SOCIOPATHS

Thursday, January 31st, 2013 | Uncategorized

Remember the other day when Mrs. Schori referred to Mark Lawrence and most of the rest of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina in the following terms?

I tell you that story because it’s indicative of attitudes we’ve seen here and in many other places.  Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge.  It’s not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens’ militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors.  It’s not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage.

Most human communities, from churches to governments to families, function more effectively in response to shared decision-making.  Most of us don’t live in a world where one person is the ultimate Decider – because, over and over again, we’ve discovered that better decisions are made when they’re made in communities with appropriate checks and balances.  Power assumed by one authority figure alone is often a recipe for abuse, tyranny, and corruption.  That’s why Jesus challenges us to think about how the shepherd acts.  The authentic ones don’t sneak over the wall in the dead of night.  They operate transparently, and they work cooperatively with the gate-keeper himself.

What about the sheep who aren’t in the fold, who don’t know there is a feast to be found, rest for the body and soul, and partners who are willing to wrestle with the dictates of petty Deciders or wolves who masquerade as sheep? 

Believe it or not, those weren’t the worst words the Presiding Bishop used in this situation.  These were.

A spokesman for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has denied suggestions that her sermon denouncing as terrorists and murderers those who did not share her views on the polity of the Episcopal Church was directed at Bishop Mark J. Lawrence or the members of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

Asked to respond to Canon Ashey’s comments, a spokesman for the presiding bishop told Anglican Ink: “As for the Presiding Bishop’s sermon, she did not identify any group in her sermon.”

George Conger?  This is a personal thing, I don’t know if you have any control over it and it’s not that big of a deal anyway but you might want to dial back the use of the term “schismatics” that appeared in your article’s title.  Every single Anglican, legitimate or not, is a “schismatic,” brother.

But those two paragraphs are why I can never rejoin the church my mother had me baptized into.  Kate, any human being who can read and whose conscience still works knows damned good and well who you were referring to.

And actual Christians just should not be able to lie through their teeth that effortlessly.

77 Comments to SOCIOPATHS

Bill2
January 31, 2013

Not a very good liar, is she?

Other than realizing she stepped in it big-time based on the reaction to it, I guess all she can do is deny. I notice the spokesperson didn’t say it wasn’t what the PB meant. She just said the PB didn’t specifically name anyone. That’s not even a clever avoidance. Bill Clinton has set up shop in Harlem, maybe he teaches a seminar on lying in a more clever fashion they can take on their way to 815 some morning.

Sparky
January 31, 2013

Remember PB KJS at Dar es Salaam several years ago when she disowned comments she made there that her audience clearly heard her say?

Daniel aka Fisherman
January 31, 2013

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman……I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.” Bill Clinton

“A lie can run around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants.” Mark Twain

“Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

““As for the Presiding Bishop’s sermon, she did not identify any group in her sermon.” Spokesman for the Presiding Liar

Dale Matson
January 31, 2013

“Her sermon, the continuing group’s statement said, was pastoral. “The Presiding bishop urged an end to divisive actions in the Church that grieve the heart of God.” Or put another way, “It’s my way or the highway”. This appeal to unity really means people must toe the party line or else. It is not an appeal to unity in the power of the Spirit but unity as submission to her.

Allen Lewis
January 31, 2013

So what else is new? The Presiding Bishop (or her spokesman, in this case) demonizes someone and then lies about it. Nothing to see here. Move along!

Don
January 31, 2013

I thought I smelled buring sulfur when I was in downtown Charleston last Saturday.

Katherine
January 31, 2013

The denial isn’t credible. I saw a comment by Allan Haley (the Anglican Curmudgeon) at Stand Firm which I agree with. The Diocese of South Carolina beat her at her own game, by getting to the courts first and getting a restraining order, soon to be injunction, against her strategy. This sermon was blind fury at being out-maneuvered. It was unwise, but unscrupulous people are often unwise when cornered.

“Pastoral”? Don’t make me ill.

SC Blu Cat Lady
January 31, 2013

I agree with Katherine. Part of her attitude towards +Lawrence and the diocesan leadership is indeed anger over at being out maneuvered! I think the quote from +Lawrence says it best of all.

