---
It is impossible for the Left to get their priorities straight. This has been seen often in the court system where leftists victimize the perpetrator of crimes while accusing the victim of promoting the crime. Most recently, we can see this displayed in the hysterics leftist raise regarding the arrest of admitted pedophile Roman Polanski.
When Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a 31-year-old warrant, Hollywood elitists went ballistic. A petition has been passed around the Zurich film festival stating, in part, that “Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision.”
Dismayed that an admitted pedophile is arrested?
“It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary film-makers, is used by police to apprehend him.”
And I find it inadmissible that a party in Jack Nicholson’s home, paying homage to massive Hollywood egos, is used by a pervert to rape and sodomize a 13-year-old girl. Somehow, one of these “inadmissible” behaviors is not like the other.
Producer Henning Molfenter told The Hollywood Reporter:
There is no way I'd go to Switzerland now. You can't watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5 km away.Yes, poor Roman! He’s going through what some Polish film-makers have called a “judicial lynching” all because of something that happened back in the 70s. He’s the victim here. Not the 13-year-old Californian girl.
I mean, really, if you read the testimony of the 13-year-old, it is obvious that Roman Polanski was the true victim.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the bathroom and started drying off.
Q. Did you see Mr. Polanski then?
A. Yes, he came into the bathroom.
Q. What happened at that time?
A. He asked me if I was all right, if my asthma was bad.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said that I wanted to go home because I needed to take my medicine.
Q. What did Mr. Polanski say?
A. He said, “Yeah, I’ll take you home soon.”
Q. What did you do?
A. I told him – I said that I wanted to get – I wanted to go home. I said, “No, I have to go home now.”
Q. What did Mr. Polanski say?
A. He told me to go into the other room and lie down.
…
Q. What did you do when he said, “Let’s go in the other room”?
A. I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.
…
Q. What happened when you sat down on the couch?
A. He sat down beside me and asked if I was okay.
Q. What did you say, if anything?
A. I said, “No.”
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes, “Well, you’ll be better.” And I go, “No, I won’t. I have to go home.”
Q. What happened then?
A. He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.” But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.
Q. After he kissed you did he say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did you say anything?
A. No, besides I was just going, “No. Come on, let’s go home.”
Q. What was said after you indicated that you wanted to go home when you were sitting on the couch?
A. He said, “I’ll take you home soon.”
Q. Then what happened?
A. And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness.
Q. What does that mean?
A. It means he went down on me or he placed his mouth on my vagina.
…
Q. What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?
A. He was just like licking and I don’t know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of – I was going, “No. Come on. Stop it.” But I was afraid.
Q. And what did he say, if anything?
A. He wasn’t saying anything that I can remember. He was – sometimes he was saying stuff, but I was just blocking him out, you know.
…
Q. How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina?
A. A few minutes.
Q. What happened after that?
A. He started to have intercourse with me.
Q. What do you mean by intercourse?
A. He placed his penis in my vagina.
Q. What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A. I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.” But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.
…
Q. At any time did he ask you when your period was?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. While he was having intercourse with me.
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. Yes.
Q. When did he say that?
A. At the same time.
Q. What did he say?
A. He asked, he goes, “Are you on the pill?” And I went, “No.” And he goes, “When did you have your period?” And I said, “I don’t know. A week or two. I’m not sure.”
Q. And what did he say?
A. He goes, “Come on. You have to remember.” And I told him I didn’t.
Q. Did he say anything after that?
A. Yes. He goes, ‘Would you want me to go in through your back?” And I went, “No.”
…
Q. What happened after he says, “Do you want me to – “ was it go through the back?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened then?
A. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, “Oh, I won’t come inside of you then.” And I just went – and he goes – and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
A. He put his penis in my butt.
Q. Did he say anything at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really because – (pause)
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him.
It must be pointed out that Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to statutory rape. In the above, we see that his victim told him “No” and to stop at every step of the way. And as we all know, “No means no.”
Unless you’re a famous Hollywood director.
Of course, that could move into a “he said, she said” type of event. Perhaps she did come on to him. But that ignores an important fact.
She was thirteen.
Some Polanski defenders have said she looked old for her age. At the time, the age of consent in California was 16 (it’s now 18). Suppose that his victim actually did look like she was 16. Polanski was 44 years old at the time. If you’re 44 years old and you’re having to wonder if the person you’re having sex with might be underage, that ought to be giving you warning bells.
