They aren't unrelated, as you'll see.I also never said gay men are more likely to be pedophiles
And I said nothing about a scout leader being atheist or agnostic
So how did you get off on two unrelated tangents?
I'm not stereotyping, although you will be doing that in the next few sentences/paragraphs.This is about perception making stereotyping ok
You're quite predictable.So if people see a gay scout leader molest a kid and that's what they now connect in their mind to gay scout leaders, then all gay scout leaders are tainted by the actions of a few
That's how it works right?
Here's why I supplied that additional information.
The Boy Scouts of America do not hire atheists, and agnostics. This means they are a theistic organization, and further, it also logically dictates due to being an American(USA) organization, predominantly Christian.
They also do not hire homosexuals.
So what we have is a theist, predominantly Christian organization that does not employ atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals.
And yet there were cases of pedophilia within that organization.
Theist pedophiles were employed by the Boy Scouts of America.
Does that mean all Scout leaders were pedophiles? No. Does it taint the image of the Boy Scouts of America? Yes.
Does it taint Christianity as well? Yes, due to it(BOA) being a theistic and predominantly Christian organization.
That's unfortunate, but a result.