“One of the things I said to the Presiding Bishop when last we spoke is that if she and I could refrain from demonizing one another, regardless of what others around us are saying, we might get somewhere. Based on the words and argument of her recent sermon for the New TEC Diocese in South Carolina, I guess she wasn’t able to do it,” Bishop Lawrence said.

Yep, she was not able to refrain from demonizing her opponent via a thinly veiled reference to +Lawrence and the leadership of the diocese. KJS, you are not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself. I suggest reading James1:26.

Dave Wells
January 31, 2013

The unnamed spokesperson for the Presiding Bishop reminds me of a character in The Lord of the Rings trilogy: the Mouth of Sauron.

tjmcmahon
January 31, 2013

How, exactly, do you have an “unnamed spokesperson” for the head of a church? Anyone allowed to speak on behalf of the PB is known to Conger. Were these words so embarrassing that whichever functionary came out to utter them had to plead with everyone not to use their name? Or perhaps, the TEC communications officer handed it off to the assistant communications officer who handed it off to the secretary to gave it to a student intern who handed the duty off to one of the non-union custodians who passed it on to Conger?

Geosez
January 31, 2013

Maybe the spokesperson was Susan Rice.

CarolynP
January 31, 2013

Geosez wins. That was funny!

Fuinseoig
January 31, 2013

“I tell you that story because it’s indicative of attitudes we’ve seen here and in many other places.”

Attitudes we’ve seen HERE.

HERE as in “this place where I am standing right now and speaking in the context of a religious group under spiritual leadership”.

Hmm – what is the religious group and who is the spiritual leader of South Carolina, in the Episcopalian context, that all the disagreement is about?

Honestly, what good is it bragging how much smarter Episcopalians are, that you don’t have to leave your brain at the door, that it’s the thinking person’s church, and then acting as if people can’t read plain English and understand the implications?

Milton Finch
January 31, 2013

Very good, Fuinseoig!

Athanasius Returns
January 31, 2013

The PB’s reference was *NOT* at all thinly veiled.

Please stop giving any progressive any benefit of the doubt when it comes to leadership. To a person they are in the game to change ALL the rules, seize power, maintain their surreptitiously erected suzerainties, set arbitrarily determined license over and above true liberty. In the Church, their aim is to set human will over and above the will of Almighty God. Their mouths and actions slur out an utterly false gospel. Their hearts are hardening and darkening, their ears, deaf, their eyes, blind. Avoid such persons.

Remember: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:1-7&version=ESV

chey
January 31, 2013

SC Blu Cat Lady, I’d wager that she doesn’t care what the book of James, or any thing else in the Bible, says. My guess is that her “faith” is entirely a charade, her intent is to make TEO into something wholly other, much the way the current leadership of our government wants to do to this country. It’s my opinion that her conscience was probably seared long ago.

midwestnorwegian
January 31, 2013

To anyone honest with themselves, the voice of Satan is easily recognized in people like -KJS.

I’m afraid that I have at least one sister remaining in TEC, who has lost her soul to this voice.

Charles E A Johnson+
January 31, 2013

Her comments are ‘pastoral’ just like the slightly flattened brownish patties about 12″ in diameter in the pasture in front of my cabin are…pure BS!

Patrick
January 31, 2013

“Midwestnorwegian,” I see what you did there with the minus in front of KJS. That was clever. And FWIW, I agree completely.

SC Blu Cat Lady
January 31, 2013

Agreed Chey. However that does not let her off the hook. If she claims to be a Christian but by the words she has spoken, we can easily understand what she really meant and see that she has deceived her own heart then the deception is hers- not ours- and that will have consequences.

Her words are only *thinly veiled* in the sense that she did not use any names. However, as a measure of deception, it has worked on some people (think her audience and the various blogs that agree with her) but obviously not everyone is buying it. Some of us are too smart for that.

Allen Lewis
January 31, 2013

There is a lot of judgmental commentary anent Katherine Jefferts Schori and her spiritual state. While I tend to agree with it, I would hesitate to make such a statement myself. I think she is in error. I will be praying for her conversion and redemption.

In the meantime, the quote from 2nd Timothy is most apt!

Peace!

The Lakeland Two
January 31, 2013

Hey is to Furrer, understand how you feel about the word “schismatic”. I don’t think that George Conger is using it in that sense, but rather more tongue-in-cheek. You know, as the progressives/reappraisers call those of us who don’t want to follow them over the edge of the cliff.

The Lakeland Two
January 31, 2013

That will teach me not to proof before I post! That first part was supposed to be Christopher. LOL. And thank God I proofed what I was writing just now!!

Scott W.
January 31, 2013

Nice little octopus ink-cloud they are squirting for Schori to escape in.

tjmcmahon
January 31, 2013

I would guess that Conger used “schismatic” because, that way, his post will turn up in the google searches of all the piskie HoBD types trying to find each other’s clever blog entries. Assuming there is anyone on the HoBD who can still spell it.

Of course, we are all schismatics in so far as we have allowed our own pride and other fallibilities to divide us from the true Church founded by our Lord. However, if one studies the situation, the acts of the bishop and diocese of South Carolina have clearly been aimed at placing the diocese on a path back toward the Church Christ founded. While the path TEC is on obviously leads farther away.

Michael D
January 31, 2013

The un-named spokesperson did not say Ashley’s interpretation was wrong, he/she just said “she did not identify any group…” Which I think means “yes, she was denouncing Lawrence as a terrorist, but you can’t sue for libel because the wording was cagey.”

They are shameless – willing to neither stand by their words, nor repudiate them.

ccinnova
January 31, 2013

I’m surprised the PB hasn’t yet blamed former President George W. Bush, just as many liberals in the media blame him for all manner of economic and societal ills. Perhaps that’s next.

Maxine Schell
January 31, 2013

Well, she was talking about SOMEONE ! So, WHO was it ?
Will the unnamed/unknown spokesman/spokeswoman/spokestransgenered answer THAT?

The Little Myrmidon
January 31, 2013

This just in from Reuters: an image of the PB addressing the Continuing Episcopalians in South Carolina. Nice vestments.

Bryan Hunter
January 31, 2013

Perhaps the dodgy spokesman … sorry, spokesPERSON … would be so helpful as to provide us the identity of that person or persons to whom the presiding bishop WAS ambiguously referring? As a resident of the South Carolina Lowcountry, I would be most grateful to know just who those local murderers, terrorists and armers-of-school-children are so I can avoid them at all cost.

Dale Matson
January 31, 2013

Bryan Hunter,
The Shadow knows.

J. Stuart Little
January 31, 2013

The only person who fit her description was standing in the pulpit making the speech. I alluded to this in my comment in the previous thread. You know the nasty comment about her hair style.

Dale Matson
January 31, 2013

Actually,
I suspect it is The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg who is the reporter/editor for most of the ENS stories. In an updated story, the inflammatory rhetoric was removed.
http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2013/01/26/south-carolina-continuing-episcopalians-meet-to-plan-their-future/

mark
January 31, 2013

Oversteps? Hmmmm.

The alleged sometime Dean of a theological college (ha!)Overlooked a couple of canons didn’t she when Duncan was deposed: no public abandonment, no 3 of 4 most senior bishops, no majority of all bishops entitled to vote…

And she also accepted non-existent letter of renunciation from Henry Scriven.

Katherine
January 31, 2013

“Spokestransgendered.” LOL! Thanks, Maxine Schell!

Fuinseoig
January 31, 2013

Bryan, perhaps she was referring to my co-religionists in the Diocese of Charleston. After all, everyone knows Catholics are sinister, shadowy figures and the bishop is (by his surname) of Italian descent and comes from Long Island, New York. Obviously Mafia connections, to go with the haughty proud princely prelatial demeanour of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church!

;-)

Daniel aka Fisherman
January 31, 2013

It occurred to me that if the presiding heretic blew a gasket over the events in South Carolina, I’d like to be a fly-on-the-wall if (when – prayerfully) she hears the Texas Supreme Court overturns the lower court and the (real) Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is recognized as the owner of EDofFW corporation.

Should she refer to the collective members (us) as child killers she’s going to have a bigger legal problem.

