Sex Abuse in the Church

David and Sarah talk about the Southern Baptist Convention sex abuse scandal, including the role ...

By and

David and Sarah talk about the Southern Baptist Convention sex abuse scandal, including the role that lawyers play in compounding the injustice of sex abuse in religious institutions. They also talk about an interesting insurrection election eligibility decision in the 4th Circuit and circle back to red flag laws. They also discuss the nature of courage and cowardice under fire.

Show Notes:

–Southern Baptist Convention sexual abuse report

–David in The Atlantic: “The Southern Baptist Horror”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (136)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. j. Fisher

    I would like to add some humble advice - when discussing cases, please recite the prior case disposition, particularly useful framing when discussing appellate cases, the issue on appeal, and the actual facts and disputes at issue. I’ve noticed lately that you all jump in kind of in the middle. Spent most of my time wondering what was going on during the cawthorn case discussion.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Denise Cote

    I cannot wrap my head around the police waiting outside the school while children were in the room calling 911. I suppose being a police officer in a small town gives one the sense you'll only be dealing with traffic violations, but come on. They had recently had training for a mass shooter incident. I think David's idea to incentivize red flag laws is a good one, but as Buffalo showed, what good are red flag laws if they aren't used? Sarah is right that there is cultural rot in our society. I don't know how to fix it, and it's all so heartbreaking.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Denise Cote

    I cannot wrap my head around the police waiting outside the school while children were in the room calling 911. I suppose being a police officer in a small town gives one the sense you'll only be dealing with traffic violations, but come on. They had recently had training for a mass shooter incident. I think David's idea to incentivize red flag laws is a good one, but as Buffalo showed, what good are red flag laws if they aren't used? Sarah is right that there is cultural rot in our society. I don't know how to fix it, and it's all so heartbreaking.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Ms. Isgur today published a substantial and thoughtful essay at Politico.com that will interest many AO readers, with a deeper dive into the Alito draft opinion in Dobbs: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/01/alito-roe-draft-opinion-00036172

    It contains one advisory opinion in particular that particularly resonated with me, even though it's self-evidently dicta: "[R]egardless of whether I think it was correct constitutionally at the time, the same factors that have eroded the foundations of Roe over the last 50 years have only strengthened Obergefell."

    Collapse
  5. Lane.Patterson

    I apologize if someone else asked this, (I'm on vacation in Mexico and too lazy to read the comments), but if Congress passed a Red Flag law, could they write it in a way that would both give Federal courts jurisdiction as a baseline and allow/encourage states to pass laws and also have jurisdiction?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      Yes, that could be done. There would be different constitutional pegs upon which to hang the statutes you are proposing. When trying to motivate states to behave in particular ways (for example, to raise their drinking ages to 21), Congress typically uses financial carrots and sticks using its taxing and spending authority over the federal fisc. When trying to regulate more directly, including through federal criminal laws that prohibit or mandate certain behaviors, Congress typically must find a connection to interstate commerce for its constitutional authority. It's probably fair to say that Congress has broader constitutional power to cajole states to use their inherent police powers in particular specified ways than Congress has to directly regulate the citizenry of those states. And all such legislation is going to be challenged as being beyond Congress' authority, and as being inconsistent with the Second Amendment, regardless of the peg Congress purports to rely upon. But an honest and good-faith interpretation of Congress' powers leaves lots of room for legislative drafting that would likely survive such challenges.

      Collapse
      1. Lane.Patterson

        That's super helpful. Thanks! Now we get to sit back and watch Congress not do any of that.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

          Absolutely. Enjoy the show, and don't hold your breath.

          Collapse
  6. Michael.Mcchesney

    I grew up in the Bronx and have never owned a gun. But I believe the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I try to look at proposed gun control regulations and ask how burdensome it would be to law abiding gun owners and how effective the regulation would be at protecting the public. For instance, bans on high capacity magazines (larger than 10 rounds) don't seem overly burdensome to me. Yes, forcing law abiding gun owners to reload more often on the range may be annoying, but forcing a mass shooter to reload more often can save lives as that is often the time people are able to overpower them.

    I have had my own gun regulation ideas that I think would go a long way towards protecting the rights of law abiding people while reducing the danger of illegal guns. But these ideas are usually rejected by both sides of the debate, but for different reasons. There is an argument of course that this means they are great ideas that should be implemented. With all that build up, here are my ideas.

    First, Congress should use the Interstate Commerce Clause to "preempt the field" substituting a national gun regulation regime for state and local gun control regulations. As part of that, any law abiding adult that passes a background check would be able to purchase firearms. If they then pass a safety course they will be eligible for a federal concealed carry permit. This would make it as easy for a resident of New York to purchase and carry a gun as it is for a resident of Texas or Florida. But in exchange for making it easier/actually possible for law abiding citizens of blue states to own and carry guns, regulations anathema to the NRA would also be put in place. First, a national gun registry. All gun sales must be reported to the federal government and no one that has not passed a federal background check will be allowed to buy a gun. That would not just include gun shows, but all private gun sales as well. The idea is that the last legal buyer of a gun would be responsible for what happens with that gun. That should eliminate most, though certainly not all, straw purchasers.

