” Which is why sweeping generalizations are, generally, such a deadly tar pit for these discussions.”
Yes, statements such as the recent one to the effect that there was an “abundance” of pedophile priests, for instance. Now, either that’s some new definition of “abundance” with which I am not familiar, or it is one of those sweeping generalizations.
I think every Protestant here would agree it would be wrong to use pedophile priests as the basis for a false generalization. Sweeping generalizations are wrong no matter who is making them. It's just another way to misrepresent and defame people. Not good. We agree on this.
But I do think if you look at the relevant post (#133, I believe), the very point the poster was making was that neither pedophile priests nor bad individual church experiences make for good analysis. At least that's how I read it. In that context, I surmise he meant "abundance" simply as meaning quite a few cases, but not that it was the general rule.