Jim the Puritan
January 31, 2013

This is why I really don’t have anything to do with folks in the mainline denominations any longer. No longer being Christians is part of it, but what is worse is the fundamental dishonesty. I really can’t stomach it for very long before I just say, I gotta get out of here. I can have (and have had) more civil discourse with an honest atheist than with a duplicitous “progressive Christian.”

George Conger
January 31, 2013

Some confusion about the role of a spokesman here. A spokesman is an agent who speaks on behalf of someone. It is immaterial who the spokesman is, as they are speaking not for themselves but their employer. Unless this was a public news conference where they are somehow participating in the event — it is not my custom to name the spokesman. There are times when this does not hold true, but anonymity is the norm.

Steve L.
January 31, 2013

RC Charleston has some impressive statistics. (And not litigation expenses)

Muerknz
January 31, 2013

Schori didn’t identify anyone in her sermon because the identity was crystal clear. It was a poisonous vicious thing to say.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
January 31, 2013

I’m with Michael D. She doesn’t have the basic decency to either stand by her words or repudiate them…or for that matter avoid such odious comments altogether.

dwstroudmd+
January 31, 2013

Here’s news from THE Diocese of SC:

http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=498:tec-agrees-to-injunction-that-prohibits-them-from-using-diocese-of-sc-identity&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=75

TEc caved. I suspect someone told the KGB PB-ess that there were real laws in SC and not mere kanons.

Paula Loughlin
January 31, 2013

I’ve walked through more then one pasture. Trust me her remarks are pastoral.

Steve L.
January 31, 2013

The injunction was consented to by Thomas Tisdale Jr. who signed it on behalf of The Episcopal Church.

Maybe finally TEC can be recognized as a paper tiger. No one ever bothered to be proactive. Bravo +Lawrence and protectors of the faith!

Jdinovice
January 31, 2013

By Schori’s standards her speech was pastoral.

Just like when the Mafia come around and pastorally advise you to pay protection money to prevent things getting broken.

Maxine Schell
January 31, 2013

George Conger,
Oh, come on, George…doesn’t “spokesman” usually mean an “authorized” agent ?
Otherwise, I will speak for her.
So, whadda ya wanna know? Just ask.

LaVallette
February 1, 2013

Judge Judy would describe this dissimulation as “peeing on my leg and telling me its raining”. She really must have a low assessment of the intelligence of her audience, and she wants to walk the world ecclesiastical stage as the leader of the “world wide” Episcopalian Church.

Whitestone
February 1, 2013

Shori’s remarks might have been her clumsy and failed attempt to imitate Rowan Williams’ subtlety, nuancing and obfuscating. She hasn’t got the capacity to do it.

Or she may have been advised not to identify the targets of her accusations by an attorney. Lawyers, not Scriptures are definitely her closest advisors.

The truth is, her mind is so infected, distorted and darkened by progressivism, liberalism, rebellion against and contempt for the constraints of the Word/Law/Truth of Holy God, that she engages in psychological projection.

People with mental disorders and detachment from reality, continually cast on others their own character, values, intentions and actions. They end up speaking in opposites. They live in an alternate universe where good is evil and vice versa. A good example is the OWS and Obama crowd calling the TEA Party terrorists.

J. Stuart Little is right, the person in the South Carolina pulpit posing as a presiding bishop and church leader is the one most revealed in those remarks.

Whitestone
February 1, 2013

As for the Scripture Athanasius quoted, II Timothy 3:1 is appropriate, for many from Bishop to laity to blogger have tried II Timothy 2:24-26 (patient instruction, arguments, instruction, pleas and finally, consequences) for over a decade and to no avail.

It’s time for anathema maranatha.

SC Blu Cat Lady
February 1, 2013

Thanks, Whitestone! WOW! Yes how appropriate and fitting for today’s problems in ECUSA.

Zach Frey
February 1, 2013

This is the “What? Oh, you thought I was talking about you? Why, does the shoe fit?” gambit.

God have mercy.

bob
February 1, 2013

It’s hard to imagine someone more cumbersome than Williams, so imitatijg him is its own un-reward, if that’s a real word…Generally Anglican bishops aren’t very eloquent.

FW Ken
February 1, 2013

Off-topic, sort of, but related to the topic of sociopaths: Cardinal Mahoney and Bp.Curry, his henchman, have been removed from public ministry by Abp. Gomez in LA. Life is good.

