Update: Pastor With Aids Who Had Affairs Banned From Church

[Ratttking]

David2074

Ratttking

David2074

McFarland, 47, has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Knowingly spreading a sexually transmitted disease is a misdemeanor in Alabama punishable by up to a year in jail.

Okay, so send him to jail for a year X the number of women he admitted to doing that.
Also send him to jail for fraud for transferring the church funds to a different account.

There seems to be so much wrong with this situation it is hard to believe they can't get him out or that they got into that situation in the first place.
But a few thoughts / comments:

1. The church's WEB SITE is functional but pretty lame looking. And yeah, that has little to do with the story other than I was trying to see who they are affiliated with. Though it does still describe McFarland as a wonderful man of God blah blah..
It does mention he is serving their "cultural and social needs.." Maybe that is the sex part. lol

2. He is a Baptist minister. Presumably he was ordained by one of the baptist organizations. Seems like they should revoke his ordination based on his self confessed abuse of his position in the church.

3. Why the heck was he apparently the sole signer on the bank account?
Most established churches have a treasurer or some other checks and balances on the money.
(Or at least I assume they do based on the ones I've had any knowledge of)
The church has at least 81 deacons so they could surely have at least one treasurer type person.

4. Why the heck did the one deacon vote to keep him as pastor after all the abuse he admitted to?

5. Knowingly spreading an STD may be a misdemeanor but it seems like knowingly spreading a fatal disease could be charged under a different law. Possibly not though since the Alabama law specifically includes HIV.

Ala. Code § 22-11A-21(c)
Class C Misdemeanor
Any person afflicted with an STD who knowingly transmits, assumes the risk of transmitting, or does any act which will probably or likely transmit such disease to another person is guilty of a class C misdemeanor. (HIV included among STDs, see Al. Admin. Code r. 420-4-1-.03.)
SOURCE

6. He changed the locks. So... change them again. Have the stuff ready then drill a lock or just hide in the church after a service and then change them out.

7. Why the heck is 29% of the congregation still showing up to hear him preach?

8. I know it is not legal or "Christian" but when you tell the congregation, "I've been ******** your wives and may have given them a fatal disease, which possibly you have by now as well, and by the way I've taken over all the church money and the physical church building and I no longer give a s**t about what you fine people think and refuse to let you fire me..."
Well... you'd think possibly something bad might happen to him on a dimly lit street or some such.

In answer to 4.: because Christians are supposed to be forgiving. That answers 7 as well.

As for 8, where does it say he was ******** anyone's wife? The article says 'women in the parish', so they may very well be unmarried women.
Did he have unprotected sex? That has not been covered. If he did use protection, then he likely did not assume they were at risk.

Sorry but no, "forgiveness" does not work as a blanket answer for 4 or 8.
They may choose to forgive him but that doesn't mean he has not proven himself to be an unsuitable candidate for the job of leading their religious lives.

His subsequent actions of changing the locks, trying to take sole control of the church's money and refusing to step down when the church overwhelmingly voted to fire him suggests a severe lack of contrition on his part. I am left wondering if he got caught and someone told him "either you tell the congregation or I will". Granted, the person committing an offense does not have to be contrite for the person injured by the offense(s) to choose to forgive. It helps but the two things are separate. But while I might forgive him as a human being I would in no way continue to support him as my spiritual leader.

It does not matter whether the sex was protected or not.
Either way he was putting their lives at risk. Using a condom greatly reduces the chances of contracting HIV / AIDS but more than one study has shown that even rigorous condom use does not eliminate the risk. In some cases where one person in a couple has HIV the other person makes a conscious choice to take that risk. But when you risk his/her life without giving them the choice I consider that criminal. So does the state of Alabama, even if they only have a max sentence of a year for it compared to harsher sentences in some other states.

You are correct the article does not say the women he had sex with are married.
I think I inferred it from the use of the word 'affairs' due to the common usage of it. When you hear about someone saying so and so is having an affair they usually mean "extramarital affair". But I admit that was an assumption on my part.

Sorry, but yes, forgiveness does work as a reason. I don't see that you've come up with a plausible answer yourself.

