(September 12, 2016 at 1:05 am)The_Empress Wrote:

(September 11, 2016 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Cute, but I don't know why you're telling me since I wasn't the one to use the term pedophile, that was someone else... go ahead and read the thread.

I have always used the term 'under age'.

Cute? Really?

I don't understand your point, then. What does a girl being raped by her pastor and being forced to apologize if she wants to return to her church have to do with Harvey Milk and the stances of people who aren't even involved in this thread?

I'll keep posting this until you tell me your point, Huggy. Even if you disagree with the word "force", it doesn't matter. My question still applies: what does the topic of this thread have to do with the conversation about Harvey Milk?

(September 12, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 11:30 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The church is allegedly demanding an apology. I don't know how a church as a collective would go about demanding anything. Funny how kevin emphasizes the atheists shouldn't be seen as a collective, but people have no problem referring to the church as one on this issue.

That church is a collective.

You apparetly didn't read the part where I specified the issue of the apology. Do you have evidence that the members of the church feel this way collectively? You do realize church members can have differing opinions on matters outside their faith right?

(September 12, 2016 at 12:06 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 1:05 am)The_Empress Wrote: Cute? Really?

I don't understand your point, then. What does a girl being raped by her pastor and being forced to apologize if she wants to return to her church have to do with Harvey Milk and the stances of people who aren't even involved in this thread?

I'll keep posting this until you tell me your point, Huggy. Even if you disagree with the word "force", it doesn't matter. My question still applies: what does the topic of this thread have to do with the conversation about Harvey Milk?

If you don't see the clear double standard, I don't know what else to tell you. People here were calling for this pastors castration. Yet some of yall clearly belived Harvey Milk should have his own postage stamp...

(September 12, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 12:06 pm)The_Empress Wrote: I'll keep posting this until you tell me your point, Huggy. Even if you disagree with the word "force", it doesn't matter. My question still applies: what does the topic of this thread have to do with the conversation about Harvey Milk?

If you don't see the clear double standard, I don't know what else to tell you. People here were calling for this pastors castration. Yet some of yall clearly belived Harvey Milk should have his own postage stamp...

Huh. I, for one, never called for the pastor's castration, nor do I agree with having Harvey Milk on a postage stamp, and neither do many others. I think the pastor raped a girl from his congregation, and it's really sick. That's what I take from the topic of this thread. Double standard? Only if you insist on applying straw.

(September 12, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

That church is a collective.

You apparetly didn't read the part where I specified the issue of the apology. Do you have evidence that the members of the church feel this way collectively?  You do realize church members can have differing opinions on matters outside their faith right?

And if they have a council of elders (or some such group) in this particular church that body could possibly act in the name of the whole church. I've seen that done before.

(September 12, 2016 at 2:05 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You apparetly didn't read the part where I specified the issue of the apology. Do you have evidence that the members of the church feel this way collectively?  You do realize church members can have differing opinions on matters outside their faith right?

And if they have a council of elders (or some such group) in this particular church that body could possibly act in the name of the whole church. I've seen that done before.

... and adding to that, those church members who disagree with this forced apology can, and should, have the spine to speak out against it.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, isn't that the quote for this moment?

I read most of your responses, and it seems to me that most of you believe that all whom you would label a 'victim' is always innocent and pure of heart. That if anyone has ever had a crime committed against them then no matter their actions leading upto said crime so long as they themselves did not break the law, they are 100% free of any responsibility that lead upto the crime.

I don't buy it.

There is not enough EVIDENCE (A word most of you use for everything except when you choose to judge or persecuting Christians) for any one of use to judge what or why the church acted the way that they did.

Maybe most of you are too old to know what goes on in "texting" now a days, but If this 'victim' did indeed send naked pics to this guy.. To any decent person, she does own an apology. But, again this article does not give enough information for any Just person to levi a judgement one way or another.

All I am saying is in general we all need to be held to account for our actions. If I need to with draw a very large amount a money from my bank, I don't go into a high crime area to do so, and I certainly would not be walking out the bank counting the money out loud where everyone could see and hear. Nor would I flash the money to people who I think would have no problem trying to take it from me, and dare them to take it. If they do, yes they commit a crime, but at the same time I am not innocent nor should I not be held to account for daring people to rob me.

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it. It does not make what the preacher did right, but it doesn't make her right/innocent either. As such IF she did throw gas on a fire by sending naked pics then at the very least this person should apologize without having to be prompted.

Making everyone an innocent victim no matter what means it is ok to be a f-ing moron the rest of your life and it set morons up to be victims the rest of their lives. Which allows for the real problem people looking to manipulate others through their victim-hood. This maybe the world you want to live in but I am getting sick of it.

(September 13, 2016 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: I read most of your responses, and it seems to me that most of you believe that all whom you would label a 'victim' is always innocent and pure of heart. That if anyone has ever had a crime committed against them then no matter their actions leading upto said crime so long as they themselves did not break the law, they are 100% free of any responsibility that lead upto the crime.

I don't buy it.

There is not enough EVIDENCE (A word most of you use for everything except when you choose to judge or persecuting Christians) for any one of use to judge what or why the church acted the way that they did.

Maybe most of you are too old to know what goes on in "texting" now a days, but If this 'victim' did indeed send naked pics to this guy.. To any decent person, she does own an apology. But, again this article does not give enough information for any Just person to levi a judgement one way or another.

All I am saying is in general we all need to be held to account for our actions. If I need to with draw a very large amount a money from my bank, I don't go into a high crime area to do so, and I certainly would not be walking out the bank counting the money out loud where everyone could see and hear. Nor would I flash the money to people who I think would have no problem trying to take it from me, and dare them to take it. If they do, yes they commit a crime, but at the same time I am not innocent nor should I not be held to account for daring people to rob me.

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it. It does not make what the preacher did right, but it doesn't make her right/innocent either. As such IF she did throw gas on a fire by sending naked pics then at the very least this person should apologize without having to be prompted.

Making everyone an innocent victim no matter what means it is ok to be a f-ing moron the rest of your life and it set morons up to be victims the rest of their lives. Which allows for the real problem people looking to manipulate others through their victim-hood. This maybe the world you want to live in but I am getting sick of it.

If she did something like send naked pics to the guy, the proper response is not go have sex with her. Two wrongs don't make a right, assuming she even did anything wrong in the first place. What we've been presented with is a guy doing something illegal, and being absolved of it by the church because he's supposedly a holy man.

If she did anything illegal, he should have gone to her parents, or the police. If what she did was legal, like wearing revealing clothing, or doing something that could be interpreted as flirting, then it's still the man's fault for giving in and breaking the law.

If that's all she did, then that just means she's a teenager. That her body is functioning in the way it should. We should not get angry when babies cry, and we should not get angry when teenagers explore their sexuality. These are normal behaviors. Not immoral.

(September 12, 2016 at 5:47 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 2:05 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And if they have a council of elders (or some such group) in this particular church that body could possibly act in the name of the whole church. I've seen that done before.

... and adding to that, those church members who disagree with this forced apology can, and should, have the spine to speak out against it.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, isn't that the quote for this moment?

I didn't say otherwise, just pointing out that "the Church" is a cogent body.

What I don't get is, the age of consent in Ohio is 16, they had sex on multiple occasions.

All of the sudden the girl is crying rape?

The pastor apparently plead guilty to 4 counts of sexual battery.

*edit*

After taking a look at Ohio law it would appear that his position as at pastor is what makes his actions sexual battery

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03

Quote:2907.03 Sexual battery.

(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:

(12) The other person is a minor, the offender is a cleric, and the other person is a member of, or attends, the church or congregation served by the cleric