How interesting. Jamie Rennie, the chief executive of Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Youth Scotland has been arrested and is accused of:
Related Link: Gay Rights Chief Held Over Child Porn ~ Daily Record
[...] "taking, or permitting to be taken, or making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child". He is further charged with "sending a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".It makes me wonder, when I read all the things the guy was involved with, how much his personal desires pushed his work with children. Reminds me of the Sex Ed pioneer arrested for the molestation of boys.
Related Link: Gay Rights Chief Held Over Child Porn ~ Daily Record
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDanyl, if you would like to make an argument, go ahead. But attempting equivalence in this area without explanation will get your comments deleted.
ReplyDeleteWell Daniel is being stupid for those of you who caught the comment before it was expunged.
ReplyDeleteBut he does demonstrate a good point about cherry picking information.
Paedophile Catholic priests
≠ the entire body of the Catholic Clergy
≠ proof of the evil of the Catholic Laity
≠ immediate grounds for condemnation of Christianity
Now apply this sort of formula to the article Lucyna has posted. I'm sure many Catholics are sick of this kind of puerile behaviour being used against their faith so please have a little dignity and don't hypocritically mirror it in the case of other incidents of individuals' wrongdoing with respect to their community.
Fergus,
ReplyDeleteon a simplistic level, you are correct. But this is not an argument on a simplistic level.
Both men I have linked to were leaders in their fields. It takes a certain type of man to devote that much time and energy to a single pursuit.
Maybe both these men, both sex activists were driven by inner demons rather than altruistic motives.
I do not believe all people with homosexual inclinations are peadophiles.
However, the leaders, the activists, deserve scrutiny. They are not ordinary people. The leaders actively work to change society. Isn't it interesting, don't you think, that the leaders in these two cases are complete and utter scum?
I do not believe all people with homosexual inclinations are peadophiles.
ReplyDeleteYet you never lose the opportunity to highlight examples of it on your blog.
These two were leaders in a field of people who wish to change society, yes. Without wishing this comment to share the same fate as Danyl's, I feel obliged to point out that the failings of various religious leaders over the years are also the failings of people who were leaders in a field promoting societal change. This fact implies no moral bankruptcy in the societal changes being sought - does it?
Hi Psycho.
ReplyDeleteI think the point is that pedophile priests, teachers, scout leaders and foster parents (all groups far too well represented in child abuse statistics) have been caught, and people are upset because these people have (perhaps deliberately) taken jobs that allow them to get close to children in a position of trust.
But those roles aren't campaigning to lower the age of consent, or promote a licentious life style.
It also doesn't mean all priests, teachers, scout leaders etc are bad, but simply these professions are scrutinized more than ever now (as they need to be).
This situation is different. It is about an activist actively campaigning to lower the age of consent, to lower the age of sex education, to push for more liberal views, and to enforce a hidden agenda through societal change.
And we can see clearly now, his motives were not about an honest sense of social justice, but an interest in satisfying his carnal lusts. Which, until people like him get there way, happens to be illegal.
First group you mention - guilty of breaking the law and violating our trust.
Second group - same PLUS trying to change the law and social mores in the hope that one day exploiting children for their sexual satisfaction will be "permissible".
There's the difference.
But those roles aren't campaigning to lower the age of consent, or promote a licentious life style.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of gay activists it was a campaign to equalise the age of consent. The idea that safe sex instruction in itself promotes a licentious lifestyle is nonsense, given at a proper age and in an environment that combines education and an emphasis on the stupidity of peer coercion it has the potential to greatly reduce harm and risk of pregnancy. The Catholic Church should really evaluate how it approaches sex education at least for people outside of the faith as it offers the potential to diminish reliance on abortion.
As far as I can see you make two points to distinguish the two cases. Firstly that these people claim to be moral figureheads, leaders or role models ( leaders actively work to change society )and secondly that they have a negative effect on the legal climate that these sexual activites occur within.
The same difficulty could be seen to exist within the the Catholic priests scandal, though it exists in two discrete sets of individuals and again neither of them form the main part of the church. The first is the priests themselves who are meant to provide sound moral advice and leadership and in fact put themselves forward as such. Secondly with respect to poisoning the legal position of these offences you have another group of Church administers, diocesan heads and quite senior clergy, who can be said to have prevented the disclosure or reporting of these crimes. Neither I again emphasise is the majority of the Church and there actions while deplorable are not true of the Church as a whole though there were some obvious institutional failures.
