NationStates Jolt Archive

A Vicar has been forced to step down as Governor of a Primary School after he kissed a girl on the cheek for doing well in her maths exam.

For crying out loud.

This entirely innocent action caused the Mother to complain. As a result, he has been investigated by the Police, by the Church and by the School. No one has found any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. He has still been forced to go.

The reason? "Innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion."

Or, to put it more accurately, "we're surrendering to political correctness and tabloid campaigns where showing any affection to children is paedophilia."

Absurd. Utterly, utterly absurd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/5176802.stm

A Vicar has been forced to step down as Governor of a Primary School after he kissed a girl on the cheek for doing well in her maths exam.

For crying out loud.

This entirely innocent action caused the Mother to complain. As a result, he has been investigated by the Police, by the Church and by the School. No one has found any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. He has still been forced to go.

The reason? "Innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion."

Or, to put it more accurately, "we're surrendering to political correctness and tabloid campaigns where showing any affection to children is paedophilia."

Absurd. Utterly, utterly absurd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/5176802.stm

I dont know for some reason this does not seem as "PC" as it does a phobia of parents and society that any contact between an adult and a child is paedophilia

I dont know for some reason this does not seem as "PC" as it does a phobia of parents and society that any contact between an adult and a child is paedophilia

More specifically, contact between a child and a priest type person.

The Vicar should have known better.

"Innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion."

Good!

I take it you don't have, nor have ever worked with, children.

You don't go around kissing them. PERIOD!

More specifically, contact between a child and a priest type person.

The Vicar should have known better.
As you know my past I have to fight that sort of gut reaction all the time

Maybe it does not hit so hard cause it was a girl (rather then a boy which would be more identafiable)

Good!

I take it you don't have, nor have ever worked with, children.

You don't go around kissing them. PERIOD!
Why not? For crying out loud, it was a kiss on the cheek to say well done. We kiss people all the time to show affection in an entirely innocent way.

But now, treating children as normal human beings inevitably brings the cry 'paedophile'!

You don't protect us from a minority by punishing the majority.

Oh, and I have worked for many years with children. I would have said to the vicar 'it's probably wiser in this climate not to do that', not lodged a formal complaint and made him step down.

But common sense has no place in a PC world.

Good!

I take it you don't have, nor have ever worked with, children.

You don't go around kissing them. PERIOD!

There is something very wrong in your culture if that is the case. It is not PERIOD. it is only PERIOD in the English world.

Virtually all the kids (under 11) here kiss their teachers goodbye at the end of the school day. It is a harmless sign of affection and apreciation. The act of kissing on the cheek is something that the anglo-saxon culture has disparaged for so long, and it is their loss.

Its a fallacy. Genuine affection, in a platonic sense, is misocntrued by politically correct campaigners and paranoid housewives without sufficient intellect to discern the difference.

I think the parents took it too far. I mean, what if the principal had hugged a child for doing well? Also keep in mind that customs are more libertine in Europe than they are here in the states. So a kiss over there=a hug over here.

It's not like the guy french kissed the little girl. Come on people! This is paranoia plain and simple. And to a point sexist. Bet they wouldn't have said anything if it were a woman who kissed the little girl instead of a guy.

snip

But common sense has no place in a PC world.
You keep blaiming this on "PC" I just dont see how it is "PC"

Maybe "PC" has just become too much of a buzzword

You keep blaiming this on "PC" I just dont see how it is "PC"

Maybe "PC" has just become too much of a buzzword
Political Correctness says that any contact with children is wrong. What else would you like to call it? "The problem that arises in a tabloid culture that has set its sight on paedophilia and a political elite that is willing to follow this media lead"?

You keep blaiming this on "PC" I just dont see how it is "PC"

Maybe "PC" has just become too much of a buzzword

I think what the complaint here is that in days past, the adult authority figure could kiss the babies (as an example, a politician at a rally could hold up a baby and kiss it - that was seen as a very positive thing).

