In other words, Blake has a demonstrated problem with accurately characterizing those he discourses with.

Your own past arguments make me feel comfortable making “generalizations” about what you support.

Me, I link to your past ‘arguments’ when pointing out problems with them. You can’t do the same courtesy? For example, which ‘argument’ of mine, specifically, led you to think I support “handing out condoms and abortions to children below the age of consent”?

But let’s not pretend that gay couples and divorcing ladies are somehow not guilty of wrecking kids’ lives.

No… let’s not claim they are without being able to back it up.

Your own past arguments make me feel comfortable making “generalizations” about what you support.

Also this generalization: that you treat this as a line: you can do anything you want, up to that line. No matter how it does or doesn’t impact the kids, it’s okay – “no harm done”, because society doesn’t recognize it as harmful. But cross that line and POW!

I don’t view it that way. I view it as one of many ways in which people who are addicted to the pleasures of the body do harm. To the extent that the person has no control over his desires, I have compassion – no less for the pedophile than for the gay man or the woman who wants a divorce because she just plain isn’t happy with her life.

But let’s not pretend that gay couples and divorcing ladies are somehow not guilty of wrecking kids’ lives.

Or, you can pretend if you want to – but I’m not going to play along. Because the entire sexual revolution makes the world ugly for kids – and the people who justify the sexual revolution are just plain lying (maybe to themselves?) when they play at denial.

Divorce hurts children.

Casual divorce hurts children. Your reluctance to make distinctions leads you astray rather often, unfortunately.

The “two mommy myth” hurts children.

Not only haven’t you demonstrated that your version of the ‘two mommy myth’ actually exists, you haven’t been able to demonstrate harm, either.

A sexualized culture hurts children. Children not being protected from sex and sexualization hurts children.

No argument there. I think we disagree about the causes of that, however.

Democrats and liberals… viciously attack anyone who suggests that TV and film shouldn’t aim sexual imagery at children.

Evidence?

Go watch the film “The Kids Are Alright”

I have, months ago. It was an interesting drama. (I’ve mentioned this before, but I think you may need to look up the difference between drama and documentary.)

and ask yourself: are all these “studies” (that ask irrelevant questions and use highly questionable methodologies)

I know! If the results don’t come out the way you want, throw out the calculator!

Those who justify handing out condoms and abortions to children below the age of consent (those who justify abortions period)

Again, it looks almost like an inability – certainly an unwillingness – to recognize distinctions. What if I’m not among the former? Do you find that imaginable?

Divorce hurts children.

The “two mommy myth” hurts children.

A sexualized culture hurts children.

Children not being protected from sex and sexualization hurts children.

Democrats and liberals make a big fuss about letting youngsters watch movies that show adults smoking cigarettes, but viciously attack anyone who suggests that TV and film shouldn’t aim sexual imagery at children.

Go watch the film “The Kids Are Alright” and ask yourself: are all these “studies” (that ask irrelevant questions and use highly questionable methodologies) about finding the truth – or are they about justifying, finding narratives to explain how doing something you know to be wrong “isn’t really hurting anyone”?

Children have underage sex every day in America, and liberals cheer. They hand out condoms. They help the little tykes get abortions without the parents knowing.

Those who justify handing out condoms and abortions to children below the age of consent (those who justify abortions period) don’t have the right to expect to be taken seriously when they suddenly, belatedly, start pretending to care about the “well being” of children.

The sexual revolution has been violating the bodily, emotional, and psychic integrity of children since it began – it isn’t the actual goal of the sexual revolution, but since the goal of the sexual revolution is about selfishness and prioritizing sexual pleasure over the well-being of family, society, mates, etc., it really isn’t possible to be in favor of the sexual revolution and still be in any position to claim to care about the well-being of children.

And as long as the majority of people in America see sexual pleasure as so important that it justifies harming children over, there will be pedophiles, and they will simply ignore your concerns because they rightfully view you as hypocrites.

It is the act of defining life as being, first and foremost, about personal pleasure – and sexuality as being, first and foremost, about personal pleasure

Another way you go off the rails is by assuming that everyone defines ‘pleasure’ the way you seem to.

Because life, for you, is about yourself, your own pleasure, and that comes before a child.

So often here I run into people arguing with what they want me to have said instead of what I actually say. But you just set some kind of record. I dunno who you’re arguing with, pal, but it ain’t me.

Promiscuous women murder babies, and that’s okay.

Again, not so. Thrice over, in fact.

Gay families make kids pretend that a stepfather is a mother, that having an intact family or an honest identity is irrelevant

Let me know if you ever substantiate that claim you keep making, with anything more than ‘argument by vigorous assertion’. I won’t be holding my breath.

All of you have created a culture where children are sexualized from age six, watch sex on TV from age three, defend the people who sell push-up bras to kids who don’t even have breasts yet, and now we have a culture where kids routinely lose their virginity before they hit middle school.

Again, you should probably go find someone who actually does that so you can argue with them. I ain’t your guy.

But pedophilia – that’s different! Not because it hurts children but because it disgusts you.

No… because it hurts children.

(Say, how many Christians here agree with Blake? Show of hands? Anyone gonna call him on this stuff?)

But no one is rioting over McQueary, who was not, after all, fired (yet). The riots are over Paterno. The article makes an insinuation: “if you’re a student at Penn State who is more upset about a coach being fired than a child being raped…” Insinuations aside, I know for a fact that there is no student at Penn State more upset by a coach being fired than by a child being raped. But rioting will not undo any of the (still only alleged) rapes; it might, however, undo the scapegoating of an innocent man. No one in a free society should be happy that reluctance to repeat hearsay is now a fireable offense.

Being a Christian among the constant, universal temptations of earthly justice means walking a very fine line, and pulling your brothers back when they drift toward cowardice in the one direction or vengeance in the other. We must be imitators of Christ — our positive duty is to stand athwart the impulse of revenge and instant condemnation, to go slow and to remember the prerogatives of the Lord in comparison with our own.

I am hugely disappointed with the conservative media’s abetment of the hysteria. I trusted you to be voices of reason, of calmness, of sobriety and disinterest, of the Lord Himself when the culture is tempted to innuendo, moral grandstanding, and mob justice. I suppose I have my own lessons to relearn: “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” When it really counts, we see who is unfaithful, and Who is trustworthy.

For our Lord “heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds.” He alone. Paterno wishes he “had done more,” but earthly justice does not allow him to go back and use omniscience to prevent the crime, for that omniscience is His alone. Paterno does not have benefit of the hindsight which Carter and Dreher have used to condemn the man. Only God has that benefit, only God may condemn.

And while we’re at it, what did Carter and Dreher do to prevent the evil done to those boys? What did you do? What did I do? Those are the appropriate questions. Are you tempted to rationalize: well, I didn’t know, I wasn’t there, how could anyone reasonably expect me to have stood between Sandusky and those children? That is Paterno’s exculpatory claim, and our temptation to the same would only be a matter of degree and not kind. Paterno might have been in a better position to prevent the evil in his midst, but can you, sinner, say you have done all you could to prevent the evil in your midst? Up to and including the Sandusky crimes? At very least Paterno has publicly confessed his weakness, that in fact he personally could have “done more” and failed. He is sorrowful for “all that [he has] done and all that [he has] failed to do.” Are you?

The temptations to paganism are constant and universal, and they lead to a metastasizing evil far, far worse and far, far more widely disbursed than anything the Penn State network can transmit. Work out your faith in fear and trembling, Christians.

Isn’t this a perfect example of “condemnation with a sweep of your hand” and “snap-judgment and instant justice”? Or is your rush to judgment above reproach? You should live by your own standards before you preach to others.

And now you are “judging” me. Hypocrisy is the only sin recognized in a relativist society.

Did Christ “rush to judgment” when he asked challenged the gathered, bloodthirsty crowd, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? Or was it an appropriate provocation by the only sinless one, a cryptic reservation of His prerogative of judgment for Himself? Are we not to imitate Christ, to draw the line in the sand so that His judgment might be preserved away from the vengeful release of the increasingly self-exciting crowd?

I appreciate the criticism and I’m glad you bring it up. Matthew 7 is roundly misinterpreted as “judge not, lest you be judged,” when a better understanding of it is “condemn not, lest you be condemned.” It is the relativist’s favorite passage in the Bible and the only one they recognize and the facile basis for using scripture against Christians.

We obviously must make judgments in life. We must judge Sandusky to have performed evil, if indeed he did what his worst accusers say. We must judge Paterno as to have abetted evil, if indeed he admits he understood the gravity of the situation and did nothing out of fear or self-interest.

But we do not condemn. We do not take revenge on men. We punish insofar as the specter of civil unrest (to which Carter and Dreher contribute with their precipitate dudgeon) require of us in prevention; earthly justice is nothing but a poor simulacrum of the Lord’s Justice, done to appease low fantasies of making the wounded whole again. A Christian polity’s “corrections” system, in a perfect world, is about incarceration, prevention, and rehabilitation, not retribution or punishment.

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”

That’s just it.

It is the act of defining life as being, first and foremost, about personal pleasure – and sexuality as being, first and foremost, about personal pleasure – that makes it really incredible when people pretend to be outraged on behalf of the children.

You who worship your own body and its pleasures, you KILL children. You don’t care about children. You use them and you hurt them. You justify sucking the brains out without even administering painkillers first. Because life, for you, is about yourself, your own pleasure, and that comes before a child.

So spare me the pretending that pedophiles are somehow different. Promiscuous women murder babies, and that’s okay. Gay families make kids pretend that a stepfather is a mother, that having an intact family or an honest identity is irrelevant – they rape their kids’ minds – and that’s okay. All of you have created a culture where children are sexualized from age six, watch sex on TV from age three, defend the people who sell push-up bras to kids who don’t even have breasts yet, and now we have a culture where kids routinely lose their virginity before they hit middle school. This is the world you wanted: YOU were the ones who chose to sacrifice children – and their innocence – so that your sex drive could be free from restrictions, and who cares if that makes the world ugly for children? Who cares how a broken marriage hurts a child, as long as Mom is sexually satisfied?

But pedophilia – that’s different! Not because it hurts children but because it disgusts you.