Pastor who had sex with boys to “cure” them of being gay gets no jail time

An Iowa pastor who was arrested on 60 counts of suspected sexual exploitation of minors got zero jail time.

The pastor, Brent Girouex, believed that praying while having sex with the boys would cure them of being gay.  He’s admitted to having sex with four boys, but at least eight have come forward.

Girouex attempt to cure one boy between 25 and 100 times.

Uh huh.

Catholic priest in handcuffs pedophilia sex abuse child

Catholic Priest via Shutterstock.

The next part, I’ll just quote the local news, KRMG:

Girouex is said to have told detectives “when they would ejaculate, they would be getting rid of the evil thoughts in their mind.”

So the guy gets a 17 year sentence. But instead of jailing him, the judge gave him sex offender treatment and probation.  The press reports that he’s not expected to do any jail time, provided he doesn’t violate his probation.

His wife is, understandably, a bit upset.  She also thinks the man should be sent to jail.

You think?

I can’t find out from any of the stories exactly what it means to be in sex offender treatment, and how long it goes for.

Of course, there’s the obvious question of whether this guy is a sex offender, or a sex offender and a total nutjob.

I think some judge has some ‘splainin’ to do.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

203 Responses to “Pastor who had sex with boys to “cure” them of being gay gets no jail time”

  1. Nkorni says:

    I was of the opinion that all clergy men were nutters…???

  2. Ninong says:

    He’s not a Catholic. That Shutterstock photo is supposed to represent all “arrested clergy,” I guess. However, there are some married Catholic priests. They were already married when they decided to become Catholic priests. Most commonly they were married Anglican or Episcopalian priests who converted.

  3. mike says:

    Pastors are not priests. Any nutter can become a pastor, and a lot of them do.

  4. vincenzo says:

    “His wife is, understandably, a bit upset. She also thinks the man should be sent to jail.”

    Catholic priest are not married, not defending the guy is a creep but if he is married Not Catholic

  5. BCGT says:

    You’re all over the place Margie.

    Are you:
    1. Implying that because the judge came to the decision he did that he was a Christian?
    2. Obsessing about the quantification of man’s sins? In particular those associated with “religious groups”?
    3. Focused solely on the act committed and not on some rant against religion?

    “Seriously, if this guy doesn’t qualify for prison, who does?” Makes sense to me. Everything else you say…….., nope.

    To interpret the motivation of a judge and generalize suggests your perspective is self-serving and contrived.

    Since this guy was a priest, let’s just talk about being a Christian. And let’s talk about your cliche, “evil in the world done by religious groups”. Does this include atheists, evolutionists, humanists too? These are as much faith based “philosophies” as any religion I’m aware of.

    I have no no doubt that evil has been done under the guise of Christianity but, sorry, I’ll put the good works of Christians up against any other religion, and especially atheists, any day. I also have no doubt that the net effect of Christians in the category of “good” far exceeds anything that atheists have done.

  6. Ninong says:

    Brent Gireoux is 31 now. According to other, more complete, news reports he was 25 when the sexual contact with minors began in 2007. He had sexual contact with one of his victims, who is now an adult, over a 4-year period starting when the victim was a 14-year-old boy. Girouex says they prayed while wanking-the-gay-away approximately 25-50 times over that 4-yr period. The victim says it was more like 50-100 times.

    He was charged with 60 counts with four different victims but as many as eight have now come forward. I think the four were the first ones to come forward and the basis for the charges. The judge sentenced him to 17 years but suspended all of it and gave him probation plus attendance at a sex-offender program.

    When asked why he was so lenient, the judge said, “well, all of them have come back.” Apparently he meant that in his judgment the young men appear to be okay today. Of course, he wouldn’t know that, would he?

    Girouex is a married father of four children, but his wife seems to have separated from him. The only description of the molestation that is provided in the news reports is that he prayed with the boys while they ejaculated away their impure thoughts. Which is apparently a new and improved version of the pray-the-gay away cure known as the wank-the-gay-away cure.
    Yes, the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16 in Iowa, with exceptions for 14- and 15-yr-olds who can legally consent to sex with a partner less than four years older. However, Iowa, like most other states, raises the age of consent to the age of majority (18) whenever the adult is in a position of authority, such as a teacher, parole officer, youth counselor, etc. I’m not sure if ministers are named specifically in Iowa’s law but they are in most states.
    Based on the judge’s comments and what has been reported in the media, it appears that the sexual contact was limited to masturbation, maybe even mutual masturbation with at least that one boy who was 14 when the 4-yr relationship began, but no sexual penetration of the victims. That appears to be why the judge was so lenient. Personally, I think the judge was too lenient and that Girouex should have received prison time but not as long as someone like Jerry Sandusky who sexually penetrated some of his young victims when they were only 11 years old!!!

    Girouex betrayed his responsibilities as a person in a position of authority and trust. The victims were young men who went to him for advice about their “problem” with same-sex attraction. His solution was that they should “pray together while the young man ejaculated away his impure thoughts.” So he managed to combine prayer with masturbation in a new religious ritual invented by him that he told the boys was necessary if they wanted to become pure again in the eyes of the Lord.

  7. leliorisen says:

    I appreciate the update, but this story is from March of 2012 (according to your links, anyway). Just curious as to why you chose to report on it today.

  8. Ninong says:

    I wouldn’t call it conflation because not once did I think he was acusing any of us of homophobia or racism. His persistent false equivalency was that atheism is a prejudice on the same level as homophobia and racism. Not that we were homophobes, just that we’re just as bad as them because we reject his religion, therefore we’re prejudiced against him because of his religion, therefore it’s a personal attack on him, blah, blah, blah. Ad nauseam et ad infinitum.

    It was his way of saying, I know you’re not a homophobe but you’re just as bad as one. He knew that was sure to get our attention.

    What I would say he was guilty of was shifting the burden of proof. He makes the claim that atheists are guilty of a personal attack against him because they don’t believe as he does. I say atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god or gods. He says that’s evidence of prejudice. What?

    Then he says that homophobia is a lack of belief in the appropriateness of homosexual sex. In his mind, that means atheists are equal to homophobes because both lack a belief in something. LOL

  9. BeccaM says:

    You could be right. For certain there was a whole lot of projection. One detail I found especially funny was how he’d get his accusations backwards. Atheism as a personal philosophy, is one that is most likely to have no problem with LGBT people. It’s much of mainstream Christianity that actually does object to gay people. After all, there’s nothing in atheistic attitudes that has a prejudice one way or the other regarding sexual orientation or gender, whereas there are plenty of Christians who condemn LGBTs — and are told to do so by their top religious leaders.

    Yet WilmRoget stated it as if it was a matter of fact that atheists are homophobes and racists. No proof or anything, just the bald assertion.

    The other term you might be looking for is “conflation.” Thus if a person rejects his religion, it’s also a rejection of other qualities — being gay and so on, as you say.

    Think maybe he’s not just gay, but also a person of color, given how he often tried to inject accusations of racism in there, too?

  10. Ninong says:

    I think it’s just Catholics and Methodists that still believe in transubstantiation, along with, I think, all of the Orthodox churches. The Anglicans dropped it, but not until years after the death of Henry VIII.

    However, Jesus himself confirmed the validity of the Old Testament (as well as once favorably comparing himself to Solomon, who famously had 700 wives and 300 concubines) and, according to Genesis, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham prepared to do it but then God told him that he just wanted to see if Abraham really feared him. Now that Abraham proved that he feared God by being willing to kill his son, God called off the whole thing. He told Abraham it was just a test.

    There’s a whole lot of fear and guilt incorporated into the Christian religion. The foundation of it is the concept of original sin and the need for human sacrifice on the cross as a way of redemption, provided you accept Christianity. Otherwise you’re going straight to hell, where you can actually look down on the damned and tormented below. Early reality TV?

    I think the deal is with some Christians, especially Catholics, that they’re not associated with all that slaughter that was reported in the Old Testament because that happened before the invention of Christianity. I guess that’s a Jewish thing?

  11. Ninong says:

    Becca, I am convinced from his comments on this thread that WilmRoget is openly gay; or, to use his expression, LGBTQ.

    That’s why he insisted on comparing atheists to homophobes. He did that in virtually every comment he made. Here’s his “logic”: Atheists do not believe in God; he believes in God; therefore atheists are guilty of a personal attack on him; therefore atheists are the same as homophobes. I think it’s called projection.

    Atheists just don’t want Christians, or any other religious believers, to impose their religious views on others. He says that’s a personal attack on him and his beliefs. If you don’t accept his religious beliefs, that means you reject his religious beliefs, that means you’re the same as a homophobe and a racist and everything else bad he can think of, but homophobe is definitely the most terrible thing he can think of because he used it over and over again.

  12. Ninong says:

    Ninong: “Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.”

