Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why liberals love pedophiles
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Liberals love pedophiles, because they must do so to keep their own belief system intact.

Consider the bizarre case just this week of thirty-four year old Phillip Distasio.

Distasio runs a "school" called Class Cutters near Cleveland Ohio. The goal of the school is to somehow counter the "No Child Left Behind Act" by getting kids to rush through a few academic excercises each day on the computer - and then to spend the majority of the time performing some sort of "community service." It seems to be set-up to help the child find "productive" use of their time in after school hours. On Distasio's web-site he even makes mention that even kids who attend a traditional school can join the program for the "after school activities."

A disturbing element also seems to be that Distasio seeks parent's involvement in "choosing the curriculum" that their child engages in. They even have a chatroom blog to log into the program with.

What's really horrifying is that Distasio is an admitted pedophile of 20 years who doesn't even have the decency to be ashamed of his craving for sexual activity with boys.

In fact... he embraces it.

Presently Distasio is finding himself facing 74 charges of molestation of boys in his "program." Instead of denying his guilt he's trying a new approach - claiming his sexual intent is a civil right.

In my brand new book MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking I point out how painfully obvious it has become to us all that the clear-headed absolutes of right and wrong and good and evil were thrown out with the modern feminist bathwater of the 1960s. But few of us ever thought it would get to the point that we are now seeing - pedophiles claiming constitutional civil rights protections for their desire to engage in homosexual pedophilia.

So where does Distasio get the boldness to make such ludicrous claims?

How about modern liberalism, academia, and the Clinton administration?

As I document in MuscleHead Revolution, Judith Levine, the academic who released the book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, argues that it is harmful to protect children from sexual activity. As I point out, she goes so far as to encourage adults to not think prudishly about sexual activity between adults and children. She even advocates for the "rights" of children to be able to "give their consent" for "legal" and "healthy" sexual activity with adults.

One might think that Levine is just a nutcase, except that she was published by the University of Minnesota Press. Her book was endorsed by Dr. Jocelyn Elders who also wrote its forward. Elders was the Clinton era, surgeon general.

Taking his cues from Levine/Elders, Distasio argued in court this week:

"I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms." Also adding, "Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy."

Sounds like a liberal on a mission; just like Levine.

Since modern liberalism's true goal is the actual eradication of God, moral values, and the ideas of absolute right vs. wrong, it should surprise no one that not a single leftist politician in America has denounced Distasio. Nor did they denounce Levine. The truth is liberals seek sexual utopia where no rules apply. Restraint has in fact become a dirty word to them. Self control - a throughly foreign concept.

Waging the revolution for all that is true, just, and good involves every single one of us who know better to actively demonstrate this by preventing such an agenda from becoming reality.

For liberals to denounce pedophiles, ultimately they would have to denounce, lesbianism, homsexuality, and their particular favorite - adultery. And that's just no going to happen.

At the end of the day there are such a thing as moral values, and liberals despise them - because as they see it - those moral values limit their sexual freedoms. And if this is "America" - isn't it all about the freedom to get your groove on?

Liberals love pedophiles.

Isn't it shameful?

And don't we all wish - that they loved the well being of children more?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Finding a Fire Without the Smoke
This article is playing a mind game that is quite common in the liberal media. It is blaming the other side for something evil. By implication, it blames the other side.

Distasio is evil. Most people of either political wing would agree with that. As someone who is in the education profession and who knows the power a teacher wields, he horrifies me.

I haven't denounced him until now. It's not because I support him. It's because I've just heard of him. When I hear politicians denounce this kind of evil, I don't stand back and admire their brave stand. I see a politician who has found a safe way to get their name in the news.

The silence on the left wing (or right wing) is not incriminating. There are plenty of problems with the left wing that do not require associating it with pedophilia. In fact, half of the outrage over the incidences of pedophilia with the Catholic church came from the left wing. The other half came from the right wing.

The real dangers of liberalism are far more subtle and dangerous. They're not as easy or fun to write about. It's much easier to stir up outrage by claiming liberalism supports monsters like Distasio.

"Toto,
I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

Hmmm...
Where does Mr McCoullogh get the idea that liberals love pedophiles??? Because no politicians have bothered to denounce this particular monster? Does Mr. McCollough want every day in the House and the Senate to begin with ritual denunciations of the previous days accused criminals? Are Republicans going to be called soft on a crime if they don't denounce it fast enough? This is preposterous. Liberals have enough real issues we can take them on over without creating something out of thin air. I would't waste my time on this nonsense. As for Distasio, God will deliver certain and swift Justice in His time. I wonder how long he will survive in prison.

Who is Kevin McCullogh?
The last three articles I've read of this guy's have all been villainizing rhetorical pieces of the most loathsome kind. He writes like a hack trying to make stir by provocation.

Liberal slippery slope
"Liberals love pedophiles."
That comment is flat out rubbish. Why exaggerate? More likely, Liberals are so into 'freedom to do what you feel like' (liberals are obsessed with 'feelings') and 'pleasure seeking' that this (Levine's book and the absence of criticism from leftist politicians)is the end result of that line of thinking.

One thing: to a non-American, child beauty pageants strike us as a warped pastime. What country allows them in the first place? (Only in America)



celtic
I have to agree with you on this one.
Though it will be interesting to see how the other, usual, Liberals respond to this column. If they do at all.

whoa, wait a minute
Although I don't like this guy's writing style and his shock factor to get attention, he actually makes a good point. Here in Calif, it is the Dems that are fighting tooth and nail not to pass a bill that would be tough on pedophiles. It was all over talk radio trying to figure out why they would do that, there was no sane reason. You should be discussing this, it is very relevant.

