He was a busy little buggar wasn't he?

Onanite

well, according to his website, he founded a few Hispanic churches in the United States. He also is the founder of an organization that comprises 1268 churches worldwide.

Another Christian "jewel" bits the dust. Being a member of the Hispanic culture myself, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that 8 victims is just the tip of the iceberg.

Also, there is no telling how many women voluntarily donated their "gifts" to keep the man of god "happy."

Ho-hum... Yawn. Another bullshit "apostle" goes under. Whatever. Dee de dee... just like Carlos Mencia says. That's a big "you DUMBASSES!" to all the people who continue to look to these idiots for their so-called spiritual guidance. I hate feeling so fraking cynical, but I have seen and heard too much of this shit. It's all starting to sound the same... SwaggartHaggardBakkerCopelandRobertsPearsonPopoffAllenHinnParsleyHickeyShambachCrouchFalwellRobertsonDollar and now this stupid piece of shit.

Wakey-wakey, people... this shit is rotten to the core. And hey... I'll go as far as to say that I don't CARE if you continue to believe in "Jesus"... as far-fetched as that might be. Just STOP telling yourself and any of us the lie that this "christianity" shit has ANYTHING to do with anyone remotely resembling an almighty deity who is benevolent and all-knowing. Any 'god' worth their salt would have killed this latest son of a bitch at the first service after his first assault, right there in front of the whole crowd, just like Nadab and Abihu from the bible. When a real god gets pissed cause you're a fucking fraud, you DIE. Once again, the book is better than the movie.

He was merely overcome by his biological needs.

Accept Darwin into your life and you will understand.

OK, OK enough already with the deviant pastors/ministers, televengelists, pedophile priests and their ilk. I have to admit that as an agnostic I find some of this news comforting in a strange sort of way. Not that it is not tragic for the victims, but news about another fallen christian leader...(as laughing buddha said ho-hum). But what it one-sided about this is that the same faith that produces these clowns also gives us folks like Mother Teresa. Sure she had her critics but even they begrudgingly gave her credit for her work. How many atheists/agnostics/exchristians are serving the poorest of the poor in the streets of Calcutta? I know many Christians who are feeding the homeless, visiting prisoners, doing community development...and many of them are NOT doing it as a segue to evangelize either. They do it from a conviction from their faith.

My point is that we (unbelievers) are defined by what we are not....not by what we are and frankly it comes off as whining. I think a lot of the angry rhetotic coming from unbelievers comes from a feeling of powerlessness. Come on non-believers...get out there and do something positive for humanity besides bash christianity. Your time will be much better spent.

Bill Gates is an atheist and he is doing monumental charity work.

Here's a few others:

The Atheist Alliance International is a democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies. http://atheistalliance.org

-----

The Council for Secular Humanism, part of the Center for Inquiry,

AmeriCares is a nonprofit aid and relief organization that coordinates distribution of medical supplies in response to natural disasters and for long-term humanitarian assistance programs.

The American Humanist Association has received an outpouring of requests from members who wished to give “as Humanists” to the Katrina relief efforts and in response has set up a secure website for giving online while at the same time attempting to establish a permanent, unambiguously Humanist, means of supporting relief efforts by offering the option to allocate 5% of your donation toward establishing “Humanist Charities” for better responding to catastrophes like this. For the secure site, go to:

https://www.americanhumanist.org/secure/humanistcharities.php

----

American Atheists is a nationwide movement which defends the civil rights of nonbelievers, works for the separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy. The American Atheists’ website has links to a number of sites.

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICES COMMITTEE [http://www.afsc.org/]
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION [https://www.americanhumanist.org/secure/humanistcharities.php]
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS (founded by Deist-Unitarian Clara Barton) [http://www.redcross.org/]
AMERICARES [http://www.americares.org/]
MERCYCORPS [http://mercycorps.org/index.php?sections_id=2&subsections_id=502&items_id=842]
NETWORK FOR GOOD (has numerous listings for helping groups, religious and secular) [http://www.networkforgood.org/]
OXFAM AMERICA [http://www.oxfamamerica.org/]
SECOND HARVEST [http://www.secondharvest.org/]
UNITED WAY OF AMERICA [http://national.unitedway.org/]
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (our winged and four-legged friends need help, too!) [http://www.hsus.org/]
PETSMART CHARITIES (http://www.hsus.org/)

I'm sorry, but your implied supposition that no one does charity work unless they are religiously motivated, is flawed. Futher, more is done through secular taxes than through any outpouring of generosity by Christians in any era. Every read "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens? There were few taxes back then and charity was at a premium. Yet, everyone was supposedly a Christian.

Secular taxes provide poverty relief and medical care to millions of people without means. If it fell to Christians to freely provide for societies ills, we'd be terrible shape, and we'd need a Mother Theresa here to build more death homes.

I think you missed my point...I am saying we cannot unilaterally villify all christians without conceding that they do some good and (I would say the same thing to christians about atheists).

Taxes have to be paid by law...no credit there for personal acts of charity, sorry. Don't christians pay taxes too?

Regarding Bill Gates...he is not doing charity work because he is an atheist. His atheism does not motivate him to do what he does unlike MT who does it because of her faith.

As for your comment about "Mother Teresa death homes" well, wow... that speaks to me more about you than it does about her...just as you think christians cannot see truth if it smacks them in the face when you buy into any ideology you blind yourself to some degree...even atheists.

The fit survive, the weak perish.

Every time Xians want to show hoe charitable they are, someone drags out that fascist hag Mother Teresa. The truth of the matter is that her order is notorious in Calcutta for their failure to participate in any charitable relief in India. they maintain hospices where peopel are brought to die, and where they receive no medical care at all, but are exhorted to accept Jesus before they die. In a famous example, Teresa told a "patient'" "Your pain is Jesus kissing you." and he responded, "Well can you tell him to stop?" It has recently been theorized that her obsession with pain and suffering was a result of her own inability to "connect" with her god for most of her life, in a way that sounds suspiciously to me like she was suffering from depression. Note that when she herself needed medical attention, she did not entrust herself to the untrained, uncaring personnel who staffed her death houses (Yes, the term is accurate!) but went to the most expensive American clinics. She was pally with notorious despots, including the Duvaliers of Haiti, weho invited her into their country for the propaganda value, and where she did little or nothing of good, and she campaigned against divorce in Ireland, the last country in Europe at the time where a woman had absolutely no recourse to escape from an abusive relationship. The entire story of this Xian banshee can be found in Christopher Hitchen's "The Missionary Position." So please if you want to have any credibility at all at this site, don't mention Mother Teresa, because we know all about her.

Mother Teresa...many who worked for her, have said that she had an unhealthy obsession with "suffering". A lot of what I have read about her expresses her philosophy, as suffering being the best path to God. Fairly sick if you ask me, and she was not above taking money from "bad" people to fund her work. In exchange for this money, she would endorse these bad people, who were sometimes not just bad, but down right evil. The funding of her work, would often just end up being the expansion of her missions or convents. Her convents was where her "death houses" came from, and these "houses" re-enforced her suffering philosophy.

Keep in mind that this mentality of "they did good, and thats why they shouldn't be held as accountable for their bad deeds" gives rise to pastors(or other forms of public leaders) getting off, or receiving support after that commit crimes like rape, or child sexual blah blah blah. Long sentence, sorry. Don't take offense Mike, may I call you Mike? I actually agree with you to some degree, about people ignoring some of the good things Christian people will do. However, my view is that the false Dogma, and blah we have heard before, are unnecessary to do good work. One of the main things Christians will argue, is that Christians do good things, and that the ends justify the means. When they make these arguments, they are in a way, saying that it doesn't matter if their religion is false, because it produces good results. This also falls along the lines of the old saying, "Give a man a fish blah blah blah, teach a man to fish blah blah blah".

As for charity, it can be hard for atheists to get into charity in a lot of communities, my own included. I tried to do some charity work before, but I was turned off by the religious attachment that came with it. Even in the charities, that seemed rather secular I would still find plenty of religious blah blah blahs. No excuse I know, so I personally found a way to help without dealing with the religious types. I fix, upgrade, and build computers for people, for free. That isnt the charity part, I mostly do that because that is how I learn. When I help these people, I ask them to give me their old computer parts they are not going to use, and when I get enough parts, I build a computer out of them. I then give that computer to someone who needs it, like a child in school, or a poor college student. I mostly give them to poor college kids, since I know a lot of college kids, and most of the grade school kids I know, come from well off families.

Sorry for the long post, hope someone reads, although I understand if you don't. I usually don't read long posts myself.

Yes, Ho-hum, another "apostle" goes down...and yes, part of me is happy to see such things, if nothing more than to remind myself it is all still bullshit.

Just to clarify Brock, I was typing my comment, when you posted yours. Didn't mean to double state what you already said.

It’s the religious who says they have the bead on morality. That they set the standards.

I like these postings. I generally don’t comment on them because they stand alone. These postings are here, as a collective, to show that religious do not have a greater handle on what is moral or controlling immoral behavior.

And I don’t want to hear – that – Hey, we’re all human and we have failings. There’s difference between buying a Game Boy instead of new eyeglasses or eating a donut while on a diet or snapping at someone because you have a headache than systematically planning and using a position of authority to completely (literally) screw someone over.

I think when those who are in positions which have a moral duty to protect the weak and they not only fail but also exploit it, it should highlighted.

Michael said:

"Regarding Bill Gates...he is not doing charity work because he is an atheist. His atheism does not motivate him to do what he does unlike MT who does it because of her faith."

I take exception to this, because it makes a false presumption about atheism and denigrates the good deeds of a man who doesn't have to do anything for anybody. Of course he's not doing charity work because of his atheism. Atheism is NOT a religion, a cult, a creed, etc. etc. All atheism means is a lack of belief in the existence of a god--any god, christian or otherwise. Bill Gates does charity work because he has the financial capability to do so, because he's probably a decent individual, and because it positively effects his bottom line in tax right offs.

Mother T was motivated by her religion, plain and simple. Bill Gates has no religion by which to be motivated. Are we to belittle his charitable acts simply because he does them for reasons outside the proddings of some dogmatic religion? Do you have to be a saint or otherwise have a religious backing to make your works of charity legitimate? Does it somehow lessen your contribution to mankind if you do a good deed, not because some imaginary god says you should, but because you genuinely want to help improve the station of your fellow primates?

I don't think so.

I understand where you are coming from, Michael. I really do. But I really don't think your argument has much of a leg to stand on here.

As to the original topic, I'll leave you with a question: Do you think that it is right to keep PUBLIC registries of convicted sex offenders? Why or why not?

thanks all for the feedback. I take what has been said seriously and appreciate the time you take to write it. I learn a lot from the responses and interaction (especially when it remains civil) I know MT was no saint (she admitted as much herself) still with anyone who "does a good deed" we probably always do it with mixed motives....some good, some not so good. Still to see her only in a negative light is a slanted point of view.

in response to Monk's question Do you think that it is right to keep PUBLIC registries of convicted sex offenders? Why or why not?

The fact that the question even arises is an admission that our justice system and modes of punishment lack the ability to instill permanent change in people's behavior. If it did the threat of the punishment would prevent the crime...but it doesn't. We all know it doesn't (but I am not suggesting we revert to beliefs where one's penis be cut off for an offense). From an purely ethical point of view I don't have a problem with public registries..the issue I have is with fairness and how the laws are applied. Why are sex offenders singled out? Why not murderers, convicted gang members, embezzlers, white collar criminals?

"Regarding Bill Gates...he is not doing charity work because he is an atheist. His atheism does not motivate him to do what he does unlike MT who does it because of her faith."

Monk: I take exception to this, because it makes a false presumption about atheism and denigrates the good deeds of a man who doesn't have to do anything for anybody. Of course he's not doing charity work because of his atheism. Atheism is NOT a religion, a cult, a creed, etc. etc. All atheism means is a lack of belief in the existence of a god--any god, christian or otherwise. Bill Gates does charity work because he has the financial capability to do so, because he's probably a decent individual, and because it positively effects his bottom line in tax right offs.

Thank you.

R. black: I take your post as a confirmation of mine, thanks for the support.
Mike: In regards to my "slanted" view of MT, believe me, I (and R.Black) have barely scratched the surface. I know quite a bit about the "Saint of Calcutta," and I think there is nothing, absolutley nothing that can be said in her defence. Her brand of xianity went out in the eighth century, and her reputation is based almost solely on misrepresentation.

R. black: I take your post as a confirmation of mine, thanks for the support.
Mike: In regards to my "slanted" view of MT, believe me, I (and R.Black) have barely scratched the surface. I know quite a bit about the "Saint of Calcutta," and I think there is nothing, absolutley nothing that can be said in her defence. Her brand of xianity went out in the eighth century, and her reputation is based almost solely on misrepresentation.

Hey Mike, I like your response to his question. I also would wonder about the validity of sex offender lists. Don't get me wrong, I do not want to defend sex offenders, but one of the themes through out high school social studies was individual rights and a right to privacy.

A little personal story...

