Pastor John Lowe II Admits To “Adultery” Until the Victim Speaks!!! "I Was Only 16."

They say when you become a Christian you are endowed with the righteousness of Christ and are now a "new man". That the old self has been somehow magically discarded and you are now saintly and holy beyond compare. Just check this story out ...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...sedgntp&cvid=4482e87e82a94d1b8c32fa7f9b00f8e6

 

Can't believe you can lie to your congregation pretend it's a confession and people still forgive you.

Pedophiles are the one type of person I'd look the other way and not see violence being brought upon them

 

This is a little bit of a strange situation. I agree that the girl was "molested", but it is really somewhere in-between the spectrum of "molested" and "being taken advantage of". Both are not good things, but I believe "molested" is just a tiny bit too strong of a word for this situation. I know there are many religious girls that are kept naive and in the dark about sexuality, but she was 16 years old. That is not a little child. That is old enough to know some things about sex and be able to know when things are inappropriate and say no, and to be able to give at least some level of consent.

It's hard to say whether this pastor hurt his wife more, or this girl. He seemed to view adultery as the bigger issue. Maybe he changed his mind and knew otherwise after he heard the young woman speak how she felt.

Was she "raped"? I don't think that's an easy thing to know or say exactly. There are many situations like this where "rape" is not merely just a simple matter of a yes or no thing. This sounds like one of those situations. Somewhere in-between statutory rape (which is not really rape despite the name), molestation, and rape.

A statute of limitations exists (and for good reason) so it is not possible for that pastor to be criminally charged, but he was shamed in front of the entire congregation and his reputation must be in tatters. It may be hard for some to understand, but for many pastors that is worse than a year in prison.

Also notice the fact that this young woman brought up the fact that he had taken her virginity. The fact that this was a Christian girl and he was the one to take her virginity makes this worse than if the girl was from a socially progressive family, was well-educated about sex, had already had sex, and was likely to have lots more casual sex, placing no value on virginity or trying to save herself for marriage. That is something many of those on the Left are going to have trouble understanding in this story.

I don't think that pastor's apology and repentance was really sincere or entirely truthful when he went up there and spoke. Had it been, had he given some inkling of the entire circumstances, it's likely that he would not have been shamed when the victim decided to go up there to speak the truth.

 

They only forgave him BEFORE the victim went up there and revealed the entire truth.

He has now been forced to resign.

Christianity does require that people have to forgive, but the word might mean something different than the way you understand it, or how you were using the word.

I don't think that's really the appropriate word to refer to this situation, although I agree there is a lot of overlap with "molestation" here.
She was 16.

Assuming that there was incontrovertible evidence that sex had been taking place and the girl was not enthusiastic about it, an appropriate punishment might be two and a half years.
If I were the judge I would be more merciful if it had not been a Christian girl and he had not taken her virginity. (This is not bias, this is fairness)
Already being married is certainly not a factor that helps him, add on an extra six months for that.

(Just in case any of you do not understand, it's not just Christian. It would be a similar situation for any girl who comes from a conservative culture, whether it is Muslim or Hindu)

 

Not from what I saw. The victim got up said her piece her husband dropped their jewelry off they walked away and several people from the congregation guy up and hugged the pastor.

A he should be prosecuted

It's one thing to forgive and really that's up to the victim it's a different thing to immediately embrace the pastor after his lie of a confession.

From the sound of her statement that is the appropriate word.

 

There are multiple complex factors going on in this story.

It's not really a "simple case" of anything.

It also brings up the question of to what extent can a 16 year old girl be "molested". She was not entirely helpless and vulnerable.
It sounds like the encounters continued for some time. There is a very small part of the culpability that is on her.

Unfortunately most people seem to have extreme mental difficulty viewing things on any terms other than black and white.

I'd be curious to hear the Progressive Left's take on this. It's conservatives that are typically the ones more prone to view a 16 year old girl as helpless and vulnerable and without choice in this situation.

 

Still think it's an appropriate word.

 

My opinion is that it was a form of rape. This young girl was indoctrinated by a "Man of God" with all the authority that title bestows on a man. He could have groomed her for a while to hang on his every word. And then one day he says to her, "God gave me a word of knowledge that you and I are going to be sexually intimate." This guy is a scoundrel.

 

We don't know exactly what he said to her or whether he invoked any religion.

