Ravi Zacharias sexual abuses

[Lion IRC]

Where are the allegations/evidence of force, threats or lack of consent?

RZIM has rightly acknowledged the existence of the claims - claims conveniently made after his death. But they can't do anything to verify or falsify those claims.

And they are in the invidious position of being forced to do the charitable and politically correct thing, namely to avoid questioning the credibility of his anonymous accusers.

Nobody is denying that the behaviour described in the allegations would be 'inappropriate' for a person in the position held by Ravi Zacharias. But "inappropriate" behaviour is not a criminal offence. It's not sexual assault. It's not "sexual abuse". It's not forced, non-consensual, violent or threatening.

These allegations will most likely be resolved by financial settlement.

 

[blastula]

So all of sudden eyewitness testimony is no good?

 

[Rhea]

So all of sudden eyewitness testimony is no good?

I mean - he was accused by the word of three witnesses, right? Doesn’t that mean something to a Christian?

 

[Brian63]

No. To a Christian, ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But extraordinary claims require ordinary evidence.

Depending on how furthering or detrimental those claims are to their reputation, of course.

 

[Learner]

There is also the phrase: Do not bear false witness.

We''l have to see how it progresses... when and how the evidence presents itself (still no mention yet of ANY cell phone recordings, during the whole time of those 12 - 50 alledged abusive visits).

I'm with Lion. Financial settlement seems guaranteed, in any case.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm with Lion.

Me too. His own Church saying that there's credible and convincing evidence is not something that is going to get me to provisionally lean one way or the other.

 

[Lion IRC]

So all of sudden eyewitness testimony is no good?

Anonymous witnesses belatedly making ambiguous, vague claims of 'inappropriate' behaviour by a man who can no longer defend himself.

If it was in the bible, the skeptic would be screeching ...that's not evidence.

I say, yes, it's evidence. But evidence of what exactly? Even if the witness is 100% truthful, and even if we ignore their motive, you're still looking at vague accusations which can't be tested - and certainly wouldnt be tested in a court of law (if the accused was still alive) because they don't amount to criminal offences.

 

[blastula]

So all of sudden eyewitness testimony is no good?

Anonymous witnesses belatedly making ambiguous, vague claims

These are real people who are not anonymous to the reporters. From the CT story,

[Another woman recalled Zacharias touching her lower back. It seemed friendly, almost comforting. Then he moved his hand down and inside of her pants. Several other times, he moved his hand up her side and touched her breast.

What's ambiguous or vague about that?

of 'inappropriate' behaviour

Why the scare quotes? In what world, outside of Christian apologist land, could that be appropriate behavior?

by a man who can no longer defend himself.

He still has his organization for that and even they stated that "he did indeed engage in sexual misconduct."

If it was in the bible, the skeptic would be screeching ...that's not evidence.

"Man pulled out his wang when he shouldn't" is not an extraordinary claim.

I say, yes, it's evidence. But evidence of what exactly? Even if the witness is 100% truthful, and even if we ignore their motive, you're still looking at vague accusations which can't be tested - and certainly wouldnt be tested in a court of law (if the accused was still alive) because they don't amount to criminal offences.

What nonsense. I can think of at least indecent exposure and sexual battery,

There are also civil harassment claims available.

But so what even if there was noting criminal, that doesn't make it unobjectionable. Who are you, Jerry Falwell Jr?

 

[Lion IRC]

The third woman said that after Zacharias exposed himself several times, he asked her to massage his groin area and moved her hand there. It is possible that his back injury caused pain in that area, she said, so she complied with his request even though it made her uncomfortable.

She complied.

she gave him a massage he exposed himself again and masturbated again. By her account, this happened more than 50 times over the next three years.

50 times

Another said he made “inappropriate noises.”

Another #MeToo victim of...(wait for it...) inappropriate noises.

Oh...the horrors of working in a 'massage' parlour.

In school they taught us proper draping,” she said. “There’s a way you pull the sheet up so you can get to certain areas like the lower back. You wrap the sheet around almost like it’s a baby diaper.

