See, you consider this a legitimate answer even though you have no clue whether the case happened or not.
Of course it was a legitimate answer. You proposed a hypothetical in which this particular case did not happen, and I answered it, sticking to your hypothetical.
Where are your goalposts now, and are they on wheels to make them easy to move?
I'm pro-life. I understand many do not understand what that means.
It obviously means something to you other than wanting to protect human life.
A report named hundreds of church leaders accused or found guilty of abusing children and says survivors were mistreated
www.theguardian.com
I condemn without reservation, any Christian church of any denomination, or any religious organization of any kind, or any organization, or any individual, who encourages the sexualization, sexual grooming, and/or sexual abuse of children.
Why is it impossible for you to do the same?
You started off saying the article was a lie. Now you are saying you have reasons to doubt it. I said it's a reasonable issue to address either way.
I said that it is most likely a "could have happened" story. That's what I believe. I didn't say that I knew for sure that it is false.
P.S. you are the one who glossed over the issues in the Southern Baptist church. Well, glossed over isn't the right word. Completely skipped over it would be.
When you said "The Church," the Catholic church popped into my mind, because that is the most common meaning. I did not go to "The Southern Baptist Convention," since it is not referred to as "The Church."
Again, any organization that covers up child abuse of any kind should be universally condemned. Any group or individual that has access to children and uses that access to sexually groom them should be investigated and prosecuted. If it turns out that a group or individual can groom children by introducing them to sexual topics, and forcing them to be aware of adult sexuality, without violating any specific laws, then the laws should be changed.
I didn't say it was wrong.
Different states having different violent crime laws is not wrong? Then I'm not sure your issue with Ohio.