Those who produced the Queen James Version of the Bible discussed last week (1-6-13) and on page 3 of this week undoubtedly feel totally justified in producing such a perverted work, and their rationale deserves refutation, but before considering that, why not point out that, what some have predicted for years, has now come to pass. Time and again, it has been observed that, if the defense of homosexuality is that they are “born this way,” as Lady (one of the largest misnomers in history) Gaga enjoys singing, then a defense had been established that would allow for other perversions. Are bisexuals born that way, and what about adulterers? Is there something genetic that causes them to be unfaithful? “And what of those who practice pedophilia?” many asked. “How long will it be be-fore this strategy is used to defend them?”
Some of us have warned about the Pandora effect that would result from accepting this rationale. One such warning was in a book titled, The New Absolutes, which was reviewed in Spiritual Perspectives on January 5, 1997. Below is a portion of that article:
Worse yet is the movement seeking to decriminalize pedophilia. Dr. John Money, professor emeritus of no less an institution than Johns Hopkins University, thinks that ten-year-old boys ought to be allowed to develop erotic relation-ships with older men (148). A magazine devoted to this purpose, called Paedika, although published in the Netherlands, includes a number of professors from American universities on its editorial board (270). If we ever descend to such a sleazy level, the paganization of America will be just about complete.
Some may wonder about the words Paedika and paedophilia (British), and pedophilia (American). The word comes from the Greek word for child (pais, pai-dis) and the Greek word philia, meaning “love.”
The day long prophesied of has arrived. A British publication called The Guardian wasted no time sullying the new year; on January 3rd they published an article which they titled: “Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light” (apparently, they too have lost the art of capitalizing words in titles). Predictably, the article be-gins by saying that “experts” disagree (wow, how rare is that?) about “what causes paedophilia—and even how much harm it causes.” What? Does anyone re-member the tearful testimony of the young men who explained in court the devastating results on their lives from what Jerry Sandusky did at Penn State?
In case anyone does not feel the déjà vu sensation, this is exactly the way that the ultimate acceptance on the part of many in society began with respect to homosexuality. “Experts” began to question whether or not it was an actual perversion or whether it was some-thing that was programmed in at birth. The article cites, well, one must simply read it to believe it:
In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament’s criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,” it read, “result in no identifiable damage.… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”
This writer registers a loud protest against calling this group either respectable or responsible. Not only is it absurd to do so, it is obvious that both the Liberty group and The Guardian both have an agenda here. Incidentally, what is The Guardian supposed to be the guardian of? Evidently, the answer is not tradition, Biblical morality, or common sense. Apparently, they have chosen to guard every form of perversion.
The article goes on to state that attitudes toward pedophilia have changed dramatically in the past three decades. Really? On whose part? Oh, the experts, of course, as the following paragraph indicates:
A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonish-ingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.
Although not intended to, this paragraph pinpoints the problem that has afflicted much of society—liberal professors. Many students are smart enough to understand biases of their professors and just ignore them, but the academics have a far greater influence than they deserve to have—enough to change society. Now why would the writer of the article say that “ex-perts” disagree? If all experts agree, then how does any budding expert wannabe make a name for him-self? He does some research that contradicts the cur-rent body of thought. Maybe he comes up with the idea that Shakespeare didn’t write all of his plays. If he wants to really set the world on its ear, he claims something that is so preposterous that people actually give it credence. So, in this instance, the crazy claim is that being molested really is not actually harmful. Wild, obviously untrue assertions such as these make the moon-is-made-of-green-cheese theory look convincing.
Next the article treats us to several claims, such as that not all pedophiles are molesters or violent but can be “gentle and rational.” Sure, why don’t we elect one for mayor? Needless to say, laws against pedophilia are archaic and just focus on the nature of the offense rather than how nice these people really are. They probably take good care of their grandmothers and their dogs, too. And some research has discovered that MRI scans reveal that pedophiles have some “white matter” that others do not have, and they “may be wired differently.” The Pandora effect strikes again!
Now that the lid of the box has been opened just a little, it is time to bring in the evidence that no one would dare deny; “Two eminent researchers” testified before a Canadian parliamentary commission last year that pedophilia should be “classified as a distinct sexual orientation.” Well, that ought to convince nearly any right-thinking individual! Just regular researchers we might doubt, but eminent researchers? Surely they could not be in error!
But is there really a link to the initial response to homosexuality (which was correct, not to mention, Biblical) and the public attitude toward pedophilia? Sarah Goode of the University of Winchester, has made two studies of pedophilia and concludes:
“There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”
The article then informs the reader: “Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm.” Hogwash! Have there been child brides (ages 8-12)? Yes. Are there still? Yes. Was it the norm in 16th century England, as stated in this article? That may be over-reaching in order to try to establish this thesis. Besides, many countries have laws to protect the perverted practice from occurring. The fact that it was done, however, does not prove that it was widely accepted or approved—hence, the outlawing of it.
One academic, Tom O’Carroll, goes so far as to say that society’s outrage against pedophilia is not justified, especially if “there’s no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily….” This is absurdity 2. Children frequently do not know what is best for them, which is the reason that they have parents and a multitude of laws to protect them. Yet how many people are going to go along with “scientific” studies saying that young males who enter into such relationships voluntarily with older males are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”?
The article closes with advising all of us to avoid hysteria concerning those who desire sexual relation-ships with children. They are not monsters, and we should encourage them and support them in their decision to abstain from the practice. First, why is it that everyone who disagrees with a liberal point of view is always labeled as hysterical (or nutty)? Why cannot the aberrant be labeled nutty and those who defend them as hysterical? They certainly cannot be in possession of their faculties in doing so.
Second, those with such desires are monsters to indulge themselves in fantasies with innocent children. They need to know that it is not a normal thing to desire and that they should eradicate any such thought the moment it enters their minds. It should be driven out immediately by the force of their own will, and if it persists, they should get help immediately—but not from a psychologist who will tell them, “Oh, that’s normal.” Such thoughts are not normal, and it is time that wickedness and evil were unmasked for what they really are—affronts to both God and man!
Third, it would probably be best for anyone who had suffered with that problem to keep it to himself. Not many may feel like congratulating someone for successfully restraining himself from committing a heinous act. We do not generally congratulate murderers for not killing someone on any given day or terrorists for not unleashing bombs in a crowded subway. No one cheers his wristwatch for keeping time; he expects it to do that.
None of us should make the mistake of thinking that society would ever accept pedophilia. We said the same thing about other perversions in time past, and look at what is now considered all right. We must be prepared to say, “This taboo shall not be normalized or become common practice!” If it ever should, the paganization process will just about be complete.