    WilmRoget: “And homophobia is a lack of belief in the appropriateness of homosexual sex. Any prejudice can be framed in neutral terms if one is dishonest enough.”
    You have deliberately associated atheism with homophobia is virtually every post you made on this thread. In your mind that somehow reinforces your argument that atheism is prejudice. Talk about dishonesty!
    Homophobes want to eliminate gays and lesbians from open society. They want to deny them equal employment opportunities, deny them equality under the law, deny them equal marriage rights, deny them the right to even hold hands in public — basically, they would like to deny them the right to exist. Some of them are even stupid enough to believe that if only the gays weren’t allowed to be so “gay,” then young people wouldn’t want to join them and it would be more difficult for them to “recruit” new members. If homosexual orientation were really a choice, it would never have survived to this point.
    No one is trying to deny you your right to practice your religion. At least not in this country. However, practicing your religion does not extend to forcing your beliefs on others. You think it does. You have said that by not accepting your beliefs, which are allegedly based on “human experiences and testimony,” atheists are guilty of a “personal attack” on you. In other words, if you are unsuccessful in forcing your beliefs on them, that’s proof that they are guilty of attacking you.
    That’s complete and utter nonsense. You guys need to re-work your game plan because it just doesn’t work anymore. It may have worked in the 1940’s and ’50’s but not the 21st century.

  13. Ninong says:

    An act of charity?

  14. What a great concept to refute the Catholic hierarchy’s perverted view of manustirpation: We’re ejecting our evil thoughts out! The Hindus already have a ritual called nârâchâstra prayoga.

  15. Alicia Williams says:

    trruue !!

  16. Alicia says:

    got a whole lota explainin’ shooott .. this is horrible!

  17. Duke Woolworth says:

    Religion: Wholly crap!

  18. BeccaM says:

    After a while, I began to think the whole ‘atheist = homophobe’ angle was just another rhetorical ploy. (Because I began to conclude he couldn’t fail to know that AmericaBlog was a gay-friendly website and many of us LGBT.)

    If nothing else, he thought he was terribly clever, and thus capable of hoodwinking large numbers of people with what I’m sure he felt were so very slick debating techniques.

    At the risk of being crude, I’ve had my ass handed to me by debaters much more skilled than him. He’s a piker by comparison. My vote was for ‘lying.’

  19. Ninong says:

    Our friend was consistent about one thing. He compared us to homophobes in almost every one of his replies. If we reject him and his beliefs, that makes us just like the homophobes who reject gay people. If we say he’s wrong about something, we’re the same as the homophobes who say that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.

    I know they believe that atheism is a religion and that it’s the Antichrist, and all that good stuff, but I was surprised to learn that someone who obviously considers himself a good Christian could honestly claim that atheism is the same as homophobia and racism. He’s either incredibly uninformed, or wilfully ignorant, or he’s lying.

  20. karmanot says:

    ‘Informal fallacy” what a delightful concept. It explains the troll tautology to a ‘T’.

  21. BeccaM says:

    BTW, I think you did a terrific job yesterday and today of dissecting the core of yesterday’s guest commenter’s motivations, including getting him to admit that merely having someone say they don’t believe in a god is, to him, a personal attack.

    I thought all along his reactions and persistence were more than merely academic, that there was some emotional stake involved for him. And there it was. Well done.

  22. BeccaM says:

    Oh, I know, re: ‘no true Scotsman’. It’s just that that’s the accepted name for the particular debating technique wherein someone says, “Well, no true X would do that” — with X being whatever it needs to be. Conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist, etc.

    It’s known as an informal fallacy, where someone attempts to support an unreasoned assertion simply by excluding the example given. There’s an interesting origin account over on Wiki explaining it, as originally explained by Antony Flew.

    The simple (and non pejorative) version goes as such:
    Person 1: No Scotsman would put sugar on his morning porridge.
    Person 2: I’m Scottish, and I do.
    Person 1: Then you’re no TRUE Scotsman

    In the context of yesterday’s guest, he wanted to assert all the positive aspects of the more compassionate Christian teachings as typifying and exemplifying what it means to be Christian — and completely ignore and gloss over all the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity, and all the terrible people out there who purport to represent Christian sects and beliefs. Hence no TRUE Christian would ever order the Crusades and the witch burnings and so on. No true Christian would allow pedophiles to infest a global theocracy and do nothing about them other than covering it up. The ‘teachings’ forbid it, right? Yet they happened, and in the name of God and Jesus. Hell, there’s that story just the other day of the Christian pastor raping boys and telling them it was in the service of God, to get out those nasty sexual urges.

    And then on the other side he’d assert that certain smug and annoying individuals who happen to atheists represent the entire atheistic movement, including all of its core teachings, philosophies, and history. I doubt he knows the least thing about atheism or its history, other than personally hating atheists.

    I guess the part I found intriguing — and why I kept on with the replies — was to try to discover what was at the core of his fanatic opposition to the existence of any atheist who says publicly, “I don’t believe there is any deity or god, and I think belief in such as foolish’ — and yet fail to see the hypocrisy in asserting that anybody who doesn’t believe in God is damned.

    Anyway, I think Ninong ably elicited that bit of information, in comments below, where he got our guest to admit he felt that simply stating a belief there is no ‘God’ is a personal attack on everybody who does. No sense of irony there either, no self-introspection. Just what is obviously a visceral reaction for him, that there are people out there who don’t believe in his or any other supreme being.

    Unfortunately, as history showed over the millennia, ‘any’ deity soon becomes whether or not a person believes in the correct one. And then extends to whether they worship in the right way. And before long we have Protestants and Catholics killing each other (for example).

    Freedom of religion has to include freedom from religion, otherwise that particular civil right is meaningless.

  23. Whitewitch says:

    So mote it be ….so mote it be….

  24. Whitewitch says:

    Thank you Karmanot…and may we both battle them well!!!!

  25. Ninong says:

    “‘…when the Christian church burned millions of witches at the stake.’ Never.”

    Okay, apparently more recent studies dispute the figure of 9,000,000 women burned for witchcraft in Europe. That came from a book published in 1784 and the author was criticizing Voltaire’s estimate of 300,000 as being too low.
    That 9-million figure was still being widely reported as correct when I was a teenager in the 1950’s. Newer studies place the number much lower, possibly even less than 100,000. Most studies still claim it’s well above 100,000 but not 9,000,000.

    So mabe the Christians didn’t burned as many as I thought. Come to think of it, I think the Catholic Church in Spain allowed the Jews to convert to Roman Catholicism as an alternative to being burned and having all their property stolen. So they were kind in that respect. They offered them an alternative. And I believe Bloody Mary only burned a few hundred Protestants at the stake in England. Generalissimo Franco, on the other hand, murdered at least 30,000, yet the Catholic Church considered him an ideal leader and that wasn’t all that long ago. I remember it well.

  26. karmanot says:

    Actually, the reference was to a slug.

  27. karmanot says:

    Ninong is incredibly well read on these subjects!

  28. karmanot says:

    Couldn’t agree more. Don’t believe that old line about ‘true Scots.’ An Anderson tartan on my mother’s side will clean any clock that heralds it. Can you imagine Scots/Irish? OMG have we ever left a trail in history! :-) “I have more respect for someone who is good and kind for rational and empathic.” That’s it, that’s the matrix!

  29. BeccaM says:

    With an entire post of ‘victim-card’.

  30. BeccaM says:

    One of the things I found most hilarious was how he constantly equated atheism with homophobia — on a website with a huge LGBT following, including the people with whom he was picking fights.

  31. BeccaM says:

    I filed that entire line of assertions from him under the “no true Scotsman” strategem. But I decided that to make the statement, “If Christianity is such a kind and loving religion, why have so many people been tortured and killed in the name of Jesus and God” to have been like shooting fish in a barrel. Too easy.

    I’ve read a number of books on atheism and how one can rationally develop an entire basis for ethical, moral, and even altruistic behavior — without having to resort to belief in a deity to impose it. And honestly, I have more respect for someone who good and kind for rational and empathic reasons, as opposed to it only being because they’re afraid if eternal damnation if they’re bad.

    As for me, I’m content with my casual Zen/Wiccan practices, backed up by enough humility to believe there’s every chance it’s impossible to know for sure whether there’s a god, gods, or an afterlife. In other words, a seasoning of agnosticism — and an absolute distrust for organized religion or any fallible human who claims to know exactly what some invisible, unprovable sky-deity wants.

  32. BeccaM says:


    In any event, although our special guest troll was irritating and engaged in any number of dishonest debating techniques — top of which was how he’d deliberately misrepresent what a person wrote in a prior comment (not just me, but everybody) — and was crass, patronizing, verbally repetitive, and expressed obviously bigoted opinions regarding an entire group of people (namely atheists and anybody who supports the right of others to be atheist), I have to give him this much: He likely didn’t cross the line into totally unacceptable behavior.

    My opinion anyway. I’ve no idea how the Moderators felt about it, since I know they have a lot of back-channel discussions about what’s going on in the comment threads, which they don’t share. Which is how it should be anyway.

    On the other hand, I kind of enjoyed having our trollish chew-toy around yesterday. Gave me a chance to dust off my own rhetoric & dialectic skills.

  33. karmanot says:

    “You told me ‘buh-bye'” That middle finger is just the first stage of a full wave.