Ok, here we go again.
Liberals don’t love pedophiles, they just don’t hate them enough.

My prediction: Distasio, an admitted child rapist of 20 years, will get 6 months of community service…what, you know, with all the suffering and bigotry he’s had to endure.

Celt: “Because Because no politicians have bothered to denounce this particular monster? Does Mr. McCollough want every day in the House and the Senate to begin with ritual denunciations of the previous days accused criminals? Are Republicans going to be called soft on a crime if they don't denounce it fast enough??” ???

Political expediency??? Who cares??? Why is this even a topic of conversation? Burn this guy alive.

Burn them all…

First, I think protecting children should be a greater concern than protecting the feelings of sex offenders. Im not well-versed in the political edge of this subject but that is a principle I stand on. On liberals, they might be extremely misguided, and some of them (such as that author) despicable, but accusing them of being personally fond of the most repellant of criminals is embarrasingly childish; a slander little different from those employed en masse against the Catholic Church.

And as far as liberals loving adultery... lots of people commit adultery. If Kevin were alive during America's inception, his head would have exploded knowing all the personal misdeeds of some of our forefathers. (Jefferson and Franklin come to mind).

I dont really defend liberals on many occasions, but I think Kevin embarrasses himself and his cause with these statements.


Silly Hyperbole
First, I think protecting children should be a greater concern than protecting the feelings of sex offenders. Im not well-versed in the political edge of this subject but that is a principle I stand on. On liberals, they might be extremely misguided, and some of them (such as that author) despicable, but accusing them of being personally fond of the most repellant of criminals is embarrasingly childish; a slander little different from those employed en masse against the Catholic Church.

And as far as liberals loving adultery... lots of people commit adultery. If Kevin were alive during America's inception, his head would have exploded knowing all the personal misdeeds of some of our forefathers. (Jefferson and Franklin come to mind).

I dont really defend liberals on many occasions, but I think Kevin embarrasses himself and his cause with these statements.


Speak Of The Devil
America has known wars, assasinations and a great depression, but the worst thing ever to happen to our nation was the election of Bill Clinton as President in 1996. I say 1996 because in '92, to most Clinton was an unknown commodity. In '96 people knew what this man was, but because he promised to put a few bucks in their pockets(it's the economy, stupid),America spit in God's face and embraced the darkness. America has known the wrath and judgement of God ever since, and until we nationally repent for 1996, I believe this judgement will continue.

This idea goes against the current in America because their is a strong movement to rehabilitate Clinton's image--seemingly lead by George Bush, the elder. Go figure.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Clinton is the Anti-Christ. I am saying he is Satan's punk, born to be a pawn of the Anti-Christ.

Although, some of Clinton's past reads like a page out of, The Omen. People connected to this fellow on his rise to power mysteriously died,left and right. And not only people. I remember the news clips of Clinton's dog Buddy causing Mr. Bill to fall in the driveway, creating a really embarrassing scene. A few days later Buddy was run over and killed--poor Buddy, poor America.

Why liberals love pedophiles
Excuse me but you made three spelling errors. Please don't let your sloppiness detract from your message. Do you need a proofreader?

The Parental Role
I see it more and more, adults and parents today are not capable of being parents, because they lack emotional and mental maturity. As a child, feelings are the biggest part of what makes them tick, because they have not grown in maturity, it simple, parents are suppose to be grown-up and use that maturity to protect children and teach them ,in the way to grow in life. The children today, are robbed of their youth and innocense, it is truley sad and criminal, because our children will pay dearly.

Liberals love pedophiles?
It's unintellectual to state unequivocally that "liberals love pedophiles," but the larger point that I took away from the article is that, in general, liberals "tolerate" pedophiles, want to understand them, and want to make sure society hasn't drawn the line regarding sex between adults and children too harshly so as to exclude what might be "healthy" sexual relationships between the two. And, if so, that is an outlook that conservatives find repulsive enough to resort to hyperbole to describe. This topic is just the lasted in line of previously taboo topics that are being brought forth by liberals to push the moral envelope: gay marriage, then polygamy, then cousin marriage, and now "healthy" pedophilia.

Do the ideas expressed in this column actually surprise anyone? Is there anyone left who does NOT know the left's affinity for the depraved and perverted? Believe that the left cares about the "chilldrun"?

The American Psychiatric Assoc and other, so-called, professional mental health groups have passively endorsed the idea of pedophilia for some time now. The ACLU and other left wing groups are supporting NAMBLA. And no group with jurisdiction is doing a damn thing about "travel agencies" that set up "vacations" for a variety of perverts in SO America and Asia for the purpose of buying sex with children.

There is a set of thinking that drives the left, but premier among them is what Rica Jong once called the "Zipless f###"; "love the one you're with"; "if it feels good, do it"; and that feminist favorite "do what thou will". Surely there will be those who did not expect this mindset to devolve into what it has become, but I am not one of those.

