Lengthy, ponder-worthy question
If your group's said to be all about integrity, yet it commits copyright violation after copyright violation (even after the copyright holder says "Um, would you mind not violating our copyright?"), then what's your group really all about?
--Mike
17 comments:
Mike,
May I pose a similar question?
If your group's said to be all about integrity, yet it leaves up allegations for the world to see that you have already learned are not true ("Um, so it seems that the victim HAS been interviewed, several times in fact, during the course of the investigation."), then what's your group really all about?
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
Mike,
May I pose one more similar question?
If your group's said to be all about integrity, yet it actively engages in gossip by posting items that are both "factual and alleged," then what's your group really all about?
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
I've yet to find a coherent definition of just what an "alleged fact" is.
There are things that are alleged to be factual, and things that are factual, but just what is an "alleged fact"?
--Mike
An interview of the primary victim by Coombs in the absense of the full investigative commitee does not constitute an interview by the investigative commitee--in fact, it appears suspicious and partial.
Because, of course, there's no such thing as a "sub-committee"...
Oh, right.
--Mike
As in submarine, subjegate or subpar, absolutely.
Perhaps not having to be interviewed by the full committee was something the victim desired... maybe the idea of having to sit down and talk to the whole committee wasn't something he wanted to face. If they already had a lot of the info, maybe all they needed was for him to verify it's accuracy rather than have him go through all the details one more time in front of a bunch of men he doesn't know.
Granted, I have no idea and I won't pretend I know any of this for sure- but I thought I might offer another scenario rather than automatically going to the worst possible assumption (as is par for the course these days).
Trollcakes said...
As in submarine, subjegate or subpar, absolutely.
No, as in "a portion of a committee focusing on a particular aspect of a broader issue."
But we really should play Scrabble some time. :)
--Mike
Trollcakes how are you? I posted a comment on the other side addressing you. It was not deemed worthy to be posted I quess. Moderation is on and there have been many posts since then. It was regarding this post by you
Trollcakes said...
Let's all attend on the 25th, wearing eye patches--celebrating one blind eye. It will be a glorious time of fellowship!
On the other site I simply stated that I found these statements to be striking. However it may be because I have made some assumptions about you because of my inconsistent reading on the other site.
First of all, I was under the impression that you were not a Christian. Maybe even a Buddhist. Christian = you believe that Jesus Christ, God's only Son, died on the cross for your sins. He has risen from the grave. You have placed your faith in Him alone to save you from your sin and have hope of living with Him in eternity...you get the idea. I only added that because some people will say they're Christian because saying they're not sounds bad. I don't imagine you as being of that sort. Are you a Christian?
I also seem to think that you are not a Bellevue member. Are you a Bellevue member?
I would appreciate you clarifying those items. I am in no way saying you are not a Christian nor am I questioning your Christianity based on any posts. I sincerely had those impressions and would like to hear your answers.
Thanks, bugsii
I am a practicing Buddhist in the Vajrayana path, a former Southern Baptist fully aware of your articles of faith, a school teacher and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. Thus, that is the context from which I ingratiate myself into the discussion.
It has repeatedly been bandied about that what is happening at BBC is none of my business, but the safety of children is not a church issue (especially when they don't do anything about it) but rather a community issue. A teacher or principal that did as Gaines would rightfully lose their job and likely face criminal charges. Why should a minister be cut so much slack?
Aren't y'all Christian conservatives that love to preach personal responsibility? I guess that is until the shoe is on the other foot.
Aren't y'all Christian conservatives that love to preach personal responsibility? I guess that is until the shoe is on the other foot.
Since, of course, you know everything that's been said to Pastor Gaines and other members of Bellevue leadership on this matter.
Children were safe, thank you. I have two children who attend Bellevue with my wife and I, and had I thought for a picosecond that they were put at risk, I would have dealt with the risk.
--Mike
Well, the rub is that, for 6 months, Gaines did not know or even was curious (from the PCIR, not gossip) of the pedophile's contact within the church body; again, a school principal would lose his job over the same, whether or not the pedophile molested a child during that period. And futhermore, an "all's well that ends well" defense would fall on deaf ears.
Here's to your newfound appreciation for situational ethics.
Here's to your newfound appreciation for situational ethics.
Since that's not in play, your statement is a non sequitur.
My children, as with all the children in Bellevue's care, were safe because good protocols were in place during the time Mr. Williams was on staff, even before his "outing." Having served in Bellevue's nursery many times over the years, I've seen those protocols at work.
With regard to the safety of children at Bellevue, all was well in the first place. But that's not really important to some points of view, is it?
--Mike
Well, forget the tag of my comment, what about the meat of my argument regarding Gaines' culpability?
And my comment addresses Gaines harboring a pedophile, not whether your children were in danger, so who is dealing in non-sequiturs?
If your argument is that Gaines incuriosity did nothing to endanger children at BBC, then it is an "all's well that ends well" argument, so my statement stands.
What is justice to an incompetant school principal is likewise to a megachurch pastor; that is barring blind loyalty.
Should Pastor Gaines have known more about how the staff infrastructure works? Absolutely.
And Pastor Gaines himself understands that he blew it in cutting Mr. Williams slack, rather than promptly removing him from the staff.
Unfortunately, this "harboring a pedophile" nonsense has become a cornerstone of the anti-Bellevue attacks. It implies that Pastor Gaines let Mr. Williams set up shop so that he could hide in the shadows and attack the unsuspecting, when he did no such thing.
Interesting, isn't it, that hiding in the shadows and attacking others is some folks' favorite pastime?
--Mike
My questions...1)are you a Christian and 2)are you a member of Bellevue?
Trollcakes said...
I am a practicing Buddhist in the Vajrayana path, a former Southern Baptist fully aware of your articles of faith, a school teacher and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. Thus, that is the context from which I ingratiate myself into the discussion.
It has repeatedly been bandied about that what is happening at BBC is none of my business, but the safety of children is not a church issue (especially when they don't do anything about it) but rather a community issue. A teacher or principal that did as Gaines would rightfully lose their job and likely face criminal charges. Why should a minister be cut so much slack?
Aren't y'all Christian conservatives that love to preach personal responsibility? I guess that is until the shoe is on the other foot.
I asked you a simple, honest question. Are your answers "no" and "no"?
Post a Comment