  34. karmanot says:

    It is true that denigrating you personally makes me feel good.

  35. DannyChameleon says:

    Yes, she brought it on herself. Just like women who get raped do. Just like black children who get shot do.

    You are a sleazebag.

  36. karmanot says:

    What the matter honey, did a homophobe pants you once upon a time?

  37. karmanot says:

    Truth doesn’t win nanopea, truth is truth.

  38. karmanot says:

    He does have his crayons and illustrated Bible.

  39. karmanot says:

    Sweet pea, you have no reasoned argument.

  40. karmanot says:

    Well, certainly demonstrates contempt well earned.

  41. karmanot says:

    What’s to refute? You remind me of the sophist Diogenes, who before lecturing the public, took a dump in the public square to gather a crowd.

  42. karmanot says:

    “proclaiming that most of humanity is ‘deluded or mentally ill’.” That works!

  43. karmanot says:

    “is actually Christian belief.” How about grizzly torture and a crucifixion ritualized in a cannibal ceremony called transubstantiation.

  44. karmanot says:

    “you’ll discover that they have tremendous contempt and malice for GLBTQ people” Ever consider that’s it’s just you and NOOOObody likes you?

  45. karmanot says:

    Clearly you are aware of Zen Buddhism then.

  46. karmanot says:

    Perhaps, but I swear I smell week old shrimp.

  47. karmanot says:

    “ad hominem” BINGO—the favorite big word of creepy trolls.

  48. karmanot says:

    I just love it when you bring out the seasoned, reasoned baseball bat to whack a troll Becca!

  49. karmanot says:

    May Mother Gaia embrace and protect you from creepy trolls.

  50. karmanot says:

    My gods, That hit with such force it has taken days to respond. When our abusers are still alive and thriving we can never rest, but take comfort in the knowledge they will die at some point. Some of us will never forget or forgive.

  51. BillFromDover says:

    Does it make any difference as this is obviously a gift from one fine, fine Christian to another.

  52. MerryMarjie says:

    Just for kicks, what is the religious preference of the judge? Was he (I’m just assuming, haven’t looked it up) in sympathy with the “pastor’s” goals?

    I wish someone would add up all the evil in the world done by religious groups, and then publicize it highly. Seriously, if this guy doesn’t qualify for prison, who does?

  53. Ninong says:

    You’re hung up on homophobes, aren’t you? What’s up with that?

    By the way, did you see this post of mine? “Are you ordained? Your ‘logic’ tells me you probably are.”

    So what exactly do you know about you? Well, for starters we know you think that “atheism is comparable to homophobia and racism.”

    We also know that you think atheism is more than just a lack of belief in a god, which is EXACTLY what the word means, but also a rejection of the “personal experiences and testimony” of most of humanity. That way atheists are prejudiced against Christians for not believing in their god. Bad atheists!

    Here you explained your problem with atheists exactly: “Since knowledge of God is based on people’s personal experiences, denial of the existence of God is a personal attack on people of faith.” Being an atheist is a “personal attack” on those who are not atheists. Merely being an atheist is all it takes. You’re either with us or against us. Believe as we do or it’s a personal attack.

    So Christians don’t believe in freedom of religion? Well, okay, of course they believe in freedom of religion, they just don’t believe in freedom from religion.

    And, from now on, please try to restrain yourself and quit using the word “homophobes” in every post. If it were part of a drinking game I would have been drunk hours ago.

    P.S. — Bonus question: Wanna know why southeastern Louisiana is still predominately Catholic in a region that is predominantly Protestant? It’s because it was originally a French Catholic colony, followed by a Spanish Catholic colony, then a French colony again before becoming part of the United States of America in 2003. Roman Catholicism was the official religion and the only religion allowed to build churches there before 2003.

  54. Ninong says:

    “Since knowledge of God is based on people’s personal experiences, denial of the existence of God is a personal attack on people of faith.”

    Finally got you to admit the obvious. You are convinced that if someone does not share your “knowledge of God” then he is guilty of “a personal attack” on you and all “people of faith.”

    It’s a good thing faith doesn’t require reason because that way you don’t have to explain your “knowledge of God” concept.

    So what are atheists guilty of? Are they guilty of willful ignorance in not believing in a god?

    Faith takes care of explaining everything that reason tells you makes no sense at all so that gives you an easy out.

  55. Ninong says:

    Once again, it’s not a “belief.” It’s a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Didn’t you take basic Greek? A-without + theos-god = without god, or godless.

    So how exactly is a lack of a belief a belief? It isn’t. It’s a figment of your imagination that somehow it is because you believe that atheists are prejudiced against Christians by rejecting a belief in a god. That makes you a martyr. So now you can tell us all about how Christianity equals love and humility and sharing (but not too much sharing) and all that other stuff that you assume atheists lack, since they can’t possibly be moral people if they don’t believe as you do.

    Christianity, as well as all the other religions, have proven themselves to be the most immoral creation ever dreamed up by man. And they have a well-earned track record to prove it.

  56. Ninong says:

    We’re talking about your claim that atheists are picking on you because of your Christian beliefs and that atheists are mean because they refuse to believe what you believe and you constantly bring up homophobes.

    What is it with your fixation on homophobes? Are you a closet case? You probably are if you’re ordained.

  57. Ninong says:

    Atheism is literally a lack of belief in a god or gods. For you to pretend that it is “a rejection of the personal experiences, testimony, and frankly character, of most of humanity” is just your way of saying that if you don’t believe as I do then you’re criticizing Chrisianity by rejecting my beliefs.

    So your beliefs are correct simply because of “personal experiences” of those who have claimed to have had divine apparitions? Is that it? What “personal experiences and testimony” can you cite to back by your belief in Christianity?

    Maybe we’ll get into miracles, those are always exciting. We have a governor down here where I live who was an amateur exorcist in his freshman year in college, the same year he converted to Catholicism from Hinduism. Being a Catholic was much more beneficial to his plans for a career in politics but that was just coincidental.

    Are you one of those Christians who still believe in the devil? What about demonic possession? The Vatican actually still believes that stuff. They have an official exorcist and everything.

  58. Ninong says:

    None of what I wrote is actually Christian belief? That means you rejct the Old Testament? In its entirety, or just the dietary restrictions?

    What about the talking snake? No longer Chrisitan belief? If it’s not, then there goes original sin, straight out the window. Then there would be no need for redemption by human sacrifice on the cross. And, for Catholics at least, no need for a belief in transubstantiation, so they can stop pretending to be canibals every Sunday.

    You know, it’s kinda hard to figure out what you do believe as a Christian if you no longer believe in the need for redemption by way of human sacrifice on the cross to fix that little problem caused by Eve, who misled poor Adam into joining her in her sinful ways.

    Do you believe everyone is born in a state of original sin that can only be cured by salvation through a belief in Jesus Christ? Yes, we’re all born defective but we can be fixed if we just follow these instructions and believe in the tenets of Christianity. And that was all because of that talking snake, right?

    Still believe in any of that? If you’re a Christian you most certainly do.
    Don’t believe Christians were responsible for burning non-believers at the stake?

    Don’t believe in the Salem witch trials where women were hanged simply because of delerious testimony from someone else that they saw an apparation of that person in their sleep hovering over their bed?

    What about the Crusades? Didn’t they happen? Weren’t people slaughtered by Christians? Didn’t that happen? The Spanish Inquisition? What was that all about? Interesting reading.

    Which version of creation according to the Book of Genesis do you believe? What about Noah and the Arc? Just a fairytale, right? Yeah, I figured that one out for myself by the age of 14. I kinda figured something was suspicious when God told Noah to burn so many of the animals he had just rescued as an offering to the Lord because the Lord loved the smell of burnt flesh, or something ridiculous like that.

    So I guess we can forget the Old Testament, right? Proof right there that you can’t be a fundie. But you say you’re a Christian, right? So I guess that means original sin, human sacrifice on the cross and all of that stuff is still in play?

    Still believe in hell, or is that optional now? What about the people in heaven looking down on the tormented in hell? Surely that was in jest, right?
    So where exactly is heaven and hell? You can’t be Christian if you no longer believe in heaven and hell. I realize limbo is no longer in favor and I don’t believe them for getting rid of that. It was far too complicated to figure out anyway, what with all the different types of limbo. Purgatory? That’s still in play, right?

    Surely I hit on at least some of the things Christians still believe in since you claim that in my previous post I didn’t get any of it right, even the part about human sacrifice, which is absolutely fundamental to Christianity. The Trinity is still in play, right?

  59. WilmRoget says:

    “A lack of something is not something.”

    Again, your false characterization is meaningless. Homophobes insist that they merely lack approval of homosexual sex – to prove that they are not prejudiced against homosexuals. And like you, they repeat the same flawed arguments over and over again, without ever paying attention long enough to even notice the flaw, much less alter their behavior.

    Atheism is a rejection of the personal experiences, testimony, and frankly character, of most of humanity. And it exists solely to feed the ego, the pride, of those who use it to justify their abuse of Christians and other people of faith.

  60. WilmRoget says:

    “It’s a false equivalency to equate Christianity with atheism but one
    many Christianists employ in a feeble attempt to protect their own
    innate guilt complexes”

    Nice diversionary tactic. Rather than address what I have presented, you create a fantasy to tilt at instead.

    “That’s absurd!”

    Homophobes dismiss all criticism of homophobia as absurd as well, and back it up with inaccurate characterizations of that criticism, as you have done with my criticism of atheism.

    “It’s not atheists who are guilty of being prejudiced towards Christians,”

    Yeah, homophobes pull this too – ‘oh, we are not guilty of prejudice, the homosexuals are prejudiced against us’.

    The noise you are making does not address the issues I presented.

    ” Get over it. Go off in a corner and meditate for a while. Try to get
    over your martyr complex — probably related to your original sin

    Once again, your derogatory and abusive reply indicates that atheism is indeed just another ego-aggrandizing mechanism, a means for you to feel superior by putting most of humanity down.

    “A lack of something is not something.”
    Your false and simplistic characterization of atheism is not something either.’

  61. mike31c says:

    So molesting children is acceptable in Iowa… Good to let the Catholic church know this.

  62. WilmRoget says:

    Since you cannot address what I have presented, you’ll try to change the subject to one you think you can win, or at least, be inflammatory and abusive enough to convince yourself that you have won.

    Of course, homophobes pull that stunt all the time.

  63. WilmRoget says:

    Yet oddly enough, you are the one resorting to ad hominem, false accusations, and personal attack, rather than even attempting to address the actual points I raised.

  64. WilmRoget says:

    “Grow up! There’s another criticism for you to get all bent out of shape about.”
    And another insult in place of a reasoned argument.

    “How is lack of belief in a god criticism of anything?”

    Since knowledge of God is based on people’s personal experiences, denial of the existence of God is a personal attack on people of faith. Further, religion and spirituality are valued by most of humanity, denigrating and mocking it is a personal attack on them as well.

    ” In other words, you are saying that someone’s refusal to believe as you do in sky fairies is criticism of religion?”

    Again, your use of trivializing and degrading terminology, “sky fairies” parallels the way homophobes fling ‘gay lifestyle’ about all the time. It simply demonstrates that the purpose of atheism is to denigrate other people.

    ” Rejecting someone else’s beliefs is not a belief in itself.”

    Sure it is.

  65. BeccaM says:

    Feel free. We’ll see who’s still here tomorrow.

  66. WilmRoget says:

    ” commenters here have addressed and refuted your blanket assertion that atheism is morally equivalent to racism and homophobia.”

    Sorry, but empty dismissals and ad hominem do not a refutation make.

    “You’ve engaged in stereotyping, prejudice, misrepresentation,
    projection, bad faith rhetoric, playing the victim card, troll-baiting,
    personal insults,”

    Not at all, not even once. Now notice, that while I carefully quote what I am responding to, you have provided no evidence, at all, for your claims. So let’s take a look at your statements:
    “our special guest troll”
    “His is certainly a target-rich trollage environment”
    “any of your anti-atheist bigotry,”
    “The guy couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper bag, Ninong.
    Stereotyping, red herrings, projection, and misrepresentation are all
    he’s got.”

    In fact, the behavior you accuse me, falsely, is behavior you’ve engaged in repeatedly. And ironically, though you claimed to be done several times – clearly a sad attempt to get the last word – you couldn’t live up to it.

    “Stereotyping and sweeping prejudicial generalizations are inherently illogical assertions.”

    And yet you engage in them, and atheism is composed entirely of both stereotyping and sweeping, prejudicial generalizations.

    “Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if you believed those things too.”

    Nice ad hominem there, a lovely example of “Stereotyping and sweeping prejudicial generalizations” on your part. Instead of even attempting to address what I’ve actually presented, you’ve engaged in a personal smear campaign.

    “I’m not going to hate all Christians just because you’re one and you have the manners of an ill-tempered crap-flinging baboon.”

    And yet, I have not once called you any nasty names, while you’ve done so to me several times. How sad that as terrible as thing my manners are, they are better than your own.

    “Bigotry, whatever its target or motivations, deserves dismissal.”

    And yet, you revile me for going beyond mere dismissal, by providing a reasoned criticism of the bigotry that is atheism.

    “your anti-atheist trolling is actually a cover for your desire to defend
    pedophiles, as long as they’re Christian pastors or priests.”

    For this ad hominem, you get flagged.

  67. WilmRoget says:

    Your false characterization only reveals the emptiness of your beliefs.

  68. WilmRoget says:

    Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about. None of what you associate with Christianity is actually Christian belief.

    Homophobes pull the same nasty, prejudiced game. Peter Labarbera likes to go to leather festivals, photograph a few people being intimate, and then claim that their behavior defines homosexuals.

    “when the Christian church burned millions of witches at the stake”


  69. Ninong says:

    Yes, he claims that a lack of something is something. Priceless.

  70. racena says:

    I have no sympathy for his wife. She figured out on their first date that he checked all the boxes?!?!?!? That’s the mentality of many Christians. It’s just a formula and life is neat and clean if you just follow the lord. Maybe now she will understand how complex life is, how things don’t fall into neat “bad/good” categories and how Christians and non-Christians ALL need to navigate life according to how to hurt the least and help the most and have fun.

  71. Ninong says:

    Okay, please correct my “false characterization of what people of faith do believe.”

    Do you still believe in human sacrifice?

    Do you still believe in the enslavement of captured tribes? How about burning their cities to the ground? Still do that?

    Do you still believe in castration of children to cure them of their homosexuality? Or sometimes just to provide altos for the choir?

    Do you still believe in burning witches at the stake?

    I’m sure you will say that you no longer believe in those particular practices, even though they were commonly practiced by Christians in the past. In fact, even as late as the 1950’s the Dutch Catholic church carried out the castration of approximately a dozen adolescent boys to “cure” them of their homosexuality after the reported they had been molested by priests. About a dozen of them were so cured. The boys were residents in a “home” cared for by the Church! Or we could talk about the reports of what took place in Ireland.

    I’m not old enough to remember when the Christian church burned millions of witches at the stake but I was a teenager in the 1950’s, so I am familar with what went on then. And my knowledge is based on personal experience.

  72. Ninong says:

    Well, rather than debate him, let’s just see if we can get him to defend the religious views that he claims we are criticizing. He says that by rejecting his views we show our prejudice against him so let’s see if we can find out what those views are in order to better understand what it is we are criticizing.

  73. BeccaM says:

    The guy couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper bag, Ninong. Stereotyping, red herrings, projection, and misrepresentation are all he’s got.

  74. ckg1 says:

    No offense taken. As far as the obit you read…I was going to ask “when did telling the truth become a federal offense?”…and then I noticed the bit about people damning them to hell.

  75. Ninong says:

    Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

    According to you anyone who does not accept your ridiculous claim that atheism is a criticism of religion is ipso facto guilty of criticism of religion and thereby proof that atheism is a criticism of religion. Calling you out for your false accusations is more proof in your mind that you are a martyr suffering for your religion and we are guilty of abusing you by pointing out how ridiculous you sound.

    That’s the most nonsensical thing I have read in a long time.

  76. StevesWeb says:

    You seem to be expecting religion-based actions to be logical. The thing about “curing” boys of being gay rests on a foundation of Traditional Christian Bigotry, so the alleged goal of rendering gay youth non-gay is religiously motivated. With this in mind the evil and stupidity are easier to understand.

  77. Ninong says:

    It’s a false equivalency to equate Christianity with atheism but one many Christianists employ in a feeble attempt to protect their own innate guilt complexes onto anyone else who doesn’t share their views. If you reject my Christian views then that’s an insult and a criticism of my religion. That’s absurd!

    A lack of something is not something.

    You try to make it something by pretending to be the victim of prejudice. Those evil atheists (Pope Benedict XVI actually called them Nazis) are attacking Christians by refusing to accept their religious views. President George H. W. Bush even told a reporter in an airport once that he didn’t believe an atheist could be a good citizen of this country.

    It’s not atheists who are guilty of being prejudiced towards Christians, it’s some Christians who are guilty of accusing anyone who doesn’t believe as they do of being prejudiced against them.

    Atheism is not a criticism of anything! It’s simply a lack of something. Namely a believe in a god or gods. For you to insist that it is a belief system of any sort is simply an attempt on your part to set up and use against them a false equivalency. Get over it. Go off in a corner and meditate for a while.

    A lack of something is not something.

  78. Ninong says:

    So now you’re a martyr?

  79. PeteWa says:

    I knew he would claim he wasn’t serving red herring, but my very full stomach tells me otherwise!

  80. BeccaM says:

    He was charged and found guilty in a court of law. Multiple counts of sexual abuse, and of violating his duties as a youth counselor.

  81. Ninong says:

    Atheism doesn’t denigrate anything.

    You consider it an insult if someone doesn’t share your views on the existence of a supreme being. It’s not. It simply means that they lack a belief in a god or gods. How does that denigrate your views?

