Now that you can marry anyone you want we have to start preparing our society for the next step down the slope of immorality...
Top Atheist: “Mild Pedophila” doesn’t hurt anybody.
This Week’s Sign the Apocalypse is Upon Us
by Rebekah Maxwell
In the post-God haze of our enlightened world, we put our faith in the right place…in our intellectuals. This elite group of sainted thinkers helps us throw off the stuffy old standards, and navigate the new questions, like “how can I lessen my carbon footprint?” and “am I the best global citizen I can be?”
And how much child-molestation is too much?
According to the most influential atheist alive, we can’t “condemn” pedophiles for sexually abusing small children…because they didn’t really hurt anybody.
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.
Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
This is hardly the first time Dawkins has defended pedophilia. In his famous book, The God Delusion, he said, “we live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692,” continuing to say that he feels obliged to defend the pederasts that molested him and his classmates.
And a few months ago, in an interview with Al Jazeera, Dawkins stated that teaching your child to believe in Hell is actually worse abuse than being sexually molested by a priest. Really.
Therefore, I return to my opening question, and require an answer of Dawkins’ superior intellect: how much pedophilia is too much? What are the boundaries of “mild pedophilia”? How much can a middle-aged man touch a toddler before it does “lasting harm”?
When did it become wrong, Mr. Dawkins? By what standard can we call pedophilia wrong now? How do we know it’s wrong to abuse a child now? Simply because society says so?
What about a society that doesn’t say so?
In Yemen, an 8-year old girl named Rawan bled to death after being raped by her 40-year old “husband” on their “wedding night.” It’s not illegal in their society to let their little girls be forced into sex with men five times their age; over 25% of Yemeni girls are “married” before age 15. Would you, or would you not, condemn Rawan’s sexual abuse?
If (like most human beings with a heart) you would call it evil, reprehensible, sickening, intolerable…why? By what standard is it fair to judge them and their culture of pedophilia? After all, if little Rawan hadn’t died, who’s to say she would have suffered “lasting harm”? Many, many other 8-12 year old girls have been forced into marriage. They’re obviously just fine.
No, the logical thing to do is to eliminate any condemnation for evil, anywhere, any time. Good and evil are merely relative constructs, meaning whatever you agree they mean. Therefore “abuse” does not exist…you just have a different standard of justice and fair treatment than the man punching you in the face and ripping off your clothes.
All humans are merely upright chemical compositions, following animal urges, gaining as much pleasure as possible for ourselves until we die and turn into worm-food. One can force a young child into sex if one wants to. There are no reasons why not.
There’s nothing special about our children’s bodies, innocence, and souls that might be worth protecting from violent, villainous robbery. It’s just a little pedophilia…they’ll get over it. And be just as “healthy and independent” as Richard Dawkins, defender of the persecuted pederast.
Link to original article on Steve Deace's site.
Dawkins says that the "pedophilia" he and his friends experienced all those decades ago didn't affect them, yet he is still remembering and talking about it all these decades later. He is a fucking liar promoting an agenda. He was abused and now thinks it's OK to abuse others. He is the type of sick fuck that the Liberals hold up on a pedestal as a forward thinker.