In any case, since this unfortunate “event” occurred, Polanski has been forced to live in “exile” in France. And while that generally would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, his exile included multi-million dollar homes, a wife, children, an Oscar award, fame, and recognition for making slightly better crappy movies than the other crappy movies out there. The only real tragedy is that Polanski couldn’t pick up his Oscar in LA...
Sickening.
At root, this simple fact cannot be lost: Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. This is not in doubt—he admitted it. I don’t care if he found the cure for cancer instead of just making more money for Hollywood schlubs, he ought to be punished for his crime.
The fact that Leftists are making him into a victim shows just how morally incompetent they are.
Yo Peter!
ReplyDeleteChrist died for Roman Polanski's sin.
Of course, Roman Polanski should (or probably has to some limited degree) face the consequences due for his sin in this world and in his lifetime.
Question: Peter, if you had a 13 year-old daughter who was raped by someone in the manner that Roman Polanski did, would you forgive him... IF he repented, and did his time, and apologized to your daughter?
Can I also assume, that if your daughter got pregnant as a result of the rape, you would either help raise the baby or have the baby adopted?
The Moral Blindness of the Left has to be engaged by the Moral Strength and Love of the Right.
And only God is Right and only God is Righteous.
Pax.
Word Verification: perpo
TUAD said:
ReplyDelete---
Christ died for Roman Polanski's sin.
---
I don't know that.
TUAD said:
---
Question: Peter, if you had a 13 year-old daughter who was raped by someone in the manner that Roman Polanski did, would you forgive him... IF he repented, and did his time, and apologized to your daughter?
---
It would be extremely hard to forgive him (and I would only be required to do so if he was a Christian); I don't know what my emotional state would be in such a circumstance. But this is beside the point. Even if he became a Christian and I did not forgive him that would hardly make my hypocrisy releveant to the issue of whether leftists should be mad that a criminal was arrested for a crime. Further, whether a victim forgives someone or not has no bearing on whether the perp should be jailed for his crime. So even if my hypothetical daughter forgave him, I'd still want him in jail for as long as possible.
Forgiveness is not a get out of jail card.
You said:
---
Can I also assume, that if your daughter got pregnant as a result of the rape, you would either help raise the baby or have the baby adopted?
---
All other things being equal, I would want the child raised in my house. If it was economically impossible, then yes I would look for adoption.
You said:
---
The Moral Blindness of the Left has to be engaged by the Moral Strength and Love of the Right.
---
But don't confuse naivety with "Moral Strength and Love."
Hey Peter,
ReplyDeleteYour post and your response sounds right to me.
Best Regards,
Truth Unites... and Divides
Here is an exerpt from my Mentoring Pastor preaching in the early 1970's. It's prophetic when you think about this issue of moral blindness. God's hammer worked then and before then and it will work today and tomorrow if only Preachers would preach sermons with words as these in them:::>
ReplyDelete"....The Bible says he cried out with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death and he was heard in that he feared. Well that is a far cry from the mentality of today’s religiosity, a far cry from the churchianity of today, which no negative sermons are to be preached, no negative words are to be used, no strong language are to be used, no stern warnings are to be given. All just floating along toward heaven while our Lord Jesus Christ learned obedience by the things he suffered. We don’t learn obedience and we don’t suffer, that’s our mentality. But I pray to God that it may not be so among you.
There is that word “suffering”. You cannot escape it. Everything that God gives to you has that overtone to it....".
I would equally note that Our God's Words on fornication are as Eternal as He is. If I am not mistaken, Polanski fornicated while raping that 13 year old.
Want some strong words?
Ok, here, hear these with your spirit:::>
1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Here's another exerpt from this friend of mine:::>
"....Number one that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth NO GOOD THING! None! There’s not one redeeming feature to my personality. There’s not one redeeming feature to my nature. There’s not one redeeming feature to my mental processes. There is absolutely nothing in my flesh that is of any value to God! And because it’s of no value to God, it’s of no value to man.
