I thought this thread was about Protestant parents who (allegedly) abuse their children in pushing them to become young evangelists. Why then all the discussion of pederastic Roman Catholic priests?

It is hardly possible to imagine two sorts of child abuse (or alleged abuse) that have less in common. The first is done by parents; the second in defiance of, and in secrecy from, parents. The first is apparently a perversion of parental pride; the second a perversion of erotic desire. The first is (apparently) legal; the second is clearly felonious. The first is done openly, literally while the cameras are rolling; the second is shrouded in secrecy. The first is called, by those doing it, an act of righteousness; the second is called, by those doing it, an abomination.

Lumping those two together under the heading "religious child abuse" makes about as much sense as, in a discussion of Nat Turner, bringing up Idi Amin. Yes, both could fit under the heading "violent people with dark skin", but they really don't have much in common, do they? What if someone claimed that they really did have a lot in common? Wouldn't you suggest that they examine themselves to see if their prejudices were clouding their judgment?

Kent