WorthyNews: Think You're Safe from Predators Online? How a Supreme Court Ruling May Influence That

[Anonymous Aristotle]

10 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Your post was clear, you just know that admitting it would get you in trouble. 

I would never speak for another member however, I will observe that if defending the rights of pedophiles on-line doesn't get the offender in trouble, this site is already in peril. 

The irrational argument defense of child rapers , predators, rights on-line, the contempt and dismissal of law as a platform for that defense, is troubling. It sets the stage in fact being this reprehensible SCOTUS decision was predicated on the first amendment rights of child rapers and predators. While disparaging the rights of children to not to be stalked, attacked on-line, and pursued by child rapists and predators. 

And as such this decisions defenders allows for the inference in reading those defenders that they would also defend any pedophile avenue of assault as first amendment freedom. Namely, child porn. Because that falls within the parameters of offenders who disparage the law as a protective mediator between criminal child predators and the innocent in community. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

1 minute ago, Davida said:

It boggles the mind doesn't it, every topic it is the same.

It did at first when I encountered this the few times I read here. Then it hit me. Non compose is a characteristic of the adversary of God. It all fits then. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

58 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

I agree with what Gator said and that is all I am ever going to say about this matter. 

The correspondence would never allow for any doubt of that. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

9 minutes ago, Davida said:

The thing I observe also, on a spiritual level  is that people can be used as a tool of Satan's purposes, as Jesus told Peter. In these times the criminals are protected and get too many rights and the victims are not protected- it is upside down. It's the same with the lobby to lower the age of consent - there is evil behind that idea, but many will support that for the sake of "freedom".  We should be first off protecting the children & the weakest among us from those that would cause them harm.

I would disagree that the impetus is freedom. No one is free to rape a child. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

One counter to this immoral ruling is to start writing Christian political and legal activist networks, and the president himself, as well as the Republican Representatives in our home states, and behind a copy of this ruling demand that pedophilia becomes a federal offense under federal law. 

Conviction mandatory life without parole. Retroactive to repeal all parole and probation orders surrounding all released offenders. 

Meanwhile, while working on that safety avenue, those of us in those 20 states that currently prosecute the sexual predator legislation demand it be prosecuted against all pedophiles released into the public domain currently . Those on parole and probation. 

This recent SCOTUS decision is inconsistent with SCOTUS prior ruling in  Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).

Position Statement 55: Confining Sexual Predators in the Mental Health System

When SCOTUS says it is allowable to have baby rapists and child predators preying on children in social media, when those not yet convicted or known are already doing that, and are the cause for children being abducted across America as news reports and even the former TV show, "To Catch A Predator", report. And uncover in their stings with regard to the TV show, parents and child advocates have to go on the offensive to defend against those who defend demons who hunt children. 

[Running Gator]

31 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

I would never speak for another member however, I will observe that if defending the rights of pedophiles on-line doesn't get the offender in trouble, this site is already in peril. 

I am defending the very principles our country was founded upon.  IF you do not like them, move to Saudi Arabia or Iraq, they seem to have laws more to your liking.

Quote

The irrational argument defense of child rapers , predators, rights on-line, the contempt and dismissal of law as a platform for that defense, is troubling. It sets the stage in fact being this reprehensible SCOTUS decision was predicated on the first amendment rights of child rapers and predators. While disparaging the rights of children to not to be stalked, attacked on-line, and pursued by child rapists and predators. 

Nobody is saying that anyone does not have the right not to be stalked online, this is merely a strawman because your whole argument is void of any reality.   Whether you like it or not the decision by SCOTUS was the correct one based upon the Constitution of the United States.  Again, if you do not like that constitution, leave.  

Quote

And as such this decisions defenders allows for the inference in reading those defenders that they would also defend any pedophile avenue of assault as first amendment freedom. Namely, child porn. Because that falls within the parameters of offenders who disparage the law as a protective mediator between criminal child predators and the innocent in community. 

This is ridiculously silly.  Child porn is illegal because it is illegal for anyone to have sex with a child and because it harms the child.  There is no comparison between someone posting a job posting on Facebook and child porn.  Once again your whole argument is devoid of any logic or reason and is based solely on misplaced emotion and your desire to attack me at every turn. 

[Running Gator]

18 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

I would disagree that the impetus is freedom. No one is free to rape a child. 

And nobody is arguing that it is.  This is just a strawman so you can get your righteous indignation high for the morning. 

