Quote:But, teachers are immune from being sexual predators?
Irrelevant. No matter who is abusing kids, the idea of "sex ed" at that age is to protect kids from it. If one teacher fails to teach it, and abuses kids, that is monstrous, but of no consequence as to whether the teaching of basic defense against abuse is a good idea. Indeed, one would hope that previous teachers set a standard, and told kids what is appropriate, to help prevent such abuse by later ones.
Quote:Have you seen the news lately? It seems that non-family members are more likely to commit crimes against family members.
Violence within families would be both underreported, and also not newsworthy. Man abuses son? Happens every day. Not going to make CNN. Deranged paedophile on the loose? Front page news in most cities.
Quote:See: - I would guess that whoever has cited your statistics has done so for their own purposes. Judge the accuracy for yourself, but it reflects what I've seen and experienced.
That study does not say what you think it says. Either that, or we are going by *very* different definitions of what constitutes an Evangelical christian.
0.5% are the number who self-describe as "Evangelical", to the exclusion of calling themselves, baptists, pentecostals, methodists, protestants, generic Christians, etc...
It says nothing about the actual number of people who fall under any given definition of "evangelical". Many of the other churches on that list, the Baptists and Charismatic churches especially, fall easily under Evangelical Christianity. The number, as I would gauge it using that list, is about what I said it was: 25%.
And, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't even matter. Baptists are as much supporters of abstinence-only as the rest. As are pentecostals, and methodists, etc... If it makes you feel differently about the argument, substitute "fundamentalist" for "evangelical" in my previous statements. It's just semantics, really.
-Jester