Now our first thought is that until proven otherwise, every adult is a pedophile. Period.

The list goes on: every gun owner is a crazed nutcase just waiting to massacre a school full of kids, every scantily-clad woman is a whore who wants sex right now, etc.

We go so far as to say that we should avoid making generalizations about people we don't know, but almost every point of moral outrage today is not over a real, damaging overt act, but rather over acts which while innocent, are now perceived to be as horrific as if we killed or raped someone.

And then we're told, "you should have known better".

Why not? For crying out loud, it was a kiss on the cheek to say well done. We kiss people all the time to show affection in an entirely innocent way.

So you want to take away a parent's right to decide what is and is not appropriate for THEIR child?

I think not, buddy. Not while I'm alive.

Political Correctness says that any contact with children is wrong. What else would you like to call it? "The problem that arises in a tabloid culture that has set its sight on paedophilia and a political elite that is willing to follow this media lead"?

Where is this Political Correctness? Where can I find what it says?

It sounds more like an overreaction due to the enviroment caused by the scandal in the Catholic Church. If this had been a regular teacher, it probably would have been a different story.

I think what the complaint here is that in days past, the adult authority figure could kiss the babies (as an example, a politician at a rally could hold up a baby and kiss it - that was seen as a very positive thing).

No ... that was the MOTHER holding up the baby so it could be kissed by the politician. Huge difference than if the politician just grabbed up the baby and planted a wet one on it.

A Vicar has been forced to step down as Governor of a Primary School after he kissed a girl on the cheek for doing well in her maths exam.

For crying out loud.

This entirely innocent action caused the Mother to complain. As a result, he has been investigated by the Police, by the Church and by the School. No one has found any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. He has still been forced to go.

The reason? "Innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion."

Or, to put it more accurately, "we're surrendering to political correctness and tabloid campaigns where showing any affection to children is paedophilia."

Absurd. Utterly, utterly absurd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/5176802.stm


What in the sam hell does that have to do with political correctness?

It is politically correct. Because somehow showing affection to your children or children in general is offensive simply because a bunch of perverts ruined it for everyone. PC is generated from the assholes who eith do stupid shit and pervert things that were originally normal and pure or because of something that happened in history that would be deemed offensive.

So yes, I would say this is a PC issue.

Political Correctness says that any contact with children is wrong. What else would you like to call it? "The problem that arises in a tabloid culture that has set its sight on paedophilia and a political elite that is willing to follow this media lead"?

The Labour party are sufficiently disempowered, and moribund, so as to dance to the tune of the red tops. Hence why, what with peadophiles being this weeks lynch targets, they effect a pc state.

Where is this Political Correctness? Where can I find what it says?

PC is defined as anything that goes against the tender Right-wing sensibilities.

To think, Putin can kiss some kids belly, and all that happens is a couple of news stories. A vicar kisses some kid on the cheek, and he gets fired?

It was the cheek on her face, right? (Sorry. Ashame of myself now)

Anyways, the moral of this story is clear. We should send all the priests to Russia.

It is politically correct. Because somehow showing affection to your children or children in general

There is a huge difference between showing affection to YOUR children and showing affection to children in general.

I'm sorry you don't see that.

PC is defined as anything that goes against the tender Right-wing sensibilities.

Yes, it's bad if a priest kisses a child, and good if the scoutmaster is a gay atheist.

So you want to take away a parent's right to decide what is and is not appropriate for THEIR child?

I think not, buddy. Not while I'm alive.

If the parent has such a warped idea as to what is appropriate, then they can have every right to remove their poor and soon to be very confused child from the circumstances that they disapprove of, but they do not have the right to cause distress to others by making ridiculous complaints.

People live in societies, and what is and is not acceptable is not defined by any individual, but by the cumulative consensus of the members of that society. If the parent does not agree, they can move to a different society, or put up with it.

It sounds more like an overreaction due to the enviroment caused by the scandal in the Catholic Church. If this had been a regular teacher, it probably would have been a different story.
The guy isn't a Catholic.

