Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Latest Laziness

Or maybe it's the latest "Liar-ness."

Whether he's lazy, a liar, or logically-challenged, Jason Kuznicki continues to attack me (see "The Latest Looniness"). Jason says I am "all in favor of letting child molesters go free." Either he's too lazy to inform himself of my views, hasn't studied enough logic to make good inferences, or just doesn't like libertarians.

I suspect Jason feels a sense of power by telling his readers how terrible "the bad guys" are. I know that feeling. The ability to "expose" error and denounce "heretics" was my stock in trade for many years. It was more important for me to be able to say Prof. X teaches very bad things and know that my devoted hearers would all shun Prof. X than it was for me to accurately represent Prov. X's position, or initiate a respectful dialogue in an attempt to win Prof. X to the truth. "Us vs. Them" is very powerful. I'm trying to get away from all that.

My purpose in this post is to correct misunderstandings of my own position (and preclude future misrepresentations), and not to say bad things about Jason. But since Jason is calling me a "loon," and I think this is unjustified, I'm unavoidably implying bad things about Jason's abilities to understand my position, or to report it fairly.

I received a call from Libertarian Party headquarters asking me to remove the statement that Jason quoted. I'm happy to comply, as the remark was foolishly provocative. "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all," as I say several times on my website. I love making controversial statements to pique reader interest. LP HQ knows better in this case. Perhaps they thought that some unscrupulous statist journalist or a mudslinging staffer in Roy Blunt's campaign would dig up the remark and use it to discredit libertarians.

Alas, it was a libertarian who wants to discredit another libertarian.

Jason is intelligent enough to realize that I believe child molestation, besitality, and homosexuality are grossly sinful (the Bible calls them an "abomination") and should never be allowed to occur on this planet. This understanding is what prompted him to make his first comments about me, in which he accused me of advocating castration for homosexuals. It was Thomas Jefferson, not I, who advocated castration for homosexuals; I simply agreed with Jefferson that homosexuals should not be executed, which was then the practice in Virginia, based on the prevailing view of the Bible, the basis of American Law.

Jason said I "implied" that homosexuals should be castrated. Actually, Jason erroneously inferred that. Before attacking another libertarian, Jason should have checked out my position on the subject, which clearly opposes all violence against homosexuals, including "legal" violence initiated by the State:
As long as Christians are not rounded up for saying that homosexuality is a sin, I will continue to try to persuade my friends on the Religious Right not to initiate force or violence (in the form of criminal laws) against homosexuals.
Nobody reading my webpage on homosexuality could fairly walk away saying, "I think he's implying that homosexuals should be castrated." Jason has an ax to grind.

The Old Testament says that homosexuality, bestiality and child molestation are worthy of death. I believe Christ's execution was the last execution. If he were here today, I would like to think that Jefferson -- who agrees with me on the issue of capital punishment for homosexuals -- would change his position and agree with me on the issue of castration.

I believe Jefferson would also agree with me that the Constitution did not give the federal government power to tell Virginia what to do with homosexuals. Jefferson would, I presume, agree that the Republican-appointed Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the staged murder-sodomy mystery in which the federal government asserted the power to re-write state laws on homosexuality.

The issue of homosexuality leads naturally to the issue of child molestation. Homosexual activist George Painter has surveyed the numerous legal challenges to anti-homosexuality laws in the various states, and his data reveals that nearly half of all the homosexuality cases that came before courts involved children. Man-child sex is too frequently a theme among homosexuals from ancient Rome to today. This is not to deny there are some homosexuals -- and if it's true, I'll say "many" -- who are repulsed by child-sex. I personally have never known any homosexual I've been acquainted with to engage in or approve of child molestation. But the court cases that eventually led to Lawrence v. Texas are numerous and grisly. Any society that legitimizes homosexuality is inviting more child molestation. If Jefferson would disagree with that position, I'm sure he would also be disagreeing with an overwhelming majority of America's Founding Fathers.

In our day, both homosexuality and child molestation are virtually legalized. The government has destroyed the market for morality. Child molestation is legalized because too many people will not do anything to stop it. Too many people know that "Aunt Fred" is homosexual, and too many people won't take action if the heterosexual stepfather next door is known to molest children. Too many people feel like "that's the government's job." "Maybe someday he'll get caught and go to jail." But they lack self-government.

The Bible says that if you know your ox has an inclination to gore people, and you don't keep your ox penned up, you share in the guilt if someone gets hurt by your ox. Society has a responsibility to keep child molesters from molesting children -- and when I say "society" I do not mean "the government"; I mean every individual. Voluntary associations need to be created in a Free Market to help individuals sequester child molesters, and these efforts need to be backed up by churches, schools, landlords, grocers, and the rest of "society."

Simply "punishing" a child molester after it happens is gross negligence, even if that's the "legal" remedy. Steps should be taken to prevent it from happening.

I spent quite some time describing these efforts in my post to Jason, with links to other sources, which made clear, I think, that I want to eliminate child molestation, bestiality, and homosexuality, but not by passively waiting for "the government" -- a well-governed society needs more government than "the government" provides. But Jason chose to characterize me as a looney libertarian who is "all in favor of letting child molesters go free." As if I think their behavior is morally acceptable. This will not enhance Jason's reputation as a trustworthy and reliable blogger, at least in my mind.

If the evil has been done and I am limited to the choice between executing them or castrating them, as a Christian I would be forced to let them go free, and hope it's still legal for me to persuade people to "quarantine" them and not to tolerate their "sexual orientation," and to create free-market institutions which pressure child molesters to stay "in the closet" and away from children, until they are freed from their sinful habits.

The most important plank in my congressional campaign may well be education. Education must be taken out of the hands of the federal government and returned to parents. Federally controlled education is imposing an anti-Christian worldview on America. The overwhelming majority of parents do not want their children taught that homosexuality is good. They know that children who are taught that homosexuality is OK grow up to be less successful than Americans who were taught Christian morality. I want to see restored the disgust, the revulsion, even the horror that Americans once had for child molestation, bestiality, and homosexuality, but restore this worldview without violence by "the government" or by individuals. When our society departs from Christian teachings regarding homosexuality, bestiality and "intergenerational sex," we lose the possibility of sustaining a free market economy and the rule of law. America's Founding Fathers recognized that Christian self-government is more important than "the government" in preserving liberty and order.

1 comment:

Kevin Craig said...

Ed Brayton has entered into the fray on his "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog (I'm not going to link to it).

Perhaps I should ignore him, but I want to emphasize my intent to prevent child molestation from happening.

One of the comments on Brayton's blog quotes Jason: "I would probably choose to pay a protection agency to make all the neighborhood rapists suffer," and the commentator asks, "What does Kuznicki mean here? If he just means put rapists in jail, I'm fine with that. It sounds more arbitrary though, more like vigilantism."

It does indeed sound like that. And in a culture where Christianity has been removed from the public square, it could easily lead to that.

As a Christian I am opposed to all vengeance and violence. Jason is OK with making child molesters suffer after they make children suffer.

My campaign proposal, "Liberty Under God," would preclude vengeance and government-imposed suffering, but would lead to a culture where a "sexual orientation" which is abominable in God's eyes does not occur as often, if at all, both because people do not tolerate it (and being "intolerant" is no longer against the law), and because would-be perpetrators were never given the impression in atheistic government-run schools that violating God's Commandments was OK.

The power of a Godly culture is greater than the power of legalized vigilantism. This is the direction I want to articulate as a candidate.