    Once again, repeat after me: A lack of something is not something.

  82. Ninong says:

    Are you ordained? Your “logic” tell me you probably are.

  83. Ninong says:

    “But since atheism is a criticism of religion…”
    What? How is lack of belief in a god criticism of anything? In other words, you are saying that someone’s refusal to believe as you do in sky fairies is criticism of religion? Okay, there, I just gave you a real criticism of your religion, so now you have something to complain about.
    However, someone who says they don’t believe in a god or gods is not criticizing anything. Rejecting someone else’s beliefs is not a belief in itself. It is simply a lack of belief. A lack of something is not something. By definition it is not something.
    Grow up! There’s another criticism for you to get all bent out of shape about.

  84. benb says:

    From what I gather it’s jerking off. One victim claims ‘mutual contact’ but the article doesn’t provide further details. No mention of the exact age of the victims, either. If all the victims were 16+ (the age of consent in Iowa is 16), would Gireoux be guilty of any crime? Certainly sounds like a coercive kind of thing—a ‘youth counselor’—but I’d need to know exactly what was going on before I could lock him up and throw away the key.

  85. BeccaM says:

    Over and over, commenters here have addressed and refuted your blanket assertion that atheism is morally equivalent to racism and homophobia. That atheists are intrinsically awful people. That’s a prejudicial thing to say. You presented no ‘material’ — just a series of unsubstantiated bullshit assertions that merely reflect your personal hatred for atheists.

    You’ve engaged in stereotyping, prejudice, misrepresentation, projection, bad faith rhetoric, playing the victim card, troll-baiting, personal insults, and constant refrains of “empty dismissal” and accusations that atheism is why people aren’t being nice to you here. Even to a commenter with the handle “Whitewitch.”

    Stereotyping and sweeping prejudicial generalizations are inherently illogical assertions. You might as well have jumped in with “Black people are lazy — now why don’t you all engage and refute me with proof.” Or, “All Muslims are wannabe terrorists and their religion inherently violent.”

    Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if you believed those things too. People who are bigoted in one area often extend it eagerly into others. Anybody who isn’t exactly like you, and believes everything you do, no?

    I’m not going to hate all Christians just because you’re one and you have the manners of an ill-tempered crap-flinging baboon. That’s a personal insult by the way, albeit an indirect one. A direct personal insult would’ve been if I had said you were an ill-tempered crap-flinging baboon. And a bigoted statement would’ve been if I had said “Christians are all ill-tempered crap-flinging baboons. Just witness WilmRoget’s behavior. They’re all like that.”

    Well too fucking bad, bub. Bigotry, whatever its target or motivations, deserves dismissal. And you have proven you do not deserve the courtesy of polite discourse, since you preemptively refused to extend that courtesy to others.

    I’m beginning to think Whitewitch actually may have hit on an important point, that your anti-atheist trolling is actually a cover for your desire to defend pedophiles, as long as they’re Christian pastors or priests.

  86. Ninong says:

    Yes, that’s where the judge was wrong. He gave the guy virtually no sentence at all. Unless, of course, he is caught doing something like this again with minors. Then he could be in deep doo-doo.

  87. BeccaM says:

    His is certainly a target-rich trollage environment.

  88. cole3244 says:

    talk about the pot calling the kettle black, typical, oh you already said that, my bad.

  89. Whitewitch says:

    This last post of your made no sense you say “and yet you were”.

    I was what?

    Second, I was not defending atheism….simply requesting that you take your silly defense of a pedophile somewhere else. Hence, the “Bite Me”.

  90. WilmRoget says:

    More incivility. You told me ‘buh-bye’ and but continue to post about me. Interesting choice there.

    Of course, you are only demonstrating the principle I’ve articulated to demonstrate that atheism, or in your case, anti-Christianism, is a prejudice like homophobia and racism.

    “Love the way he’s constantly saying, “It’s just like atheists to be rude
    and mean and not to engage me in the ways I demand” as his rebuttals –‘

    Your false characterization only reflects your character, not mine. And, it is rather uncivil on you.

  91. Houndentenor says:

    If you are asking if there should be variations in the law then there is a case to be made for that. The problem is that there are ways of coercing people into having sex and not all of them are just holding someone down. And it’s not like he got a lighter sentence than Sandusky. He basically got no sentence at all. If we were talking about 15 years vs 20 or something like that I don’t think people would be this up in arms. There are some absurdities in our law. In some states if a guy turned 18 yesterday and he has sex with his girlfriend who turns 18 next week, he has raped her. That’s ridiculous. A 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old is another matter. Yes, the law should differentiate and sometimes it doesn’t.

  92. WilmRoget says:

    Then you must be starving, for there are no red herrings in my posts.

    But hey, you could make an effort and attempt to delineate, and refute even one point of mine that you believe to be a red herring.

  93. WilmRoget says:

    Your fantasy only reveals your character, not mine. It is a poor substitute for even attempting to address the actual material I presented.

  94. WilmRoget says:

    “Actually, you assume I am an atheist”

    No, actually, I stated that your behavior in defense of atheism indicates that atheism is a prejudice.

    “I am not putting you down at all,”

    And yet you were.

  95. BeccaM says:

    I’ll give him this much: He’s a master at projection. Love the way he’s constantly saying, “It’s just like atheists to be rude and mean and not to engage me in the ways I demand” as his rebuttals — when he’s commenting in a thread full of people of widely varying religious beliefs. Classic trolling technique.

  96. WilmRoget says:

    “You love that phrase “empty dismissal,” don’t you,”

    Nice fantasy. I use it when necessary.

    “to be using it in so very many of your snide, trollish little comments?”

    Your false characterization of my posts only reveals your character, not mine.

    “Let’s see… how about we try a simple word substitution:

    “Christianity is a prejudice just like
    homophobia and racism – a means by which people in one group tell
    themselves that they are superior to other people.””

    It is always good to test. Let’s see if yours stands up.

    Christianity teaches humility, compassion, and asserts that pride and egotism are the root of wrongdoing, sin. Its principles applies to all humans, concluding that everyone is imperfect, flawed, sinful, capable of and all to often engaged in wrongdoing. Christianity does not teach ‘we are superior to others’ or promote or encourage it. Instead it teaches ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ – a statement of equality.

    So Christianity is not prejudice, it does not fit the test.

    “and is a generalization I would never make, even though just as I am not an atheist, neither do I consider myself a Christian.”

    And yet, essentially, you did make it.

    “I suspect your visit here will be brief, given your inability to behave
    with civility or to have tolerance and respect for the beliefs of

    Funny, I haven’t engaged in any name-calling or insults. Now, as for incivility, there’s been no shortage of it from you and your peers here.

  97. PeteWa says:

    I’ve literally feasted on all the red herrings that said poster has prepared for us.

  98. Ninong says:

    Yes, that’s what I meant by “passive.” Simply that he was not guilty of forcibly holding down an 11-yr-old boy an anally or orally raping him as some priests have done. It’s hard to bring up that distinction without offending some who think it shouldn’t be made.

    For example, Jerry Sandusky, who was heterosexual in his adult sexual practices, was convicted of having forced pre-adolescent boys to submit to both anal and oral rape! Shouldn’t we make a distinction between that type of tramatic experience in the other type, where the victim is not penetrated?

    I think the judge made have carried that distinction to the extreme. The judge was wrong in his sentence.

  99. WilmRoget says:

    Nice insult. It really shows that you have no substantive argument to present.

    Of course, your defense there demonstrates that modern atheism is primarily anti-Christian prejudice, rather than a rejection of religion or spirituality.

    And of course, here you are, reviling me for rebuking atheism, having carved out an exemption for your personal beliefs from cole3244’s desire to eliminate religion. But atheism denigrates Wicca, and Buddhism, as well.

  100. BeccaM says:

    I suspect our special guest troll today makes no distinction between atheism and anybody who isn’t a Bible-humping fundamentalist.

  101. WilmRoget says:

    “Atheism is not a criticism of religion.”

    Of course it is.

    ” by deluded deists . . . ”

    Insults only affirm that atheism is a prejudice, a means of putting other people down so you can feel good.

    By engaging in the same kind of behavior that homophobes use day in and day out, you demonstrate one of the very many parallels between atheism and homophobia.

  102. BeccaM says:

    You love that phrase “empty dismissal,” don’t you, to be using it in so very many of your snide, trollish little comments? And you have the gall to talk about civility as you paint every single atheist everywhere with the same prejudicial, stereotyping brush, equating their belief systems with homophobia and racism.

    Let’s see… how about we try a simple word substitution:

    Christianity is a prejudice just like homophobia and racism – a means by which people in one group tell themselves that they are superior to other people.”

    Yep. Sounds just as bigoted, and is a generalization I would never make, even though just as I am not an atheist, neither do I consider myself a Christian.

    I suspect your visit here will be brief, given your inability to behave with civility or to have tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others.


  103. BeccaM says:

    I’m a Zen Buddhist / Wiccan, moron. Try again.

  104. WilmRoget says:

    Your display of egotism only affirms that atheism is just a mechanism for feeding people’s ego – anything to make you feel superior to someone else.

