You are correct. However, there is much more to the story than that one incident. The report concluded that Zacharias had indeed engaged in sexual misconduct,
He himself would agree that some of his conduct wasn't 'appropriate'.
He said as much when alive.
This is not a self-righteousness, puritan man living in glass house whilst throwing stones. His meta-narrative was about the reasonableness and plausibility of theism versus atheism.
He wasn't a priest bound by vows of celibacy and he would have fully embraced Jesus' admonishment with respect to the log in your own eye which prevents you from judging the spec in someone else's.
and also engaged in coverups and lies in the past in response to other allegations.
I reject that. Denying one's guilt - pleading innocent - rejecting a false accusation, is not engaging in a cover-up. So many of these #MeToo cases boil down to one person's word versus another's and the politically correct #woke pressure to believe the accuser doesn't justify a presumption that Zacharias is/was lying.
So his own credibility has been damaged when it comes to taking his denials at their word.
'Credibility'. (the quality of being trusted and believed in)
That's the key word. And that's my point.
Believability is not evidence.
Subjective opinions are not evidence. An uncorroborated, unfalsifiable (anonymous) accusation against a dead man is not evidence.
Also, what the law firm and/or his ministry especially refer to as "sexual misconduct" and "inappropriate" may differ from what outside organizations consider to be.
Sure. I already acknowledged this.
If I was Mr Zacharias' boss and if he was still alive, I would have asked for his resignation notwithstanding that his behaviour was perfectly legal and quite common in massage parlours. You can visit massage parlours and still be an outstanding philosopher, public speaker, and win all your formal debates with atheists...but you can't be the front man for a public ministry with a membership that consists of thousands of ultra conservative Christians who DONT visit massage parlours.
For instance, as long as every participant in a sexual event is a consenting adult, one group may have no moral objection to it, whatever its nature. However, that type of rule would not be strict enough for a religious person such as Ravi Zacharias and those in his subculture.
Agreed. Obviously true. But that's not the main point of contention in your Op is it.
You're not attacking him for his unseemly, inappropriate, questionable, audacious massage parlour proclivities. You're calling him a rapist.
There, [in his subculture] any sexual behavior at all must be limited to one's own spouse. Zacharias has been determined by the investigators to have engaged in "sexual misconduct" and "inappropriate" behavior by their standards, even if those particular incidents did not arise to the level of outright rape...
The only crime he is being posthumously put on trial for, in absentia, is having embarrassed the prominent conservative Evangelical Christians who publicly supported him while he was alive and who are now doing the
milkshake duck.
---a standard that even others who were not members of Zacharias's ministry would now have an objection.
Others? Who? Feminists?
Have you read the report?
Of course I've read it. I quoted from it in my earlier post.
It seems you are conflating and confusing what the report says, what the ministry's statement is in response to the report, and what the NYT journalistic article is in response to the entire matter at hand.
No. southernhybrid did that.
The report itself does NOT find that Mr Zacharias committed rape. Neither does it find that any of his actions met the definition/elements of sexual assault.
It also seems your dislike of the findings of the report is being used to dispute the findings of the report.
No. It's the misrepresentation of the report which bothers me.
In addition, the report mentions:
"Some therapists pushed back on his behavior with some success.
So you would have to say Mr Zacharias understood that no means no.
One reported that she would re-drape him if he removed the sheets, told him when she was uncomfortable, and told him he would have to leave if he did not stop.
She didn't leave. Therefore he must have respected her boundaries and stopped.
One therapist responded to his attempts to rub her legs by moving his arms back onto the table and at times even binding his arms with sheets into a “sling” to keep them from wandering.
An attempt to rub her legs isn't "rape". In that setting - professional fee for service, 'relaxation massage' of a naked male customer - it isn't "sexual assault".
She refused his frequent requests to touch his genitals.
Rapists don't "request" such things and allow victims to accept or refuse the invitation.
Another therapist told him she did not feel comfortable and would stop him when he would rub her leg up to mid-thigh and grab her waist, which was an “obvious cue that he wanted more.”
Feeling uncomfortable. Sure.
She sets her own boundaries and determines how much she wants to get paid/tipped.
Another therapist also refused when he asked her to “go lower” and massage closer to his genitals, and she admonished him on several occasions when he would start touching himself.
Rape victims don't get to "admonish" the man whose naked body they are massaging. And, last time I checked, masturbation isn't rape.
He asked this same person to travel overseas to massage him on trips, but she was not comfortable with him and was afraid she would not be able to afford a plane ticket home if she felt the need to return early.
WOW! Consenting adults agreeing whether or not to enter a commercial arrangement.
A grown woman deciding for herself whether she wishes to do something.
Somebody alert the media.
She reported that she could see how “more than a massage” would have happened if a therapist did not feel comfortable speaking up and pushing back.
I can see that too.
Something "more than a massage" happens all the time in those places - by mutual agreement.
Some therapists reported even more serious and sustained sexual assaults that evolved over time. Two therapists obliged his request to masturbate him,
Boy. And you accuse me of conflating false equivalents.
Its NOT sexual assault when 'therapists' agree to
a request.
While five women reported that he touched and grabbed their legs, two said he eventually went beyond that with them, rubbing their breasts and genitals.
...and they consented. (Remember, you just quoted from the report that those massage workers who DONT agree to such happy endings tell their customers where the boundary lines are drawn.)
One therapist further reported that she was struggling financially, and Mr. Zacharias offered to help pay for her schooling and monthly living expenses in addition to compensating her for the massages
How dare he offer to pay for those!!!
The nerve of some people.
She told us that “the more we saw each other the more he became comfortable and wanted to go further.”
Yeah, that's kind of how it works.
The MORE you keep on agreeing to "see each other" the more comfortable you get...you know...
"seeing each other". Yes means yes.
She told us she “felt obligated” to do what he asked because of the financial support he provided."
If I offer to pay you for sex and you accept the money, are you not obligated to fulfill your part of the contract?
I didn't see any reports of women giving Mr Zacharias his money back.