Perhaps a Little Hyperbolic...
But otherwise on the mark. No, of course all liberals don't love pedophilia. However, I have read many people defending "consensual" pedophilia, and every one of them are politically liberal. Of course, there have been pedophiles among the Catholic clergy, but none of them have to my knowledge actually defended their actions as a valid moral choice. Furthermore, because one is a Catholic priest does not necessarily make one a conservative. In fact, a sexually active priest of any stripe is flouting official Catholic doctrine. But in any case, while McCullough may be guilty of a gross exaggeration, he is correct in saying that a complete rejection of moral absolutes and sexual boundaries of any type, such as many on the left espouse, leaves one without a real reason to condemn "consensual" pedophilia. And many voices from the left are being sounded (courtesy of my tax dollars and yours) in the halls of higher learning. If you doubt me, here is a sample from a 2005 article on the "Reclaiming America" website:

Cornell University

Cornell University professor Pat Califa teaches a course called “The Sexual Child.” Califa, well known for her outspoken support of pedophilia, once wrote, “Culturally induced schizophrenia allows parents to make sentimental speeches about the fleeting innocence of childhood and the happiness of years unbroken by carnal lust — and exhaust themselves policing the sex lives of their children. Children are celibate because their parents prevent them from playing with other little kids or adults… Even though many prominent sex researchers have documented the existence of sexual capacity in children (for instance Kinsey verified the occurrence of orgasms in girls and boys at less than six months of age), our society is fanatically determined to deny it.”

John Hopkins University

John Money, director of the Psychohormonal Research Unit of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, believes that America’s fear of pedophilia stems from a “self-imposed, moralistic ignorance.” In the introduction to his book, Boys on Their Contacts with Men, Money writes, “It surely should be self-evident that we need a basic science of pediatric sexology, so as to have the actual data on which to base a sound policy of rearing children to be sexually healthy… Most adults enjoy cuddling and caressing children, and children respond to this type of intimacy by getting sexually and erotically aroused.”

University of Minnesota

The University of Minnesota published Judith Levine’s book, Harmful to Minors: The Peril of Protecting Children from Sex. The book features a foreword by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, the Clinton administration's Surgeon General, openly advocating for the repeal of sexual age-of-consent laws. Levine wrote, “The research shows us that in some minority cases of young—even some quite young—people can have a positive [sexual] experience with an adult… Sex is not harmful to children. It is a vehicle to self-knowledge, love, healing, creativity, adventure, and intense feelings of aliveness. There are many ways even the smallest children can partake of it… America’s drive to protect children from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them.”

University of Missouri-Kansas City

Dr. Harris Mirkin, associate professor and chairman of the political science department at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, wrote a column in the Journal of Homosexuality. Mirkin labels pedophilia as the “last great sexual forbidden.” His column, "Sex, Science, and Sin: The Rind Report," noted the progress made in the movement to sexualize American children. Mirkin wrote, “Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality... Like all arguments against deviants, the condemnation of pariahs allows the non-deviants to identify with each other as the moral protectors of Western Civilization.”

San Francisco State University

San Francisco State University professor Gilbert Herdt co-authored the 1996 book Children of Horizons: How Gay and Lesbian Teens Are Leading a New Way Out of the Closet. In an interview with Paidika, a Dutch journal advocating pedophilia, Herdt argued, “The category ‘child’ is a rhetorical device for inflaming what is really an irrational set of attitudes.”

New York University

New York University Press’s published an article in the Lavender Culture, actively promoting the repeal of all “repressive, ageist legislation.” Translation: legalize pedophilia. Calling the innocence of children an “archaic” notion, the article encourages young gay people to “get out of their families as soon as they can.” Otherwise, the author warns that there will be “future generations of gay people who wait until their twenties before they start to live.”

University of California - Santa Cruz

University of California - Santa Cruz Professor Gayle Rubin believes that all laws prohibiting sex with underage children have “more in common with ideologies of racism than with true ethics.” Ms. Rubin believes, “Boy lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them.”

Look at the Colleges!!!
In the college curiculum, gays and lesbians are making inroads toward their lifestyle--forcefully.
They are in socioligy classes, which the students need to pass in order to graduate, and making it manditory that the student SEE and ACCEPT the homosexual ways. They put down the Bible and say that their ways are TOTALLY NORMAL, the student better say what they want to hear if they want to pass the course.
Our tax dollars our being used against our will to further a way of life we DO NOT SUPPORT. Our elected officials do not interfere with this indoctrination either. Where is the oversight of these educators???

Look at the Colleges!!!
In the college curiculum, gays and lesbians are making inroads toward their lifestyle--forcefully.
They are in socioligy classes, which the students need to pass in order to graduate, and making it manditory that the student SEE and ACCEPT the homosexual ways. They put down the Bible and say that their ways are TOTALLY NORMAL, the student better say what they want to hear if they want to pass the course.
Our tax dollars our being used against our will to further a way of life we DO NOT SUPPORT. Our elected officials do not interfere with this indoctrination either. Where is the oversight of these educators???

Liberals love pedophiles?
The Dutch consider anyone who questions their "love for" and "acceptance of" child molestation as intolerant.

Hard leftist Joseph Stalin embraced Darwinism as (in his own words) "it eliminates morality". (The hard left seeks to eliminate Christianity as it condemns immorality.)

The left loves pedophiles for the same reason that Marx loved Darwin - elimination of morals.

moral absolutes
McCullough writes: In "Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking I point out how painfully obvious it has become to us all that the clear-headed absolutes of right and wrong and good and evil were thrown out with the modern feminist bathwater of the 1960s."

You might want to think about rewriting your book you fool. I know you people would like to believe that there is such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong, but there simply isn't.

The problem is that you are confused about the meaning of the term "absolute". Absolute menas "without regard to circumstances". For there to be a moral absolute, you would have to be able to name an act that is right (or wrong) regardless of the circumstances. And I defy anyone to name such an act because everyone can think of circumstances under which even the most horrific acts would be the right thing to do if the act would result in a significantly greater good. Would it be wrong for a grown man to have sex with a young boy if doing so would save the United States from nuclear annihilation? If there are no other alternatives, than no, it would not be wrong. Everyone in America would agree the man had done the right thing.