No ... that was the MOTHER holding up the baby so it could be kissed by the politician. Huge difference than if the politician just grabbed up the baby and planted a wet one on it.

See also Vladimir Putin.

Yes, it's bad if a priest kisses a child, and good if the scoutmaster is a gay atheist.

As long as the gay atheist isn't smooching the children, it's fine, yes.

Yes, it's bad if a priest kisses a child, and good if the scoutmaster is a gay atheist.
Naw the anti-gay and the religous would be all over that one

Yes, it's bad if a priest kisses a child, and good if the scoutmaster is a gay atheist.

1) Scouts don't allow gays.
2) It's not alright regardless.

The guy isn't a Catholic.

He's a religious figure. Not many people care about the difference.

I'm more surprised that people here are taking one overreaction to a kiss and extrapolating some kind of "PC hates adult affection for children" doctrine out of it.

The guy isn't a Catholic.
He did not say that the guy was, he just said that the environment about religious people was in part caused by the Catholic scandal

Naw the anti-gay and the religous would be all over that one
But that's not political correctness. It hasn't stopped the lawsuits.

I'm more surprised that people here are taking one overreaction to a kiss and extrapolating some kind of "PC hates adult affection for children" doctrine out of it.
How do you describe it? A man says "well done" and gets sacked for it, and this is somehow acceptable behaviour and not a complete and utter overreaction?

How do you describe it? A man says "well done" and gets sacked for it, and this is somehow acceptable behaviour and not a complete and utter overreaction?

I shouldn't imagine its a rarity either.

He did not say that the guy was, he just said that the environment about religious people was in part caused by the Catholic scandal
True, but I wasn't trying to make any particular point, just make it clear lest any confusion develop.

But that's not political correctness. It hasn't stopped the lawsuits.
Ok I must be slow today or hungry but I am confused what your point is … I will simplify mine.

Kissing children in the current society without parental consent is not smart. Personally I think it is a bit of an overreaction but no less so then “PC hates religious folks that kiss kids” response we have seen so far

How do you describe it? A man says "well done" and gets sacked for it, and this is somehow acceptable behaviour and not a complete and utter overreaction?

He didn't say "well done", he put his lips to a person's face.

In Texas, that's battery and is a felony.

True, but I wasn't trying to make any particular point, just make it clear lest any confusion develop.
Defiantly understandable some people wont read the whole thread and will be confused

He didn't say "well done", he put his lips to a person's face.

In Texas, that's battery and is a felony.

Yeah, well, that's Texas.

Ok I must be slow today or hungry but I am confused what your point is … I will simplify mine.

Kissing children in the current society without parental consent is not smart. Personally I think it is a bit of an overreaction but no less so then “PC hates religious folks that kiss kids” response we have seen so far

If you're gay and an atheist, and you want to be a Scoutmaster, most of the parents of the Scouts don't want you to be a Scoutmaster, or to be around their kids - they explicitly deny you consent.

But who is wrong in that case? The parents. Because of "political correctness" the parents are castigated as assholes.

Yeah, well, that's Texas.

Exactly ... we believe the law should protect you from people randomnly touching you ....

I find it highly odd that you don't.

How do you describe it? A man says "well done" and gets sacked for it, and this is somehow acceptable behaviour and not a complete and utter overreaction?

I already described it as an overreaction, but I would say it is the result of an atmosphere of tension generated by a well-publicized scandal within a religious organization about pedophiles. Maybe the parents of this child called for the vicar to be sacked because they remembered all of the earlier news stories and thought the kiss meant something more. Maybe one or more of the parents had experienced abuse as a child and would have reacted to any adult kissing their child in this manner. It just seems to me to be as much of an overreaction to see posters here complain about PC when we really don't know anything about this case other than actions taken.

Exactly ... we believe the law should protect you from people randomnly touching you ....

I find it highly odd that you don't.

However, this circumstance can hardly be construed as "random". The victim presumably was well acquainted with the girl.

