Pedophilia and Politics

If any thing has shown us that education about pedophilia is necessary in America today, it is the 660 million dollar payoff by the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles this week to victims of sexual abuse by clergy. Many don’t know that half of the payoff is being paid by insurance companies because the church actually had insurance against pedophilia accusations!

The number of children in America who have been victims of sexual abuse by adults is astonishing. According to the 1998 Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls, 7% of girls in grammar school are sexually abused. 67% of all reported sexual abuse is perpetrated on minors-- One third to grammar school age children.

Because of this, Barack Obama, mentioned this week that young children should be taught about inappropriate touching and how to protect themselves from pedophiles. Of course, Republican Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, immediately shot back in defense of Pedophiles everywhere. He accused Obama of wanting to teach “sex education” in kindergarten. Of course this was the same foundless accusation leveled by Alan Keyes in his failed race against the Senator. Obama has promoted “age-appropriate” education of our young people for their protection, and the right wing has overreacted again. Of course, these are the same people who believe pedophilia is connected to homosexuality. (You can read more about Catholic priests and the debunking of that myth here:

The right wing’s obsessions with sex, may actually be the cause of increased pedophilia, and other forms of sexual assault. Ex-priest and psychotherapist A.W.Richard Sipe, stated “There's strong psychological research showing that sexual deprivation can lead a person to turn to children.” Teaching kids that sex is “dirty, sinful, or depraved” and creating an atmosphere of secrecy in disseminating information about the subject, can put our children at risk both physically and psychologically. So which is more immoral, Obama’s desire to protect our children, or Romney’s desire to once again bury his head in the sand?

General Pace and Gays

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made statements this last week, that from a moral standpoint were offensive for many reasons other than the one's that were reported. When asked about the "don't ask-don't tell" policy of the armed serviced, yes, he said that it was his opinion that homosexuality was immoral. That statement alone is the one on which the media focused and that is unfortunate. Being offended by someone's moral opinion is rather silly and for those who truly care about this country, liberals should have known better than to get sucked into this trap. By debating the "morality" of homosexuality, many made the point for the conservatives. The truly offensive things said by the General were that the purpose of the army is not to"condone immoral acts" and also that he said, "I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." Believing something to be personally moral or immoral is the right of every citizen of this country. But is the General saying that the purpose of the Army is to be moral? Or, is he saying that accepting homosexuals into the service makes the purpose of the army immoral? The purpose of the army is actually not to decide for the public what is moral or immoral. Ironically, since even Rush Limbaugh says that the purpose of the army is to kill and break things, it is clear that an army is often more effective when morally desensitized--An army that can kill without compunction. General Pace could have made a more effective argument if he had simply pontificated on the blight of co-ed shower situations. As it was, his decision to defend the policy on "moral" grounds was a lot like getting a lecture on diet from Luciano Pavarotti (believe it or not he had a chapter in his first book on this subject).