Over the course of time, my colleagues and I at Liberty Tree have made observations concerning the impact that sexual anarchy has and will have on our culture. The most alarming observation is how the removal of sexual boundaries and morality is lending itself to the “final frontier” of sexual anarchy: the institutional legitimization of adult-child sexual relationships.
There are those, of course, who attempt to dismiss such concerns as complete exaggeration. It appears, though, that those who take this attitude choose to ignore credible evidence.
Although such evidence continues to emerge, as cited in past Liberty Tree commentaries and other places, I recently discovered an alarming testimony made years ago concerning this issue. As a member of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography in the 1980s, Dr. James Dobson said:
I will never forget a particular set of photographs shown to us at our first hearing in Washington, D.C. It focused on a cute, nine-year old boy who had fallen into the hands of a molester. In the first picture, the blonde lad was fully clothed and smiling at the camera. But in the second, he was nude, dead and had a butcher knife protruding from his chest. I served for 14 years as a member of a medical school faculty and thought I had seen it all. But my knees buckled and tears came to my eyes as these and hundreds of other photographs of children were presented showing pitiful boys and girls with their rectums enlarged to accommodate adult males and their vaginas penetrated with pencils, toothbrushes and guns.
Perhaps the reader can understand my anger and disbelief when a representative (Barry Lynn) for the American Civil Liberties Union, testified a few minutes later. He advocated the free exchange of pornography, all pornography, in the marketplace. He was promptly asked about material depicting children such as those we had seen. This man said, with a straight face, that it is the ACLU’s position that child pornography should not be produced, but once it is in existence, there should be no restriction on its sale and distribution. In other words, the photographic record of a child’s molestation and abuse should be a legal source of profit for those who wish to reproduce, sell, print and distribute it for the world to see. And that, he said, was the intent of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
As has been noted before in Liberty Tree articles, there was once a time when protecting our children from harm was a responsibility taken seriously by the culture. Consider the social movements that arose to challenge the old “sweat shops.” Why is the moral protection of childhood innocence any less significant?
Now, however, children are merely another marketable commodity in virtually every endeavor including pornography and deviant sexual behavior. Very dangerous ground, indeed.