Southern Baptists and Sexual Abuse

[SLD]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

 

[Jarhyn]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

They also preach that all the ethical outlets for folks who have what could develop into problematic sexualities are immorality and perversion, and that the only answer is to have no outlet for a fundamental force of human behavior.

The result is that instead of being weird and creepy in private with some art and a consenting adult in roleplay, they end up positioned as trusted leaders who are in a position to and inclination to violate children.

 

[SLD]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

They also preach that all the ethical outlets for folks who have what could develop into problematic sexualities are immorality and perversion, and that the only answer is to have no outlet for a fundamental force of human behavior.

The result is that instead of being weird and creepy in private with some art and a consenting adult in roleplay, they end up positioned as trusted leaders who are in a position to and inclination to violate children.

Yeah. I think that’s a pretty good point. By repressing it, you make it come out in weird ways.

 

[Jarhyn]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

They also preach that all the ethical outlets for folks who have what could develop into problematic sexualities are immorality and perversion, and that the only answer is to have no outlet for a fundamental force of human behavior.

The result is that instead of being weird and creepy in private with some art and a consenting adult in roleplay, they end up positioned as trusted leaders who are in a position to and inclination to violate children.

Yeah. I think that’s a pretty good point. By repressing it, you make it come out in weird ways.

In bad, unacceptable, hidden, and uncontrolled ways.

 

[Toni]

Southern Baptists would say that Satan is trying to tempt Godly men by filling their heats and hearts with sinful thoughts.

Also, if you think such behavior is limited to pastors and women in their congregation, you are dead wrong. Starts much earlier for both offenders and victims.

 

[southernhybrid]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

They also preach that all the ethical outlets for folks who have what could develop into problematic sexualities are immorality and perversion, and that the only answer is to have no outlet for a fundamental force of human behavior.

The result is that instead of being weird and creepy in private with some art and a consenting adult in roleplay, they end up positioned as trusted leaders who are in a position to and inclination to violate children.

Yeah. I think that’s a pretty good point. By repressing it, you make it come out in weird ways.

In bad, unacceptable, hidden, and uncontrolled ways.

I'm a NYT subscriber, so I will "gift" you that link. I haven't used any of mine up yet this month.


nytimes.com/2022/05/26/opinion/the-southern-baptist-sexual-abuse.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DIDmwciOMNAo6B_EGKeapuIsA0wiibScVHdbUmXOBz1fMaJEF9VgCs55KOhY8IZSUprIb5FkUH46XwZ5Fquzn7cjv-

I don't know how long it will be available.


The primary point, imo, about this SBC scandal is the hypocrisy and the ease at which all of this sexual abuse was covered up. Having been raised in a conservative Baptist atmosphere, I am familiar with their belief that they are "saved from sin", are morally upright people etc. They have strong objections to sex outside of marriage, of so they claim. While it's not unusual for men in powerful positions to abuse women sexually, it's the hypocrisy that makes this long history of sexual abuse that makes it even worse. If it hadn't been covered up for such a long time, fewer women would have become victims of this abuse.

They dedicated their lives to a Gospel that says that every human being is made in the image of God. They dedicated their lives to a creed that commands one to look out for the marginalized, the vulnerable. The last shall be first. The meek shall inherit the earth.
And yet when allegations of sexual abuse came, the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention betrayed it all. Those men — and they seem to have all been men — must have listened to hundreds of hours of pious sermons, read hundreds of high-minded theological books, recited thousands of hours of prayer, and yet all those true teachings and good beliefs had no effect on their actual behavior.
Instead, according to an independently produced report released by the convention this week, those leaders covered up widespread abuse in their denomination and often intimidated and belittled victims. More than 400 people believed to be affiliated with the church, including some church leaders, have been accused of committing abuse.

 

[fromderinside]

My fondly remembered Lebanese friend gathered and translated medieval bawdy poetry from Muslim thinkers from the 8-12th centuries. If I hadn't read Chaucer I wouldn't know there was a continental context for such stuff.

"whan that Arpille with his shoures soote ...." brings us back to the universality of such stuff. Let's blame it on the cave art of Australia - It certainly couldn't just be France. There has to be an explanation for what's rotting human minds beyond "It was good for making tools."

 

[Toni]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

They also preach that all the ethical outlets for folks who have what could develop into problematic sexualities are immorality and perversion, and that the only answer is to have no outlet for a fundamental force of human behavior.

The result is that instead of being weird and creepy in private with some art and a consenting adult in roleplay, they end up positioned as trusted leaders who are in a position to and inclination to violate children.

Yeah. I think that’s a pretty good point. By repressing it, you make it come out in weird ways.

In bad, unacceptable, hidden, and uncontrolled ways.

I'm a NYT subscriber, so I will "gift" you that link. I haven't used any of mine up yet this month.


nytimes.com/2022/05/26/opinion/the-southern-baptist-sexual-abuse.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DIDmwciOMNAo6B_EGKeapuIsA0wiibScVHdbUmXOBz1fMaJEF9VgCs55KOhY8IZSUprIb5FkUH46XwZ5Fquzn7cjv-

I don't know how long it will be available.