See also Vladimir Putin.You know of anyone powerful enough to run him out of office?

If you're gay and an atheist, and you want to be a Scoutmaster, most of the parents of the Scouts don't want you to be a Scoutmaster, or to be around their kids - they explicitly deny you consent.

But who is wrong in that case? The parents. Because of "political correctness" the parents are castigated as assholes.
It has nothing to do with PC, they are assholes

(that does not mean the private organization that is the scouts should be forced to accept gays but that does not mean that they should be allowed free access to governmental funds/property if they are going to discriminate)

But anyways we are geting side tracked

If you're gay and an atheist, and you want to be a Scoutmaster, most of the parents of the Scouts don't want you to be a Scoutmaster, or to be around their kids - they explicitly deny you consent.

But who is wrong in that case? The parents. Because of "political correctness" the parents are castigated as assholes.Dang, and there I thought it was the BSA itself that will deny you registration as a scoutmaster if either of the two apply...

Exactly ... we believe the law should protect you from people randomnly touching you ....

I find it highly odd that you don't.
A world where people have no personal responsibilty, no sense of perspective and run to the law for what can be described at worst as 'a little unwise'?

Sounds wonderful.

Odd this subject should come up.

While at an all male high school, we had a vicar who taught RE and rugby. I still remember him standing at the entrance to the shower room after a PE lesson shouting 'You can't wash in a towel, I want to see you naked in the shower boy.'

How the hell did any of us grow up well adjusted?

Dang, and there I thought it was the BSA itself that will deny you registration as a scoutmaster if either of the two apply...

They do. I have no problem with them not getting government funds.

But if we're talking about rights of parental consent (to kissing in the case of the vicar, or to who your kids will be alone with on a Scout camping trip), then if you say "parental consent is everything" then it should apply EQUALLY.

It's very obvious that it does not.

More specifically, contact between a child and a priest type person.

The Vicar should have known better.

Right, because contact between a vicar and a child is instantly pedophilia

They do. I have no problem with them not getting government funds.

But if we're talking about rights of parental consent (to kissing in the case of the vicar, or to who your kids will be alone with on a Scout camping trip), then if you say "parental consent is everything" then it should apply EQUALLY.

It's very obvious that it does not.
Parental consent should mean everything in how your kid is treated

BUT that does not mean they can not make good or bad decisions.
The BSA parents making a bigoted decision is an example of a bad decision. It does not mean they don’t have the right specially sense it is a private org. It just means that it is a bad decision.

Right, because contact between a vicar and a child is instantly pedophilia

By "politically correct" standards, Yes. Because the vicar is a religious person. And we know that religious people are not to be trusted around children.

By the same "politically correct" standards, parents have no right to object to "politically correct" persons being alone with their children - gays, atheists, etc.

If you want to say you can object to people around your children or touching your children, it should apply to everyone. Or no one. Not because someone has a political axe to grind against gays or religious figures.

Right, because contact between a vicar and a child is instantly pedophilia
That’s not what he said, but in today’s climate you should not be surprised that people take it as such. Not with the Catholic Church enabling priests and hiding them even if they knew about them.

I know this man is not catholic but most people make comparisons about similarities and this is a religious authority figure, people don’t want their children harmed. (like I stated before I think this was an overreaction but that does not mean they don’t have some reason to be a bit worried)

By "politically correct" standards, Yes. Because the vicar is a religious person. And we know that religious people are not to be trusted around children.

By the same "politically correct" standards, parents have no right to object to "politically correct" persons being alone with their children - gays, atheists, etc.

If you want to say you can object to people around your children or touching your children, it should apply to everyone. Or no one. Not because someone has a political axe to grind against gays or religious figures.
It should … show me one example of a gay scoutmaster kissing a boy or girl and I will be feel the same way bout them. (that it was a stupid decision but on ultimately that they should not be “fired” for)

By "politically correct" standards, Yes. Because the vicar is a religious person. And we know that religious people are not to be trusted around children.

Case study is not political correctness. Religious people have *proven* themselves untrustworthy with children.

