USA People Using Good Ole Boy Pastors Who Do Child Sex Crimes - To Discredit MAGA

[The Jason]

Sevier County pastor accused of child sex crimes involving five victims

A grand jury returned the indictment Monday against Dwight Daniel Suttles, records show.

www.wbir.com

Is this a cheap shot or warranted? Of course, those doing the fingerpointing are not looking at actual stats, just pointing out very bad apples.

Of course, in Facebook posts liberals will say "Oh, he wasn't trans, an immigrant, a pansy liberal etc., a square etc.".

 

[tango]

It's a tired tactic, you can find bad apples in any group once it gets big enough.

If someone pointed at a black criminal as "evidence" all black people were criminals they'd rightly be laughed into silence by anyone with a working brain cell. But people do like to tar large groups based on the activities of a minority.

To be clear, one child abused is one too many. For the abuse to be at the hands of a priest is a disgrace, but it doesn't mean all priests are abusers any more than it means all men are abusers.

 

[Frankj]

Psychopaths, sociopaths, and perverts are attracted to what they see as protected positions of power so you expect this sort of thing anywhere that offers it to them.

Catholic Church, Protest Churches, Boys and Girls clubs, Boy Scouts (where sexual perverts have deliberately placed by law), schools where they assume the role model position of a teacher, and on and on and on.

All of these institutions should be especially aware of this and establish safeguards against it to minimize the problem, at least to the extent they are allowed by law.;

 

[tango]

Psychopaths, sociopaths, and perverts are attracted to what they see as protected positions of power so you expect this sort of thing anywhere that offers it to them.

Catholic Church, Protest Churches, Boys and Girls clubs, Boy Scouts (where sexual perverts have deliberately placed by law), schools where they assume the role model position of a teacher, and on and on and on.

All of these institutions should be especially aware of this and establish safeguards against it to minimize the problem, at least to the extent they are allowed by law.;

Ironically I think a major problem with doing this is the actual implementation.

If you've ever tried to do anything involving children you'll undoubtedly know about the assorted background checks that are done to nominally weed out the ones who shouldn't be working with children. The trouble is that they are all but useless. I remember doing some training a few years ago relating to identifying and preventing child sexual abuse that said that something like 90% of people who have committed a sex crime against a child could pass the background checks.

Even without statistics like that the problem is when having a piece of paper encourages people to suspend their own judgment. The first time I volunteered to help with a children's group at church I got my pieces of paper saying I was deemed safe and even the person at church responsible for processing the clearances said that the paper didn't prove I wouldn't abuse a child and didn't prove I hadn't abused a child, it merely proved that if I had abused a child I got away with it. But people figure Nanny State has ticked the boxes so that leader must be safe, even if the leader does look at their daughter in a way that makes them uncomfortable. Never mind that the person is creepy, Nanny State said they're OK so ignore your instincts and trust Nanny.

 

[The Jason]

You all have written very good and informative replies. I'm not disagreeing with any of it.

 

[Frankj]

Ironically I think a major problem with doing this is the actual implementation.

If you've ever tried to do anything involving children you'll undoubtedly know about the assorted background checks that are done to nominally weed out the ones who shouldn't be working with children. The trouble is that they are all but useless. I remember doing some training a few years ago relating to identifying and preventing child sexual abuse that said that something like 90% of people who have committed a sex crime against a child could pass the background checks.

Even without statistics like that the problem is when having a piece of paper encourages people to suspend their own judgment. The first time I volunteered to help with a children's group at church I got my pieces of paper saying I was deemed safe and even the person at church responsible for processing the clearances said that the paper didn't prove I wouldn't abuse a child and didn't prove I hadn't abused a child, it merely proved that if I had abused a child I got away with it. But people figure Nanny State has ticked the boxes so that leader must be safe, even if the leader does look at their daughter in a way that makes them uncomfortable. Never mind that the person is creepy, Nanny State said they're OK so ignore your instincts and trust Nanny.

You bring up a valid point about background checks.

As a Christian, I would think that who is doing them and what standards are being used to pass or fail them is paramount.

That is, of course, something the legal system tries to intervene in to prevent some standards from being used and replaced by others more to the liking of those who rule over it.

 

[The Jason]

You bring up a valid point about background checks.

As a Christian, I would think that who is doing them and what standards are being used to pass or fail them is paramount.

That is, of course, something the legal system tries to intervene in to prevent some standards from being used and replaced by others more to the liking of those who rule over it.

At my work, there are tests for drugs, but it's just one test and then your hired and none after that. I doubt if it keeps out drug users, but I'm not saying most people working there are druggies.

The point being these tests are a joke like what people are saying here with child protection tests.

 

[tango]

You bring up a valid point about background checks.

As a Christian, I would think that who is doing them and what standards are being used to pass or fail them is paramount.

That is, of course, something the legal system tries to intervene in to prevent some standards from being used and replaced by others more to the liking of those who rule over it.

From a child protection standpoint the point is to make sure people who have abused children in the past are denied the chance to do it again, as far as is possible. That's the legal aspect of it.

From a Christian perspective we'd also want to make sure someone teaching the kids knows the Bible, can rightly divide the word etc, as well as passing legal background checks to give us at last a measure of confidence they are safe. The state really doesn't care about our standards over and above theirs.

Part of the problem is that every person who has ever abused a child was once a first-time offender. Until that moment there would be nothing to find and no background check would ever uncover their intentions. Hence reliance on the checks, even if they were reliable in weeding out people who had already offended, could only go so far. Another aspect is removing opportunities for abuse to take place, and individual bodies can introduce their own standards depending on the nature of interaction with children.

When I taught children in church classes I'd leave the door open unless it needed to be closed for some reason (sometimes adjacent rooms were used), and I always sat in the first seat you saw if you opened the door or looked through the window in the door. So anyone who did come to the room could immediately see me. If leaving the door open worked they could also hear what I was teaching before I knew they were there. That worked for me - I didn't say anything to the kids I wouldn't say if the parents were there.

 

[The Jason]

Well, what I find funny is that the abuse that kids get at church is the SAME as what liberals to them (gender affirming care etc.). So this thing liberals try to throw at conservatives by pointing bad apples (at church) is laughable.