There were some weird charges against a Korean “grocer and spiritual leader” in Toronto about a year ago.
I think that by “work” he meant the headjobs, but perhaps in a different role?
Can you imagine a prosecutor trying to prove that his penis wasn’t blessed?
If coercing sex by telling people they’ll derive religious benefit from it is rape, then coercing money by telling people they’ll derive religious benefit from it is robbery.
In both cases, I’d say: It’s not; but it might be fraud.
When my Sunday School teacher quoted Psalm 23:4b, that wasn’t what I thought he meant.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s getting really tiring fighting your stubborn ignorance on this. Whether this was rape has jack shit to do with whether the guy would be convicted in a court of law of rape. There are a lot of rapists who are never convicted. That doesn’t make them not rapists. As we’ve told you hundreds of times, even in the Pit, Morality has nothing to do with the law!
This is a flipping cult leader. This is what they do. Are you going to argue that it’s Christian to defend cult leaders?
And, yes, this is rape. Getting sex by fraud is rape. Just like getting money by fraude is theft. It may be defined differently legally, but that doesn’t change what people think about it. How often on this very board have we called scam artists thieves?
I realize some people may disagree. But don’t hide behind the law.
Chill, dude.
It all depends on what your definition of “is” is.
When you say something like “A is B” (whether your B is rape or theft or jaywalking or whatever), you mean that A fits some definition of what B is. A legal definition is a perfectly reasonable sort of definition to use in a case like this, and it’s a lot less arbitrary than other sorts, which may vary from person to person. Using words in their legal meaning is not “hiding behind the law.”
What if both of the people involved are mentally disabled? Reading the article, I’m not at all convinced that the guy doesn’t have mental problems.
i.e. If the guy really believed it himself, how does that affect your view of the case?
Right. Nobody’s trying to minimize this weirdo’s moral scumness. It was just pointed out that in a lot of places he would be hard to convict of aggravated sexual battery(*) in a Court of Law
(* many jurisdictions have struck the word “rape” from the legalese)
BUT there would be cases where even it the conduct described may not be charged as “rape”/ASB – in the sense of the specific criminal-law term – it could fall under any of a number of provisions about sexual harassment, soliciting, lewd conduct, abuse of office, etc. AND, in other locales, pressuring for sex by “abusing a relationship of trust, authority or dependency” WILL directly land you afoul of sexual assault laws.
e.g., In the latest version of my local penal code, one of the subsections describing specific cases in which consent is vitiated so the sexual encounter becomes a crime reads (translated on the fly from Spanish legalese as I type):
“When the accused person takes advantage of being seen by the victim as being in a position of superior trust or responsibility, derived from holding the victim’s custody, or being their legal guardian; or providing their primary, secondary, higher or special education, medical or mental health care, or psychological or other kind of counseling; or having over them a relationship of religious or other belief-based leadership.”
These subsections are separate from those involving mental capacity or chronological age.
It contrasts with “rape by fraud” (which around here only applies to fooling someone into believing you are their SO) in dodging the “when would a reasonable person have called bu!!$#it” test by focusing on the narrow case where* one person would normally understand or believe it in their best interest to submit to the other* and it is the assailant who acted contrary to that trust.
Or swallow it.
This isn’t just about gullibility, although it abounds in this case. This pastor must’ve had tremendous psychological authority over his victims. These victims were afraid to refuse, because to refuse would be to go against someone with God’s authority. They felt they had no choice. Therefore, yes, it was rape.
This doesn’t just happen with clergy. I’ve heard of doctors using this sort of control over their patients for sexual favors as well. Once I read about a doctor who claimed that he had a new therapy that required him to take an injection of some medicine, and then have sex with his female patient to give the medicine to her through his sperm. She complied, and then later sued. She said, “I looked at him while he was doing it, and he didn’t look like a doctor treating his patient. He looked liked he was having a good time.”
Yes, the woman was naive to believe the guy. But she was probably conditioned to obey people with authority like doctors. Still, she didn’t deserve that kind of treatment, and that “doctor” needed to be stopped. Just like this “pastor”.
Yeah, it’s old news and no one cares anymore. But I just wanted to drop in for my victory lap. According to the always-reliable Cracked.com (scroll down to item #1), and this article I can barely read because it’s in Portuguese (I guess), the article about the preacher with the holy semen was just a parody. It was probably funnier in the original.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be patting myself on the back.
Had to look it up:
Nice.
Wouldn’t this qualify as Statutory Rape based on relationship - just as a physician’s patient cannot consent to sex with the physician (esp. psychiatrists) or a client with a lawyer?
Would not a Pastor have such a relationship with his Congregants?
I imagine if this had been a RCC Priest and a Penitent in the Confessional, there would not be any doubt that a rape* had occurred.
-
- Assuming that the definition of rape covers the act. If not, substitute “sexual assault”.
I agree because how could you prove, in court, that they did not get a blessing from God through this act?
It would make for some sort of great porn remake of Miracle on 34th Street.