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.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    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:

    Thanks.

    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:

    Outta the park N!

  46. karmanot says:

    Clearly you are aware of Zen Buddhism then.

  47. karmanot says:

    Perhaps, but I swear I smell week old shrimp.

  48. karmanot says:

    LOL

  49. karmanot says:

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

  50. karmanot says:

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

  51. karmanot says:

    May Mother Gaia embrace and protect you from creepy trolls.

  52. karmanot says:

    :-)

  53. 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.

  54. BillFromDover says:

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

  55. 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?

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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?

  62. 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.

  63. 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
    complex.”

    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.’

  64. mike31c says:

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

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. BeccaM says:

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

  69. 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.

  70. WilmRoget says:

    Your false characterization only reveals the emptiness of your beliefs.

  71. 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”

    Never.

  72. Ninong says:

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

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. Ninong says:

    So now you’re a martyr?

  82. PeteWa says:

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

  83. 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.

  84. 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.