  105. Whitewitch says:

    Actually, you assume I am an atheist because of my abusive behavior, when actually I am a Pagan…oooppps.

    So the only “fact” I substantiate for you is that all Pagans must be abusive.

    I am not putting you down at all, just voicing my humble pagan opinion of your statement. In slang it means: “a command, similar to “Go to hell!” (i.e. “Leave me alone!” “Go away!” etc.) Note: not considered especially vulgar, but usually considered inappropriate in more formal settings.”

    So sorry to disappoint!

  106. WilmRoget says:

    Every insult is evidence that atheism is simply an excuse for people to denigrate others to make themselves feel good.

  107. WilmRoget says:

    “It’s what they do about them and how they react that defines them.”

    Let’s explore this a bit more. While you and your peers have been attacking me, for simply criticizing atheism, take a look:

    not one of you rebuked cole3244 for his hate speech about religion. All you did frankly, was declare that Buddhists were to be exempt from his desire to eliminate religion. So it is clear what you and your peers do nothing about the ‘bad actors’ in your own in-group.

  108. WilmRoget says:

    BeccaM is being rude, at the minimum. Your insulting dismissal, and characterization of her rudeness, only affirms my position: atheism is simply another nasty excuse people give themselves for being rude and abusive to other people for their own aggrandizement and amusement.

  109. WilmRoget says:

    “my statement was not meant to substantiate anything.”

    And yet, you did demonstrate that atheism is a prejudice by your abusive behavior.

    One of the odd things I’ve noticed, as I have discussed the intrinsic bigotry of atheism, is that even though I tell defenders of atheism that their use of insults and slurs only demonstrates the very psycho-social mechanism (denigrate others to make one’s self feel/look good) common to all prejudices, including atheism –

    they continue to rely on putting people down as the primary expression of atheism.

  110. WilmRoget says:

    Homophobes use the same empty dismissal.

    Oddly enough, there is no shortage of people who believe that equating homophobia with racism is hilarious, wrong, absurd, etc. And chat with them long enough, and you’ll discover that they have tremendous contempt and malice for GLBTQ people.

  111. BeccaM says:

    And trolls under their bridges. I suspect somewhere in America, one such bridge is missing its usual denizen.

    In any case, I’m done playing with this one. Have at him, if you like. He’s an easy mark.

  112. WilmRoget says:

    There’s another of those prejudice revealing behaviors at work – denigrating me by calling me a troll, rather than even attempt to refute what I presented.

  113. WilmRoget says:

    And there is the heart of atheism, the expressed attempt to denigrate most of humanity, nice and tidy – proclaiming that most of humanity is ‘deluded or mentally ill’.

    Of course, homophobes say the exact same thing about homosexuals.

  114. karmanot says:

    Take a clue newbie, Mz Becca is being kind at this stage of your blathering nonsense.

  115. WilmRoget says:

    Your empty dismissals accomplish nothing, other than to show that you lack the civility to post a reasoned reply, and to create the impression that you have no substantive rebuttal to offer.

  116. karmanot says:

    Unfortunately zombies are most comfortable in their graves.

  117. karmanot says:

    Atheism is not a criticism of religion. Nor, is it opposed to criticism, nor a strawman used by deluded deists to exercise the circular reasoning of their feeble need for authoritarian sky gods and absolutest magic.

  118. Whitewitch says:


  119. karmanot says:

    A good day is pouring salt on the tail of a troll. Ya did good!

  120. karmanot says:

    “It is a belief that everyone who does believe in God is wrong.” Not at all—just deluded or mentally ill.

  121. Houndentenor says:

    No one should criticize YOU. You’re simply trying to explain what the judge did, not defend it. I might buy this argument if it had only happen once. But a string of victims like this makes me doubt that he was the passive participant (except in terms of insertion). He was an adult and knew what he was doing was both wrong and illegal. He did it anyway. then he did it again and again. That’s a pattern. Were the participants willing? That doesn’t really matter since it’s statutory rape. But it sounds to me that this is getting the same slap on the wrist that women often get when they have a string of sexual relationships with underage males. It’s still not okay.

  122. Whitewitch says:

    There is a reason that I adore you Karmanot and this is it!!!!

  123. karmanot says:

    “Atheism is a prejudice just like homophobia and racism…” that’s hilarious!

  124. Whitewitch says:

    Sorry ckg1 – nothing against your post at all – seriously….just so hopeless today about anyone ever getting the justice they should have. Shouldn’t have spent time reading about the evil mother who’s children posted an Obit about how evil she was and then reading comments from people damning them to hell for not “honoring their mother”. Something very wrong in all that. You are good…sorry.

  125. karmanot says:

    Ditto that sister!

  126. Whitewitch says:

    Ohhhh I am sorry – you wanted substantiating evidence…well go google it…or find a way to seek it out yourself….my statement was not meant to substantiate anything.

  127. BeccaM says:

    Keep on digging your own rhetorical grave.

  128. WilmRoget says:

    The interesting thing then, BeccaM, is that when it comes to atheists and the bad actors, atheists either do nothing, or glorify them.

  129. WilmRoget says:

    Atheism isn’t free of sexual abuse scandals. In fact, Dawkins made an interesting statement recently:

    “In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted
    to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he
    personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes
    “lasting harm.” “

  130. WilmRoget says:

    “your anti-atheist bigotry,”

    Not a smart tactic, BeccaM. See, you are asserting that criticism of athiesm is bigotry. But since atheism is a criticism of religion, by your own argument, you’ve admitted that atheism is a prejudice.

    And it is not prejudice to rebuke and criticize a prejudice.

  131. WilmRoget says:

    Thank you for demonstrating that atheism is entirely about ego and pride.

    It is not the belief that requires more than an empty dismissal, it is common courtesy that requires it. But because atheism is about pride, it is entirely about atheists looking to be and feel superior, you feel you are above me, that I do not merit a civil, and frankly, reasoned reply.

    “Religion is made up by man”

    Yeah, homophobes use the same basic argument when they claim that homosexuality is unnatural and a choice people make.

  132. Whitewitch says:

    I have to go home and go to bed and cry now, maybe a glass of bourbon will help. This news of never-ending abuse, rape and craziness toward children and then letting them going is making me heartsick. True Post Jomicur – even though it depressed me.

  133. WilmRoget says:

    Thanks for the substantiating evidence.

  134. WilmRoget says:

    Nice empty dismissal. Funny thing, decades ago, when people like me started talking about how anti-gay beliefs were a prejudice just like atheism, homophobes replied “that is an absurd statement”, and there are still some people who claim that equating homophobia with racism is absurd.

    ” Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.”

    And homophobia is a lack of belief in the appropriateness of homosexual sex. Any prejudice can be framed in neutral terms if one is dishonest enough.

    “nor is it a prejudice like homophobia and racism.”

    And yet, it is. Your empty dismissal accomplishes nothing.

    “A lack of belief in a god is not a belief in itself,”

    It is a belief that everyone who does believe in God is wrong. And hey, your false characterization of what people of faith do believe

    is evidence of prejudice.

  135. ckg1 says:

    First off, apologies for what you have had to deal with.

    Second, I added the word “eventually” to my post for a reason.

  136. Whitewitch says:

    Thanks Ninong…you did such a better job than I at advising this poster…I only had two words for him. Guess it has been a bad day.

  137. Whitewitch says:

    Bite me!

  138. Whitewitch says:

    That is what they said about my father for raping his daughters…he has a very nice life in Florida and doesn’t suffer at all.

  139. Whitewitch says:

    What is wrong with Judges…are they just stupid or are they all pedophiles themselves…isn’t this the third judge to give NO jail time to a perpetrator? How do we think we will ever end this cycle of abuse – this ONE MAN damages 10’s of children and oh well…he has to do sex offender school.;oeaiwehjeaw;oiujf

  140. ckg1 says:

    All I will say is this:

    Karma does not discriminate. It does not care who you are or what you do.

    Eventually, the “good” Reverend will get his.

  141. Ninong says:

    Who was “wearing vestments?” This guy did not ever “wear vestments.”
    He was pastor of something called the Victory Fellowship church, a non-denominational Christian church based in Oklahoma. According to their website: “Victory Fellowship is a spirit filled Bible believing church. Our worship is traditional Southern gospel style. We have great youth and children’s services.”
    More proof that using a stock photo of a Catholic priest (the photo’s caption reads: Catholic priest) in shackles is misleading.

  142. nicho says:

    That’s all that an empty belief requires — an empty dismissal. Religion is made up by man and “proven” by books that claim that they constitute “proof.”

  143. Anonymous says:

    Aside from the heinous nature of the crime, where is the logic here? Having sex with boys to “cure” them of being gay? Do Christians actually believe this guy just because he’s wearing vestments?

  144. Ninong says:

    “Atheism is a prejudice just like homophobia and racism…”

    What an absurd statement! Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods. It is not a belief in anything, nor is it a prejudice like homophobia and racism.

