Now that more people are beginning to realize that Richard Dawkins has some strange views about pedophilia, you are likely to hear his starry-eyed fans defend their idol by arguing, “There is nothing new here people, so move along.” They would be correct in noting there is nothing new here, as Dawkins has long been trying to downplay the harmful nature of pedophilia in order to support his malicious “religion as child abuse” attacks. But we surely do not need to move along, as Dawkins’ argument gives us insight into his atheistic morality.
Pay close attention to what he wrote about 10 years ago:
Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master’s eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side.
Did you catch that last part? Dawkins atheistic sense of morality is trying to cast the child molester as the victim. I think we are supposed to believe that the Latin Master could not resist the temptation of fondling the Young Dawk and this, and this alone, led to so much guilt that he killed himself. Hmmm. So Dawkins is trying to imply the real evil is not the pedophilia, but the fact the pedophile lives in a society where he feels the need to kill himself for such actions. Doubt me? Consider what comes next:
Of course I accept that his misdemeanors, although by today’s standards enough to earn imprisonment followed by a life sentence of persecution by vigilantes, were mild compared to those committed by some priests now in the news.
A life sentence of persecution of vigilantes. Crystal clear here folks – Dawkins is casting pedophiles as victims of society. And he’ll make the same point one more time:
I am in no position to make light of the horrific experiences of their altar-boy victims. But reports of child abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent buggery, and I am sure many of those cases now embarrassing the church fall at the mild end of the spectrum . Doubtless, too, some fall at the violent end, which is terrible but I would make two points about it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn’t mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like ‘predatory monster’ are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups.
Adult hang-ups?? Let’s get this straight. Some old man exploits some situation where he decides to touch, grab, and handle the genitals of a young child. If you think that is not just wrong, but very wrong, it’s because you have an “adult-hang-up.” And it is your “adult hang-up” that keeps you from understanding that since the child was not violently raped, nothing truly bad actually happened. In fact, what’s truly bad is that you have over-reacted because of your “adult hang-up.”
Dawkins is clearly try to cast pedophiles as the victims. Am I wrong?
PZ Myers is spot on when he observes that Dawkins position on pedophilia “sounds like something out of NAMBLA.” In fact, I think Dawkins has much to explain. Does he actually have any substantial disagreements with the positions of NAMBLA? Is there a Dawkins fan out there who can tell us what these substantial disagreements are?