It should … show me one example of a gay scoutmaster kissing a boy or girl and I will be feel the same way bout them. (that it was a stupid decision but on ultimately that they should not be “fired” for)

If I'm a parent, I should have the right to say who is around my children, regardless of "studies".

If studies showed that vicars kissing children was harmless, I still retain my right to not allow it. Even if people say, "you're an asshole for doing that".

My kids, my rules. My reasons.

Obviously, that doesn't apply.

People live in societies, and what is and is not acceptable is not defined by any individual, but by the cumulative consensus of the members of that society.

I can't speak for English society, but the "cumulative consensus" of American society, to give an example, is that "what is and is not acceptable" is defined by the individual. Even between adults, it's inappropriate to kiss someone who doesn't want you to. Even more so for a non-relative to kiss a child -- it doesn't even have to be a suspicion of molestation, just a cultural norm and sense of personal space. Even standing too close to someone can be considered inappropriate here. It isn't "PC", it's a person's right to live without someone else's interference.

None of which is to say that the vicar's punishment is not excessive. But the story posted by the OP is just one story, out today. The situation might develop further and the vicar might get his post back. Perhaps future problems will be avoided because people will now consider cultural norms and appropriate personal space before they act. Again, that isn't PC, it's just treating people with common courtesy.

It would have been funny if the girl had slapped the vicar's face when he kissed her....

Case study is not political correctness. Religious people have *proven* themselves untrustworthy with children.
I think we should do a study and discover how many people in prison are religious.

I'm sure you'll agree, when we find that the majority are not, that we should lock up all non-religious people at once.

I think we should do a study and discover how many people in prison are religious.

Everyone on death row finds Jesus.

If I'm a parent, I should have the right to say who is around my children, regardless of "studies".

If studies showed that vicars kissing children was harmless, I still retain my right to not allow it. Even if people say, "you're an asshole for doing that".

My kids, my rules. My reasons.

Obviously, that doesn't apply.
Yes but at some point making that decision means making a decision on where your kid goes rather then controlling other peoples life as long as their actions were not inappropriate.

You do not have infinite right over other peoples life’s just because you have a kid.

For example if you don’t like a certain daycare worker despite the fact that they have done NOTHING harmful or sexual or in other ways inappropriate you do not have the right to randomly get them fired.

Everyone on death row finds Jesus.
Ah, but when they committed murder, they didn't know where Jesus was.

Everyone on death row finds Jesus.
Which would be after they've committed the crime.

Seriously, I think we should lock you up. You non-religious types are dangerous.

Ah, but when they committed murder, they didn't know where Jesus was.

Actually, a lot of them did. Some people have even been murdered in Jesus's name.

Seriously, I think we should lock you up. You non-religious types are dangerous.

Show me case study and we'll think about it. I want lists of Buddhist crimes compared against nationality.

I think we should do a study and discover how many people in prison are religious.

I'm sure you'll agree, when we find that the majority are not, that we should lock up all non-religious people at once.
Well if england is any example your guess would be wrong

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html

Actually, a lot of them did. Some people have even been murdered in Jesus's name.
Show me a link for statistics relating Christianity (devout believers) to murder.

Show me case study and we'll think about it. I want lists of Buddhist crimes compared against nationality.
Like I posted in england and wales
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html

Only 28.7 percent were non religous seems as if he has it ass backwards

I think we should do a study and discover how many people in prison are religious.

I'm sure you'll agree, when we find that the majority are not, that we should lock up all non-religious people at once.Doesn't China have a lot of Falun Gong members in its jails?

Well if england is any example your guess would be wrong

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html
Britain doesn't count. Saying your Christian in Britain is just a relflex; there is a huge discrepancy between the people who claim they are Christian and Church attendance.

Doesn't China have a lot of Falun Gong members in its jails?
They don't have to do anything to get arrested except belong to Falun Gong.

I think we should do a study and discover how many people in prison are religious.

I'm sure you'll agree, when we find that the majority are not, that we should lock up all non-religious people at once.