This does not mean that there is no such thing as right and wrong, or good and evil. The problem occurs when you insert the term "absolute". right and wrong and good and evil are inherently relative terms.

That said, I (a liberal) have no problem saying what this guy did was wrong, nor do I know anyone who would condone such behavior. (Notice I didn't need to use the word "absolute".)

Judging by the comments below, you people need to get out and meet some real liberals. We're no where near as bad as this idiot wants to make us out to be. Sure there are some kooks on the left and it's easy to point them out and then paint the left with a broadbrush. Please folks, don't fall for this cheap rhetorical trickery.

Phylo out.


Healthy Pedophilia
A gay 64 yr old male acquaintance of mine was beaten to death with a baseball bat in what initially seemed to be a random burglary. Except that the killer at age 12 had been molested by his victim who belonged to a group of men who acquired young boys for such purposes.

This incident is probably just an aberration. Pedophilia must be healthy. Besides Hollywood says so, they made that movie lauding Kinsey. I mean after all my experience is anecdotal and scientists and college profs know far more about these complicated matters than we uneducated proles.

/sarc

Why liberals love pedophiles
After reading Kevin McCullough’s column “Why liberals love pedophiles,” I hoped to calm down to the extent my thoughts would be orderly enough to be reflected in writing. Calming down is something that’s not going to happen. Suffice it to say that the simplest, kindest words that should be applied to the beings described in the column, Phillip Distasio (hereafter misspelled as “Distastio”) and Judith Levine are “loathing” and “repulsion.”

Distastio, charged with rape, is reported to have said in court, “Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy.”

If Levine advocates for the rights of children to be able to give their “consent” for “legal” and “healthy” sexual activity with adults, what should the minimum age for the child’s consent be? Eight weeks? (Will a baby’s “Coo” do?) One and a half? Two? Three? Eight? Ten? Is 17 too old even to bother with?

The column refers to liberals’ lack of moral values. The deficiency has as much to do with pure human decency and dignity as moral values, although these may be inseparable, particularly here.

My ongoing advocacy with as many elected government officials as possible, described in as many letters to the editor as possible, is that first-time convicted pedophiles, no matter the nature of the offense, be put on a fast track for life sentences served in general prison populations, with no possibility of parole. It is a matter of supreme indifference to me how long that life sentence will last.

dear phylo
Say what?? Pedophilia sex to save the United States from Nuclar annihilation? You're kidding right?

That a person may justify an action does not make that action right. The end does NOT justify the means. No matter how much you want it to.

There is no salvation through sex. Moral absolutes exist. The universe, from the stars in the heavens, to mankind on earth, to the smallest bug, to the smallest quark, operates through a system of rules and boundaries.

Without boundaries and rules nothing would function. Without moral absolutes, despair would overcome. If there are no absolutes, our society has no need of any laws of any kind and everyone can do "what is right in his own eyes."

Is that the world you long for?

55 Years Ago...
When I was growing up, 'Rolling qu33rs' was a Friday/Saturday night passtime. We were 12-18 years old so perhaps in another time we had our own brand of justice for pediphiles.

NUCLEAR
Yes, yes, yes, I see I left an E out of Nuclear. Don't everyone go Nuclear on that.

Makes no sense
This article is one of the silliest I've read so far at Townhall (and believe me, I've read lots of silly ones). The arguments that Mr. McCullough makes are specious and straw men.

Take for instance:

"For liberals to denounce pedophiles, ultimately they would have to denounce, lesbianism, homsexuality, and their particular favorite - adultery. And that's just no going to happen."

It's a nice line, but how does he back it up? By mentioning the liberal stance on the pedaphilic Catholic priests? No, by talking about an obscure pedophile with some wierd beliefs.

Does he really think that liberals, or anyone, will actually *defend* his actions?

I could go on, but would rather not.

Man cannot know what he thinks he knows

You cannot assume in this culture that men agree with the supposition of moral absolutes. Some are sure that there are no absolutes. They can even define the term absolute as if they didn’t understand your meaning. There is no longer a consensus as to the existence of moral absolutes, much less what they are and why. This is the problem with man, and you give a good example of it in your article.

Finite man cannot know anything outside the physical realm in which he lives. Modern man admits as much with his science. He cannot know his origins, his purpose, how he should think and live and what is right and wrong unless these things are revealed to him by the infinite; that which is outside the created universe. Without the Bible man is lost.

This culture has cut itself off from the authority of the Bible without realizing that the Bible is the foundation for law and morality. Without the Bible we are left with nothing but moral relativism. The Bible gives man a reference to the infinite and personal Creator. The Law of God says, “Do not kill” and “Do not steal” and “Love your neighbor as yourself, because love is the fulfillment of the law.”

The Law gives content to the meaning of love and to the meaning of sin. We can have confidence that these things are eternal and absolute because the immutable and eternal God has spoken. He has spoken to his image bearers through the Scriptures and finally through His Son, and raised Him from the dead to testify that He cannot lie.

Christ said that He came to heal the sick, but those who are well have no need of a Physician. Modern man doesn’t know that he is desperately ill unto death.

McCullough's running around...
... with his hair on fire on this one.

What kind of logic is he using to make his absurd and absolutist assertion that liberals love pedophiles? I could understand if he wrote that pedophiles love liberals; that's the only quarter from which the bad policies come that might save their butts.

I've never publicly condemned Night Stalker Richard Ramirez, either. I guess I'd better do so now, or I might be accused of loving serial killers.