So: 1st group - guilty of breaking the law and violating out trust
2nd group - guilty of wilful ignorance and perversion of justice.
I agree with Milt's call on the tone of these postings as well, they often seem like a generalised accusation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that's the whole point I'm making. I'm showing that generalisations made about a community group that unfairly tars the whole organisation on the basis of a small subset of people or behaviours.
ReplyDeleteYou might note however that I don't condone such attacks I've said it already several times. I recognise that it's a non-representative sample that these offenders show. It's unfair to do it to Catholics as much as it is to do it to gay groups or the community at large. If I wanted to it would be possible to carry off much the same thing with respect to Tamaki, Hinn or Haggard in attacking evangelical Baptists or Pentecostals. I used the example of Catholics here because hopefully it allows the contributors to this blog to realise the disingeniousness of this line of attack with respect to their own faith, it's by no means an attack on the author.
Fergus, you and Psycho have outlined your *impression* of Lucyna's specific post here as being a sweeping attack.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to make the same observation back:
It seems to me that the moment a Christian blogger posts about a heinous act such as above - rather than comment directly about it, it seems more important to:
1. Compare whatever the story is to the Catholic Church;
2. Make out the author is worse for commenting on the story, given that you attack them rather than discuss the story.
The whole Catholic Church thing has been done to death over the past 20 years. If you haven't been reading, it has brought about some major positive changes within the Church.
Meanwhile, statistics show that teachers (as a group) have appalling child abuse statistics and I think undergo a lower level of scrutiny. Maybe you could throw in the odd comment about them?
Our NZ courts are busy right reviewing a series of sexual abuse claims dating back years ago from government run orphanages and institutions that show signs of a culture of cover up. These stories have not made the same impact in the media though are every bit as serious.
In the case of gay activists it was a campaign to equalise the age of consent. The idea that safe sex instruction in itself promotes a licentious lifestyle is nonsense
Please refer to my recent post discussing the concept of "age appropriate" and parental involvement, and the weakness that a classroom setting is about a "one discussion fits all" approach.
You say this is about safe sex, I say it isn't that simple. I can show you many stories where the "safe sex" lessons were either very age inappropriate given the content and presentation, or covered the material in an unbalanced way.
Anyway, this story is about a Gay Rights Youth Leader, possibly caught with child porn.
As a GLBT activist, perhaps his organisation should be seeking to dump this guy very fast, because the motives for his activism could fairly be called into question.
Dontcha think?
>> I'll add one other comment. There is scant information about his alleged crime. I wonder if the MSM try to hype such stories by saying less rather than more?
It would be refreshing to actually get some concrete facts in the story, and a better background. And I can say that about so many of the stories run today.
My post actually follows Zentigers by the way. These tubes are confusing.
ReplyDeleteFergus, you say I'm showing that generalisations made about a community group that unfairly tars the whole organisation on the basis of a small subset of people or behaviours.
ReplyDeleteYou said earlier: so please have a little dignity and don't hypocritically mirror it in the case of other incidents of individuals' wrongdoing with respect to their community.
So, the guy's job is the LEADER of a Scottish Gay Rights Group focusing on Youth.
And you are saying it attacks the LGBT community to mention his job? What on earth are the options? You seriously think it suffices to say "man caught in child porn" and leave it at that? The position he has is relevant.
Lucyna's post was very specifically talking about him as an individual: "when I read all the things the guy was involved with, how much his personal desires pushed his work with children.". I seriously think you are the one reading too much into this post as maligning the LGBT community.
Should these allegations prove true, I would think your outrage is best directed towards this person who managed to gain a leadership role in the LGBT community. They have been betrayed, and they will hopefully say so and act accordingly.
I read a very interesting article from a guy, Michael Glatze, a 'rising star' in the gay rights movement and an editor of a homosexual magazine who has given up the 'gay' lifestyle and become a Christian.
ReplyDeleteI find some of his quotes (see below) very interesting in that he says the homosexual lifestyle is primarily lust-based.
It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality.
We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.
Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration – of yourself, or others – and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the "outside" world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions.
Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains "accepted" by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.
You can read his whole statement in his own words HERE, and see an article about him (with photos) HERE.
Very interesting.