A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia is next on the Slippery Slope . . .

Let us turn back before it's too late
By Rabbi Moshe Averick
08/31/2011
Jewish World Review


One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential "intellectual elite" of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was "just wrong." Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University — a world-famous philosopher of "ethics" — responded as follows:

"I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You're trying to put words in my mouth. " ​

Singer went on to explain that he is a "consequentialist." For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical. In an article entitled "Heavy Petting," Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children "ethics" at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my "plea" to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

LINK

The pseudo-intellectualism of the barbaric and depraved on display. . . .

 

The most rational thing to do is assume Singer speaks for all atheists.

 

It ain't atheists taking multiple and child brides.

 

Singer is more of a moral relativist than anything else. For Moral relativists something has to be more than "just wrong" for it to be immoral at a minimum, and illegal at a maximum.

 

Morals don't come from Religion.

 

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

 

wtf? So you think if there was no Religion, that Catholics would.. what? All be evil anarchists?

 

Nor molesting young altar boys or parochial students.

 

No, there are other sets of morals. Your statment was morals don't come from religion. Some morals do, probably not yours though.

You made a blanket statment that isn't correct.

 

Catholics and Morals....at this time, not the best example.