Almost all sex puts the life of a fertile female at risk. If a condom fails she may become pregnant, and pregnancy can be a fatal condition. Logically, only disease-men who have been sterilized would count as not posing a risk to such women, so if we take your stance to its reasonable conclusion, most sex acts should count as criminal.

[Blood Valkyrie]

Chahklet

I don't see the problem here. STOP ATTENDING THAT CHURCH. Let him preach to himself.

I actually kinda agree.
Any adult stupid enough to attend that church while he's still around has reached a new level of not giving a ******** about morality standards.

There are some things you just don't forgive.

[David2074]

Ratttking

David2074

Ratttking

David2074

McFarland, 47, has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Knowingly spreading a sexually transmitted disease is a misdemeanor in Alabama punishable by up to a year in jail.

Okay, so send him to jail for a year X the number of women he admitted to doing that.
Also send him to jail for fraud for transferring the church funds to a different account.

There seems to be so much wrong with this situation it is hard to believe they can't get him out or that they got into that situation in the first place.
But a few thoughts / comments:

1. The church's WEB SITE is functional but pretty lame looking. And yeah, that has little to do with the story other than I was trying to see who they are affiliated with. Though it does still describe McFarland as a wonderful man of God blah blah..
It does mention he is serving their "cultural and social needs.." Maybe that is the sex part. lol

2. He is a Baptist minister. Presumably he was ordained by one of the baptist organizations. Seems like they should revoke his ordination based on his self confessed abuse of his position in the church.

3. Why the heck was he apparently the sole signer on the bank account?
Most established churches have a treasurer or some other checks and balances on the money.
(Or at least I assume they do based on the ones I've had any knowledge of)
The church has at least 81 deacons so they could surely have at least one treasurer type person.

4. Why the heck did the one deacon vote to keep him as pastor after all the abuse he admitted to?

5. Knowingly spreading an STD may be a misdemeanor but it seems like knowingly spreading a fatal disease could be charged under a different law. Possibly not though since the Alabama law specifically includes HIV.

Ala. Code § 22-11A-21(c)
Class C Misdemeanor
Any person afflicted with an STD who knowingly transmits, assumes the risk of transmitting, or does any act which will probably or likely transmit such disease to another person is guilty of a class C misdemeanor. (HIV included among STDs, see Al. Admin. Code r. 420-4-1-.03.)
SOURCE

6. He changed the locks. So... change them again. Have the stuff ready then drill a lock or just hide in the church after a service and then change them out.

7. Why the heck is 29% of the congregation still showing up to hear him preach?

8. I know it is not legal or "Christian" but when you tell the congregation, "I've been ******** your wives and may have given them a fatal disease, which possibly you have by now as well, and by the way I've taken over all the church money and the physical church building and I no longer give a s**t about what you fine people think and refuse to let you fire me..."
Well... you'd think possibly something bad might happen to him on a dimly lit street or some such.

In answer to 4.: because Christians are supposed to be forgiving. That answers 7 as well.

As for 8, where does it say he was ******** anyone's wife? The article says 'women in the parish', so they may very well be unmarried women.
Did he have unprotected sex? That has not been covered. If he did use protection, then he likely did not assume they were at risk.

Sorry but no, "forgiveness" does not work as a blanket answer for 4 or 8.
They may choose to forgive him but that doesn't mean he has not proven himself to be an unsuitable candidate for the job of leading their religious lives.

His subsequent actions of changing the locks, trying to take sole control of the church's money and refusing to step down when the church overwhelmingly voted to fire him suggests a severe lack of contrition on his part. I am left wondering if he got caught and someone told him "either you tell the congregation or I will". Granted, the person committing an offense does not have to be contrite for the person injured by the offense(s) to choose to forgive. It helps but the two things are separate. But while I might forgive him as a human being I would in no way continue to support him as my spiritual leader.

It does not matter whether the sex was protected or not.
Either way he was putting their lives at risk. Using a condom greatly reduces the chances of contracting HIV / AIDS but more than one study has shown that even rigorous condom use does not eliminate the risk. In some cases where one person in a couple has HIV the other person makes a conscious choice to take that risk. But when you risk his/her life without giving them the choice I consider that criminal. So does the state of Alabama, even if they only have a max sentence of a year for it compared to harsher sentences in some other states.

