Gosh Bill D, you are usually a bit more thoughtful than that post. Maybe it should have its own thread. This was about certain PEOPLE who abuse children in various forms under the GUISE of religious instruction, not about the right of someone to believe that God or his god or the Great Pumpkin is the ultimate SOURCE of law in general. That's not thread drift, that's a hijacking!

What do you believe the ultimate source of LAW is? Hmmm? Whatever it is you think, I can oppose it. Should I attempt to get the powers that be to help me quash your point of view? Did you ASSUME that I might be in favor of that piece of proposed legislation? That's a pretty prejudicial assumption.

To answer the more pertinent question above: no, Protestantism is no more exempt from the presence of abusers than the RCC. The RCC affords greater anonymity because of its numbers and near ubiquity. It's hierarchy and certain theological stances, dogmas make it more susceptible to practitioners of abuse. No organization, repeat: NO ORGANIZATION is exempt from abuse and abusers. No set of laws or bylaws, no structuring is capable of preventing the same, though some organizational structures are better than others. Checks and balances, accountability and openness are key to minimizing the abuse of children and on a grander scale, the abuse of anyone! Protestantism has the identical problems on a much smaller or better, perhaps, scattered scale. The number of incidents may even be proportionally comparable but that's just a guess on my part.

Back to Bill D's diversion, the history of LAW will always show a trail back to God, religion. All human history traces back to religion and God or gods or divine percepts. Religion has always been an integral part of the societies of Man and the church or temple laws WERE the societal laws. Remember the the concept of separation of church and state is historical very new, cutting edge, only within the last couple of hundred years as opposed to several thousands of years of the other way of thinking. Let people think as their conscience dictates. Let them have the freedom of speech, to express those ideas. In an open market place of ideas the idea will stand on its own merits. You don't win an argument by censoring your opposition. I would dare say that you would wind up drawing attention and sympathy to it instead.