Southern Baptist Convention Added to Sexual Abuse Suit Against Former Judge Paul Pressler

Judging from how some exercise the application of secondary separation, may the plaintiff has a valid point?

The original lawsuit says that Pressler and Patterson are closet Calvinists (which is laughable if you know anything about the two men), and then blames Calvinism for the alleged abuse. I wrote an article about it several months ago, and have a hard time taking the charges seriously after reading the nonsense put forward by the plaintiff and his lawyer.

If indeed Pressler's habits were "the worst kept secret in Houston", we would have to infer that the SBC and FBC of Houston might be named.  You can argue it's just "deep pockets" with some justification, but if there is indeed something to this, they ought to be named.  

"If", as the Spartans told Philip of Macedon, of course.  Looks like a very troubled man, no matter what's under the surface.

Aaron Blumer,

Excellent comment. 

Judge Paul Pressler is a friend of mine.  I know nothing of this lawsuit except what I’ve read in the news. 

But knowing him as I do, I am absolutely convinced Judge Pressler is innocent of these charges. 

David R. Brumbelow

Aaron Blumer wrote:

But the fact that Calvinism is to blame... Obviously!  ;-) 

Famous quote from Casablanca 

Aaron Blumer wrote:

I have no info to base an opinion on, as far as guilt or innocence goes, but to implicate a defendant's church or other affiliated organizations, wouldn't someone at least have to make a case that these entities knew​​​ a crime was occurring and either assisted or failed to report, or something similar?

But the fact that Calvinism is to blame... Obviously!  ;-) 

If the plaintiffs have no evidence to connect alleged crimes to people in the SBC and at FBC, yes, those defendants would not only be exonerated, but the plaintiffs would then be open to a countersuit, and their lawyers to the possibility of discipline.  It doesn't happen enough, but it can.  You basically have to prove that not only did they not have the evidence, but that any reasonable person would have known.

And to clarify my earlier comment, I am saying that it's clear that the plaintiff/complainant is a very troubled man.  My apologies for the ambiguity there, and my hope and prayer is that David's comment is the reality; that Pressler is indeed innocent and is paying a price for trying to reach out to a very troubled man.

A thought along these lines; the Calvinism comment is an unforced error which does suggest possible difficulties with the complainant's case.

Here's what I wrote when the lawsuit first hit the news. My article includes a link to the lawsuit, if you're interested in reading it for yourself. 

https://pjmedia.com/faith/calvinism-blame-sexual-assault-southern-baptis...