Monday, June 05, 2006

ACLU Defends Pedophiles

Well, isn't this dandy?

ACLU represents abusers who argue law forcing them to stay away from places where kids congregate could limit their access to churches.

Six sex offenders, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are suing the city of Indianapolis, saying an ordinance that keeps them 1,000 feet from parks, pools and playgrounds is unconstitutional.

They say the law is too vague and could be used to keep them from — among other places — churches. Rich Ackerman, president of the Pro-Family Law Center, said the rationale for the lawsuit is suspicious at best.

"The ACLU suddenly screaming about people's ability to get to church," he said, "sounds a little suspect, to say the least."

"For those who do not think that there is not a war going on to gain access to our children for purposes of sexual gratification, they need to wake up," [Phil Burress] explained. "This is real."

Many social scientists say child molesters cannot be cured of the desire. Some studies, in fact, indicate that most predators abuse hundreds of kids before they are caught.
Selected quotes from Citizenlink's June 2 post, "Sex Offenders Sue Indianapolis"

What the heck is the ACLU doing backing a case like this? Of course, they've backed NAMBLA also, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Pedophiles love places that could give them access to children, e.g. churches. There were some pedophiles in the community in which I lived before moving here. One man called himself a musician and tried to get singing jobs in churches and to work with the youth. Currently, he was out on bail and awaiting trial for a previous incident.

I was at church one morning when a new man and woman and two teenagers walked in. I didn't think anything about it until another man with whom I was friends who worked in corrections got my attention from across the church to mouth to me who exactly that new man was. AAAAAAAAAH! And to think that I had finally become brave enough to allow my little girl to go to the bathroom alone in the middle of service because "what could happen at church?"!

We descended upon the pastor and told him who that man was and that we were not going to tolerate his presence. We had kids, for crying out loud. My buddy was rather strong and assured me privately that when he shook the pedophile's hand, he squeezed hard, just shy of doing injury, to let him know how he felt about his presence. That was nice, but I still wanted the pastor to know if he stayed, we went.

The pastor checked into the legal ramifications and decided to talk with the man. He explained that if he chose to come to our church, he should know that he would never under any circumstances be allowed to work with kids or be alone with them due to his previous conviction. He chose not to come back, so that was that. Still, a church really should have the right to tell a suspicious or troublesome person that he is not welcome without fearing a lawsuit.

Let's see---the rights of children or perverts, children or perverts...I choose the rights of children! Don't you think the ACLU should be interested in supporting the civil liberties of children over those of perverts too?


At 6/05/2006 10:48 AM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

While I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from attending church, there's got to be a happy medium. I'll speak from my experience which is Catholic. We have four Masses a weekend at our church, so perhaps we could do something like forbid them from attending our coffee and donuts and our 9:30 Mass (where parents often don't try to keep and our on their kids) and steer them to the 7:30 or 11:30 where fewer kids are and the place is usually empty enough to keep an eye on kids. (Plus we have ushers at those Masses who wouldn't have a second thought about telling somebody like that to back off if we thought he was too close to a kid.)

I don't know how something like that would work in a Protestant church since it seems to be that many of them only have 1 or two services per Sunday and therefore it would be harder to control. I think my usher solution might be best there as well.

At 6/05/2006 2:01 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Many protestant churches are small and do only have one or two services, esp in less populated areas.

Regardless, I wonder why the ACLU feels the need to back pedophiles like these and NAMBLA. Why shouldn't they have to pay their own legal fees? I can't see the ACLU offering to defend me for anything as I wouldn't likely fit their mold.

At 6/05/2006 9:24 PM, Anonymous Andy said...

A pastor might also suggest attending an evening Bible study or other group instead of Sunday morning service.

At 6/05/2006 11:13 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

But does that violate the civil rights of a pedophile to be restricted to specific services? I think that's the issue in the lawsuit.

At 6/06/2006 12:36 AM, Blogger Christopher Taylor said...

As far as I'm concerned, any private organization can decide who and how often and when anyone joins or doesn't join. It can be stupid, or smart, or based on their morality, or whatever. That's their freedom.

At 6/06/2006 6:04 AM, Anonymous MarkNS said...

Why is anyone worried about whether or not these animals get to church? Rather than suggesting a Bible study, perhaps the pastor ought to suggest they put a bullet into their own heads.

At 6/06/2006 2:53 PM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

Andy, that option wouldn't work in a Catholic Church. We have a positive duty to attend Sunday Mass.

Mark, that's not the Christian way. We believe in forgiveness and redemption.

At 6/06/2006 7:16 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Paul, we've been through this before and we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I would prefer to just go all Old Testament on these perverts and stone them to death. I've known some people who were badly abused and there is no reason for such sickos to live to ruin more lives.

At 6/07/2006 5:57 AM, Anonymous MarkNS said...

Thanks Paul,

You gave me one more reason to be glad I'm not a Christian.

What we're dealing with here is basic risk management. To manage a risk one must assess the likelihood of the "bad thing" happening along with the consequences if it does.
In the case of child molestors, the likelihood of them re-offending is proven as very high. The consequences of them re-offending are castastrophic for the victim. Therefore, this is a very high risk that must be mitigated to the point of being negligible. To do this, I see only two choices: either lock the bastards up forever or put them to death. I would submit to your merciful Christian ethos that death is the least cruel (and happily, least expensive) of the two options.