Aye, let's also do a study, and when we find that the majority of people in jail are male, we should lock all of us males up too! Also, let's do a study on the hair color of people in prison. Once we find which hair color the majority of them have, we should lock everybody with that hair color up!

Show me a link for statistics relating Christianity (devout believers) to murder.

Shall I start with the Inquisition frying Jews alive in oil?

Oh ... but they weren't "devout believers" ... were they...

Britain doesn't count. Saying your Christian in Britain is just a relflex; there is a huge discrepancy between the people who claim they are Christian and Church attendance.
Sense when is regular church attendance required to be a member of said religion?

Everything I have been finding shows even lower reported rates over here (bout 19 percent non religous) so far none of the data is backing up your assumption

Care to show us any data YOU have supporting your propostion?

Care to show us any data YOU have supporting your propostion?
:rolleyes:

I sometimes struggle to believe the things people try and argue.

Shall I start with the Inquisition frying Jews alive in oil?

Oh ... but they weren't "devout believers" ... were they...

We're talking about today, not hundreds of years ago.

:rolleyes:

I sometimes struggle to believe the things people try and argue.

If you have data, cough it up. If not, go away. Oh, and, I repeat myself.

Aye, let's also do a study, and when we find that the majority of people in jail are male, we should lock all of us males up too! Also, let's do a study on the hair color of people in prison. Once we find which hair color the majority of them have, we should lock everybody with that hair color up!

We're talking about today, not hundreds of years ago.

All things culminate in tradition.

But, ok ... let's talk about Kosovo.

Well, the article doesn't say which cheek he kissed.
So maybe that's why he was made to go.

If you have data, cough it up. If not, go away. Oh, and, I repeat myself.
My friend, you need to learn the difference between a serious point and a point made to show the absurdity of another argument.

My friend, you need to learn the difference between a serious point and a point made to show the absurdity of another argument.

Nah.... mostly I just enjoy arguing.

And are you implying that what I said wasn't a serious point? Really. Hair color is the cause of most violent crimes.

Nah.... mostly I just enjoy arguing.

And are you implying that what I said wasn't a serious point? Really. Hair color is the cause of most violent crimes.
I can believe that. I believe that anyone with red hair should be monitored by the Police at all times.

Nah.... mostly I just enjoy arguing.
No you don't.

No you don't.
No it isn't(an arguement). It's just contradiction.

(love python)

No you don't.

Yes I do! And I have statistics to prove it!

http://www.bls.gov/lau/maps/twmcort.gif

Yes, it's bad if a priest kisses a child, and good if the scoutmaster is a gay atheist.

What does one have to do with the other? And how exactly can you think this is in the slightest relevant? :confused:

What does one have to do with the other? And how exactly can you think this is in the slightest relevant? :confused:

Exactly.

I think what the complaint here is that in days past, the adult authority figure could kiss the babies (as an example, a politician at a rally could hold up a baby and kiss it - that was seen as a very positive thing).

Now our first thought is that until proven otherwise, every adult is a pedophile. Period.

The list goes on: every gun owner is a crazed nutcase just waiting to massacre a school full of kids, every scantily-clad woman is a whore who wants sex right now, etc.

We go so far as to say that we should avoid making generalizations about people we don't know, but almost every point of moral outrage today is not over a real, damaging overt act, but rather over acts which while innocent, are now perceived to be as horrific as if we killed or raped someone.

And then we're told, "you should have known better".

Well said. PC becomes more angry about overtones than actual negative acts.

They don't have to do anything to get arrested except belong to Falun Gong.Which is irrelevant, since all we want to know is how many people of a certain cultural/ethnic group are in prison, not whether they deserve to be there.

All things culminate in tradition.

But, ok ... let's talk about Kosovo.

We're talking about crime in the US. Say, "violent crime". Which is rape, robbery, murder, and aggravated assault.

We're talking about crime in the US.

Were we? When did I mention the US?