Brother, we are preparing ourselves – Sister, we are preparing ourselves NOT to take an automobile ride in America. We’re preparing our lives for eternity. And we can get hung up in, and wrapped up in our little trips about the good things that we can do. Well I want to tell you something: There isn’t one good thing that I can do or that you can do or that any of us can do unless – unless it has been inspired by Jesus, motivated by Jesus – unless He gives us the strength to do it, unless HE lives through us, unless it’s His flowing that produces the result....".
Peter,
ReplyDeleteIs your position that Christians need only forgive Christians?
A further question.
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical position is that sex is to be confined to marriage partners.
So what has occurred here is sinful.
In our Western cultures, people marry quite late. But this has not always been so. Our feelings of horror about paedophilia may be somewhat conditioned by our cultures.
My question is, in terms of OT ANE culture or the cultures of the first century church, at what ages did women start to marry? From that perspective, would a 30 year old marrying a 14 or 15 year old girl be considering a sinful coupling?
AMC,
ReplyDeleteMy position is that Christians are only commanded to forgive other Christians if they repent. Steve has done posts on this before and I am in general agreement with him on the topic.
It's too long to go into all the details here, and I would also point out that a lot of this depends on what your understanding of "forgiveness" is in the first place (I think there's a large disconnect between what modern Americans believe forgiveness is and what the Bible says forgiveness is--for one thing, *I* cannot forgive someone who has not sinned against me in the first place, nor can I ask for forgiveness on behalf of someone else, yet Americans seem to do nothing but that).
But I don't want this to distract from the larger purpose of this post. We've got leftists in Hollywood saying things like Whoopi Goldberg's "It wasn't rape-rape." Or Patrick Goldstein who compares Polanski to Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, and the authorities to Javert.
Apparently, the message they wish to convey is, "If you rape someone, just make a bunch of movies that leftists like and you'll never have to be prosecuted for it. We will Look The Other Way. We will call it something else. We will excuse everything, because you entertain us."
In regards to your further quesiton:
ReplyDeleteA) It's irrelevant to this case because the victim said "No" repeatedly.
B) The ANE was a different world, in many ways a harsher world. People didn't live as long in general--by Roman times, the average male lifespan was only 30, largely due to war, disease, etc. We don't have that particular problem. Furthermore, marriages were quite different back then, being arranged by families--we don't have arranged marriages now. I would be extremely careful with how far you would want to press your logic here.
C) Finally, teens younger than the age of consent can still normally get married with parental consent in most states, although with limitations on that too. For instance, I remember reading something where a 14-year-old girl married a 20-something man with parental consent in, I believe, Alabama. So the law makes provision for people who would be of a different culture. However, once again, this has nothing to do with Polanski at all.
Well, although you could argue against Polanski without it, now it makes me curious how you would make a biblical case against pedophilia. One of the criticisms by skeptics is that the Bible doesn't say anything explicitly against it. Of course, we all now that the Bible doesn't have to say something explicitly to make a point, but I must admit that I'm not sure where I'd start.
ReplyDeleteWhat Polanski did is sick, and he should have to give account to this girl, who is now in her 40's. And also pay his due time for the crime.
ReplyDeleteThe film stars who are speaking up, and sugar-coating this filthy sin, are absolutely out of their minds.
Thanks for the post. It was difficult to read.
If this guy would have done that to my daughter, and I was able to get hold of him, he'd better hope I didn't have a baseball bat in my hands.
And if the Lord has mercy on Roman, then I will rejoice, but this man needs to be away.
I had a member in my church have sex with his teenage daughter, and he did three years in Maximum Security in Baltimore City jail. I visited him, and shared the Gospel, but I never sugar-coated his sin.
"The Moral Blindness of the Left"
ReplyDeleteHonestly, there are so many different ways in which they exhibit their moral blindness.
A blindness which unfortunately cashes out as moral depravity.
For instance, if I were to just look at your title alone, I would have guessed that your post was about abortion. And isn't that another case of the liberal Left's moral blindness?
And doesn't Reppert give moral cover to his fellow liberal leftists on this issue?
I don't think the primary issue is pedophilia...though it certainly makes him that much more disgusting taking a girl from her mother's home, trusted by her mother to help her modeling career...instead, he took the opportunity to manipulate the situation so as to possibly inebriate the child with alcohol and drugs.
ReplyDeleteI do have a slightly different take on this. I wonder if Biblical Law would require a money settlement...something Polanski did after he fled. He has paid an undisclosed amount to his victim.