My brother-in-law is on the sex offender list in my area. The state I live in was rolling out some new sex offender program, and I decided to check out the list. I pumped in every name I could think, including my own. My brother-in-law's name came up, and the reason it stated for him being a sex offender was "Carnal Knowledge". That is all it stated. I had no idea what it meant. After I confirmed it was indeed "him", I researched it further calling various departments to learn more. As it turns out, he is a convicted sex offender because, he picked up a 17 year old girl at a club that had a minimum age limit of 21. The girl wrote down her experiences in her diary, and included his name. Later, her dad read her diary, and tracked down my brother-in-law. Naturally the father took him to court. My brother-in-law and the girl gave pretty much the same story. That they met at a 21+ club, that she had a fake ID, and that my brother-in-law had seen the fake ID, except of course he didn't know it was fake. Most guys would have gotten off, but as it turned out the father was a sheriff. Now, I don't think it was morally right what my brother-in-law did, but I feel he was innocent. They were in a 21+ bar, the girl had a convincing fake ID, and she supposedly looked like she was 21. Well, according to my brother-in-law she looked 21. Either way, I hardly consider him a sex offender, but his name is on the list anyway. He should have told my family before the marriage, but oh well. He also received a lot of harassment from work, when coworkers found his name on the list. Even if he knew the girl was 17, he is being compared to rapists and child molesters. Hardly seems like justice to me. Just to drive the point further, I actually hate my brother-in-law. I think he is a jackass, but I don't feel he is a sex offender. Well, at least I don't feel he should be. People should have the right to defend themselves, but I feel the sex offender list has gotten a bit crazy.

Mike and R.Black-I would have to agree with your statements regarding the sex offender registry, but I would take it a bit farther and say that it is a complete violation of civil rights for those registries to exist.

Michael and R. Black:

You all have good points about the sex offender lists. I asked Michael the question about sex offenders as a lead into an analogy, but I no longer think the analogy I had planned would be valid. So, suffice it to say that at minimum the sex offender list laws need some reform. However, I still feel that the public has a right to know that criminals who have been convicted of committing heinous crimes against the body should be published in publicly accessible lists. Having said that, I agree with Michael that it shouldn't just be sex offenders, but other crimes that include severe bodily harm (murder, etc). I disagree that nonviolent forms of crime require lists. We can carry this issue further if you all like. I see both of your points (and I certainly sympathize with your brother-in-law's situation, r. black), but we may have to agree to disagree.

As for publishing these articles about raping clergymen, well, I see nothing wrong with reporting them here. Publishing those articles here is no different than them being published in newspapers (hard copy and online), except that HERE, on ex-christian.net, we might actually read these articles and do something about it other than pray. I seriously doubt your average American reader would do anything more than shake his or her head and say "gosh, how terrible."

"Come on non-believers...get out there and do something positive for humanity besides bash christianity. Your time will be much better spent."

This is a noble call, Michael. Just remember that many of us here see the refutation (call it "bashing," if you must) of christianity as a positive thing to do for humanity. Everything has its good and evil side. Apologetics have been made unchallenged for christianity for too long; it's been sugar-coated. Articles such as these about sex offending clergy help reveal criticisms that christianity has managed to avoid for too long. If christianity indeed does more good than harm, then it will withstand these criticisms and no harm will be done. But if it is found to do more harm than good, then articles like these may speed it's fall (in which case, the sooner, the better).

I would agree that there is a feeling of powerlessness, but it is because we are a serious minority, and the things most of us believe in (freedom of speech, freedom from religion, academic and scientific integrity) seem to come under attack from the religious right far more than they should in what is (legally, based on our supreme law, the constitution) still a secular republic.

Monk: "Atheism is NOT a religion, a cult, a creed, etc. etc. All atheism means is a lack of belief in the existence of a god--any god, christian or otherwise. Bill Gates does charity work because he has the financial capability to do so, because he's probably a decent individual, and because it positively effects his bottom line in tax right offs."

BoomSLANG: "Thank you."

And, thank you as well Monk. From my understanding, Bill Gates in his early development years did not "adhere" to a "sterling ethic" (per my pretty liberal standards)... albeit, now that he is financially well-founded, he seems to promote decent standards - he's human.

An atheist doesn't owe a “response” to a failing theistic approach to morality. A failing theistic approach seeks out atheists who may not be sterling citizens, in order to marginalize “all” of those who fall in the category atheism; but that assumes that there is a uniting factor, that links all atheists; like a manifesto or doctrine that prompts all atheists to act to a standard moral code – which is patently false.

