In article <1197182439.31845.0@proxy00.news.clara.net>, brique says...

Emma says...

We can talk about these things. I'm talking
to you. You've told me your story. I've
sympathised and I believe you're genuine.

But, that's got nothing to do with the general
content of these threads over the years (?)
that the original poster has been here. I do
think he has a problem. I don't believe
he is posting this stuff out of genuine
concern for children.

It makes the rather valid point that your children are no safer with a
priest than with a stranger in a grubby coat hanging around the park

Emma.

Well I feel that my own children are much safer
in church than in a park with a stranger in a
grubby coat.

Churches -- in the UK at least -- don't allow anyone
near a child until they've been police checked and
are taught about child protection.

The clergy actually account for a tiny minority
of cases of abuse, and you have admitted in this
thread that children are at far more risk from
family members. And since that is the case --
and you think Yang is so keen to protect children --
why isn't he posting details of this fact?

But here, in alt. atheism, we do tend to get a lot of the 'atheists
have no morals because they have no beliefs' type posts and Yangs posts
somewhat tend to show that beleif is no guarantee of moral behaviour,
especially when the persons are the ones who should be the prime example

moral behaviour, namely, the priests themselves.

One must conclude that if christian beleifs cannot act to control _their_
moral behaviour, then it is somewhat silly to be concluding that not
possessing similar belief systems will make aperson more suceptable to

immoral behavoiour, and even sillier to be posting such notions to
alt.atheism and even sillier again to presume no-one there will respond

just a small sample of the catalogue of crimes committed against children

clergymen today (all yangs posts refer to current events), never mind

past decades.

So you're saying that his posts are revenge attacks?
In which case, there is even less reason to take them
seriously.

Also, if you think it's wrong to make broadbrush attacks on
atheists, then you should think it's equally wrong
to make broadbrush attacks on Christians.

The arguments against Christians are as ludicrous as
the arguments against atheists. So responding in an
equally silly way, doesn't make Yang look any better.
In fact, as I've mentioned, he comes across as
prejudiced and perverted.

I'm surprised that someone as intelligent and
rational as you could possibly defend his methods.

But, more generally, your children are most at risk from chiefly, family

family friends, not the 'chat-room pervs' of tabloid sensationalism, nor

grubby -coated leering sickos hiding in alleyways near schools. It would
appear to be the seemingly upright citizens who should be of most concern
as, going by news reports, they seem to constitute the larger portion of
such offenders. And, what should be more worrying for you, as a mother,

that the man who may molest your child is as likely top be found in the
pulpit as in the 'perverts chat-room'.

But he's not as likely to be in the pulpit.
You've already said that the most likely
offenders are family and family friends.

--
*~*~Emma~*~*
http://www.christmas-time.com/ct-faith.htm

Emma <emma@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:fjgv1n0rgg@drn.newsguy.com...

Well I feel that my own children are much safer
in church than in a park with a stranger in a
grubby coat.

Churches -- in the UK at least -- don't allow anyone
near a child until they've been police checked and
are taught about child protection.

Incorrect, CRB checks have only been in operation for
less that a decade, they are not retrospective and
only occur when you enter a proffession
liable to such checks. Thus your parish priest is
extremely unlikely to have
been CRB checked and, even less reassuring, the
checks rely upon errant
behaviour being reported by employers, which was
certainly _not_ church
policy.

The clergy actually account for a tiny minority
of cases of abuse, and you have admitted in this
thread that children are at far more risk from
family members. And since that is the case --
and you think Yang is so keen to protect children --
why isn't he posting details of this fact?

You keep missing, or deliberately avoiding, the point,
don't you?

If christians wish to lecture non-beleivers that religous
beleif, preferably theirs, is a key component of
achieving a moral lifestyle, then it is more
than apposite to mention these clearly documented
cases where such a beleif
system has, apparently, failed and more so, when the
failure occurs in the
sector of religous beleivers who, one can safely assume,
should be most familiar with, and committed to those
beleifs and thus shoudl be more likely
to act in a moral manner.

I'm surprised that someone as intelligent and
rational as you could possibly defend his methods.

I would suggest it is because I seek to be rational and maximise what
intelligence I possess that I find his methods to be most apt.

But he's not as likely to be in the pulpit.
You've already said that the most likely
offenders are family and family friends.

It is good to know your parish priest is not a family friend.