You are correct the article does not say the women he had sex with are married.
I think I inferred it from the use of the word 'affairs' due to the common usage of it. When you hear about someone saying so and so is having an affair they usually mean "extramarital affair". But I admit that was an assumption on my part.

Sorry, but yes, forgiveness does work as a reason. I don't see that you've come up with a plausible answer yourself.

Almost all sex puts the life of a fertile female at risk. If a condom fails she may become pregnant, and pregnancy can be a fatal condition. Logically, only disease-men who have been sterilized would count as not posing a risk to such women, so if we take your stance to its reasonable conclusion, most sex acts should count as criminal.

I agree with you in a lot of threads but I consider that post a logic fail.
The risk of death from pregnancy is extremely low compared to the risk of death from contracting HIV / AIDS.
But set that aside for a minute and look at what I said above.
I said there should be provision where if both partners knowingly accept the risk then it should not be criminal. I said that it should be criminal if one partner subjects the other to the risk without giving them the knowledge / right to choose.

Unless a woman knows she is physically incapable of bearing children for whatever reason then if she willingly engages in sex she knows there is a chance, however slight, of getting pregnant even if she is using one of the popular methods of contraception.
And religious / moral debate on the issue aside, if a woman in the US does become pregnant she can terminate the pregnancy. If someone gives you HIV you can't just go to a clinic and have it terminated.

[emi desu]

church provided mercedes!? classified_fu

[David2074]

emi desu

church provided mercedes!? classified_fu

I wondered about that too, especially for a church with only 170 active members.
But I tried not to judge. Maybe they got it used or for some other reason got a good deal on it.

On the whole though Blacks and Hispanics tend to spend more on "image".
And INB4 the haters, yes, that is documented fact, not just something I have seen in person many times.
I'm white, but there are also prominent black people who comment on this trend.
Here is one article Cos and Effect discussing Bill Cosby's comments on that and the "why" Blacks and Hispanics do that. I'm not sure I agree with all of their comments but I'm throwing it out there to point out I didn't just invent this idea.

"Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 1986-2002, they find that blacks and Hispanics indeed spend more than whites with comparable incomes on what the authors classify as "visible goods" (clothes, cars, and jewelry). A lot more, in fact—up to an additional 30 percent."


Also INB4 -
Yeah, I know there are some white pastors driving fancy cars and such. While I believe a church should try to take care of their pastors I don't believe in excess for them either. The pastor of my old church drives a pretty average car and part time he drives a school bus because the church can't afford to pay him enough. I realize the Bible does not say money is the root of all evil. (It says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil). But I still dislike pastors who ask their congregation to dig deep to help (whatever cause) while displaying a life of excess in their cars / homes / Rolex / etc.

[King Shining Heaven]

He deserves the ban

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Pessimist

Kai-Shan Valandria

Old Blue Collar Joe

Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.

No kidding. It's a felony in NY, and quite frankly, I'm happy supporting intentional spread of ANY disease to be a felony. We need to punish people who deliberately hurt others.

I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.

What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?

Yes it should be.

Why?

You're willfully shortening someone's life and think they shouldn't be held accountable?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Pessimist

Old Blue Collar Joe

Pessimist

Ratttking

Pessimist

I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.

What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?

At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.

It's not the infected persons place to decide whether or not to risk the other persons health. That is their decision alone, and to knowingly not inform them of this health hazard should be a felony.

So the best option is to send them to jail for not immediately disclosing their status to their partner, even if their viral load has substantially decreased? I'm not saying you shouldn't tell your partner, but that's one of those things where it's not uncommon to instantly lose a partner because you have a disease, no matter if they use protection or not.

And should we send people to jail who end up seroconverting (false testing negative)?

Not to mention, where do we draw the line when it comes to STDS? Is does herpes require the same amount of jail time? What about Hep C?

Also keep in mind that not all cases of HIV are from promiscuous sex/whatever else you feel you can deem morally reprehensible. Anyone who got a blood transfusion in the '80s-'90s is also at risk. It's how my former stepdad who was a hemophiliac ended up with Hep C. Should he go to jail for sharing a toothbrush with my mom?