This is the worst kind of hyperbolic demonization, and is the kind of ridiculous argument most conservatives scoff at when we see it from the other side, like the "chickenhawk" argument, "Bush Lied, People Died", "Republicans are Nazis" or "Taliban" or whatever.

It's, frankly, embarrassing.

Liberals and Pedophiles
Jesus Christ said that in the last days "Good will be called evil, and evil will be called good. In light of what we are witnessing today are we not in the " Last days"? I'd say, Jesus is coming for his church wery soon now. and if you don't know him as you personal savior, You best learn of him now or you WILL be left behind.

You'll find Him in the four Gospals and epistles. Also read Isiah 53.

Ahhh...got news for you
The entire site and situation is a PARODY, a SPOOF.

The organization does NOT exist.

"Distasio" is not a real name, but someone who used the Internet to create something that is not true, but was taken up as true by the mainsleaze media.

Don't you all have eggs on your collective faces now?

As a republican, I am actually surprised that we actually succomb to the NY TIMES / CBS NEWS level of assuming something is true because we think its true.

This has been going on for a while
My profession involves attending trainings and meetings regarding services to abused children and treatment of sex offenders, including pedophiles. There are many- too many- in my field who believe the recidivism rate of pedophiles is due to the "fact" that it is normal behavior that has been made "taboo" by society. Some seek to "depathologize" pedophilia and make it a "sexual preference".

There are those in the mental health field as well as in academia who believe "we have no right to judge what is right for someone else", including what is now often called "adult/child relations".

I can also say that this ideed horrifies many of my liberal friends. Horified, yes, but they remain quiet and passive in the face of this madness.

Michael
I just checked the web, and you seem to be wrong. Phillip Distasio is a real guy sitting in a real jail in Cuyahoga County charged with 30-something counts of child molestation. Unless all the media -- and there are many and seperate -- reporting on his case are all lying. Just do a search under "Phillip Distasio".

I can't speak to the authenticity of his website; I clicked that link, too, and it's a real website, though it's so weird that I can't imagine any parent actually sending their kid there.

Absolutely...
...."This does not mean that there is no such thing as right and wrong, or good and evil. The problem occurs when you insert the term "absolute". right and wrong and good and evil are inherently relative terms."
Your correct about using "absolute" because it is redundant. Right,wrong, good,and evil can stand on their own. As for "relative terms", is 2+2=4 right, wrong, or your choice?

"That said, I (a liberal) have no problem saying what this guy did was wrong, nor do I know anyone who would condone such behavior. (Notice I didn't need to use the word "absolute".)"
If "wrong" is a relative term, maybe Distasio thought it was "right". Maybe he found it therapeutic. By not condemning the action you are condoning it.
Who would condone it? Maybe Richard Allen Davis, Geoffrey Cornish, Christopher Reardon, our prisons and neighborhoods are full of them.

Phylo out of his mind....

pilgrm...
...I don't know how old you are, but your opinion of the worst President is off just a bit. Jimma Cahda almost single-handedly had this nation implode due to his "leadership." There is no greater evidence of his "Absolute" failure than the numerous accolades our enemies bestow on him.

Challenge for HKCindy
You said "moral asbolutes exist".

Can you name one?



By the way my point with the absurd example I gave is that there are extreme circumstances in which a moral principle does not hold up. If you could save the United States from destruction by commiting an immoral sexual act, would you? Or would you let all Americans die to save your moral purity?

Phylo out.

Why Conservatives Hate Lobsters
I am certain you can make an argument for why anyone hates or loves anything. I have no idea who loves or hates lobsters and don't care either but I am convinced I can make an argument based on an arbitrary dislike that popped into my head and a convincing argument at that.

First of all lobsters are red which is the symbol of Communism and what conservative would be caught dead eating a food that symbolized the hated political system. An aside here is that a lobster once tried to argue better Red than Dead until it was pointed out to him that if he was Red he was already dead. Another key point is that some people who eat lobsters wear bibs which is not very manly and no conservative would run the risk of being accused of being a Girly Man. Also you have to use tools to eat lobsters and these tools might be associated with Union rules and regulations and no Conservative wants to have their life governed by Union Rules since everyone knows full well that any decent Conservative is deep into Union Busting or he should turn in his old Reagan buttons. Also Baha California is noted for its many lobster restaurants and eating lobster might be somehow construed as supporting illegal aliens. And besides a real conservative is a meat and potatoes man. Beef its what's for dinner. Just as real men don't eat Quiche, real conservatives don't eat lobster.

If you could save the United States from destruction by commiting an immoral sexual act, would you? Or would you let all Americans die to save your moral purity?

Not to incite a philosophical firefight with this one, but I do believe moral absolutes exist. Committing an immoral act to prevent greater destruction does not change the fact that its immoral. For instance, Saying 'killing' is bad is a pretty fair moral absolute, but saying "you should never kill" is an impossible command for the reasons you gave.

As my post indicates, im a poor philosopher so feel free to correct me.


ProfGene...
....we conservatives don't eat lobsters, but we sure don't mind boiling those "reds" alive.

Liberals love pedophiles?????????
You are off your rocker.

As to "Every child left behind", it is a disaster.
In order to get the required number of students to pass the test, there is too much time spent "teaching the test".

The system needs a major over haul, and much of what is wrong is the result of Republican stupidity.

Ok, it looks like almost
everyone here agrees that McCullough is way over the top. That matter seems to be settled: McCullough, bad writer! Go sit in the corner!

It also looks like most everyone agrees that not all liberals love pedophiles. Of course, a generality assumes that you're not talking about absolutely everyone. Having said that, I would be willing to bet that most everyone here would agree that not even most liberals love pedophiles. This looks like a settled issue. This horse is dead; you can quit beating him now.

There does, however, seem to be some things we can discuss:
1. The fact that someone has actually decided that he can make a defense of this. When in America's past do you think anyone would have thought about using this defense, much less going through with it.
2. Take a look at the list RedWhite&Blue provides. Questions, comments?
3. BrianR wrote, "I could understand if he wrote that pedophiles love liberals; that's the only quarter from which the bad policies come that might save their butts." Is he right? Is there something about liberals that puts pedophiles in their boat?
4. Acheick writes, "Here in Calif, it is the Dems that are fighting tooth and nail not to pass a bill that would be tough on pedophiles." Why is that?
5. Phylo has admitted that he would commit an immoral sexual act to save the good ol' US of A. Question: Would you? It would be interesting to see if there are any differences in conservative and liberal opinions on this one. Of cours, I have a feeling Phylo would sell himself for less, like maybe just to save Key West. I could be wrong.

That looks like enough for now. Discuss.

Perhaps...
...the column should have been titled "Why Liberals must love pedophilia if they are to be logically consistent."

That's just a thought on my part. What I find most interesting is that Mr. Distas(t)io (love that proposed misspelling) claims sexual acts with children can be healthy. For whom? Him?

I also wonder who taught him that sex with children was healthy when he was a child.

Yes, children are sexual creatures, but that doesn't mean they have sufficient experience to be able to give informed consent to a sexual encounter with someone older, especially an adult.

Such encounters tend to be extremely hurtful for the child. In the absence of defense, protection, and comfort provided by their elders, particularly their parents, such children are likely to assume they are worthless and therefore deserve only death.

Because that belief is too painful to contemplate, particularly for boys, they project that self-condemnation outward on everyone else, in any of a very wide variety of ways, including sexual acts against those younger than they. (Girls, by contrast, are more likely to become depressed, and often commit suicide.)

This is just one of the many ways what Christians call Original Sin (the illusory belief that we are separate from God or Reality) is passed on from generation to generation.

A comment was also made that all too many parents are little more than children themselves, for all that they've grown up physically. That, unfortunately, is all too true. An adult understands that the only real choice anyone has is which side of the Golden Rule to walk on, and that this choice is made with every thought and action.

For those who have not seen either my other postings on this subject, or my blog, let me summarize briefly what I mean. The Golden Rule may be stated as "you do to others as you expect them to do to you (whether consciously or subconsciously)." It is the psychological phenomenon of projection--that is, we project onto others (including Reality) our inward states of mind.

You can choose to accept yourself, warts and all, as part and parcel of Reality (with the concommitant acceptance that Reality actually exists), or you can choose to deny that you are part of Reality.

If you choose to accept yourself as part and parcel of Reality, despite the illusion that you are separate from Reality, you will treat all others with respect, as equals, because they are also part of Reality, and you will defend them (and yourself) against all attempts by others to harm them in any way.

If you choose to deny that you are part of Reality (and therefore that Reality exists), you place yourself in a very painful logical double-bind. Because you have taken the illusion of separation from Reality as being real, rather than a useful illusion, you will treat yourself as deserving only death (NOTness) and you will project that belief outward onto others. You will treat them as deserving only death, and you will treat them with disrespect, contempt, and violence. You will attack them first, lest they attack you (as you were attacked first by those who taught you how worthless you were).

Does all this sound familiar? It should, since it is the history of humanity, and is exactly what's going on in the Middle East now. It is also why Mr. Distas(t)io is trying to justify his actions as he does--and why we're all so upset about the Andrea Yates case.

What we need to do, as individuals and collectively as well, is make the choice of which side of the Golden Rule we will walk on a conscious choice, rather than leave it subconscious, as it all too often is now.

I choose to walk on the bright side of the Golden Rule and treat all of you with the same respect I would like to receive from each of you.

As for Mr. Distas(t)io, he has obviously chosen to walk on the dark side of the Golden Rule. He should be faced with the hurtful consequences of his actions on the children put into his care, and if he persists in refusing to acknowledge that he is responsible for those hurtful consequences, he should face the sword. If he still refuses to acknowledge his responsibility, he will die.

See my blog for more about how my proposed Sacrament of Execution actually works.

Meanwhile, think about what I've said, and ask yourself which side of the Golden Rule you prefer to walk on--and why.

Fear of discrimination
As best I can tell no politician, right or left, has come out to denounce Distasio. I agree with the others. I didn't know about this guy until this article mentioned him. Tammy Bruce writes and talks about this phenomenon often. I'm sure she's mentioned Distasio, but I don't get the chance to listen to her show often. I'm not sure if I would characterize Distasio as a symptom of the far left. "Civil rights" for any kind of sexual prediliction is a category of activism all its own, IMO. It tends to be on the side of the Democratic Party in the political spectrum, even though most in the Democratic Party would shun people like him.

What Tammy often says is that there's a community of people, particularly in the gay rights movement, who see any kind of discrimination as dangerous. They see discrimination of any kind as a "slippery slope" back towards what it was like for minorities in the first half of the 20th century, or worse. What they fail to realize is that some discrimination is necessary, because some behavior is hurtful to others. For example, should we not discriminate against murderers, rapists, serial killers (this is a little redundant), etc.? Just because they hurt people, should they be discriminated against? Of course. You probably wouldn't get an argument from the gay rights crowd on this. They would say they discriminate against people who hurt others. But there are some who don't see sex as harmful to anyone, even to children. Sex is good, they say, but we've been "programmed" to think it's only for certain people, and this is unnatural.

Well I think all you'd have to do is ask a parent. Any good parent is going to do their utmost to protect their children from anyone trying to have sex with them.

Sick
Absolutely sick. I really cannot fathom the logic of these people. In the end, I guess it is an extension of the me generation... Yet, they claim it is good for the boys, too. Sick indeed.

Hmm...
Cynewulf. Good post. Let's see if it takes.

ProfGene. I love lobsters (assuming we're talking about eating and not sex) and quiche. Me real man conservative.

PhoenixLady. Children below a certain age are not sexual creatues at all, contrary to your post.

Phylo. The "save the masses" argument is usually, and more palatably, made by using the example of torturing the terrorist who knows the location of the nuclear device hidden in NYC. Which, BTW, I'd have no problem doing.

phylo
You assert there are no absolutes. Are you ABSOLUTELY certain?

For you, there are no moral absolutes. You have rejected this. So fine, live in a world where the scale of right and wrong moves around at your whim.

But rather than setting up Strawmen scenarios of ridiculous "ethical" dilemas, you would do better to ask yourself, "What is the moral law?" "Who determines the moral law?" Who has had the audacity to create a 'standard of correct behavior,' and why must I abide by it?"

If the moral standard is changeable, who determines that? Whose code of ethics trumps your code, or my code? Is anyone in charge?

I'll say it again, justifying an immoral act, does not justify the action.

Corrie Ten Boom, holocaust survivor, and author of The Hiding Place. Tells of the lengths her devoutly Christian family went through to hide Jews in their home during the war. One night soldiers pounded on the door and asked her if they were hiding any Jews. She was 15 or so at the time. She looked the officer square in the eye and said, "No." Of course this was a lie.

But the Jews were spared, her family was spared (for the time being). Was she able to justify her actions? Yes. Would I have done the same? No doubt. Was it still a lie? Absolutely!

The point is that God has created this moral law and demands that all live by it. But the fact is, we cannot. I cannot. But the law, the ethics, the demand for righteousness, still hold. Corrie Ten Boom, because she understood this, receives forgiveness, not becasue she rejected a moral law, but precisely because she accepted the moral law and knew that she could not maintain that standard of perfection. Relying on Jesus for Salvation from her moral dilema she and all of us lousy sinners find grace and redemption. No longer subject to a shifting scale or impossible standard our hope is fixed on the blood of Jesus sacrifice.

I don't set the standard. I don't even keep the standard. But closing my eyes and pretending it isn't there, won't make it go away.

Movwater
You certainly object to "homosexual" pedophiles. So what about heterosexual pedophiles? No problem with them? Why don't we call them what most other people already call them: Pedophile. Predator. Molestor. Rapist. Your hostility towards GLBT people undermines the point you make about vigilance, for you obviously are ignoring much of the picture while concentrating on the object of your disdain.

For Kanawah
Education, Kanawah, has been reformed and overhauled over the past 30+ years by the left, which has given us the mess we have today. Ted Kennedy was the author of No Child Left Behind- hardly a republican. Education has long been owned by the left, as are the subsequent policies.

In my state it is illegal to track teach, which has always worked! Why? because someone might "feel bad" due not being in the highest group. The progressive's self-esteem movement promised that inclusion was the way to go to control costs and educate "everyone". The result? Teaching to the lowest achiever in the class, because the "logic" was that smart kids would always be smart. From there, we have plummeted to 4th to last in the world in academic scoring for science and math of our high school seniors. Inclusion and its weird applications in various districts isn't the only reason, but its a big one. The need for No Child Left Behind (of which I am not a fan) came from the flow of illiterate "graduates", thanks to the left.

So- you want MORE left input on education, even given their track record??


Misspelling
I have trouble with professional communicators who don't know the difference between "forward" and "foreword". Likewise "illicit" and "elicit". If I can't trust you with tiny deatils, how can I trust you with the big ones?

HKCindy
Cindy, I noticed that you didn't name a moral absolute.

Do you know why?

It's because you can't. You can't because there is no such thing. If there were, you would be able to name one.

One would think that this would cause you to second guess your assumption. But then again, people have been known to believe some pretty crazy things despite the evidence before them.

By the way, for now, I'm not interested in the consequences of the fact that there are no moral absolutes. That's a separate conversation which I would be glad to have. But for now, please just stick to the point, okay?

So, either name a moral absolute, or admit that you can't.

Phylo out.






phylo dear
I have no time to engage in useless conversations with those who choose not to engage their brain.

Moral Absolutes. It is always wrong to lie. It is always wrong to murder. Theft is never right, Adultery has no place in a moral society, etc. etc,etc. Whats your point?

Now you can come back and refute each of this at your leisure. This is what you wanted all along, right? Are you jumping up and down with glee? Do you think you have made a point?

You are the "sound of idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Why white females love pedophilia
I've been deeply troubled by the rush on the part of some to defend Judith Levine's fanciful view that the raping (for that is what it amounts to) of grossly under-age children by Phillip Distasio is somehow permissible. In particular, I have been deeply struck by how many white females seem to feel that Distasio has a moral "right" (yes, here we go again) to exploit little boys because it makes him feel good and that to dissuade him from such behavior is morally repugnant (as if Distasio's actions are somehow simply another manifestation of human sexuality that we must all condone). I suppose there are many reasons for the white female celebration of pedophilia, but one of them - at least in my view - is the feminist notion that anything which preceded the late 1960s in America was/is somehow in need of drastic revision or outright destruction. Thus, the idea of sexual morality with strict parameters as to what is and what is not acceptable is anathema to them because it is a part of the "ancien regime" they so despise; like good social engineers, these women (if that is the word for them) seek to destroy all with which they disagree (conservatism, sexual morality - morality in general - and the notion that children and the nuclear family are both sacrosanct).

Beyond that, I think these women love a fellow like Distasio because he helps advance their own, thinly-concealed agenda against little boys. Suffice it to say, Distasio isn't interested in females, so his brutalization of the young will be confined to that segment of the population white females have targeted for destruction (I come from Canada, and you would be startled at how many affluent Caucasian women have "sex-specific" abortions as soon as they discover they are bearing a male fetus). In any event, we can hardly expect the (white) female segment of the judiciary, of the political realm or (certainly) of academia to step forward and protect one of the most vulnerable groups in society - largely because they love fellows like Distasio however much they may claim otherwise.

To me, the question really isn't simply why Phillip Distasio walks free among us, but why our society tolerates a feminist ideology that is only a matter of degrees removed from the baser elements of Nazism.

Moral absolutes, huh?
How intellectually vacuous.

46 conservative pedophiles:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/07/27/18291880.php

Phylo
I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with a moral absolute, and admit I'm having a hard time, because I can usually come up with some scenario that creates an exception.

However, it occurred to me that the exceptions don't necessarily negate the moral issue at point. Let me clarify.

I will posit (and also believe personally) that it is absolutely morally repugnant to rape a small child. Now, if I read your previous posts correctly, you then posit a life-or-death situation that entails many other innocent lives, in which the raping of the small child would then save those other innocent lives.

I don't think that diminishes the absolute moral situation inherent in the child rape. The inherent child rape is still by its very nature an absolute moral wrong, but now has been thrown into the arena of situational ethics, and may have to be weighed against an action or result that is even more wrong. That doesn't make it less than absolutely morally wrong.

HKCindy made the statement that a lie is an absolute moral wrong, and I disagree. Situation: a rapist is chasing his victim down the street and asks you which way she went. Is telling him the truth right or wrong? That's a true exception.

But there are a few things, like child rape, that are absolutes. I can think of no situation that makes it right.

What a tool!
Typical conservative hack. Let's use Mr. McCullough's sort of reasoning to sort out a different issue. Let's see.

A. Conservatives back President Bush in going to war in Iraq.
B. The United States has unintentionally killed innocent Iraqi children.
C. Therefore, conservatives love killing innocent Iraqi children.

Makes about as much sense.

a rapist stops and asks directions???
C'mon BrianR, the rapist stops for directions? And you know he's a rapist because....? And your only solution is to give him directions?? IF you know he's a rapist you can't stall him in some way? This whole invented scenario is ridiculous. Maybe your only solution is to kill him. Would that be wrong? Is it murder? Or self-defense?

You, like Phylo still miss the point. There will always be situations where it may seem that the only way is out is a lie, a killing, sex (oh,yeah, that'll save the world from nuclear holocaust.)

But you are forgetting, the Bible sets the Moral Standard on which our laws are based. Neither you nor I can uphold that standard perfectly. But the good news is that we do not have to be slave to that impossible standard. We can have redemption.

Don't go down Phylo's illogical slippery slope.

Distasio and His Claim to Civil Rights
Here is a prime example of the insanity running the country. Another nut case and courts often side with such as people expressing themselves.
Without a standard- society will not long survive.

naggingmom2000

This Article is Despicable Trash
It is filled with the most dishonest, lying "reasoning" I've ever read. A few academic extremists say some stupid things and all of a sudden "all" liberals love pedophiles.

I swear, if one more conservative starts to lecture about sexual morality, I may just vomit. From thrice-married Limbaugh to twice-over adulterer Gingrich to lying cheater Chenoweth to "I fathered a child out of wedlock" Dan Burton, sickening right wing hypocrisy seems to be the rule. Oh, and McCullough--would you like an extremely long and detailed list of prominent conservatives who have been caught having sex with underage minors? I'd be happy to send you one.

And one more thing. My sister, a liberal Democrat who has been a Methodist minister for 35 years, has more knowledge about God and moral absolutes in her little finger than a lying little right-wing weasel like McCullough has in his entire damned body!

McCullough's right
Wow, people sure are ganging up on McCullough. The thing is, he is prophetically right. The whole issue of justifying pedophilia has been gaining momentum. Charles Colson discusses the idea of "Salvation through Sex" in his book, How Now Shall We Live. He wrote this book several years ago, and even then saw the writing on the wall.

That Sex, in any form, might be immoral, flies in the face of all that is "holy" in the church of liberalism. To endorse pedophilia is simply the logical conclusion of liberal philosophy.

Sure, right now it seems repugnant. But I predict that in not too many years, this will have become a serious "intellectual" debate. Sort of like the discussions now about legalizing all drug use to "cut down on crime."

Go easy on him, someday you'll have to eat your words.

For Joe
I don't think the article deals with sexual morality issues that can be be categorized with adultery, multiple husbands or wives, or any other adult (however immature the adult may be) on adult behavior. Every person of every political party is going to have varying issues on all fronts.

I also think the author has given way to hyperbole, using the phrase liberals "love" pedophiles. I can tell you from personal experience as a social worker of 23 years that there are those in the field who believe pedophilia should be decriminalized and "depathologized" and are working to have the diagnosis removed from the DSM IV.

There is also talk of the high recidivism rate as an indication that pedophilia is actually normal and only made "taboo" by a "sexually uptight" society. This is happening, and in my state, it is backed soley by