky trinkets and cheap false idols. Perhaps the worst, a $45 Trump/religious coin:

https://religionnews.com/2019/05/17/why ... im-bakker/

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #24]
Have you seen Jim Bakker's buckets of food?

[Difflugia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #24]
Have you seen Jim Bakker's buckets of food?

I have. I actually collect weird religious crap. I used to intentionally get myself on mailing lists in order to get the little prayer rugs and vials of anointing oil. I won't spend more than a few bucks and won't buy from televangelists in any case, but I know the buckets of dehydrated stuff. A lot of the free stuff by mail has dried up thanks to the lucrative and infinitely more scalable internet, but I occasionally stumble upon a new piece and take the opportunity to look through and admire the collection.

My favorites are Catholic scapulars, prayer cards, and those saint medallions with the little piece of "third class relic" glued to the back. I also like the Santeria versions of novena candles to the Aztec and Mayan gods. I've also hit the age where nobody thinks it's weird if I walk into a Catholic church and fill a fancy little bottle with holy water. I like the tiny shot-sized liquor bottles from expensive liquors for that.

My reference to Ted Haggard and buying junk was actually meant as a crude joke. As the guy that bought meth from a male prostitute, he was colloquially "buying junk" in at least two different ways. Maybe nobody else went there.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #28]

I caught it. I think though that "junk" in reference to illicit drugs refers to heroin, thus the term "junkie" although it may indeed refer to a broader use than just heroin. The other reference to "junk" definitely refers to "junk" and certainly applies.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

I caught it. I think though that "junk" in reference to illicit drugs refers to heroin, thus the term "junkie" although it may indeed refer to a broader use than just heroin. The other reference to "junk" definitely refers to "junk" and certainly applies.

You're right, it is more specifically heroin.

I was super bummed when all that happened. I actually used to listen to Haggard's sermons after seeing him in the Richard Dawkins documentary The Root of all Evil? When it all happened, my first thought was that I'd better hurry up and download them all before they get taken down. They were already gone from the church website by the time I checked.