Whitestone
February 1, 2013

Gosh, FW Ken, Didn’t know an Archbishop trumped (or could checkmate) a Cardinal.

Whitestone
February 1, 2013

Does this mean the Cardinal will not be allowed to vote at the next enclave?

Stephen Decatur
February 1, 2013

Whitestone,
In the sense of authority, in the Catholic hierarchy, a cardinal or an archbishop is just a bishop. The ranks of authority are priest, bishop, metropolitan bishop, prefect.

Gomez has been Metropolitan Archbishop of the diocese of Los Angeles for almost 2 years. Mahony is a retired bishop, without any legal authority whatsoever. Gomez has exercised his authority, rightly, to inhibit Mahony’s activities within his diocese.

What Gomez cannot do is depose him from his offices or activities elsewhere in the Church. The Cardinalate is outside his authority. I’m not sure that anyone can remove a Cardinal from the College of Cardinals. Certainly it would require explicit and public abandonment of the Faith.

In 4 years or so Mahony will be ineligible to vote in any conclave.

Katherine
February 1, 2013

Good for Bishop Gomez.

Lee Penn
February 1, 2013

I have heard a YouTube song that ought to played when the PB speaks as she did …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B246z5bg4eo

It’s the Russian service for the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Now more than ever …

Lee

sybil marshall
February 1, 2013

Notice also how she fails to add the “required” *…or she* when on the attack. Femrads etc often find a new appreciation for the English language’s commonsense masculine default when talking about deeds they consider dastardly, of course. But considered along with the occasion, that’s a huge, screeching tell. And it ratchets up the offensiveness of her denial even more.

sybil marshall
February 1, 2013

Sorry for this OT, Chris, but new issue of NR (dead tree) arrived today and there on the front is Special Agent Marshall LOL! She is rounder overall, and I don’t have curly hair and of course am older, but overall the likeness is so strong I am going to have to ink-straighten/lengthen her hair and laminate this, to stick on the frig door. 2 funny & will clearly tell my Chicagoland/NEA by now-marinated relatives *Do not start with me*, and hubby loves it….What a week! New NRA t-shirts; fine video of Bibi schooling 0-ring last year; blue and white *Uzi Does It*, *Jew Jitsu*, and *I (heart) Israel* t-shirts to order, and now this… yes, we must laugh where we can these days right?! And
tomorrow is Candle Mass… when we smile.

Steve
February 1, 2013

Re Cardinal Mahoney: I haven’t looked it up but I think that one can be a Cardinal without being ordained. If you are old enough to remember Jacques Maritain, then perhaps you will recall that there was a movement to make him a Cardinal

William Tighe
February 1, 2013

Only the pope can remove someone from the college of cardinals; the last time it happened was in 1927, the case of Louis, Cardinal Billot, SJ (1846-1831), whose support of “Action Francaise” led to his “resignation” as a cardinal.

Jay Random
February 2, 2013

the case of Louis, Cardinal Billot, SJ (1846-1831),

A man so old-fashioned, he died fifteen years before he was born.

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist: you set it up so perfectly. Action Française made a fetish of living in the past; why shouldn’t one of its most famous supporters die in the past?)

Garth
February 2, 2013

For some time now the College of Cardinals has been restricted to bishops, though of course the Pope could make an exception.

Katherine
February 2, 2013

Oh dear, FW Ken. Cardinal Mahony has published a letter insisting that he did all he could in the sexual abuse cases and that graduate school had not prepared him to deal with the issue. This certainly justifies Bishop Gomez in censuring Mahony as he did. Yuck.

FW Ken
February 2, 2013

If memory serves, Cardinal Mahony is the one the investigating committee referred to as mafia-like in his resistance to the investigations.

Anyway, Abp. Gomez has come back with a statement that Card. Mahony and Bp. Curry are in good standing and able to minister without restriction. However, you might also notice both have canceled scheduled confirmations for which they were scheduled.

This is going to be subtle, but rough.

Katherine
February 2, 2013

If I were a Catholic parent I would be unhappy about having my child confirmed by Mahony or Curry, having read about these reports. I do understand that the sins of the minister do not invalidate the sacraments, but really. They should quietly move out of public life. It’s called penance, bishops.

sybil marshall
February 2, 2013

Penance is, all too often, for the little people… but at least this phenom is in general much less worse in the RCC than in a lot of other bodies/denoms.

Fuinseoig
February 2, 2013

It’s only going to get uglier in L.A., looks like. Now, Cardinal Mahony probably has a point about how, when he was doing his social work degree back in the 80s, he received no training about this and nobody talked about child abuse.

I remember the push in the early 80s in our neighbouring island for lowering the age of consent for everybody, gay and straight, to 14 and it wasn’t all gay activists advocating this – though Peter Tatchell has since rowed back considerably on the following opinion he expressed in a letter to the newspapers in 1997:

“The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

Yes, folks, as recently as 1997. Social work courses in the 80s were probably full of the most up-to-date psychological theories and progressive notions, which wouldn’t have touched with a ten-foot barge pole the notion of “criminality”, let alone “sin”. Everything was down to psychological trauma and maladjustment, and a course of therapy would set you all right.

That being said, once you are in a position of responsibility and you get credible, serious accusations of violent abuse, you do not shuffle the guy off to a therapist and even worse, encourage him not to tell the therapist about his sexual abuse of minors. And making that dig about Archbishop Gomez coming into the archdiocese in 2010 and being happy with how child protection was handled is not at all germane to the issue: this is not about the policies that have since been put in place, this is about what was done and more importantly left undone back in the 80s. Snide imputations of “You came in, you must have read the files, you never said anything” are just throwing dust in all our eyes.

Like I said, it’s only going to get uglier.

Bill2
February 2, 2013

Ahhh Fuinseoig, you bring up the ghost of Alfred Kinsey who brought us sex-ed in Kindergarten because children are sexual beings, dontcha know and can have some primitive idea of the “joy of sex” at a very early age.

You would think that even common sense would over-ride such nonsense, but I guess the goal of a college education is to educate the common sense right out of you.

Dale Matson
February 3, 2013

Fuinseoig,
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”
I disagree with this statement including the “may be” part. A child cannot give informed consent for sex any more than they can get a loan to buy a car. The first line of denial of the sexual predator is to say that the sex was consensual. This loss of innocence makes a child sexually precocious and they in turn recruit other children into sexual behavior. As a school psychologist, I saw this first hand.

FW Ken
February 3, 2013

Best comment so far:

Now that he’s apologized for his mistakes, when will he apologize for his deliberate decisions.

Katherine
February 3, 2013

Yes, FW Ken. They deliberately sent errant priests to therapists who could be counted on not to report the offenses to the police. They knew what had happened was wrong. No amount of rationalization about academic training can mask that, and no excuses are acceptable. Heartfelt apologies, yes; excuses, no.

Suburbanbanshee
February 3, 2013

Fuinseoig wasn’t saying she agreed with Tatchell. Heck, it’s pretty clear she disagreed (and still disagrees) strongly. Please reread her comment.

Fuinseoig
February 4, 2013

Ah, I don’t think Dale was saying I agreed; I think he was saying Tatchell was talking out of his hat, which is what I agree with.

We had (indeed, still have) a genius Supreme Court judge who, back in 2006, decided in an appeal case (that of a young man who had sex with a 15 year old when he was 17 and was convicted of statutory rape) that statutory rape was unconstitutional. He persuaded a majority vote of the court on this, even though dissenters said that if that was so, then men sent to prison for paedophilia would appeal on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

Psh, tush and no way, says our new Solon. All this will do is mean that if you genuinely think she’s 16 and you’re 16 or 17 yourself, you won’t be in danger of facing prison. Well, they declared the relevant law unconstitutional and yep, a guy convicted of having sex with a 12 year old girl appealed (on the grounds that, if the law was unconstitutional, it did not apply at the time and so he had committed no prosecutable offence) and the government had to rush in emergency legislation pretty damn quick to make sure the likes of him stayed locked up.

And this guy still has a job and is still considered one of our best and brightest, above the average peons and rednecks who aren’t as progressive and sophisticated as we should be.

Dale Matson
February 4, 2013

Fuinseoig,
Your take on my comment is correct.

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta