simonzelotes

Fellowshipper,I said what I meant when I said page 196...I have a purpose for everything I say,when I say it,why I say it,how I say it,where I say it and to whom I say it...That's why they sent you out on the field,man...Just read what's written....If it's wrong,I'll tell you...

No,...The big picture on the bottom of page 196.... If you see Frank,(Francis,Francine),tell him(her)that I love him(her).....

By the way,is that picture that John posted really Atticus,who starred as Gregory Peck in The Omen?

Tommy,I've always said I'd rather be with you 9th corpse people here than with the finest people on earth....

Couldn't tell...I was out back having a smoke....

That reminds me...Remember at the end of PALF when everybody was loshantaing and speaking the wonderful works of God and you couldn't tell when the tape ended and there always seemed to be one person who was still speaking after everybody else had stopped?....Ok,Clyde you can stop now,you're born again...

From the government's point of view,are all ministers "men of God"?...If a minister abuses a member of the "flock",and it becomes a civil matter,what basis would be used to determine if the victim's civil rights were violated?....And how would they determine if the minister was legally liable?..The government does not set moral ethical codes for a clergyman as far as I know,his particular religion does... Would the minister have to be in violation of his own denominational code of ethics to be held liable?....What if he was a minister in a "free and open sex" church,and his behaviour was within the rules of his particular church?....What would his violation be that would hold him legally responsible?

LongGone, Obviously,that was an extreme case,just as the relationship between a culthead minister and his congregant would be,IMO,extreme on the other side of the coin,in light of some of Rev. Liberty's statements...

...And don't forget,Tommie,your suffiency is God,not some natural man,earthly,god-of-this-world boss who won't let you take days off to do setup for PAFL and limb meetings...Now that you're working again,I expect your blue forms and horn 'o plenties to be pletho and pleroo with abundant sharing to me so I can continue to go,stand and post the wonderful words of this life....

I'm reminded of a movie I watched that was supposedly based on a true story...It was called "Murder Ordained"...Coincidentally,it took place in Emporia,Kansas,the site of other sexual assaults by clergy....In the movie,if I remember correctly,the pastor and a married congregant had an affair,or whatever it should be called,and even plotted together and successfully had their respective spouses bumped off... After looking at LongGone's post about Texas law,I wonder if any good judge would consider the wife in the MO movie a victim of sexual assault in the same fashion as maybe some of those "other" young women in Emporia who looked to their minister as their 'Father in the Word"...

Behold the lamb of Gawwwd!

Shaz, Just a quick question....Who's the "we" that now classifies sexual molestation by clergy as incest?...Is it the Pressman's or other authorities as well?...

Glad to see you're still crazy about me...

Either that or you're posts are on 10 second standby 'cuz you swear so much...

We're just hogging this thread...

Exc, In clarifying,I was trying to point out that both victims are haunted and full of anguish,though they may not actually be identicle to eachother...

No,...This is just uncharted waters for me...

So I contradicted myself....At least I know I'll be right half the time...

I should clarify what I said above...A rape victim will have other horrors to deal with,that an abuse victim will not have,such as fears and terror stemming from the violent ordeal...I wasn't trying to portray the victims as "the same"..

Shoot,Oldiesman,now all the women around here are gonna hate me,too :)-->... Look,I know sexual abuse,especially involving clergy is no laughing matter...I could never fully understand a victim's perspective because I,myself have not been one..But I cannot help but think that a victim may have as much or more anguish to deal with as a victim of forced rape... I think a victim of any crime feels some guilt or blame...Even if they simply feel guilty for walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night,I think rape victims beat themselves up for not somehow avoiding the crime... Regarding sexual abuse victims in the way,I think self-imposed guilt is a natural reaction,with even heavier burdens of guilt,such as how they could have avoided it,how they could put so much trust in a father-figure,or a man of God,how they could be so disallusioned into thinking they were doing God's will etc. ... No disrespect meant to clergy,but a minister can be in a position to play the ultimate confidence game...Only the stakes could be much greater than conning people out of their money,but conning them out of the most important things to the individual's heart and soul....

Oh,one thing I forgot to mention...I would think a minister who is a chaplain,say,would be held more legally accountable,because of the government's involvement in the position he holds...

Yeah,Shaz,I think if you were a judge some of my old friends(and girl-friends)might just now be getting out of jail :)-->

Is that Davis or Ponch from CHiPs ?

I'm no lawyer,but I'm not gonna charge anyone 200 bucks an hour for my opinion,either... I think the key difference between a clergyman and say,a psychiatrist,as regards to legal liability for betraying a trust is that a clergyman's victim would not be considered a "patient"...Where our government recognizes and regulates mental health care professionals as "doctors" and their patients as "sick people" or "disabled",the same does not hold true for ministers...Rev. Liberty rightfully holds the clergy to a higher standard,but I think she also paints too broad a picture of congregants being somewhat helpless and vulnerable...Would you want to put a church-goer in the same category as the guy on a psychiatrist's couch? As has been said,every circumstance is different,and I think the way was more unique in it's own right regarding sexual misconduct...A cult will draw a different crowd of people than the church on the corner...Whether it's people who come from dysfunctional families,or who just wanted to commit to a cause,or were determined to find the truth,I think we all were a little more vulnerable and were probably guilty of revering our "father in the word" more highly than we ought to have...The fact that he would exploit and betray the confidence of the most vulnerable for his own gratification is beyond indecency...I just don't think it should be a sue-able offence.... How far down the way tree should those "ministering" be held liable for sexual assault?...Limb,branch,twig leaders?....The guy undershepherding the girl in the class?(I think AA calls that the 13th step)... Personally,I think if precedents are set in suing ministers for sexual assault it will open the door for too much government involvement in church matters...Unless,of course,it's truly "assault" and not sexual exploitation or misconduct or something similar...

You know,Johniam,you gotta remember,LaRussa and pitching coach Dave Duncan are the best in the business at managing a pitching staff...If memory serves,they were together in Oakland in the late 80's/early 90's,when Bob Welch won 27 games,Dave Stewert won over 20...Oakland went the entire year with only five or six different starters...Coincidence?...I know nobody can control injuries totally,but I think it's more than just good luck that the Card's staff has remained intact...