    The arguments against a national gun registry, as I understand them, boil down to the idea that one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to make it possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow an oppressive government. Remember that scene on Red Dawn? Right after the armed American is killed falling next to the bumper sticker that says "You can pry my gun from my cold dead hand" the colonel tells one of his men to get the gun ownership records so that they can confiscate private weapons. That's all well and good in theory and in classic 80's action movies, but I think my ideas could save lives. It could do that both by making it harder for bad guys to get guns while making it easier for good guys to get them. There is still a question about where people should be allowed/forbidden to carry weapons and whether those rules should be set by the federal or state and local governments.

    I'm of the opinion that teachers and other responsible adults should be allowed to carry weapons at school, at least after rigorous safety training ideally including drills with the police that might be responding to an active shooter. My mother was a teacher for over 30 years and was very much against allowing teachers to be armed. Having been a teacher myself, I know just how angry a student or students can make a teacher. Lots of NYC teachers find themselves in DOE "rubber rooms" where tenured teachers accused of hitting a student sit and collect paychecks while the DOE attempts (sometimes for years) to fire them. I'm sure she envisioned what might happen if some teacher with a nasty temper had a gun. But while there are certainly some teachers that should not be allowed to have a gun at school, there are others that could be trusted. That is especially true of said teachers have military or law enforcement experience. But having just a few armed adults able to intervene could make all the difference in the world to many many families.

    Collapse
  7. Anonymous

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      Very thoughtful! I hope you'll comment more frequently in the future, Alex P!

      Collapse
  8. Outsider 30-30

    From an original public meaning framework of constitutional interpretation, I think it’s pretty clear that the right of a citizen to own individual infantry weapons of the day (currently the AR15, AK47, M1A) is the core meaning of 2A. Think of it like political speech being the core of the first amendment. The “militia” was comprised of every able-bodied male citizen and was responsible for helping apprehend dangerous felons (posse comitatus), repelling invasion, and defending the state / community in times of insurrection or war. The colonies had two tiers of militia, the general militia (every male citizen) and the select militia (males who organized and trained more often). That is still the situation today. Every male citizen is a member of the general militia, while the select militia consists of the national guard. See 10 U.S.C. 246. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, having military arms in the hands of the populace so that in times of invasion they can organize citizen-militias is still relevant today. I actually think Heller and McDonald were wrong, and that there’s very little evidence that the original public meaning of 2A involved individual self-defense against criminals or personal-defense handguns. As the militia act of 1792 (which *required* every male citizen to possess a standard infantry musket), Federalist 46, Federalist 29, and the Mass. constitution of 1780 illustrate, a decent translation / reading of 2A would be: individual citizens have a right to keep individual infantry weapons in their homes and to train with them so that they can form citizen-militias to enforce laws, resist a tyrannical federal government, repel invasion, and suppress insurrection. I think things like red flag laws, background checks, handgun bans, CCW bans, etc would not violate 2A. But a ban on so-called “assault weapons” or on the standard 30-round magazines they use would directly conflict with the original public meaning of the 2A. By the way, I’m very very strongly opposed to handgun bans and background checks for private sales as a matter of public policy, and I carry a pistol every day. But I don’t think 2A has anything to say about that.

    I’d love to know how Sara or David would contend with this originalist argument. Read federalist 29, federalist 46, the 1780 Massachusetts constitution gun provisions, and the militia act of 1792. How could we interpret 2A to mean anything other than ensuring that individuals can own infantry rifles of the day?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Congrats to Husband of the Pod Scott Keller and his colleagues for securing, in Netchoice v. Paxton, an emergency order from the SCOTUS that vacated the Fifth Circuit's order staying the district court's injunction blocking enforcement of the Texas social media law, pending further appeals on the merits. If you got lost in the procedural equivalent of double negatives there: The net result for Netchoice is that the enforcement of the Texas law remains on hold unless and until otherwise announced by the Fifth Circuit after full briefing and argument "on the merits" over the course of the next few months.

    The only surprise to me was Justice Kagan's vote to permit the Texas law to be effective in the meantime: I frankly expected this to be a six/three ruling, with her in the majority. Since she didn't join Justice Alito's dissent (along with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas), we're left to wonder why. But for present purposes at least, five/four also works pretty well.

    Mr. Keller & his colleagues have a righteous and objectively pro-First Amendment position here; I wish them continued success with this case, including in turning around Justice Kagan when and if the case gets back to the SCOTUS. And I look forward to hearing about this ruling in the next AO — from Mr. French, at least, and perhaps from Ms. Isgur to the extent she feels free to comment.

    Links: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/divided-court-blocks-texas-from-enforcing-social-media-law/ and https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a720_6536.pdf

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      On the advice of counsel, I plead guilty to agreeing entirely with this statement . . .even the parts I barely understood. 😆😉

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      i can report that husband of the pod is pleased:)

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Neil Hansen

    Sarah, I’m a bit confused by your challenge for Congress to “do something, anything” and your assertion AUSA’s can’t be expected to actually prosecute violations of federal law. What is the point of passing laws that won’t be enforced?
    Along those same lines, the argument against expanding the background check to private sales is its inability to be enforced absent a national registry.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Not that they can’t be expected to—that they don’t have the resources to do so. Clearly Congress needs to allocate more funds to federal law enforcement specifically earmarked toward gun crime enforcement.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Neil Hansen

        Fair enough. Perhaps allocating money specifically to enforce existing gun laws could be something that gets bipartisan support.

        Collapse
Load More