Re: For Ron.. [Read this, corrected text --Ron]
Submitted by Ron on 2003-02-21 05:16:02, Friday
In reply to For Ron and anyone else interested in NAMBLA submitted by on
|
Drifter: I apprecriate your taking the time to carefully express your thoughts on NAMBLA and the First Amendment. Although I don't recall advocating nor do I support suppressing protected free speech for NAMBLA or any other organization or individual citizen. It's obvious I don't like or approve of NAMBLA and am of the opinion that it is engaging in criminal conspiracy and has a selfish, self-serving purpose and clear conflict of interest in demanding there be NO age of consent laws at all regarding sex between men and children. I've actually visited the NAMBLA website in recent days to see for myself exactly what they're saying and proposing in their own words. I found that NAMBLA presents a slick, professionally presented image with all sorts of disclaimers about not endorsing violence, coersion or abuse, it's opposition to the death penalty as proof of its respect for life, a support program for imprisoned child sex abusers, and numerous resources, including articles on sexual freedom and scientific papers to support its position that "consentual sex" between men and boys is beneficial to both and not damaging to the boys, as is the conventional wisdom. They even have their own NAMBLA celebrity page with commentary from the likes of the late Allen Ginsberg and various Gay, Lesbian and Feminist authors. Well, it's a quite impressive on the surface at least--until you actually read some of the resources they have posted. Then what one finds are a great many absurd ideas, such as children are victims of "oppression" because, for instance, their parents treat and regard them as chattel slaves and themselves as their masters. It's oppressive for parents to impose curfew hours on their kids, like being in the home by dark or no later than 10 pm [for older children] and that they not hang out at video arcades except for weekends. Of course, the thought did occur to me that if parents were one day legally stripped of having any say over the comings and goings and whereabouts of their kids, this would be most convenient for NAMBLA members looking for some action on the streets and arcades and parks by night! What's even more obvious though never stated as such in words in its program, NAMBLA seeks to undermine parental rights regarding how they choose to raise their children and protect their own children until they reach the age of majority. In other words, they seek to destroy the order and cohesion of the traditional or nuclear family in particular. Although I can imagine a single parent in NAMBLA's ideals of "liberation" would have no more right to tell his or her kid to be in by dark or keep out of parks and arcades at night and would have to just accept his or her child having a sexual affair with an adult so long as little Johhny "consented" to it. My question to the Christians in the forum is this [I will not comment here since I am not a Christian and an Agnostic]: WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY? Now, as for the NAMBLA pamphlet I reported as titled RAPE AND ESCAPE, I did some research on this after being informed by observant posters that this is not the real title of the material in question. I apologize for the error and thank those who brought this to my attention. However, I'm satisfied that the content of this pamphet amounts to this: a survival handbook for men having sexual relations with boys [statutory rape by our laws] and what they can do in their defence should they get caught. This constitutes criminal conspiracy and supports as evidence an Ohio Court of Appeals ruling that NAMBLA material in possession of a child rapist on trial "showed preperation and purpose" in the rape. I thought you might appreciate the view of a Gay activist on the subject of NAMBLA, so I've posted his article below. You'll find [although it may cause a few to grow pale and faint] Rosendall's views and findings on NAMBLA often agree with mine. Well, at least Rosendall won't be all but accused of "hate speech" and of having a "hate-filled pathology" and his judgement mocked and doubted, I'm sure! One more thing I'm certain of--although I've been told in here I have no business discussing The Bible and quoting chapter and verse being a non-believer--Jesus didn't always "dine with thieves," he took a whip and beat the thieves out of a temple.Your God didn't appear to want to "understand" the Sodomites, he destroyed them and the cities of Sodom and Gommorah. My point? Nothing in either of the Bibical books seems to support as "God's way" the kind of moral relativism professed by albeit only a few here. As a non-believer I can't profess to believe in "absolute truths" since such could only exist if there were a God and His Laws to endow them as such. This is why liberals who are also atheists reject the the notion of moral absolutes. And so, abortion, for instance, is a subjective case of one's own moral and religious convictions or both, therefore, CAN NEVER BE OBJECTIFIED AS MORALLY WRONG by a secular society. Well, there's a lot of logic to this, isn't there? But then there's partial birth abortions. What about those? Well, since the fetus has no defined personhood or humanity..it's another "value judgement" to oppose this radical procedure on "moral" grounds or those of one's "personal ethics." And we can all "understand" why a college couple would kill their newborn baby and dump it in a dumpster of a cheap motel. It's "understandable" why they panicked. Isn't it? Hundreds of phone callers and tearfully "understanding" letter writers said so. The judge gave them both only a 3 years sentence in prison for the killing, so he understood too! I'm one of the few who "lacks "empathy," as another poster admonished me [when in fact my empathy is for the victim, the baby]. Meaning, I lack empath for those who do desperate things which are "understandable" given the "situation." Another reason to write me off as one of the benighted who "lacks logic and empathy" [read: a failure in self-aware Political Correctness and so must be TOLD until he gets it on his own without being TOLD] I happen to share Bertand Russell's feeelings when he said he'd find it hard to accept the idea that it was a relative question of "right" or "wrong" for him to just kick his neighbour's dog one morning. NAMBLA: Out of the Movement's Bounds by Richard J. Rosendall [Copyrighted material removed] Copyright © 1994 by Richard J. Rosendall. All rights reserved. |
Follow ups: