• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Kentucky pastor compares raping a 13-year old girl to stealing candy – says she chose to be raped

RavenSky

The Doctor's Wife
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
10,705
Location
Miami, Florida
Basic Beliefs
atheist
http://linkis.com/winningdemocrats.com/cWkFL

The pastor thinks that God had forgiven the man and changed his nature in such a way, that he would not ever repeat his crimes. The church members, many of whom have young children, obviously disagreed...

The pastor actually compared the crime of raping a 13-year-old child at knifepoint to the crime of stealing candy. He literally said this, in an effort to downplay the seriousness of the act, and actually said that they are equal in the eyes of God because they are both “sins.”

Would you believe it got even worse from there? The pastor then went on to blame the 13-year-old girl for choosing to be raped. No, that isn’t any form of exaggeration. Just listen to the audio clip in the news video below.

He said that "it takes two to tango" and that the 13-year old "chose" the be sodomized with a razor held to her throat.

I was almost feeling sympathetic to the idea that even a convicted child rapist who has done his time should be allowed to attend church in peace, and had the pastor stuck to that argument he probably would have been fine. But then the pastor had to show such utter callous disregard for the 13-year old rape victim - I don't see how any parent would feel comfortable remaining there. Forget the rapist... it's the pastor who needs to be looked at.
 
I would be extremely cautious about having children around someone who would so forcefully defend the actions of the rapist. I think it's very likely the thought process leading to such a defense would only be done by someone who identifies with and empathizes with someone who would like to have forceful sex with young girls.

Kind of like a hetero version of NAMBLA. Or Ted Nugent.
 
by someone who identifies with and empathizes with someone who would like to have forceful sex with young girls.
For some reason, this makes me think of the MOnty Python sketch where the talking head lectures that 'A murder is just an extroverted suicide....' then looks wistfully into the distance and adds, '...Lucky bastard.'
 
I thought juvenile heterosexual rape was a punishment for the sins of the father from Biblegod and is virtuous. Is this not correct?
 
He said that "it takes two to tango" and that the 13-year old "chose" the be sodomized with a razor held to her throat.

tbf, some chicks dig that.

Although I've never run into any.
 
I would be extremely cautious about having children around someone who would so forcefully defend the actions of the rapist. I think it's very likely the thought process leading to such a defense would only be done by someone who identifies with and empathizes with someone who would like to have forceful sex with young girls.

Kind of like a hetero version of NAMBLA. Or Ted Nugent.

Did she conceive? Is he trying to pretend it's consensual so as to avoid the issue of carrying the rapist's child which is the really tough case for most pro-lifers?
 
I would be extremely cautious about having children around someone who would so forcefully defend the actions of the rapist. I think it's very likely the thought process leading to such a defense would only be done by someone who identifies with and empathizes with someone who would like to have forceful sex with young girls.

Kind of like a hetero version of NAMBLA. Or Ted Nugent.

Did she conceive? Is he trying to pretend it's consensual so as to avoid the issue of carrying the rapist's child which is the really tough case for most pro-lifers?

???
 
It's been claimed by a couple politicians on the Right that if a woman gets pregnant then it wasn't a legitimate rape because she actually enjoyed it enough to get pregnant.
 
It's been claimed by a couple politicians on the Right that if a woman gets pregnant then it wasn't a legitimate rape because she actually enjoyed it enough to get pregnant.

That was a very popular belief in the Middle Ages; The church (of course, who else) taught that in order for a baby to be conceived, it was necessary for both parties to have an orgasm; Therefore it was not possible for a woman to become pregnant unless she enjoyed (and by inference, consented to) the act of intercourse. So if a woman didn't get pregnant, then (in the absence of eyewitnesses prepared to testify on her behalf) she wasn't raped, because there was no evidence that she was even penetrated; and the only way she could prove that penetration had occurred would be if she became pregnant - in which case she wasn't raped, because the pregnancy itself was considered direct evidence of consent.

Basically, a medieval rapist had to be stupid enough to commit his crime in the direct view of his victim's friends or family, in order to have any chance at all of being convicted.

This line of argument was, of course, discarded about 300-400 years ago, as medical science advanced, and the premises upon which the reasoning is based were shown to be completely false; That there are only a couple of politicians on the right who are still five centuries behind the curve on this issue is quite a surprise - I would have expected more. After all, the vast majority of them are still living centuries ago as far as their grasp of the biological sciences are concerned.
 
Back
Top Bottom