In addition to the "image problem" caused by fundamentalist Christians who prattle on incessantly with biblical quotations, more grist for the cinematic mill is to be found in reports such as this from today's 'Age':

"AN ELDERLY Exclusive Brethren man who is a former church leader and trustee of a Queensland Brethren private school, has been charged with sexual offences against a child.

It is the third incident of alleged sexual abuse of children to emerge from the secretive sect in the past 12 months."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/brethren-man-on-sex-charges/2007/11/12/1194766590239.html

Hi CJ... well no argument from me there. I guess it would have been better to simply mention that he was an 'elderly man' .. I don't see what special significance the 'Exclusive Brethen' has to do with the issue.

No.. I'm not playing 'victimized muslim' complaining about being vilified in the press .. complaining about the ethnic tag....

I have no argument with the 'ethnic' or religious tag being used WHEN it is relevant.

a)In cases where the description of a fled offender is helpful to the investigation "of Middle Eastern appearance" is crucial, just as 'of caucasian or asian appearance is equally as vital.

b) When the RELIGION in question actually TEACHES that it is ok to molest children...such as the 'Children of God' sect of the 60s.

Other than that.. it is outright wrong to mention the mans religious affiliation.
Unless you can enlighten us as to how it is in fact relevant ?

In cases where children are molested across Australia... do we have 'a rotary member' or.. "A member of lions" mentioned ? no..of course not, because it is not relevant. So...it supports the very point of this thread.. VILIFICATION by association.

And..as Pesky Pericles is often laboring toward me.. YOU are part of the problem :)

Boazy, so we can expect to never again see you commenting that some thug (or group of thugs) are muslim when their actions are a reflection of social conditions rather than a clear teaching of the faith of their parents.

We can expect to see an end to attempts to associate an interest in child abuse with pretty much every belief (or non belief) system different to your own.

I look forward to seeing your apology to all those groups whom you have villified by association in previous posts when you attempt to respresent your own twisted interpretations of others beliefs as the norm and then using misfits behaving badly as your proof. Maybe even an apology to those who you've attempted to villify by association and added a "?" to the comment to excuse your behaviour.

I'll end this post at that, there is a quite impressive aerial display by a group of pigs flying backwards past my window which I want to watch for a while.

R0bert

boaz, what if the social practices of the exclusive brethren led to an environment where the molestation was able to take place?

'exclusive' by its very nature, leads to secrecy.

Unless you know the particulars of the case you can't say whether it's relevant, but given that exclusive brethren lead such different lives and exclude themselves from things like schools and government organisations that may have detected the molestation, I'd say it's damn relevant.

and runner, if you do indeed genuinely assist people of dubious background, then I concede you may indeed surprise me.

My entire point in this thread is that actions speak louder than words.
Calling yourself a christian is just a word. You can claim that actually 'being' a christian is what's important, and that christians do good in the world.

If that's what you genuinely mean, then I can only conclude that many christians are christians in name only.

Why is the 'turn the other cheek' part of Christian philosophy appear to be harder to see in the comments of fundamentalist Christians?

Boazy, I suppose the relevance of the media mentioning the paedophile's membership of the Exclusive Brethren is that they are a secretive Christian cult that has been in the news lately because of their devious actions and bizarre practices. The cult's prudishness is an extreme version of Christian sexual represssion, which has long been implicated in the numerous examples of priests, preachers, ministers and even nuns enagaging in sexual abuse of children whose trust they gain via their pastoral roles.

Which is, of course, why the figure of the sexually deranged Christian nutter features so prominently in film and literature. Strangely, given your babbling about Islam's supposed approval of paedophilia, we don't hear anything of the sort about imams, muftis etc.