The primary point, imo, about this SBC scandal is the hypocrisy and the ease at which all of this sexual abuse was covered up. Having been raised in a conservative Baptist atmosphere, I am familiar with their belief that they are "saved from sin", are morally upright people etc. They have strong objections to sex outside of marriage, of so they claim. While it's not unusual for men in powerful positions to abuse women sexually, it's the hypocrisy that makes this long history of sexual abuse that makes it even worse. If it hadn't been covered up for such a long time, fewer women would have become victims of this abuse.

They dedicated their lives to a Gospel that says that every human being is made in the image of God. They dedicated their lives to a creed that commands one to look out for the marginalized, the vulnerable. The last shall be first. The meek shall inherit the earth.
And yet when allegations of sexual abuse came, the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention betrayed it all. Those men — and they seem to have all been men — must have listened to hundreds of hours of pious sermons, read hundreds of high-minded theological books, recited thousands of hours of prayer, and yet all those true teachings and good beliefs had no effect on their actual behavior.
Instead, according to an independently produced report released by the convention this week, those leaders covered up widespread abuse in their denomination and often intimidated and belittled victims. More than 400 people believed to be affiliated with the church, including some church leaders, have been accused of committing abuse.

It’s not just men. The mentality poisons boys as well and the shame and blame heaped upon female victims keeps them quiet and allows these good Christian boys to keep right on going, under the auspices of being a good Christian boy…

 

[Bronzeage]

The New York Times International Replica Edition

The New York Times International Replica Edition

iht.newspaperdirect.com

This is a newspaper article about the report on sexual abuse and the Southern Baptists. It’s interesting not so much because it’s another hypocritical church group, but because both the Catholics and Southern Baptists preach the same message that such abuse is sinful and immoral. And yet both groups fail.

Any one can say that such behavior is immoral. I’m sure in a poll you’d find 100% of people, regardless of faith, would agree and say using your position of power to exert sexual favors from women, and even rape them and then silence them, was immoral. I suspect Harvey Weinstein would even agree and call his own behavior immoral.

But we can’t seem to help ourselves. The article talks about how we dehumanize others to justify such actions. But I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory answer. If atheists had an organizational structure, would leaders in power abuse their positions over those in the group who were lesser, younger, and more vulnerable to get sex? I can see it happening in any organizational structure and it does. Even if there are severe legal consequences. And many of these organizational structures don’t dehumanize women. And while both churches discriminate against women, I don’t think one can truly argue that they dehumanize them.

So is it just an evolutionary quirk of ours to maybe use our power in ways to get our genes to survive? Why do we engage in behavior that we all agree is immoral?

ETA: I see that link doesn’t work. Darn.

Here is the original article from the NYT but it’s behind a paywall:

Opinion | The Southern Baptist Moral Meltdown

The church leaders who made themselves blind, and then cruel.

www.nytimes.com

However, by googling the title I was able to find the article in a different format for free. I just can’t seem to post it here.

They also preach that all the ethical outlets for folks who have what could develop into problematic sexualities are immorality and perversion, and that the only answer is to have no outlet for a fundamental force of human behavior.

The result is that instead of being weird and creepy in private with some art and a consenting adult in roleplay, they end up positioned as trusted leaders who are in a position to and inclination to violate children.

Yeah. I think that’s a pretty good point. By repressing it, you make it come out in weird ways.

That's a pop psychology interpretation. It's really no different than claiming short skirts inspire rape.

A more realistic view is that predators are drawn to prey and will seek advantage over their prey.

This is the thread that runs through the scandals of the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, Baptists, and Harvey Weinstein.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a pop psychology interpretation. It's really no different than claiming short skirts inspire rape.

A more realistic view is that predators are drawn to prey and will seek advantage over their prey.

This is the thread that runs through the scandals of the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, Baptists, and Harvey Weinstein.

For the most part I agree--predators go where they can catch prey.

However, I think the church is a special case--trying to repress sexuality sometimes ends up twisting it. I think they're causing it, not merely selecting for it.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's a pop psychology interpretation. It's really no different than claiming short skirts inspire rape.

A more realistic view is that predators are drawn to prey and will seek advantage over their prey.

This is the thread that runs through the scandals of the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, Baptists, and Harvey Weinstein.

For the most part I agree--predators go where they can catch prey.

However, I think the church is a special case--trying to repress sexuality sometimes ends up twisting it. I think they're causing it, not merely selecting for it.

I think the complicating factor of a sexually repressed culture is that it increases the cost of exposure, which leads to greater abuse of power.

I don't know of any evidence that the percentage of run of the mill adulterers and sexual abusers is any greater among Baptists than the general population.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's a pop psychology interpretation. It's really no different than claiming short skirts inspire rape.

A more realistic view is that predators are drawn to prey and will seek advantage over their prey.

This is the thread that runs through the scandals of the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, Baptists, and Harvey Weinstein.

For the most part I agree--predators go where they can catch prey.

However, I think the church is a special case--trying to repress sexuality sometimes ends up twisting it. I think they're causing it, not merely selecting for it.

I think the complicating factor of a sexually repressed culture is that it increases the cost of exposure, which leads to greater abuse of power.

I don't know of any evidence that the percentage of run of the mill adulterers and sexual abusers is any greater among Baptists than the general population.