Of Pride and Pedophilia
Discover more from The Common Man
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Friends, I’m sure you’ve heard by now that Pat Robertson died. I’m not exactly a card-carrying member of the 700 Club, but you can’t tell the story of Christianity in America without mentioning that old war horse. May God remember him forever.
In 1993, Robertson appeared on an episode of William F. Buckley’s television program Firing Line. It was a two-hour special, a debate between two teams of four. The topic was, “Resolved: That We Need Not Fear the Religious Right”. Robertson argued for the affirmative alongside Buckley, Henry J. Hyde, and Jacob Neusner. They were opposed by Ira Glasser, Cornel West, Barry W. Lynn, and Harriett Woods.
(If any of those names don’t ring a bell, that’s okay. I’ll introduce the relevant parties.)
The whole thing is nearly two hours long, and you really should watch it all. One particular exchange between Hyde and Lynn made my jaw hit the floor.
Henry J. Hyde was a longserving member of Congress, a conservative Catholic who lent his name to the Hyde Amendment. Reverend Barry W. Lynn is a minister in the United Church of Christ, one of the largest “mainline” Protestant denominations in the country. Until 2017, he also served as president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
HYDE: “Is there a constitutional right to produce or to view child pornography?”
LYNN: “The American Civil Liberties Union thinks there is.”
HYDE: “What do you think?”
LYNN: “What do I think? Yeah. I happen to have worked for the American Civil Liberties Union, and I agreed with that position.”
(…)
HYDE: “As a leader in the field of civil rights, and as a clergyman, I just wanted to know.”
LYNN: “As a clergyman, if you want me to condemn in the strongest words possible the people who provide and promote child pornography, I’m happy to do it. I’m happy to use moral suasion to say that I don’t believe that people should drink alcohol in this country, and I know that makes me a very conservative person. But I can’t tell my own children not to use drugs and alcohol if I’m using alcohol myself.”
Remember, Ira Glasser—then head of the ACLU—was debating alongside Lynn. He easily could have objected to Lynn’s characterization of his organization. Yet he chose not to.
And remember, when you legalize a category of pornography, you legalize the underlying act. You can’t pass a law saying that child-rape is legal so long as you film it and sell the footage. No: you have to make raping children itself legal. So, that’s what Lynn and Glasser and the ACLU were really advocating for: the right for men to have sex with little boys and girls.
Folks, my motto is: “When someone tells you they’re evil, believe them.”
Rod Dreher recently published an article on his Substack about “How cultural elites once justified pedophilia, and will do it again.” He’s right, of course. Yet we may not realize just how open these elites were about their support for pedophiles. It wasn’t just (obvious) weirdos like Allen Ginsberg and NAMBLA. It was also respectable, progressive “influencers” like Lynn and Glasser. And they did it on national television!
Part of the reason I ask that you watch the entire debate is that, earlier in the debate, Lynn repeatedly accuses Pat Robertson as trying to build a “theocracy.” He uses the word over and over again. “Theocracy.” And then, just a few moments later, not only does he defend child porn: he implicitly defends himself by suggesting it’s a mainstream view. Hey, it’s not just me!
Now, look. Obviously, I’m not saying that all supporters of the LGBT movement are pedophiles or pro-pedophilia. I usually try to avoid this kind of throat-clearing language, but I know some conservative Christians who assume that every man with same-sex attraction is a nonce until proven innocent. That’s wrong. It goes against the basic principle of Christian charity. It drives those men away from Christ. And (not for nothing) it gives ammunition to the LGBT movement.
Here’s what I am saying: From the beginning, elite members of the gay-rights movement have also been pro-pedo. Even in the Nineties, they were a little uncomfortable talking about it publicly. So, they decided to table that part of their agenda for a while. But it never went away. They were just keeping their powder dry.
The recent push to create legal protections for MAPs (“minor-attracted persons”) didn’t fall out of the clear blue sky. They’ve been planning this for years. And what we’re seeing now is only the beginning.
If you don’t watch the whole debate, please at least take a hard look at the good Reverend’s face. (That’s him at the top of the post.) Note the big goofy glasses, the button-collar shirt, the lax-bro flow. He looks like every small-town minister I ever met in my Yankee-Protestant youth. He’s a vision of respectabiliy, of modernation—of enlightened, pragmatic religion. And he’s about to defend kiddie porn.
In fairness, Lynn did call it “disgusting.” That last paragraph of dialogue I quoted sure does make it sound like he watches (or watched) child porn himself, but maybe he was just having trouble getting his thoughts out. Either way, I believe that, deep down, he is (or was) disgusted. Yet, by that point in his life, he had become so enmeshed in the liberal establishment that he couldn’t say, “It should be illegal to sell videos of grown men raping little boys and girls.” He just couldn’t bring himself to do it.
Barry W. Lynn sold his soul.
Mark my words. In five or ten years, there will be Christians—from all denominations—lining up to make the “Christian case” for pedophilia. That will include the clergy, even the Catholic clergy. They’ll talk about how biblical ethics have to “evolve,” how the Church needs to “update” its teachings. They’ll say that, by opposing them, we (the orthodox) are “denying that our MAP brothers and sisters are made in the image and likeness of God.”
And, of course, eight seconds after the New York Times decides that we humans have a fundamental right to rape children, everyone who disagrees will be called a “bigot.” If you’re a Christian, you’ll be accused of trying to build a “theocracy.” And so on. By now, we all know how it works.
Yet that means that, when the time comes, we have no excuse. We can’t plead ignorance. Everyone who plays along with the pro-MAP movement will be selling his soul.
Please, friend, don’t be one of them.