[LadyKay]

41 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

The correspondence would never allow for any doubt of that. 

what? I'm not sure to laugh or well I'm not sure. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

10 minutes ago, Davida said:

I know what you mean, it is twisted. I was in a certain course in University that the Prof (a middle aged woman) was promoting the idea of lowering the age of consent because children get married younger in other parts of the world & during other times in history. That we were somehow stomping on the individual freedoms of the child by not lowering it.  I was appalled and was the only one. I told her that our job as adults is to PROTECT the Young not launch them into sexual activity & give predators their prey!   I got a B- in her class- I'm sure those that applauded her got all A's .  I could not abide anything she stood for.

It is twisted. But it is not of God so that is to be expected when worldly judges side with Satan in this case. 

Remember when there was a movement that wanted to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18? The argument being, 18 year olds can join the military and learn how to use military grade weapons. But they can't buy a beer after training. 

When the homosexual marriage decision came through SCOTUS invoking the 14th amendment, almost immediately, I would say as I recall it was the next day, a threesome straight couple went to the town hall in their town seeking a marriage license. They intended to start the next activist wave in the sexual revolution by demanding polygamists have the same equal right to marry under the 14th. 

And following that SCOTUS decision WND saw the writing on the wall. And how could they not when the communist rooted/grounded ACLU sided with the Man Boy Love Association, a twisted men's group lobbying for the right to sexually assault children as a sexual orientation constitutional right in America, and that once actually enjoyed the privilege of a tax exempt status under the IRS, sought to force a ruling that child porn was a free speech right. 
So, WND published this article as a forewarning of things to come. This latest demonic SCOTUS ruling just puts another paving stone on that road to damnation . One that will no doubt be traveled by the NMBLA members, and others favoring pedophiles civil rights.  

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

PEDOPHILIA THE NEXT 'SEXUAL-RIGHTS' REVOLUTION?

Academics, psychologists expanding LGBT argument to 'minor-attracted persons'

Published: 01/02/2014 

 

 Pedophilia is not curable. It is impossible to re-form the mind miswired so as to fire and cause the body of the pedophile to become sensually and sexually aroused at the thought, sight, touch , of a baby or child. 

It is as impossible to rewire as is heterosexuality. Because pedophilia is a sexual disorientation. A birth defect. And mentally ill people do not have a Constitutional right to exercise their sickness in a free society when they are a threat to themselves and others. That criteria of offense, threat to themselves or others, is one which permits those serving in the mental health profession to break client privilege if a patient demonstrates that intent. 
How then does SCOTUS give that mental illness its civil right to become a threat to children on-line using the avenue of social media as a means of expanding their hunting ground? 

Another option to remedy this demonic decision is to lobby Congress to amend the first amendment.  Convicted pedophiles restricted from owning a computer or accessing the Internet. They're already restricted in housing options. And the sex offender registry insures by law that they are to make their presence known in those communities where they are allowed to reside. Starting with local law enforcement. I believe that should be expanded to include a sign posted in the offenders yard or on the door of their apartment or condo. 

The public disclosure act, as I would call it. This way children are safe. And they don't go to those doors on Halloween and stand to be abducted. The property is marked so families can insure their childrens safety. 

After all, in many states convicted felons 2nd amendment rights are vacated. How then does this SCOTUS think pedophiles have a first amendment right on-line? 

 

 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

Question: "What does the Bible say about pedophilia/paedophilia?"

Answer: There is no direct mention of pedophilia in the Bible. But, there are numerous biblical principles that definitely apply to this perverted and abusive sin. One such principle is the Bible’s view of the sin of fornication. The word translated “fornication” has the same idea in both the Hebrew and the Greek. The Greek word is porneia, from which we get the English words porno and pornography. The word in Scripture refers to any illicit sexual activity, and this would have to include the abhorrent acts of a pedophile—including the gathering and trading of obscene or indecent pictures of young children. People who use this type of pornography usually graduate from looking to actually doing, bringing great harm to children. Fornication is among the “lusts of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16–21) and among the evil things that come from the heart of a man apart from God (Mark 7:21–23).

Pedophiles share the characteristic of being “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:2). The phrase “without natural affection” is translated from one Greek word, which means “inhuman, unloving, and unsociable.” One without natural affection acts in ways that are against the social norm. This would certainly describe a pedophile.

In addition, there is a principle found in Jesus’ words about children. Jesus used a child to teach His disciples that childlike faith is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. At the same time, He said that the Father has concern for all of His “little ones” (Matthew 18:1–14). In that passage, Jesus says, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6, KJV). The word offend in the Greek means “to cause one to stumble, to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, to entice to sin, or to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey.”

These definitions of the word offend can easily be applied to the actions of a pedophile. Of course, the principle of not harming a child can be applied to a wide range of child-abusive actions, and Matthew 18:10 makes the case against anyone who would bring any type of harm to a child.