Church Youth Minister Allegedly Paid For Sex

[Temporal Renegade]

The headline has been edited a little, as I didn't think it would be appropriate for the thread header. You'll see why:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21611373/

[hgc]

So, what's new under the sun?

[Temporal Renegade]

So, what's new under the sun?

Too bad there doesn't seem to be a screening process for church officials...

[sophia8]

The word to note here is alleged. Not only has there not been a trial yet, the charges are still being investigated.

This being a skeptics' forum, I would expect people to wait until corroborating evidence was produced before commenting.

[Cainkane1]

The married with children youth minister at my mothers church was caught by the police on the internet trying to set up a meeting with what he thought was a 14 year old girl.

[Skeptical Greg]

The word to note here is alleged. Not only has there not been a trial yet, the charges are still being investigated.

This being a skeptics' forum, I would expect people to wait until corroborating evidence was produced before commenting.

For the most part, the skeptics here, seem to be doing just that ..

You own 25% of the comments made before mine ..


For what it's worth, contrary to popular assumption, in the U.S., once you are charged with a crime, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent...

[ravdin]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.

I agree the man's innocent until proven otherwise. So I should say that allegedly, that is really disgusting.

[Apology]

For the most part, the skeptics here, seem to be doing just that ..

You own 25% of the comments made before mine ..


For what it's worth, contrary to popular assumption, in the U.S., once you are charged with a crime, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent...

Yeah, the only one who is bound by "innocent until proven guilty" is the legal system. We're free to think anything we want.

[hgc]

Just because this is a "skeptics" forum doesn't make it a "people who know squat" forum. Which is probably why I have to keep explaining such basic concepts such as: Innocent until proven guilty is something that applies to the power of the state, not to the opinions of private individuals. Otherwise we'd all be going around saying that OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone.

[Apology]

Just because this is a "skeptics" forum doesn't make it a "people who know squat" forum. Which is probably why I have to keep explaining such basic concepts such as: Innocent until proven guilty is something that applies to the power of the state, not to the opinions of private individuals. Otherwise we'd all be going around saying that OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone.

But the glove didn't fit! :mad:


Just kidding, he did it.

[sophia8]

All I'm saying is that one short news report isn't enough to say that he's guilty. Seems to me that certain forumites' prejudices were showing here.
As I say, skeptics are supposed to want corroborating evidence for everything.

[the PC apeman]

Which of the three posts preceding yours were you objecting to? Or was it merely a preemptive strike?

[Bob Klase]

But the glove didn't fit!

But you have to pay attention- he said "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit". And they did acquit. He didn't say "if the glove doesn't fit, he's innocent".

[ponderingturtle]

All I'm saying is that one short news report isn't enough to say that he's guilty. Seems to me that certain forumites' prejudices were showing here.
As I say, skeptics are supposed to want corroborating evidence for everything.

It also did not mention the ages of the children.