Funny how this claimed being cant or wont protect kids and on top of that allows "official cheerleaders" of his club to do such things.

If " all loving" is the claimant's given atribute of such a bieng, I dont see it. I would never hire a baby sitter who allowed such things to happen to baby sit my kid(if I had one).

Why are people so surprised? "holy" people taking advantage of children has become the status quo hasn't it?

Gee, I can't wait for the debate:

T: Yeah, but this doesn't prove anything.  This guy was sick.  Religion didn't make him do it.

A: Um, actually, there is a very strong, undeniable correlation between theism and sexual crime (cites sources)

T: Yeah, but this doesn't prove anything.  That's not causation, it's correlation.

A: Yeah.  It's correlation.  There is a correlation between believing in invisible dictators and being fucked up.

T: Yeah, but you're just like Theists.  You're trying to force your beliefs on people.

A: Huh?  What were we talking about again?

T: My god's penis is bigger than your brain!  NANNER NAAA!!!

There's a strong correlation between any group of young folks and predators.  Take a look at the statistics for educators and you'll be quite surprised at the danger your children are in attending a secular, public school.

The funny thing about "predators" is that they tend to congregate where the "prey" is.

Agreed.

Some theistic predators get protection from their churches (no screening, relocation, etc).

All theistic predators get the protection of God:

1. Practice pedophilia

2. Ask God for his forgiveness

3. go to 1

This isn't just your brand of theism TT - I've seen it on other churches as well.

I'm waiting for some busted child molester to claim his pedophilia is his "thorn in the flesh".

Yep, yep and yep.

You will also find a lot of pedophiles around boy scouts or any other youth-oriented organization. 

Another thing: pedophiles know it's easier to prey on children who are taught to always obey their elders no matter what.  Abrahamic religions fit that scenario to a T.

Kenneth Parnell, the man who abducted Steven Stayner, chose Steven because his parents were strict Mormons.  He knew that Steven had just got a whipping from his father for not coming home straight after school.  He lured Steven into his car by pretending to be a preacher.

(Incidentally, the Stayner family appears to have been totally fucked up.  It's tragic what happened to Steven, but things weren't all that rosy on the home front.  Del Stayner's daughters have accused him of sexually molesting them and son Cary turned into a serial killer.  Gotta love that Mormon magic underwear.) 

I've seen this MO many times in cases of pedophilia and child abduction, including in my own life.

My best friend is a psychologist and he has told me repeatedly to stay away from any group that is geared toward helping abused women / adult children of abusers, etc.  Abusers seek out these groups on purpose because they know those in attendance are vulnerable.  The abused tend to consistently choose association with abusers because it's all they know...or perhaps they subconsciously need to act out the abuse over and over in an attempt to get a handle on it and put it behind them.

Hmmm...I'd better stop.  I'm not a psychologist so I really don't have a professional say on the matter. 

Because the only reason he did it was because he was a religious person, clearly. Right? It couldn't have been because he had a problem. No, no. You guys are right. Let's blame it on his religion rather than on he himself.

So much for being "rational", guys.

You guys think that citing instances of hypocrisy is actually argument against the validity of a religion? It isn't. An argument against the validity of a religion would be one that shows that the morals the religion itself teaches are inferior to the ones we naturally learn with no religion at all.

If you're going to be an atheist, at least use the good arguments. Don't use these crappy, petty, blame-game ones. They weaken your case severely.

-adamryan

This is funny.  Someone commented almost a year ago that someone like you would bring up this exact argument.  Fuckin Nostrahambydamus.

"Why are people so surprised? "holy" people taking advantage of children has become the status quo hasn't it?"

Uh...the Roman Catholic Church, at least, has had this problem going for a *millennium.*  There were "sin lists," (...so to speak...) which included a listing of "stuprum pueri," (Eng.: "impurities with boys&quot which contained more severe penances for clerics who did this.  So...no...this hasn't "become" the status quo...rather, it has been the status quo for a *very* long time.

Conor

When the religion coddles and protects the "hypocrites" and ignores the "problem" against what their holy books and common decency says - it speaks volumes against the validity of that religion.

Even if his religion wasn't the cause of what he did, it at least failed to rid him of his so-called ungodly ways.

So regardless of whether religion does or does not lead to acts like these, it still does nothing to  prevent it.

So either religion causes evil, or it is completely powerless against it. Take your pick. We still get to have our fun.

and?

The religion isn't coddling the behavior. Cite me a teaching of Jesus where He would have condoned this kind of behavior. You'll search in vain for one. Christianity doesn't teach, endorse or condone that kind of thing.

If anyone is to blame, it certainly is not Jesus, but rather the people who were protecting this perverted man.

Blaming Jesus, God or Christianity for this man's behaviour is equal to arguing that Democracy is a failed form of government simply on the basis that Bill Clinton (who was a Democratic president) was an adulterer. Would anyone seriously argue that Bill Clinton's adultery "speaks volumes against the validity of" Democracy?

Of course not. Bill Clinton's behavior had nothing to do with his being a Democrat. Are all Democrats adulterers? err..., well that's besides the point.

This argument is essentially what you'd get if the genetic fallacy an ad hom had a lovechild.

-adamryan

And this is somehow an argument against the validity of the faith?

Citing one instance where a religious man sinned, all the while ignoring all the thousands upon thousands of testimonies of people who (once come to the faith) had a conversion of the heart and stopped doing things like these, doesn't prove anything. Well, for your case, at least. What it does prove is that religion means nothing if it's just a social facade.

And I can't help but sneak this passage in, as I find it relevant to this:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

                                                      -Matthew 7:21-23

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? 

-adamryan

LAWL, "anals" instead of "annals"?
Props if this was an intentional pun, given the subject of the story.

-adamryan