If I were ever attacked publicly by a theist trying to cover their tracks for some mal-behavior, and they addressed me as a atheist first, I’d respond by asking why they weren’t capable of addressing me as a person first; as… my behavior in no manner, reflects the greater diversity of the category of atheism and the people within.

That is much different than the theistic alternative; there are many good "theists" (first), who are "more" prone to do good things as people (second). The WM exposes numerous religious leaders; exemplifying the obvious lack of a moral patent claimed by many theists. Thanks again.

Regarding the sex-offender database... data bases are inevitable in modern society.

Some states have databases for criminals, and can be looked up quite easily.

Where I find strength in transparency using public database access, I find, to be lacking many times. For instance, a database look-up where someone is labeled "x", without any surrounding context, unjustly exposes a person to be associated with people from one end of that spectrum to the other - it's deceptive and unjust.

Those who commit violent acts or predatory acts, get to be associated with those who may have done something less offensive.

If the intent of a public database, is to "communicate" to the public, the threat a particular person... then, it only seems logical, that more is needed than a mere label. There needs to be context provided, surrounding the incident, and a defendant should be allowed the opportunity to make a public statement regarding the incident that is attached to the database - whether they are convicted or not.

And, if a public office can't manage the database overhead that would be required to give each case more context, then it should not be placed into a public forum, where justice is supposed to prevail and the rights of the individual are supposed to be protected.

D8: An atheist doesn't owe a 'response' to a failing theistic approach to morality.

Holy shit!....bro, that was awesome! Simple, but awesome. Kudos

Thanks BoomSLANG, the caffeine finally kicked in :-) Have a great one.

Dave8 and boomSLANG:

You're both welcome and thanks in turn.

Dave8, rather than quote and praise your last two posts at length, let me just say "right on."

Can I just add to what's already been said by my distinguished colleagues by borrowing from Monk:

"Right on!"

JCS, One team, one fight :-) Have a great one

you people are ALL wrong, because pastor sergio alvarizares is inocent. how can you people judge him like that. if you dont even know the story...those woman are all liers. and god will send justice. you people should know way better than that!!! all i am going to say is, that i believe in gad and i believe pastor sergio is inosent. i just hope you people ask god for forgiveness before it is too late...

Anonymous: "you people are ALL wrong, because pastor sergio alvarizares is inocent."

If you have proof of this, I suggest that you call the Portland police department with your evidence.

astreja: acually i do have evidence...but i'm not about to do the job of those ugly woman. i think they are the ones that are suppost to say the truth and not keep lieing...i just hope they get to say the truth before god does justice.
also, what evidence do YOU have that he's gilty...

anonymouse: "acually i do have evidence...but i'm not about to do the job of those ugly woman."

Fine Christian talk indeed from the "judge not" crowd -- Declaring the alleged victims of this alleged crime to be "ugly". Shame on you.

I don't have any proof that he's guilty or that he's innocent, which is precisely why this matter must be examined in court with all available information in place. Please have the gonads to put your evidence in front of the court, so that the picture will be more complete and appropriate justice more likely. If you do know something that can exonerate this man and refuse to speak up, you have abrogated your civic duties.

Because a nonexistent god is incapable of exacting justice. You're on your own here.

WOW....i can no believe you just said that...there is an existing God...and he IS going to make justice!!!!

also i'm not judgeing those woman...i'm just saying what they trully are...

now if you dont know anything either thean why are you talking???

There's an existing god?

Prove it.

Without using the Bible.

And without using some one-off experience that happened only to you, or to a friend, or to someone you know from church.

Good police work, careful cross-examination of witnesses, and scientific analysis of physical evidence will always produce a better "justice" than the hand of an imaginary god.

And again, if you have any knowledge or materials that would influence this case one way or the other, it is your civic duty to contact the authorities and participate in the investigation and trial. 'Nuff said.

Hmmmm no reply from anonymous, what a suprise! Or not.

'redtail' in regards to your comment that the sexual register "is a complete violation of civil rights" I wonder if the children and women who have been violated by these miscreants feel the same way?

Why should sexual offenders be allowed to continue to live in communities anonymously along side their potential victims? If you rape and abuse a child or an adult you have already violated their human rights so why should you expect to have your revolting crimes hidden from a community?

I realise that there are problems where certain innocent people who share the same name as an offender have been attacked and even killed as a result of these lists but what is the alternative?