Posted on 05/27/2015 8:02:37 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
By now, many readers have probably heard about the recent revelation that Josh Duggar, the oldest son of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of 19 Kids and Counting fame, has admitted to molesting some young girls a decade ago when he was a teenager. The information about this came out recently when a heavily redacted police report from 2006 was released by In Touch Weekly detailing the incidents. Duggar has since apologized for the acts, even as the scandal has grown and the Duggar's television show has been pulled from TLC.
I have no interest here in defending Josh Duggar or his family – even though he was a teenager, Josh still committed terrible crimes against several young girls, and it appears that his family was complicit in trying to cover up the series of incidents so that scandal didn't brew. They all should have faced the consequences for their actions, which would most likely entail jail time, both for the molestation itself as well as the act of interfering with an investigation. And while I firmly believe that God's grace can cover all the sins of any who repent, at the same time, Scripture clearly teaches that we must face the earthly consequences of our actions – even when the perpetrator is a professing Christian who has repented and been forgiven. Jesus is not a "get out of jail free" card and treating Him that way for purposes of political expediency is an insult to the Saviour.
However, the radical Left has been making hay of the whole matter. The usual suspects in the internet kookosphere are practically salivating over reporting about the "anti-gay hypocrite" who got caught diddling little girls. Using their usual leaps of illogic, they're trying to spread the guilt around to implicate all Christians, conservatives, opponents of "gay marriage," and anyone else deemed an "enemy of progress."
So it was when I recently came across a discussion on the Facebook feed of some atheist who is friends with a mutual acquaintance, the tenor of the comments was about what I expected. So naturally, I had to jump in. After a couple of go-arounds involving the usual silliness you expect when debating with atheists, I got down to the point and asked a couple of those "armor-piercing" questions that penetrate to the core of the dispute. I simply asked, 1) Could any of them come up with a moral or ethical argument against child molestation that doesn't ultimately derive from a biblical, Christian origin?
2) If Josh Duggar were an atheist, could we credibly say that he was a "hypocrite" for having molested those girls? The discussion following that was rather desultory, and neither of the questions were actually answered. One fellow tried to answer the first question by essentially arguing that atheists could argue against child molestation simply because it's wrong – a rather circular line of reasoning that did nothing to actually answer the question (after all, WHY, apart from the common Christian heritage that still undergirds our culture, is it wrong?). My second inquiry was basically left untouched.
This exercise exhibits why trying to use "opportunities" like this so often backfires on atheists, and why atheists end up being one of the most disliked groups of people in the country. Atheists purport to derive their own morality, and one which is "better" than Judeo-Christian moral views, yet when you get down to the steel under the concrete, you find that atheists are merely scavenging parts of the common Judeo-Christian morality that has been a part of our country from its founding. One disputant, trying to draw the discussion away from atheism's reliance upon Judeo-Christian morals and ethics, attempted to make the argument that you could argue against child molestation because of what it says in Hammurabi's Code of Laws (ca. 1800 BC). But, unless she was raised on that particular document, or on the Roman Twelve Tables or some other ancient document, by her parents and within those cultures, she can't make that case. If she was raised in American culture, then her moral ideas are largely distilled from biblical sources.
The second question, however, is the real problem for atheists. While the biblical record – the Law, the Gospels, and so forth – clearly teach against incest, clearly condemn fornication and uncleanness (of which molestation would form a part), clearly teaches the Lord Jesus Christ's concern for the purity and faith of children, there simply is no independent atheistic ethic or moral against child molestation. Now mind you, I'm not saying that all atheists are positively for it, but without relying on Judeo-Christian morals, they can't really make an independent case against it.
That's why you can't say that an atheistic Josh Duggar would be a hypocrite. To term someone a "hypocrite" requires that this person has held to some moral standard and then that they failed to meet it. Someone who doesn't have any standards can't be a hypocrite, however. What were they failing to meet?
But the problem extends further than the simple deficiencies of atheistic moral principles. We are increasingly seeing efforts to "normalize" pedophilia in this country, and the main impetus for this movement is coming from the decidedly secular side of the divide in this nation. While not all atheists are pushing for the mainstreaming of "adult-child relationships," those who are pushing for this are mostly atheists and secularists.
There was a furor a couple of years ago when Richard Dawkins, one of the more prominent "New Atheists" who has taken the offensive against theism, appeared to be defending "mild pedophilia" because it "does no lasting harm." Peter Singer, the Princeton "ethicist" who has elsewhere argued for abortion up to the age of three years (i.e. toddler-killing), stated that "I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong..." when he was asked by a reporter if he thought pedophilia was wrong. He then proceeded to explain that he is a "consequentialist," which essentially means that if you like the consequences of your actions, then they are right, and if you don't, then they're not (the quintessence of the moral relativism that many atheists swear up and down that they don't hold to).
