Pastor Ken Miller – Released?!!

Pastor Ken Miller was sentenced to 27 months in prison today, but released pending an appeal, which could take anything from two months to two years.

We are rejoicing with him that he has been reunited with his family.

20 thoughts on “Pastor Ken Miller – Released?!!

  1. At least he can be with his family – unlike the child who he helped kidnap from one of it’s parents.

    It is strange the things that you can rejoice at.

    • The child’s biological mother was the one who is currently on the run with her. The other woman had no claim to her. In fact, when the child visited her, she came back traumatized. Why haven’t they investigated that?

    • golfieni,
      That was not a parent. It was a person who happened to live there. No biological connection, not an adoptive parent, etc. Just a liberal judge made a fiat decision with no legal backing.

      • Rubbish Glenn,

        Ms. Jenkins was the legal parent of the child through civil union and legal custody – in fact the original family judge had threatened to transfer primary custody to Ms Jenkins because of the unreasonable behaviour of Ms Miller (who became infatuated with christianity and became unreasonable about visitation rights). That is when the kidnap was cooked up between the criminal and Ms Miller the abductor. Both the family judge and the judge in the trial who handed down the sentence had plenty of legal backing and a sentence of 27 months is not handed out for doing nothing.

        Yuri, can you please provide a citation to prove your allegation.if true then Jenkins should not have unsupervised visits but that does not let the pastor off the hook for kidnap.

        • Golfieni,

          Only a liberal judge with an agenda would speak about Christianity in that way. It is NOT unreasonable for a Christian to want limited exposure to homosexuality for a child. In fact, it isn’t unreasonable for ANYONE to want limited exposure to perversion for a child. The is no moral “backing” to force a biological mother to give up her child to someone unrelated except through a perverse union now broken. And a judge who makes those sorts of decisions is NOT a “family” judge in the real sense of the word.

          The woman had every moral right and responsibility to protect her child from the trauma she was suffering due to homosexualist agendas. There was no kidnap involved. It was the mother’s legal child, biological child, and there was no reason to remove the child from her custody. It the law says otherwise, then – as Charles Dickens said – the law is an ass.

  2. Susie love, it looking more and more likely that I need to set up a blog such as Ms Whites conscience, or maybe, the truth Ms White doesnt want you to knowor something where I can freely hold you to account, as you seem very unwilling to let a proper debate or portrayal of the truth take place here! What are you afraid of Susan???? Are people not allowed to think for themselves???

    • @ Rob

      “Are people not allowed to think for themselves?”

      People are allowed to think ONLY for themselves.

      I hadn’t noticed your posting, when I said that everybody was making good points. Sorry for my mistake.

      • John. It is very hard to make any good points when your comments are just deleted, without any explanation!

        Perhaps Mr and Ms White would consider publishing their editorial policy, that would be fairly applied to all?

      • No problem Susan

        I will repeat the post here. Since you accused me publically of slander, I feel it is important that I answer that accusation. Of course, if you had felt I had posted my comment in the wrong place, you could have shown some christian love and offered to move it for me rather than just deleting it. Good job I keep copy of all posts made to here!

        Anyway, original post:

        Susie. I only speak the truth. He has been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment by a wise judge! That is not slander Susie. That is the truth! He has not shown one ounce of remorse for his crimes, so of course there is a real risk he could offend again! He also has shown complete disrespect for the legal system!

      • While we are on the subject of “Christian” criminals, the trend just seems to continue. A few lines from UTV newsroom this evening!

        His caution came as it emerged that Bryson was arrested in a converted attic of an associate pastor’s home.

        A search operation at his home proved unsuccessful, and he also escaped police after being spotted in Kilcooley, Bangor last week, it was claimed.

        “When they did attempt to apprehend the applicant at the home of an associate, the associate attempted to prevent police from gaining entry into the house where they found Mr Bryson in the converted roof-space bedroom,” the lawyer said.

        Christians helping kidnap children, obstructing the police from making an arrest. Where will it end?


        • We know nothing about Jamie Bryson’s background. Does he claim to be a Christian? The Pastor you mentioned is a stranger to us, how then can we make any comment? However, Jamie Bryson is not suffering for righteousness’ sake, unlike Pastor Ken Miller. Whilst we believe that the Union flag should be flying over Belfast City Hall 365 days a year, we do not believe in idolising a flag and these flag protests are becoming more and more occasions for the near-worship of a flag. We have not attended any flag protest nor will we do so in the future.

          • Rob,
            No kidnap took place. It was the woman’s own child. Leftist judges with an agenda do not make moral law. Just remember how many Jews were saved by Christians disobeying MAN’S law and obeying GOD’S law!

      • Ms White. Can I ask why you blog here when you do not allow people to debate with you? Also you misinterpret posts and when this is pointed out you refuse to publish the correction.

        What is your moderation policy Susan?

        I must point out again that we have not verbally discussed Mr Millar, therefore by definition, I cannot have committed slander. You continue to accuse me of this, while denying me the opportunity to defend myself. I am rapidly getting to the point of referring this matter to WordPress or my legal representatives or both Ms Susan Anne White.

        • After this comment,we will not be publishing any more from you, Rob. Here is a definition of libel and, remember, you described Pastor Miller as “that monster.”