Were we? When did I mention the US?
We're talking about crime. I'm not talking about international war crimes, or the crimes from 500 years ago. You're being deliberately obtuse.

We were talking about whether or not being a Christian today made someone more likely to commit crime (and you mentioned people in prison today).

So, before they were incarcerated (as many find some sort of faith behind bars if only to break up the monotony), how many were practicing Christians, and how many committed their crime in the name of their faith, or justified their crimes by invoking their faith?

I'm sure there are a few abortion clinic bombers. But how many armed robberies? How many rapes? How many aggravated assaults? How many murders?

We're talking about crime. I'm not talking about international war crimes, or the crimes from 500 years ago. You're being deliberately obtuse.

We were talking about whether or not being a Christian today made someone more likely to commit crime (and you mentioned people in prison today).

So, before they were incarcerated (as many find some sort of faith behind bars if only to break up the monotony), how many were practicing Christians, and how many committed their crime in the name of their faith, or justified their crimes by invoking their faith?

I'm sure there are a few abortion clinic bombers. But how many armed robberies? How many rapes? How many aggravated assaults? How many murders?

Actually, we were talking about whether being religious today made someone more likely to commit crime.

Actually, we were talking about whether being religious today made someone more likely to commit crime.

And we're using the Vicar as an example, and someone mentioned Jesus. So I assume we're not talking about Zoroastrians.

That's not PC. It's idiocy, and a misconstruede act, but not PC.

Britain doesn't count. Saying your Christian in Britain is just a relflex; there is a huge discrepancy between the people who claim they are Christian and Church attendance.
Britain does count. Just because it disproves you does not make it not count.

I think we should do a study and discover how many people in prison are religious.

I'm sure you'll agree, when we find that the majority are not, that we should lock up all non-religious people at once.

That was the original thing that kicked the topic into this vein. So we were talking about about whether being non religious makes you more likely to commit a crime, technically.

That was the original thing that kicked the topic into this vein. So we were talking about about whether being non religious makes you more likely to commit a crime, technically.

Then you have to measure how religious they were BEFORE they went to prison.

Plenty of people "become" religious after incarceration.

That was the original thing that kicked the topic into this vein. So we were talking about about whether being non religious makes you more likely to commit a crime, technically.
Well,

Case study is not political correctness. Religious people have *proven* themselves untrustworthy with children.
made me say that, so technically that's the start of it.

Exactly ... we believe the law should protect you from people randomnly touching you ....

I find it highly odd that you don't.

I'll add that to my already long list of reasons never to visit Texas. A law against unwanted physical contact that causes injury is one thing. If you're damaged by physical contact from someone, fine, go ahead and prosecute. But a law that considers something like kissing to be a form of assault, that's stupid, because with the exception of rapists (and you've gotta be pretty stupid to misinterpret whether or not you're being raped) people don't kiss or hug with the intention to do harm. Affection is not violence. Human beings thrive on touch-- all kinds of studies support that conclusion. Making touch a crime is neurotic. And laws like that-- especially in a litigious society like much of the US seems to be becoming-- open the door to people suing strangers for accidentally bumping into them on the subway, or suing doctors for touching them without a signed, explicit waver, or suing car salesmen for shaking your hand.

What's 'odd' is any social grouping-- be it a state or a country-- where they legislate that something essential to human psychological well-being is a crime.

I'm sure there are a few abortion clinic bombers. But how many armed robberies? How many rapes? How many aggravated assaults? How many murders?

I don't know. Matthew Shepard comes to mind as does the Oklahoma bombing and that shooting of the B'nai Brith in California. Otherwise, I'll have to look it up.

Case study is not political correctness. Religious people have *proven* themselves untrustworthy with children.

No. Certian individuals have proven themselves untrustworthy with children. To tar them with the same brush is an unessecary generalisation

More specifically, contact between a child and a priest type person.

The Vicar should have known better.

I agree

People would have reacted the same way if it was a teacher and a pupil, or even an employer and employee

It's inappropriate, how ever innocent it may have been.