I am troubled by the following paragraph from this article: “The companies represent a large chunk of all U.S. Protestant churches. There are about 224,000 in the U.S., according to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, although that number excludes most historically black denominations and some other groups, which account for several thousand congregations.”
I’m not sure I understand what this is saying. Are the insurers able to exclude black denominations? Or are the numbers being manipulated to not include black congregations? Either way, this sounds really wrong.
I agree, that doesn’t sound right. I believe that historically black churches might have formed their own group to insure, which makes sense given the vandalism in the past. I do not know. This is just my guess.
I believe that if you included the “historically black churches” the number of sexual abuse against a minor complaints would be nearly the same. Pedophiles tend to be white, not black. So, if they included the “historically…” the numbers wouldn’t have looked as bad.
You also must remember that many protestant churches use “peer groups” for overnight stays. These older children molesting younger children might be a factor. Experimentation and a search for power, (as well as shared pain) contribute to a large amount of minor to minor molestation cases.
On your second statement, fine. As I mentioned in my post it was just my guess.
As far as the first statement, that was the first thing I learned in my deviant sexuality class. (White followed by Asian in male male versus male to female which is either black or hispanic. The hispanic is not well known because of the belief that those sexual encounters are under reported greatly for the man/girl because of their “culture”. [Whatever the heck that means.])All of this applied to “Deviant Sexuality in America” by the way. Good class.
I guess the quote “stupid is as stupid does” really fits for Willy. Willy has stated many false, misleading, completely wrong and outright lies in his posts. You are a sad person.
The article you pointed us to and the facts you relayed are not entirely accurate.
Although I do not doubt what they say, you are leaving out a huge point… those numbers have to do with molestation of BOYS only and not girls.
The study also pointed out that the majority of sexual abuse cases involves girls at a ratio of up to 4-1.
What this means is that your one third figure needs to be divided by 4 (making it 1/12 or about 8%. I don’t feel 8% is a large number.
In conclusion what that study said is that homosexuals are about 5% of the population doing 8% of the child sex crimes. Not very good for liberal activists, but not all that bad.
You’re missing the point, and I have no idea how 33% can be morphed into 8%.
For the sake of argument, we will agree that 5% of the population is homosexual. One third of all child sexual molestation is homosexual. of course, only a segment of this 5% is molesting children, but still there is one overarching characteristic involved in 33% of these crimes, and that is that they are committed by a portion of 5% of the population. How you turn 8% into 33% I can’t understand.
Homos are much more likely than heteros to molest children, no matter how you slice it. Maybe instead of 8% you meant 8x?
No, I meant 8%. Homosexuals are responsible for 33% of BOY molestation. BOY molestation is 25% of the total molestation (the other 75% being girls.) It follows therefore that, Homosexuals are (according to that study) responsible for 33% of 25% of all child molestations.
For the math impaired, .25 x .33 = .0825 or 8.25%. I rounded to 8% just like we both rounded 33.33333333333333 ad infinitum% to 33%.
You’re focusing on the victims (apples) rather than the perpetrators (oranges).
The study in question said, “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males.” So 33% of all perps come from 5% of the general population. This means that homos are many times more likely than heteros are to molest children.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I am troubled by the following paragraph from this article: “The companies represent a large chunk of all U.S. Protestant churches. There are about 224,000 in the U.S., according to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, although that number excludes most historically black denominations and some other groups, which account for several thousand congregations.”
I’m not sure I understand what this is saying. Are the insurers able to exclude black denominations? Or are the numbers being manipulated to not include black congregations? Either way, this sounds really wrong.
I agree, that doesn’t sound right. I believe that historically black churches might have formed their own group to insure, which makes sense given the vandalism in the past. I do not know. This is just my guess.
I believe that if you included the “historically black churches” the number of sexual abuse against a minor complaints would be nearly the same. Pedophiles tend to be white, not black. So, if they included the “historically…” the numbers wouldn’t have looked as bad.
You also must remember that many protestant churches use “peer groups” for overnight stays. These older children molesting younger children might be a factor. Experimentation and a search for power, (as well as shared pain) contribute to a large amount of minor to minor molestation cases.
“Pedophiles tend to be white, not black.”
What is your basis in reality for that statement?
Also, black churches are not vandalized at a different rate than white churches are. That’s a myth.
On your second statement, fine. As I mentioned in my post it was just my guess.
As far as the first statement, that was the first thing I learned in my deviant sexuality class. (White followed by Asian in male male versus male to female which is either black or hispanic. The hispanic is not well known because of the belief that those sexual encounters are under reported greatly for the man/girl because of their “culture”. [Whatever the heck that means.])All of this applied to “Deviant Sexuality in America” by the way. Good class.
I guess the quote “stupid is as stupid does” really fits for Willy. Willy has stated many false, misleading, completely wrong and outright lies in his posts. You are a sad person.
Thanks, Lin. Notice the deafening silence as to what was false in my statements?
The article you pointed us to and the facts you relayed are not entirely accurate.
Although I do not doubt what they say, you are leaving out a huge point… those numbers have to do with molestation of BOYS only and not girls.
The study also pointed out that the majority of sexual abuse cases involves girls at a ratio of up to 4-1.
What this means is that your one third figure needs to be divided by 4 (making it 1/12 or about 8%. I don’t feel 8% is a large number.
In conclusion what that study said is that homosexuals are about 5% of the population doing 8% of the child sex crimes. Not very good for liberal activists, but not all that bad.
You’re missing the point, and I have no idea how 33% can be morphed into 8%.
For the sake of argument, we will agree that 5% of the population is homosexual. One third of all child sexual molestation is homosexual. of course, only a segment of this 5% is molesting children, but still there is one overarching characteristic involved in 33% of these crimes, and that is that they are committed by a portion of 5% of the population. How you turn 8% into 33% I can’t understand.
Homos are much more likely than heteros to molest children, no matter how you slice it. Maybe instead of 8% you meant 8x?
No, I meant 8%. Homosexuals are responsible for 33% of BOY molestation. BOY molestation is 25% of the total molestation (the other 75% being girls.) It follows therefore that, Homosexuals are (according to that study) responsible for 33% of 25% of all child molestations.
For the math impaired, .25 x .33 = .0825 or 8.25%. I rounded to 8% just like we both rounded 33.33333333333333 ad infinitum% to 33%.
That’s where the 8% came from
You’re focusing on the victims (apples) rather than the perpetrators (oranges).
The study in question said, “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males.” So 33% of all perps come from 5% of the general population. This means that homos are many times more likely than heteros are to molest children.