"scoundrel", yes, that word is totally appropriate here. Probably it is not strong enough.

I think the phrase "took advantage of" might be the most appropriate here. These days it is not used with a serious meaning, but in older times it carried more serious connotation, specifically referring to a situation where a man obtained sex from a woman he was not married to and had no intention of staying with, when the woman was not keen on that encounter, but in a situation which was not quite to the degree of rape. The implication that went along with that was that young maidens did not have the ability to say no or resist the man's advances.

The father or older brother of the girl might challenge the man to a duel for the offense (with the intent of killing him). Sometimes they would beat him up.
The first husband of my mother's grandmother ended up getting killed at a party for this.

 

This comes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry on rape:

"Since the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 it is a felony, entailing the same punishment as rape, to have carnal knowledge of a girl under 13 years, whether she consent or not. Between 13 and 16 years of age it is a criminal offence punishable by two years' imprisonment, whether consent is given or not, and even if there be solicitation; but if the jury is satisfied that the person charged has reasonable cause to believe the girl to be over 16 years, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Prosecution must be within three months of the offence."

 

16 is the age of consent in Indiana.

I think there are different measures of this event.

But, surely none of them cover his acts.

 

It's not like it's all completely rape if she's 15 and a half, and then suddenly at 16 it's not rape whatsoever.

The law may have convenient black & white cut-offs, but that is not the way morality works.

It's equally stupid to be claiming "He's a pedophile because she wasn't 18"
That's just throwing out a red herring and is not the primary reason why this was bad. We all know this was bad, but you're just trying to come up with a stupidly oversimplified reason to explain why it was so.

 

1885???

The point here is that it was not statutory rape.

Thus for it to be rape, the woman would need to make that claim.

Has she made that claim?

I agree that there is plenty of reason to be disgusted by this individual. But, being disgusting is not a crime.

Also, you certainly can NOT call this pedophelia.

 

We can learn a few things from how society treated these situations a hundred years ago.

 

But I still stand by my word choice.

 

You must have no idea what law was like at that time.

 

This is an example of how the concept of "rape" can be a grey zone in some situations. This was not obviously rape, but neither was it obviously not rape.

I think there are many different "degrees" of "rape". They are not all the same and can be very different from each other, with the lowest forms perhaps not deserving to be punished at all, and some deserving punishment of only 1 or 2 years. (This isn't talking about "normal rape")
It can very much be dependent on the situation and the degree to which consent exists and how much a girl is being "taken advantage of".

 

You know a thread has gone to hell in a handbasket when it starts dividing up "levels of rape".

Only question that matters is, how old was he, the "pastor", when he did this to this girl?

 

She didn't go to police and apparently continued allowing him to have sex with her for some time.

This wasn't just some little girl. 16 years old. If you want to try to argue that was like some sort of "molestation", fine, but it's going to be hard to argue that actually constituted "rape".

She probably feels extremely guilty about what she did, and blames him.

Men can have sex with women when they "don't really want it", and that is not always "rape". She apparently did nothing to stop it.

 

Was he her spiritual leader at the time?

If so, that's one of the more disgusting uses of spiritual power to accomplish rape.

 

Oh please. That could possibly factor a little bit into manipulation and molestation, but it's going to be hard to argue he used his religious powers of persuasion to control her and make her have sex if she didn't want to.

There is no evidence in this story that he used any specific religious arguments or statements to pressure her to have sex.

 

The fact of who he is has coercive power.

It's like a teacher having sex with an 18yo student - not OK.

 

I accept that that is a possible valid argument, but I see that as a very weak part of the overall argument.

Most people would not claim that a woman has been "raped" if she is indoctrinated into a cult and has sex with the leader.

 

I couldn't finish watching. Too sickening .. those fat hillbillies ignoring her as she walked out, then embracing the dirty old man.

 

It would be more understandable if they had behaved like that if the girl had been 18.
If, on the other hand the girl was 16, that is not merely "just an affair".
He didn't really confess the whole truth, nor the more important part of his offense. In my opinion, it was still too early to embrace him.

He and many in the crowd almost acted like the only person he wronged was his wife.

He took her virginity! That is supposed to be a big thing in Christian Conservative circles.

No, it wasn't rape, but it definitely sounds like the girl was taken advantage of. That's not good.