Historically, other prominent atheists have been involved in seeking to normalize child molesting perversion, and homosexuals have been prominent among that community. Harry Hay, who advocated for statutory rape as well as pedophilia, was prominent in the American atheist community prior to his death in 2012. David Thorstad, a homosexual atheist, founded NAMBLA. Larry Kramer, who founded the well-known homosexual activist group ACT-UP, wrote in his book, Report from the Holocaust: the Making of an AIDS Activist,
"In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
An article in a 1995 issue of the homosexual Guide magazine stated,
"We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual and...deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose...Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality...we must do it for the children's sake."
Remember, these are the folks that the Boy Scouts are all set to start letting into the tent with your sons.
Unfortunately, even "mainstream" sources on the Left have increased the frequency with which they have been advocating for the normalization of pedophilia, seeking to classify it as an "orientation" or a "disorder," rather than a perversion and a sick crime. It's almost as if secular society is actively looking for any and all taboos that it can overturn, no matter how filthy or perverse. I suppose we should be thankful they haven't started trying to "normalize" bestiality yet. Oh wait.
To the extent that there is an authentic, genuine secularist/atheistic morality and ethics, it is this – if you like the results, then it is moral and ethical. If it feels good, do it. And it is the results of this morality and ethics that provide the real proof in the pudding vis-à-vis Judeo-Christian biblical morality. The atheists can waste their time passing around their lists of "One Billion and One Big Buy-Bull Contradikshuns!!!!" and they can jabber on and on as much as they would like about God commanding the destruction of the Amalekites or instituting temporary debt-servitude in the Old Testament. But when you get to the end of the day, Christians were the ones fighting to end the gladiatorial games and chattel slavery and the like, while secularists and atheists are the ones today arguing for gay marriage and pedophilia and the rest of the sorry mess of perversion to which our society has been giving ear. If this is going to be the direction taken by the shiny secular society of the future, then I really, really can't wait for Oswald Spengler's "second religiousness" to come into its own.
So while Josh Duggar may be a hypocrite who needs to face up to the consequences of his actions, the radical "freethinker" community is really the last group of people who have any business pointing it out.
I think this is spot on.
The writer presents a convoluted pattern of logic, but is ultimately effective in making his point.
Really? I thought it was stupid.
Of course atheists consider the sexual abuse of children to be wrong because it is injurious to the children and they are not of an age to consent.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Without a doubt the stupidest, most tendentious heap of shite I have read this month. CONGRATS!!
I believe the non-biblical argument rests on the concept of “consent”, whereas a “child” cannot consent.
Is hypocrisy a sin ? It seems to me that the greatest sin a liberal finds in a conservative Christian is hypocrisy. to them not any of the 10 commandments are worse than the act of hypocrisy. Why do we allow this presumption?
By far the highest incidence of pedophilia is in the male homosexual community, where they even formed an international organization called NAMBLA, to promote the rape of young boys. This is the group that goes by the moniker of “gay.”
Christians can point to a higher authorianty and say "I know that act was wrong because He said it was wrong."
All atheists can do is shrug and say, "Well here is what I think ..." and really -- who cares?
What was Jesus’ attitude toward the scribes and pharisees? What was the term repeated over and over?
That crowd is the one that received the most withering assault - the hypocrites.
So, yeah, I guess you could say it was a sin.
The biblical prohibition is not based on age or consent but rather relationship. Using consent as a yardstick would not prohibit all sexual activity that is considered wrong:
Leviticus 18:
Unlawful Sexual Relations
18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Atheists are moral free riders. They depend on others to have a Judeo-Christian morality that they shirk. The last thing they really want is to live in a society guided by ‘atheist morality’.
Jesus focused on the leaders and teachers who should be held to a greater standard. These believed they did not need a savior and they needed to turn their deeds back to what they taught.
So someone working at the FRC and leading the legislative efforts of that organization is not a leader?
I’ll give one for the Mormons, The Osmonds never had a scandal like this.
Say what you will, the holy undergarments serve a purpose.
Didn’t Lena what’s her name basically admit to the same thing? Did she lose here TV show?
“Unlawful Sexual Relations......................”
I quite agree with you however there are some FReepers that feel that what Josh did was NOT “sexual Relations”. Don’t believe me? Check this thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3293799/posts
To some it’s not “incest” because he did not put his penis in her vagina.
I’ve made the same argument but a little differently.
Atheists believe they can be a “good” person without religion. Ask them to define “good”, as other countries define it very differently. If you’d grown up in a Muslim country it is “good” to stone an adulterer to death. It is “good” to kill an apostate, etc..
So one’s definition of “good” is culturally influenced. In the USA the culture is saturated with millennia of Judeo-Christian ethics and is simply taken for granted as “good” by atheists. Therefore, to argue with an atheist, you simply have to challenge the ethics basis for their view. If there is no God, and we’re all just walking chemical reactions, why is it wrong to kill? steal? Isn’t “strongest of the fittest” just natural selection in practice? Why shouldn’t it apply to us? It definitely has been that way with other cultures in the past, historically it has been more of the norm. There’s nothing to indicate that man is “innately good”, quite the opposite.
So what has lifted man, at least in the west, out of this barbaric understanding? The answer is painfully simple and atheists don’t want to hear it - Jesus Christ.
And there are many Freepers who don’t understand grace:
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.