It doesn't matter what their viral load is. It is not their right to place someone else at risk because they want to get laid. it's really that simple. The other person is the one who should get to make the decision whether or not to take that risk.
As for their instantly losing a partner? So? That's an appeal to emotion. They don't get to decide for another person what risks they are willing to take, regardless of attempting to claim they are minimal.
And as for the false negative? That's a different issue. Lets stick to the topic at hand, which is knowingly withholding vital information.
You can draw the line about the same as with drugs. Pot gets one level of sentence, meth gets another. The worse the disease, the worse the sentence, up to and including, if they never tell someone they have an illness, either remove them from society for the protection of society, or tattoo it on their ******** forehead.
And NOWHERE have I mentioned stopping people or setting laws preventing X sexual relationship. The only issue here is whether a person with the illness should be held accountable, up to and including prison, for withholding said information. Not once have I mentioned how the person with the disease acquired it. You're making an assumption based on no one knows what.

[Ratttking]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Pessimist

I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.

What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?

Yes it should be.

Why?

You're willfully shortening someone's life and think they shouldn't be held accountable?

NO, you are not 'shortening' their lives by having protected sex. Do you ever think before you post?

[MemoriesOfGreen]

Nyadriel

I need time to form my thoughts on this one.

Basically, the community should shun this ___ and the church leaders and uppers such as Cardinals, should send him out. He does not belong there. And that is just a start.

Baptist churches don't have Cardinals.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Pessimist

I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.

What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?

Yes it should be.

Why?

You're willfully shortening someone's life and think they shouldn't be held accountable?

NO, you are not 'shortening' their lives by having protected sex. Do you ever think before you post?

You're potentially not. An infected person does not have the right to make that decision for another person. Do you give a ******** about anyone other than shitbags (who are apparently like you in the 'I got mine' crowd?)

[Ratttking]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Yes it should be.

Why?

You're willfully shortening someone's life and think they shouldn't be held accountable?

NO, you are not 'shortening' their lives by having protected sex. Do you ever think before you post?

You're potentially not. An infected person does not have the right to make that decision for another person. Do you give a ******** about anyone other than shitbags (who are apparently like you in the 'I got mine' crowd?)

Their partners have the right to demand they get tested before having sex, if they fail to ask, that's their problem. If I gave a ******** about shitbags I'd care how your day was going. lol

[Ratttking]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

You're willfully shortening someone's life and think they shouldn't be held accountable?

NO, you are not 'shortening' their lives by having protected sex. Do you ever think before you post?

You're potentially not. An infected person does not have the right to make that decision for another person. Do you give a ******** about anyone other than shitbags (who are apparently like you in the 'I got mine' crowd?)

Their partners have the right to demand they get tested before having sex, if they fail to ask, that's their problem. If I gave a ******** about shitbags I'd care how your day was going. lol

Then I hope you get boned by an HIV infected person since you think that it is unfair that they be required to disclose to someone that they are sick.
Of course, you're also probably already so infected from a dirty needle so you wouldn't experience a change.

You hope I get raped? That's pretty shitty even for you, and as I have had the same partner for 24 years that is the only way it could happen to me. Trypanophophic too, so your last sentence is utter nonsense.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ratttking

Old Blue Collar Joe

You're willfully shortening someone's life and think they shouldn't be held accountable?

NO, you are not 'shortening' their lives by having protected sex. Do you ever think before you post?

You're potentially not. An infected person does not have the right to make that decision for another person. Do you give a ******** about anyone other than shitbags (who are apparently like you in the 'I got mine' crowd?)

Their partners have the right to demand they get tested before having sex, if they fail to ask, that's their problem. If I gave a ******** about shitbags I'd care how your day was going. lol

Then I hope you get boned by an HIV infected person since you think that it is unfair that they be required to disclose to someone that they are sick.
Of course, you're also probably already so infected from a dirty needle so you wouldn't experience a change.

You hope I get raped? That's pretty shitty even for you, and as I have had the same partner for 24 years that is the only way it could happen to me. Trypanophophic too, so your last sentence is utter nonsense.

Hmmm... I don't see the word 'rape' anywhere in my post. Typical stupid s**t and twisting words when you realize you can't make a valid point from you.