samsung,

I can't give statistics, I'm only speaking from my personal experience. I am aware of children being propositioned at nudist clubs, but given the fact that nudist children are quite comfortable with their bodies, they're not usually ashamed to speak out against these actions, and the offender can be dealt with. Prior to laws being enforced in NSW about nude photography, I observed a man photographing naked children at a nudist beach in NSW. I knew who this person was and made a complaint to the police about him as he had been banned from a nudist club I was associated with, due to suggestive comments he made to a young girl (who promptly reported the matter to her mother). If a paedophile comes to a nudist club where children are present, he will be a lot more visable than what a paedophile would be in a clothed environment.

This is my fourth post today on this thread, so I won't be back until tomorrow.

Polycarp wrote:

"Let's ask a different question.. to WHOM would a child go at school for someone to caringly listen to them other than a Chaplain? Sure they can goto a teacher but teachers are busy anyway and I rather doubt they want to get involved in all the problems that disfunctional families create and send to school....."

A child should go to whoever he or she would feel comfortable with. The public school system is for all Children. A child with Lutheran, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or other parents who were not Protestant fundamentalists would probably not go to a Protestant fundamentalist chaplain. Other children would probably not go to a Jewish chaplain. A trained counselor who is not identified as clergy would be much better. Chaplains are limited by identification with a particular faith. They should all be replaced by trained counselors who are not clergy.

>>Don't know the margin for error here but time will tell.<<

The margin of error on a face to face poll of 4 people would be about 99.7.

I'm with Gibo. This is obviously a case of sorcery. Decent people everywhere should be calling for the public scrutiny of potters', weavers', artists', photographers', school principals' and primary school children's naked bodies for spare nipples and oddly shaped birth marks. Every crack and crevice of them. Preferably at large venues with big screens so the pure can see everything.

Steel Mann,
Sorry for not identifying you.
You say you only take photograps of clothed people because it is illegal. Then why support Henson as he illegally photographs nude children? A double standard indeed!

Does Henson violate the law of human social dignity and decency? Is his motives rather suspect?

David f is correct that it would be infinitely preferable if schools had qualified counsellors available to students, as opposed to well-meaning amateur godbotherers with ulterior motives - such as those chaplains supplied by the Scripture Union, which regards the chaplaincy program as an opportunity for evangelism.

Porky: << CREEEEEPY is how every person I've asked about Hensons visit describes it. >>

I imagine that "CREEEEEEPY" is the sort of thing that might come to mind when accosted by a slathering godbotherer wanting to rave on about Bill Henson.

Philo: << why support Henson as he illegally photographs nude children? >>

Henson has done nothing illegal. Why do some religious nutters persist in telling outright lies in order to foment hysteria?

CJ says:

<<such as those chaplains supplied by the Scripture Union, which regards the chaplaincy program as an opportunity for evangelism.>>

While I enthusiastically welcome any genuine opportunity for evangelism, to do take issue with this view of SU. I would not want to deny any child the opportunity to know Christ and His love, but to flagrantly break clearly spelt out rules in a school environment would not be something I wish to associate myself or my Church with.

The other point worthy of highlighting is:

<<"Henson has done nothing illegal">>

Well.. in regard to the school visit.... no, but his nude photo's ...perhaps. That is something to be determined by the law. As it stands it appears the interpreters of the law say "Ok" but a different judge, a different social climate... a different outcome based on the same laws might well result.

But more importantly, is the fact that the quote above from CJ is a clear indication of where his mob would take us along the highway to hell of MIUAUG... there are no signposts to direct us away from whatever inclination strikes the fancy of those driving the bus.....except those they prefer to ignore... "I am the Light of the world"

Tragically... many people prefer darkness to light, and seek to re-define the light of Christ as some kind of oppressive human system.
Worse.. some using the name of Christ have done that very thing.
May He liberate us from such thinking, both inside and outside the realm of 'The Church'.