The logic of expressive individualism and sexual revolutionary ideology relentlessly plays itself out. Is it 1967 for pedophilia? From the British newspaper The Guardian:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
It's worth reading the whole thing, but here are some key quotations:
"There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm."
"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'."
"There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that 'one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children'."
"A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are 'nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes'."
"But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researcher testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore 'unlikely to change'."
"Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. 'It is the quality of the relationship that matters,' O'Carroll insists. 'If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm'."
"For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. 'Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate,' she says. 'If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us'."
"'We can help keep children safe,' Goode argues, 'by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else', and by 'respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint'. Only then will men tempted to abuse children 'be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed'."
Friday, January 4, 2013
Illinois is considering and seemingly moving toward (although perhaps
more slowly than expected) recognizing same-sex marriage. Latest letters from two groups of academics, arguing for religious-liberty provisions, are
here,
here, and
here.
My colleague, Mark Movsesian, has a very worthwhile post on a couple of cases in Great Britain involving several infringements of religious liberty that have recently been ratified by the government. Here's a chunk from Mark's post:
In England, a High Court judge recently ruled that employers may discipline observant Christians who refuse to work Sundays.
The case involves Ms. Celestina Mba, who worked as a caregiver in a government-run children’s center. A devout Baptist, she goes to church every Sunday and does not wish to work on that day. When her employer — a government agency, note, in a state with an established church — pressured her to work Sundays, she quit and sued for employment discrimination. She lost at trial and, last month, in the High Court as well.
Why did she lose? English law allows employers to require employees to work Sundays if there is “a legitimate business need.” According to press reports, though, the High Court did not rely on that principle in Ms. Mba’s case. Rather, the court reasoned that Christianity did not require Sabbath observance in the first place. Plenty of Christians work Sundays, the court noted; only a few, like Ms. Mba, see it as a problem. As a result, religious freedom was not seriously implicated by requiring her to work. Employers, the court reasoned, do not need to accommodate outliers like Ms. Mba.
Now, this reasoning is very odd. The fact that some of those Christians who work Sundays might be doing so because they have to — that is, because otherwise they would lose their jobs — apparently did not occur to the court. Moreover, the fact that many Christians see no problem with working Sundays doesn’t mean that other Christians cannot have a legitimate religious objection. Courts don’t usually require that practices be “mainstream” within a religion in order to receive legal protection. Besides, attending church on Sundays is hardly an esoteric practice in Christianity. Many Christians are known to do it — though not in today’s England, I guess.