    People are free to believe whatever ancient creation myths make them feel warm and comfy all over but it’s absurd for them to think that anyone who doesn’t share those beliefs is also a “believer” of some sort. A lack of belief in a god is not a belief in itself, as many Christianists conveniently tell themselves.

  145. BeccaM says:

    No religion — or any other self-identified group of humans — is entirely free of bad actors and criminals.

    It’s what they do about them and how they react that defines them.

  146. BeccaM says:

    I’m not going to ‘mull over’ any of your anti-atheist bigotry, nor your mis-comprehension as to what comprises a straw man argument.

  147. Stev84 says:

    Buddhists aren’t free of sexual abuse scandals either.

  148. Stev84 says:

    Appointing judges isn’t such a bad idea in theory. Directly electing them is certainly the most ridiculous thing ever. The problem is that the entire process is entirely politicized, in part due to the radicalized two-party system. You know there is a problem when judges are identified regularly with a party.

  149. Stev84 says:

    They still publish the personal information of people who are merely suspected of having committed a crime. It’s nothing but a modern version of the pillory. Punishment through public shaming and humiliation. Except that there isn’t even a trial.

  150. Ninong says:

    “Sometimes not all adolescent victims [of sexually predatory priests] are so ‘innocent’. Some can be sexually very active and aggressive and often quite streetwise.”

    That’s a direct quotation from the autobiography of Rembert G. Weakland, Archbishop Emeritus of Milwaukee. I could give you dozens of more outrageous things that Weakland has said and done over the past few decades but it would take up too much space.

    Just google: ” A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop [O.S.B., Rembert G. Weakland].” The disgraceful things that he during his tenure as Archbishop of Milwaukee would turn your stomach. And he’s not the only one. He’s just one of the more public ones!

  151. WilmRoget says:

    Empty dismissal. Typically, it is the standard reply from both homophobes and atheists. It demonstrates both contempt and arrogance.

  152. WilmRoget says:

    One more point about your ‘smug bastards’ dismissal, another parallel with homophobia for you to mull over, BeccaM.

    Homophobes use the same excuse – “we’re not all like Fred Phelps”, insisting that his particular level of viciousness has nothing to do with the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’. They distance themselves from the most visibly vicious expressions of their beliefs, often through elaborate constructs of pseudo-logic.

    It doesn’t work for them, and it isn’t going to work for atheists. The fact that not all atheists are as vicious as cole3244 means as much as the fact that not all homophobes are as vicious as Fred Phelps, and not all racists are as vicious as Bobby Frank Cherry.

    The underlying message of atheism, homophobia, racism, all prejudices is the same: “those people are bad, inferior, a threat” and that message invariably produces violence and abuse.

  153. Ninong says:

    I hope I can say this without being criticized, but apparently this guy was passive and never active with the young boys he molested. Now someone will criticize me for using the word molested in this instance.

    Even being passive, he still carried on a long-term relationship with one of his victims, and that is sure to affect that young man and his view of authority figures, especially religious authority figures. He abused his position of trust and took advantage of young boys in their adolescent years. Some people may think it’s not as serious as cases where the accused was guilty of anally or orally raping the victim. It’s definitely more serious that this judge seems to think but I agree that it’s not in the same league as forcibly penetrating the victim.

  154. WilmRoget says:

    Your empty dismissal is unconvincing.

    Atheism is comparable to homophobia and racism. And your straw man about ‘smug bastards’ is simply deceitful. I explicitly address the functionality of all prejudices, including atheism.

    Atheism asserts that most of humanity is wrong about their own experiences, homophobia asserts that about 10% of humanity is wrong about their experience of sexuality.

    Atheism and homophobia both characterize ‘those people’ as a threat to society, worthless, dangerous, corrupt, delusional, mentally ill, and as cole demonstrated – something to be eliminated.

    Both atheism and homophobia are consistently articulated, even at their most polite, in terms that denigrate others and exalt themselves. Atheists declared themselves to be ‘the free thinkers’, and homophobes declared themselves ‘the moral majority’.

    Atheists frequently rely on degrading and trivializing terms like ‘sky daddy’ when neutral words like ‘deity’ would do, solely to mock and malign people of faith, and homophobes frequently rely on degrading and trivializing terms like ‘gay lifestyle’ when neutral terms like ‘relationships’ would do, solely to mock and malign GLBTQ people.

    The sole purpose of both beliefs is to denigrate other people. The purpose of racism and sexism and every other prejudice, is to denigrate other people. The mechanism is the same, only the target changes. Homophobes target homosexuals, atheists target people of faith, racists target people of other races, and so on.

    Prejudices are means of creating and reinforcing social hierarchies – who is preferred, more accepted, higher in status than who. We are not going to make sufficient progress in erasing any one prejudice, while any other is exalted, including atheism.

  155. cole3244 says:

    believer talking point # 28, thanks brother.

  156. cole3244 says:

    have faith and read between the lines if you can.

  157. cole3244 says:

    i would agree.

  158. Ninong says:

    The Orthodox Church in Russia does have a problem of this sort but they cover it up, the same as all the other religious sects. And they have a friend in the Kremlin in the form of Little Vlad, who now considers himself a Christian, willing to turn the Russian Orthodox Church’s homophobic declarations into actual law.

    There are examples on some of the Russian white supremacy, homophobic, neo-Nazi websites but, as John posted previously, their postings come and go. They’re removed and then a few weeks later they’re back again. They’re all in Russian, so you have to use Google Translate. Sometimes you can even view private video clips on VK if the link was on a different site. Unless you actually want to join VK, something I wasn’t willing to do even though it would be easy enough to answer the profile questions in Russian, since I took a year of it in college several decades ago.

    I wouldn’t recommend checking them out. After a few hours of that you want to puke. It’s so bad that it will leave you physically ill for the next several days. I’m serious!

  159. BeccaM says:

    Atheism is a prejudice…

    That’s an awfully sweeping and prejudicial statement to make, especially when you equate it with homophobia and racism.

    No system of beliefs, whether it includes a deity, deities, or none, is immune from having smug bastards as adherents. But by no means does that define them nor describe every one of their members.

  160. WilmRoget says:

    Interestingly enough, homophobes want to eliminate homosexuality, and declare that homosexuals have no concept of truth, morality, justice, etc.

    You are operating on the same level as homophobes. Not surprising, of course. Atheism is a prejudice just like homophobia and racism – a means by which people in one group tell themselves that they are superior to other people.

  161. BeccaM says:

    If I had to guess, we’re likely dealing with a judge tho likes to blame rape victims for ‘asking for it.’

  162. Monoceros Forth says:

    Many things cause me pain; I daresay your inability to press the “Shift” key causes me a bit more discomfort than anything you actually have to say, to be brutally honest.

  163. BeccaM says:

    Even Buddhists? I think not.

  164. pappyvet says:

    A child rapist. Case closed. No need for story telling

  165. cole3244 says:

    then what would you look to for salvation.

  166. cole3244 says:

    the truth hurts i see.

  167. fritzrth says:

    IOKIYAP … It’s OK if you’re a preacher.

  168. karmanot says:

    The nearest deposit Bank.

  169. karmanot says:

    Christopher at his best!

  170. Ninong says:

    Back then they considered it a “proposition” to simply tell another man that you were gay, so that was the “lewd and lascivious behavior.” If he had actually touched him, they could have hit him with “crime against nature.” Both of those charges showed up in the daily arrest column in the local paper all the time. The “crime against nature” charge carried a VERY serious sentence. But hey, they were making society safer by removing those “sexual perverts” from the streets.

    How the courts dealt with the charges was another farce. If the person arrested had connections — especially connections to the Catholic Church, very powerful in the city where I was born and raised — then the sentence was likely to be probation and remedial therapy or something. Maybe a little community service, but no prison time. The head football coach at a prestigious Catholic boys’ high school was arrested while in flagrante delicto with a teenage boy in the back of his station wagon parked just off a dark road late at night.

    The man arrested was married with several children. The local archbishop sent him away to a three-month remedial therapy “retreat,” the same place they sent priests to cure them of their same-sex attractions. The court went along with the plan of action proposed by the archbishop. The guy was sentenced to probation. The teenager in question was legally an adult, he was above the age of consent, but the charge was “crime against nature” and only applied to the coach, not the adult teenager, who was considered the “victim.”

    At the next football game involving that school and another prominent boys’ Catholic high school, the fans of the opposing team chanted certain taunts and displayed candles — black candles — because the teenager involved was an African-American and the coach was not. This was either in the late ’50’s or early ’60’s. Back then the schools were still segregated — including Catholic schools.

  171. Monoceros Forth says:

    Ooh, he called all religions “cults”! How transgressive! What, are you in high school or something?

  172. jean_luc_turbo says:

    all of them…h’you sound just as absolutist as they do…

  173. nicho says:

    A guy I know went into a rest room. There was another guy (undercover cop) at the next urinal stroking himself. The cop offered my friend a feel. My friend refused and said he wasn’t interested. The other guy said, “What’s the matter aren’t you gay?” My friend said that he was — and the cop arrested him for lewd and lascivious behavior.