She went to massage parlour school where they teach you how to drape towels and sheets properly so you don't inadvertently glimpse a customer's erection. Hmm? Seems legit.

https://www.sbs.com.au/language/eng...s-legitimate-ones-can-you-spot-the-difference

 

[blastula]

Okay, nice to see your mask off Lion, no pretenses where you're coming from now. But do you not realize that Zacharias owned the spas? They sold his books at them. Not only does that mean RZ was his victims' employer. It also means that if you want to say it was okay to jerk off and grope the women, because they were asking for it working at such a sleazy joint, that also doesn't help RZ to call him a brothel owner, in the eyes of most Christians at least. And that would be a crime in that area I would guess, and criminality is what you say you are so worried about. Though brothel franchise owner would be a few steps up from apologist in my view.

But it wasn't a sleazy joint, here's a video of the opening of one of them, you can see RZ there and some celebrities and even the governor.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kz5zfloW9k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah.
Here's the thing.
I'm not arguing that its 'appropriate' or 'unobjectionable' for a person in his position to behave the way he has been accused of behaving.

 

[Tigers!]

Such behaivour cannot be excused nor should be tolerated.

 

[Rhea]

So man harasses employees with sexual behaviors including masturbating in front of employees who, if they complain would likely lose their jobs and Lion thinks, “wow, what bad women.”

Indeed, Mask is off, isn’t it.

To me, I read this story, and I read that his own religious organization says, “oh shit, this is awful, yah, he did these terrible acts a LOT, this is bad,” and then I read Lion say, “don’t be mean to the dead guy, oh and by the way his accusers are bad women.”


Gotcha. That is very Christian of you.
I mean, it _is_, isn’t it. Very Catholic. When faced with religious leaders whho are bad, this is what catholics do - shh shhh shhh! Don’t talk about that. Oh, and the victims are to blame!

 

[Lion IRC]

Rub and tug massage parlour employees going after a dead man's money aren't victims.

What? After 10 incidents, 20 incidents, 30 incidents, 40 incidents, 50 incidents you suddenly discover you're a 'victim' of consensual observation of the same guy masturbating????

Show me force. Show me aggression/threats. Show me non-consensual sex. Show me the 'victim' who didn't get paid by the hour to be in a private room massaging a half naked man.

Then, we can use the word victim.

 

[Rhea]

Rub and tug massage parlour employees going after a dead man's money aren't victims.

What? After 10 incidents, 20 incidents, 30 incidents, 40 incidents, 50 incidents you suddenly discover you're a 'victim' of consensual observation of the same guy masturbating????

Show me force. Show me aggression/threats. Show me non-consensual sex. Show me the 'victim' who didn't get paid by the hour to be in a private room massaging a half naked man.

Then, we can use the word victim.

Yes, the bible teaches, “if she doesn’t scream, fight and take injury, IT IS NOT RAPE.” This is what this religion teaches. It prepares the believer to assume it is the woman’s fault when they are coerced in the face of suprerior power. That the man has done nothing wrong if the woman is afraid for her life or livelihood. That even a man who OWNS a “rub and tug” parlor is a good man whose name should not be besmirched, even if he coerces the people at his sinful enterproise that he owns and runs. This is akin with the idea that you can beat your wife and she cannot leave you. That you have a right to rape your wife and the church will not call it rape. The woman is never a victim, she is the problem.

It’s fascinating to see the bible harm come out to play just as we would predict. You teach horrible things, people will believe horrible things. Like coercive sexual acts are not wrong, unless you are the woman.

 

[Jarhyn]

Rub and tug massage parlour employees going after a dead man's money aren't victims.

What? After 10 incidents, 20 incidents, 30 incidents, 40 incidents, 50 incidents you suddenly discover you're a 'victim' of consensual observation of the same guy masturbating????

Show me force. Show me aggression/threats. Show me non-consensual sex. Show me the 'victim' who didn't get paid by the hour to be in a private room massaging a half naked man.

Then, we can use the word victim.

Yes, the bible teaches, “if she doesn’t scream, fight and take injury, IT IS NOT RAPE.” This is what this religion teaches. It prepares the believer to assume it is the woman’s fault when they are coerced in the face of suprerior power. That the man has done nothing wrong if the woman is afraid for her life or livelihood. That even a man who OWNS a “rub and tug” parlor is a good man whose name should not be besmirched, even if he coerces the people at his sinful enterproise that he owns and runs. This is akin with the idea that you can beat your wife and she cannot leave you. That you have a right to rape your wife and the church will not call it rape. The woman is never a victim, she is the problem.

It’s fascinating to see the bible harm come out to play just as we would predict. You teach horrible things, people will believe horrible things. Like coercive sexual acts are not wrong, unless you are the woman.