          “Libel – defamation of character by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. (Wikipedia.)

          So technically, you are not guilty of slander but you are guilty of libel which is the written form of slander. So goodbye and leave us in peace.

        • Rob,
          There are many blogs who don’t allow comments at all. Blogs are for those who have them to post THEIR OWN commentaries on the subjects they address. Some bloggers welcome SOME interchange, while other bloggers allow a lot of interchange. Personally, I have comment policies where no ad hominem attacks are allowed, no links to false teaching allowed, and no subject is to be discussed except for what the article is about.

          Bloggers are well within their rights to determine how to run their blogs. No one has to read them, no one is forced to visit or comment. If you don’t like the content or comment rules of the blog, then don’t read it!

      • “In your comment on 5.3.13, you described Pastor Miller as ‘this monster,’ and that was/is a wicked, lying slander!” [White to Rob]

        Please, Mrs White! It’s not “slander”. It isn’t making a factual allegation against Pastor Miller. It is expressing strong disapproval of him, that’s all.

        You have no obligation to publish any posting Rob makes. You ought to try to try to keep your blog interesting, by selecting the best responses, and making sure that both sides of any debate get a fair say. But Rob cannot sue you for moderating badly.

        What it would be extra polite for you to do, might be to email back to a contributor, the text of any posting that you do not wish to publish, with an explanation.

        I wonder why people read moderated blogs, when they are so out of sympathy with the blog owners’ world views, and irritated by their styles of writing, that all reading the blogs does is to annoy them,and inspire them to write adverse comments. One reason for reading the blogs, is to post dissident opinions. But that reason vanishes if the blog owners decline to publish the dissident opinions.

  3. @ Rob

    “Susie. I only speak the truth. He has been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment by a wise judge! That is not slander Susie. That is the truth! He has not shown one ounce of remorse for his crimes, so of course there is a real risk he could offend again! He also has shown complete disrespect for the legal system!”

    Now you *are* making some valid points, albeit still not all of them what I would call “good” points. I’d like to respond to your points.

    I accept that you are “speaking the truth”, in the sense of putting your own, pro-establishment spin upon the true facts, which facts I dare say you know better than I do. I am used to debating with conservatives like yourself. Let’s go!

    Firstly, what was he found guilty of? Was it contempt of court, for not testifying before a grand jury, as I seem to remember? Or was he convicted of knowingly aiding a abetting the fugitive mother to make her escape from the jurisdiction with her child? Either way, do you concede that he was following his conscience, which directed him to break the law?

    Do you think that ALL judges are “wise”, or just those whose judgments you happen to agree with? Family law, affecting the upbringing of one’s own children, is one of those areas of law in which people seldom lose a case, but, after listening carefully to the judge’s reasons for deciding against them, think to themselves, “Thank God for this judge’s great wisdom. If it hadn’t been for him stopping me, I’d have done completely the wrong thing!” I read a lot of criticism of family court judgments, and I don’t regard everybody who criticises, or parents who take the law into their own hands, as “normal criminal element”, for their dissidence and initiative respectively. Some of the parents I sympathise with, some not, but usually, I simply don’t know whether they were right or wrong to defy the law.

    I don’t think that there is any scope for denying that he is a (bailed) prisoner of conscience. Prisoners of conscience cannot reasonably be expected to “show remorse”. In fact, no court under heaven has the authority to sentence *anybody* to “showing remorse”. Yes, he has shown “disrespect for the legal system”, but not the “complete” disrespect that you allege. He had to choose between his conscience, and the law. He chose his conscience. The world is a better place, for people like him. People like that saved a lot of lives during the Holocaust. And a modern, liberal, democratic society such as the one I was born into, and would like still to be there for my grandchildren, is supposed to *accommodate* conscience – and I don’t mean provide accommodation for people of conscience, under lock and key, for 27 months either.

    If people changing their sexual behaviour, abandoning homosexual behaviour of their own free will, is as rare (or even “impossible”) as some ideologues would have us believe it is, then the risk of Pastor Miller “offending” the first time wasn’t particularly “real”, let alone the risk of his offending “again”. His first offence was as unlikely as his being struck by lightening. It would be like lightening striking twice in the same place if he found himself with the same moral dilemma all over again, with a different “parishioner”.

    There is scope for disagreeing with Paster Miller’s conscientious views, and for agreeing with the family court judgment upholding the parental rights of the thwarted adoptive parent against him, as you do. There is also scope for agreeing with his conscientious views, and disagreeing with the judgment, as Mrs White does.

    Unless you hold that all civil disobedience to governments, however wicked the governments and unjust their laws, is invariably wrong, there is a discussion to be had. At present, your only argument is an ultra-conservative “rule of law” argument, which would have approved of Corrie Ten Boom’s summary execution if she’d been caught illegally hiding Jews from Nazi’s.

    I cannot believe that you could possibly want to adopt that ultra-conservative view consistently in every debate, whatever other issues might lurk, but, if you would, state the case for the ultra-conservative position you adopt in the case of Pastor Miller.

    If you’re only argument against Pastor Miller is NOT ultra-conservatism, then please argue why Pastor Miller’s decision was wrong, and the judge’s decision was right, other than by appealing to the fact that the latter was a judge, and the former was just an accused, and judges are always “wise”, and *right*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s