Re: Hmm..... I'm not sure about this.

So, the woman acted foolishly, but she did not deserve to be raped.

Who would disagree with that. It's rather clear in itself, don't you think? I'm not sure how all of your remarks on this are supposed to illuminate the issue for us. I mean it seems that all participants here would agree from the start that the woman was being foolish and the rapist criminal.

Are we supposed to learn from this that foolish behavior increases the likelihood of suffering? If so, isn't this the whole point of using the woman dressed as a tramp example in the first place? Are you just clarifying the question or are you trying to answer it?

Hence, in the end, we agree--The women did not deserve to be raped and the church did not deserve to be shanghaied just because they were foolish.

However, there is a difference between the two examples: Contrary to the woman example, it's not quite clear to me how the church was being foolish as one is being foolish by dressing like a tramp on raper's alley. I mean they made the wrong decision by most accounts, but in what sense was it foolish? A few answers to the following questions would help me here.

1) What criteria did the congregation use in distributing its means for the benefit of Katrina victims? Was it "who is most deserving," or, maybe, "helping the most victims possible irrespective of their past," or maybe something else? I'm not sure. I'll need you to tell me.

2) What kind of case did the Katrina victim make for deserving the money? What indications were there that this guy might cut-and-run? Should the congregation have picked up on these signs?

3) Is there anything in the con's past that would preclude him from receiving such benefit?

At any rate, answers to such question would help me understand the sense in which you say that the church was being foolish. Of course, the reader can think of more. But, alas, I'm not sure if you know any of this yourself even though you are writing as one who does.