At 6/07/2006 8:45 AM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Mark, Christians are not monolithic in all our views. Paul is indeed a good Christian and he is very consistent in his pro-life views, from conception to grave and I respect him. While I would like to believe I am a good Christian, I am not as "consistent". I have no problem with the death penalty in theory, and crimes against children would be one place I would anxiously apply (it in certain cases), especially having seen the havoc child molestation wreaks in victims lives. Like I said before, I'd go all O.T. in a heartbeat under the right circumstances. That doesn't mean these perverts can't be forgiven, though few come to repentance, but society needs to protect its weakest members. (There is, after all, a reason "annavenger" suits me well.)

At 6/07/2006 10:39 AM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

I wouldn't say I'm a good Christian. I'm trying, though.

And don't get me wrong: there's a part of me that wants these guys dead, too. But I know that's not the way Jesus would treat them. And our goal should be to be jesus to each other, including pedophiles, no matter how much it goes against our better instincts. We can keep them away from children as a common sense safety measure but murder (or coerced suicide, which amounts to the same thing) is not the answer, no matter how appealing it is to our sense of justice.

At 6/07/2006 10:55 AM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

Better instincts in my comment above should read "baser instincts."

At 6/07/2006 2:11 PM, Blogger Christopher Taylor said...

I fail to see how wanting pedophiles to be put to death is a reason to not want to be a Christian, that sounds a lot more like you didn't want to and are grasping at reasons to defend this preconcieved position.

At 6/07/2006 9:00 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Paul, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I am not convinced Jesus wouldn't be behind a death penalty for certain crimes. He didn't rail against the Roman govt for punishing criminals. He didn't bring people down from crosses. Apostle Paul said that the govt does not bear the sword in vain. Also, God is the same yesterday, today and forever and while civil and religious laws are not the same for us as for the nation of Israel, moral principles are.

Govt have the right and the responsibility to punish wrongdoing. Sometimes that might be by death penalty for heinous acts.

But what we must never do is engage in vigilante-ism. Taking the law into our own hands really is wrong.

Still, I understand that your views are based on your own principles. Stick with them.

At 6/07/2006 11:17 PM, Anonymous MarkNS said...


To put it more simply...Paul claimed it was unChristian of me to want pedophiles put to death. I put forward a reasoned argument (that has yet to be refuted with reason on this blog) that suggested putting pedophiles to death was the right thing to do. Ergo, to be a Christian (at least by Paul's definition and admittedly not by Anne's) I would have to believe in something that I consider wrong (i.e. putting children at risk because the lives of pedophiles have value). I am, therefore, glad that I am not a Christian if being a Christian would make me support things that my rational mind says are wrong.
That is why I thanked Paul was his definition of Christianity that me glad I didn't subscribe to it.
Get it?

At 6/09/2006 1:33 PM, Blogger Christopher Taylor said...

Sorry I misunderstood, let me change my statement to be more accurate:

I fail to see how calling for mercy and forgiveness is a reason to not want to be a Christian, that sounds a lot more like you didn't want to and are grasping at reasons to defend this preconcieved position.

Or is the concept of mercy and forgiveness so repugnant? I personally believe it is just to have a pedophile put to death - and Biblical - but the idea that we should be merciful and forgiving certainly is an odd basis for rejecting an entire religion.

At 6/09/2006 9:08 PM, Anonymous MarkNS said...

How do you reconcile your belief that "it is just to have a pedophile put to death" with the concept that as a Christian you "should be merciful and forgiving"?
I don't reject "an entire religion"..I reject all religions. I make moral choices based upon rational thought...not what some man-made organization decides is right. I also don't need to believe in a great big magic guy in the sky to be a moral person.

At 6/11/2006 5:21 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

I have no problem reconciling it at all. As it's been said, "compassion for the criminal is contempt for the victim". (That's not Scripture, btw) There is right and wrong and society (that is all of us) needs to ensure that justice is done. God is righteous. He expects us to provide justice on earth as He will provide justice during the final judgment one day when every hidden thing will be brought to light. He, however, is first and foremost loving and merciful. The blood of Christ is enough to atone for all sin for the one who believes (puts the full weight of his trust) in Him. Technically, a pedophile can be forgiven, but to repent would require a full comprehension of how truly wicked he had been and those types are usually too far gone. Regardless, earthly justice should ensue capture and conviction. Society must ensure that others are protected from said sicko or it is being unjust and contemptuous toward current and future victims. Whether that means locking up a pedophile for the rest of his life or giving him the death penalty could be a matter of debate. But these types do not rehabilitate and must never again have access to children if we are to be a just society.

As far as not needing to believe in God (which is what I think you meant by "great big magic guy in the sky") to be a moral person goes, you do need to make certain philosophical assumptions first. Many people who come to the "conclusion" that there is no God follow up that assumption with a conclusion that they can then do anything they want, if they can get away with it, because there is no ultimate authority or eternity to consider.

For the record, although I disagree with you, I do appreciate your comments.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home