Should we require more than God's Word?
Does it also seem quite unjust that Polanski was offered a plea deal that was rescinded? I don't think a plea deal should have been struck since that lessens the legal view of his crime...but that was what he was offered.
All in all, with his victim receiving money because of the wrong Polanski caused, I'd say this was the closest this case came to a fair conclusion. He shouldn't go to prison, but not because he's such a swell guy that makes movies.
instead, he took the opportunity to manipulate the situation so as to possibly inebriate the child with alcohol and drugs.
ReplyDeletejust realized this could be read as meaning the real problem was alcohol and drugs...no, just that Polanski was a manipulative child raper.
"Well, although you could argue against Polanski without it, now it makes me curious how you would make a biblical case against pedophilia. One of the criticisms by skeptics is that the Bible doesn't say anything explicitly against it. Of course, we all now that the Bible doesn't have to say something explicitly to make a point, but I must admit that I'm not sure where I'd start."
ReplyDeleteThe Bible explicitly condemns rape. It also implies that one of the purposes of sexual union is procreation, so it's possible one could argue against a sexual relationship with someone too young to conceive on the grounds of natural law..? I don't know enough about natural law to tease that one out, but it's a start. One could also argue - although this is far from Biblically explicit - that the principles of informed consent apply. A child - and in today's society, a teenager - cannot know the physical and psychological issues that come from having premature sex. So even were such a person to consent, it wouldn't be true consent with awareness of all the issues; and consequently, anyone trying to obtain such consent would be guilty of deceit.
I find it interesting you used the word pedophilia - I tend to think of that being reserved for sex with pre-pubescent children, which this girl obviously was not. However, a 13-year-old girl today is arguably much more of a "child" than a 13-year-old girl in ANE culture who would by that age be pretty competent to run a household, who would have seen numerous childbirth and helped take care of many babies, and so on. Certainly Polanski's interest in her was deviant, if not pedophilia in the strictest sense; but of course the bigger problem was the lack of consent.
"I find it interesting you used the word pedophilia"
ReplyDeleteWell it was a very general question...I wasn't making an attempt to be terribly specific
Mathetes,
ReplyDeleteAh, Sodom and Gomorrah?
Ah, a "good" conscience?
I just think humanity has latent within the imagination the sense of good and evil as it seems these Words of Scripture imply:::>
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
I am not sure Hebrew marriages include the practice of sodomy and rape certainly wasn't condoned in the Torah? Whereas, a gracious neighbor, was??
"All in all, with his victim receiving money because of the wrong Polanski caused, I'd say this was the closest this case came to a fair conclusion. He shouldn't go to prison, but not because he's such a swell guy that makes movies." Craig
ReplyDeleteIf this gril's parents, took money and settled, then they should put them in jail.
The heathen love fornication. There's a tribe in Indonesia where the sexual practices are very perverted, and too perverted to mention really. They have not heard the Gospel. But the Lord has finnally sent some missionaries to these people, and they are hearing the Gospel, and some are convicted. It's a long haul for this missionary family, perhaps 5 to 6 years in translating the language, while they live there [Papua Barat] in the midst of people who have never heard the Gospel.
If you think of it, please pray for these heroic fellow-servants of the Lord: Matt & Caroline, and their 3 young boys.
“Those who have never been told of him will see,
and those who have never heard will understand.” Rom. 15:21
Donsands: If this gril's (sic) parents, took money and settled, then they should put them in jail.
ReplyDeleteCraig: Because they took the only course available (lawsuit) after Polanski fled the U.S.?
Also, why would God introduce law for *exactly* this kind of scenario? You know what the ruling could be (if accused was found guilty)?
A. Perp marries victim
B. Perp pays restitution
Also, I believe the suit was brought by the actual victim, but if it was filed while she was a minor, then both parent/s and child must bring suit.
"Because they took the only course available (lawsuit) after Polanski fled the U.S.?"
ReplyDeleteDidn't know that. Then they shouldn't go to jail. It must have been very heavy and painful for the girl and her family.
Roman needs to feel great guilt and conviction, and so then he may cry out to Christ for mercy.
If he does that, and is regenerated, then I believe he will accept the justice he deserves. And so bring glory to God and His great mercy and love.
Just two more cents worth.