To be fair, I don't think that they have ever said that coercive sexual acts are only wrong on behalf of a woman victim, though I will admit I have yet to see any argument come from them that would invalidate this assumption of their position.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why do you think the allegations are unfalsifiable? Him being dead and unable to deny the claims does not make the claims unfalsifiable. There may be other ways to disprove them. For instance, if someone gives a particular date, time, and location of an abuse, that allegation could be falsified if he was known to be elsewhere.

No. They are unfalsifiable insofar as these belated #MeToo accusations so often boil down to one person's word versus another.

You're gonna find that the accusations are either vague when it comes to specific times or that, alternatively, they are very specifically aligned to times/places when Ravi Zacharias wasn't protected by exculpatory alibi witnesses.

...Right now though it is just conflating “he cannot speak in his own defense” with “the allegations are unfalsifiable”, and that is a mistake.

Thats not conflation.

How does a dead man falsify the claim of an accuser where there were no other witnesses in the room?

At least an accused person, still living, has a voice and the ability to deny/gainsay the accusation.

It's like gutless wonders who deliberately continue to engage in arguments with someone who has been banned from TFF.

 

[Brian63]

No. They are unfalsifiable insofar as these belated #MeToo accusations so often boil down to one person's word versus another.

They could boil down to that. Then they could be better substantiated or falsified than that. For instance, as explained already, if an accuser says that the assault happened on a particular date and at a particular location, but then Zacharias was confirmed to never have been at that location at that date, then the accusation is falsified.

You're gonna find that the accusations are either vague when it comes to specific times or that, alternatively, they are very specifically aligned to times/places when Ravi Zacharias wasn't protected by exculpatory alibi witnesses.

Let's find out. Zacharias's own organization is conducting their own investigation and have already concluded and prepared followers to hear that accusations made against him indeed have merit, and he has engaged in that assault activity to many women over man years.

How does a dead man falsify the claim of an accuser where there were no other witnesses in the room?

If it can be confirmed that he was never in the room, the city, etc. in the first place on that date. That is one way.

 

[jab]

Rub and tug massage parlour employees going after a dead man's money aren't victims.

What? After 10 incidents, 20 incidents, 30 incidents, 40 incidents, 50 incidents you suddenly discover you're a 'victim' of consensual observation of the same guy masturbating????

Show me force. Show me aggression/threats. Show me non-consensual sex. Show me the 'victim' who didn't get paid by the hour to be in a private room massaging a half naked man.

Then, we can use the word victim.

So, in your reading, this minister owned a brothel, and availed himself of the services. In some US jurisdictions isn't this all somewhat illegal, regardless of one's more respectable source of income?

 

[southernhybrid]

I haven't really followed this thread, but I did see an article about this yesterday, so if anyone is still interested, I thought I'd put it here.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/ravi-zacharias-sexual-abuse.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

The influential evangelist Ravi Zacharias, who died last spring, engaged in “sexting, unwanted touching, spiritual abuse, and rape,” according to a report released on Thursday by the global evangelical organization he founded.

After initially denying accounts of his misconduct, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries announced that an investigation had found credible evidence of sexual misconduct spanning many years and multiple continents.

The announcement was the result of an investigation by a Southeastern law firm, Miller & Martin, which RZIM hired in October to investigate accounts of sexual misconduct by Mr. Zacharias.

“We believe not only the women who made their allegations public but also additional women who had not previously made public allegations against Ravi but whose identities and stories were uncovered during the investigation,” the ministry’s board of directors said in a statement accompanying the report. “We are devastated by what the investigation has shown and are filled with sorrow for the women who were hurt by this terrible abuse.”

No surprise here. Alpha men, regardless if they are religious or not, sometimes sexually abuse women. I was raised by evangelicals and taught that they were so much more moral than other people. While attending an evangelical Christian college for one semester, the truth set me free. Religious people are just like everyone else. Some are really good people who help others, are charitable and kind. Others are mean, tyrants, who engage in cruel behaviors. Religious people often are the most hypocritical since so many of them, not all but many, suffer from self righteousness. They find comfort in the nonsensical idea that some invisible entity is watching over them, but he will always forgive them. All they have to do is ask. Perhaps that's how Ravi perceived his actions. Whatever he did, he believed that he would be forgiven.