  174. Ninong says:

    And if you’re old enough to remember the 1950’s, they used rookie police cadets who had just graduated from the police academy, as decoys to simply stand at a urinal in the men’s room of some of the smaller movie theaters with an erection in their hand. Then, whenever a likely “sexual deviate” entered the area, they would simply glance over and then down at their “tool.”

    The police blotter, or whatever they used to call it back then, was always published in the local newspapers with the full names and employment of those charged. Anyone arrested in those entrapments was always described as a “sexual deviate” or a “sexual pervert,” and we were all much safer now that the brave police had removed that person from society.

  175. Ninong says:

    I agree that it would be better to confine Shutterstock photos of Catholic priests in shackles to stories that involve Catholic priests.

  176. Ninong says:

    The very last 20 seconds of that video clip had me rolling on the floor laughing.

    Hitch: “And Joseph Ratzinger, His Holiness the Pope, had just got off the plane in England today to announce that atheists are Nazis. An overdressed little ponce who was himself a member of the Hitler Youth.”

  177. BeccaM says:

    Brent Girouex may have claimed in court that’s what he believed, and may have been what he told those boys he molested and raped.

    But the circumstances of his crimes — hundreds of rapes, apparently — indicate rather conclusively this was just a lie he told his victims.

    The charges involve four victims, eight have stepped forward to say they were also molested by Girouex… and if other cases are any indication, this likely means there are many more victims who aren’t speaking up.

    The man is a monster… but even more unforgivable is a judge setting aside a 17 year sentence for mere probation.

  178. Ninong says:

    And after the club went public, via local TV news, the mayor’s office withdrew the letter and tried to claim that it was an “unfortunate coincidence.” Yeah, right. The letter was dated exactly six days after the bar called four times to report potential problems because of a gang of 15-20 youths, some wearing bandanas to hide their faces.
    That fourth call was to report the brutal assaul of one of the bars patrons as he walked from his car to the bar. It happened only a hundred yards or so from the entrance to the bar and it was captured on the bar’s security cameras. The former school teacher was assaulted by a gang of about 15 teenagers and seriously injured, including loss of hearing in one ear because of a punctured eardrum.
    When the Cleveland police did finally respond to the fourth call informing them that a customer had been brutally assaulted on the street while walking to the bar, they refused to even get out of their patrol car. They just sat inside and listened to the report of what happened. In one of the three calls during the hours leading up to the actual assault, the conversation with the police dispatcher went something like this: Bar tells dispatcher that there are a gang of 15 to 20 youths hanging out across the street from the bar and that they could like the police to do something about it because the same youths have been assaulting and robbing the bars customers on their way to and from the bar recently. Dispatcher: How many did you say? Bar: At least 15 and some of them are wearing masks over their faces to hide their identity. Dispatcher: They’re probably just having a party. WTF!
    I may be from another generation but I didn’t know it was the responsibility of the bar to hire armed security guards to protect their customers as they walked to and from the bar in a low-income neighborhood. The city demanded that the bar owners draw up a plan of action to prevent future “calls for service” to the Cleveland Police Department and submit such plan of action to the local precinct captain within 10 days or so. They said it was because the bar had called the police 9 times (with a circle around the number 9) for service during the previous 12 months! They said it cost their department an average of $100 to respond to each call and that was an undue burden on the taxpayers of the city of Cleveland. Therefore, the bar had the responsibility to put a stop to the criminal behavior responsible for those pesky “calls for service.”
    It was the most despicable letter I have ever read. I can’t believe that we now live in a society where the police are not expected to protect and defend. What ARE they expected to do? Just eat donuts 24/7?

  179. cole3244 says:

    eliminate all religions (cults) since the believers have no concept of the truth or justice

  180. jomicur says:

    It isn’t just conservative Republican judges who let religioso villains walk. At last count there were over 1,100 cases of child-rape by Catholic priests in this country. How many of them are in jail? Very, very few. And even fewer of their enablers in the church hierarchy (only one,to my knowledge, Bishop Finn) have done hard time. They can’t all have had Republican judges.

    Then there’s the fact that extremely few district attorneys–elected officials–are willing to investigate much less prosecute clerical criminals.

    The problem you cite is a real one, but it’s only part of a much bigger problem here in God’s Country(TM). The prevailing attitude is that religion, along with its purveyors, is somehow extra-legal, never to be investigated, prosecuted, held accountable or even scrutinized in any serious way. There’s a great moment in Gore Vidal’s THE BEST MAN. The ex-president, advising the candidate he wants to succeed him, tells him (I’m quoting from memory here) “We have to pour God over everything we say, like ketchup.”

  181. Monoceros Forth says:

    Indeed. Not that I disapprove of humiliation of child-molesting Catholic priests but the criminal here wasn’t actually a Catholic priest. Surely there’s some genuine photo of the guy to be dug up?

  182. Monoceros Forth says:

    I wonder if there wasn’t some idea that’d it be cruel to subject a man of God (a very screwed-up one but never mind that) to the, er, rigors of imprisonment with the general population, who’d be sure to make prison a sultry place for someone like the good Rev. Girouex. I’m fairly sure the thoughts or welfare of the victims didn’t much enter into the decision. After all they probably seduced him or some such nonsense.

  183. ArthurH says:

    You have to wonder how such judges get on the bench. In many areas they are appointed by governors and other elected politicians. The judge in this Tulsa case let the pastor off with no jail time on grounds that the boys he sexually abused came back. In such cases, getting a judge with such questionable judgment off the bench isn’t enough. You go after the person who put him on the bench. That is what voters in Wisconsin did to Gov. Dreyfus who in the late 1980s made a career out of putting bad judges on the bench. The state media repeatedly noted how badly some of judges performed, often with little understanding of the law. The last straw was when a judge acquitted in a bench trial of the guy who repeatedly raped a 5-year-old girl because he agreed with the adult rapist that he couldn’t help himself. The girl was one sexy toddler. Dreyfus has never been elected in Wisconsin since. But still after this over-the-top ruling hit the papers, Dreyfus still made the short list in 1988 to be George H.W. Bush’s vice president!

  184. jomicur says:

    This is just one more instance of American “justice” in action. After all, despite all the principles espoused by the founders, this IS a Christian nation, in practice if not in theory. You can get away with anything here in God’s country, quite literally ANYTHING short of vivisecting a newborn, if you just wave a cross and proclaim you’re doing it for Jesus. Separation of church and state? Yeah, sure.

  185. nicho says:

    But if a guy so much as glances at an undercover cop who is whacking off in the bushes trying to entrap people, he goes to jail. There’s justice for you.

  186. emjayay says:

    Look! One more pointless irrelevant Shutterstock photo!

  187. UncleBucky says:

    Meh. christianISTs.

  188. JayRandal says:

    City of Cleveland police sent letter to bar saying it costs them $100 every time they respond. They are warning bar of administrative fines for calling police. So Gay patrons going to that
    bar are 2nd class citizens? This hits home for me because I go to gay bars and clubs in my
    state of Georgia. In Florida where I lived at least police responded to calls and even kept
    patrol cars nearby to clubs.

  189. Reasor says:

    What church does the judge affiliate with?

  190. JayRandal says:

    John – thread suggestion for you: On Huffington Post Gay Voices city of Cleveland Gay bar told by
    police to stop calling so much about hate-crimes on their patrons. Gay patrons of bar have been
    attacked by thugs repeatedly. Like I said persecution and discrimination of Gays in US still happening.

  191. PeteWa says:

    are Yellowstone County judge G. Todd Baugh and judge Greg W. Steensland members of some secret rape club?

  192. iamlegion says:

    It always amazes me that there aren’t more instances of vigilante justice in cases like this. If my child were one of those abused, I would have a hard time not visiting violence on both the pastor and the judge. They’re both equally threatening to society.

  193. Indigo says:

    “Cure?” Maybe that’s something along the lines of “sex offender treatment.” Bogus in both instances.

  194. Houndentenor says:

    How did this happen? What was the judge’s rationale? That’s a lot of rapes for no jail time.

  195. Hue-Man says:

    Headline from yesterday:”Orthodox archbishop denies sex assault accusations at trial””Court heard defence testimony Thursday from an Orthodox archbishop
    accused of sexually assaulting two pre-teen brothers in Winnipeg three
    decades ago.”
    “[Seraphim] Storheim became the top cleric in Canada for the Orthodox Church in
    America in 2007 and is on leave pending the verdict. The church is
    separate from other Orthodox religions such as the Greek Orthodox Church
    and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

    John, do you know if the Russian Orthodox and its satellites have had the same sexual abuse and systemic cover-up scandals as the catholic church? If so, will they have access to all the new orphanage kids removed from their gay parents’ homes? “You’re being punished because you’re responsible for having gay parents!”

    The pastor’s sentence is particularly obscene considering the thousands of prisoners convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana…

  196. olandp says:

    From a presumably heterosexual judge. This must be some of that reparative therapy that we hear so much about. It just sounds like one step further than Richard Cohn’s “holding” or the JONAH therapist’s “body image” technique.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS