The author's point is ******* stupid.
Child molestation is amoral because of the ill-effects it has on the child. Not because your Religion says so.
LOL! You don't grasp the author's point either. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with religion, it goes to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of materialism and the irrationality of moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism. The familial concerns of stability and parental authority as well as the political concerns of ideological liberty and free association are pertinent to the dispute as well, though the latter, no doubt, utterly elude you.
So molestation is amoral merely because of its ill-effects? Well, many of your fellow materialists do not agree with you:
Why Are We Surprised With the Push for 'Pedophile Rights'
There are no absolute moral values. Nobody can provide an objective and scientific means to determine the moral value of an act.
So you materialists keep saying as if your assertion were not inherently self-contradictory, irrational—as if that were not
objectively self-evident, as if you were not describing instead the limitations of scientific inquiry. The assertion that truth is relative is no more subject to scientific falsification than the assertion that truth is absolute. Indeed, the apriority of a metaphysical naturalism is not subject to scientific falsification either.
LOL!
Your ill-considered logic refutes itself.
By nature, ethics is a rational enterprise and is ultimately subject to the rules of logic, not to the rules of scientific methodology, though the outcomes of experience and the discoveries of science can certainly be applied to the rational calculi of ethics. You merely confound cause with effect.
Classical liberalism, like Judeo-Christianity, holds that the fundamental rights of humanity are self-evident. The Founders were not appealing to any scientific study, but to the rational imperatives of natural law. We are not merely creatures of induction, but experience reality through the deductive processes of human consciousness.
The absolute assertion that there are no absolutes . . . except the absolute that there are no absolutes (LOL!) is a
reductio ad absurdum; it fails the smell test of the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind.
First you say that humans may "refine" their ethics and then contradictorily insist that the value assessments of good or bad are artificial. Artificial? Then what is the independent, controlled, objective standard against which ethics are refined within the materialist paradigm? LOL! One contradiction after another. That's what happens when you begin with an irrational premise.
But then atheists are notoriously bad logicians as they stupidly deny, based on nothing more substantial than blind faith, the only potential alternative that is logically consistent from premise to conclustion.
No, it's people. God said genocide was okay (see: conquest on Canaan) and killing those who don't believe in your religion was a moral commandment. People, collectively and as individuals, decided otherwise and tend to throw that part of the bible out because their own morals and ethics disallow such things. People might seek to attribute this to some deity or another in order to claim some authority (especially when speaking for or attempting to inflict their morality upon others), but saying the dog farted doesn't change the fact that it was you.
Judeo-Christianity does not teach that genocide is okay. Your reading of scripture is historically and theologically illiterate. Throw away? You just made that up. There's no need to throw away the annihilation of those who were bent on Israel's utter destruction in an historical setting where there were no prisons and no possible means of assimilation. With regard to survival, do you not comprehend the practical implications under primitive conditions? And they weren't the people of just any cultures, but the people of cultures that practiced ritual pedophilia and infanticide, by the way.
rivately encourages pedophilia while publicly discouraging it.
