Skip to main content

Sovereign Grace Ministries feels it's above the law

A church facing a lawsuit from former members whom have accused church officials of covering up sex abuse allegations is thinking about using the First Amendment as its defense.

Sovereign Grace Ministries saw a former member indicted this past December on charges that he molested multiple boys in the 1980s, and is now dealing with the very real possibility that multiple members covered up these alleged acts.

Seeming to hint that the church was going to lean on the First Amendment as the members' defense, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock commented on the matter with the following:

"To the extent that there's a First Amendment issue they're talking about, it is not about sexual abuse as a First Amendment right. It is about the church deciding for itself how to respond to claims of misconduct among its members."

So, let me get this straight. Many members of the church don't believe in the separation of church and state, yet when it comes to a member of the church sexually abusing little boys and other members covering up the crime, they feel these members should go without state or federal punishment and keep that punishment within the church? The First Amendment gives one the right to believe whatever they'd like. It doesn't give a person the right to commit a serious crime like molesting little boys or covering up that very crime. While many members of a particular religion may feel they're above members of all others in this life and into the next, no member of any religion should be above the law. Whenever I hear about a story like this, I just want to look these members in the eyes and say to them, "What would Jesus do?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/first-amendment-defense-sovereign-grace-ministries_n_2726023.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...