Kenyan Mall Jihadists Have Ties to United States
As we read more about the ongoing murderous attack by Muslim jihadists on the Kenyan upscale mall, where the terrorists purposefully avoided murdering Muslims, we learn from the now-terminated al Shabaab Twitter account the names of the jihadists and where they’re from. Looks like at least six were from American cities . . . .
According to reports, the jihadist group claiming responsibility for the attack declared that it was retaliation for Kenya’s involvement in the ongoing conflict in Somalia. Note that it was not long ago that U.S. Somalis were speaking out against CAIR and its minions who in turn were trying to brow beat the small Somali community in the U.S. (mostly based in Minneapolis) to not cooperate with American officials who were trying to track young Somali Muslim men who were disappearing from their homes on their own little haj to fight jihad in Africa. For reference:
How Republicans Aid and Abet Obama’s Lawlessness
AFLC Advisory Board member Andy McCarthy says what was needed to be said in an article on National Review Online on the wanton violation of the material support laws by the Obama administration and the Republicans involvement in that lawlessness. But what needs pondering is how fast this country has changed after the aerial jihad of 9/11 left so many of our countrymen dead to a country that is prepared to provide military aid and support to the very groups that are allied with the jihadists who carried out 9/11. That is not simply the phenomenon of America’s infamously short memory, that is a deep psychosis and self-hatred.
Read the full article here.
AFLC Making an Impact: Named in CAIR’s “Islamophobia” Report
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which bills itself as “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” released a so-called report last Thursday entitled, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States,” which purports to identify dozens of organizations “dedicated to promoting anti-Islam prejudice in America.” In the report, CAIR awarded the American Freedom Law Center and AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi the distinction of being part of the “inner core” of the ”Islamophobia network.” Predictably, several major news outlets have covered the report, including the Washington Post, which quoted AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise in a surprisingly balanced article posted here.
For some time now, the mainstream media has carried on the notion that groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR are legitimate organizations that objectively highlight individuals and groups that promote “hate” in America. In reality, these groups are left-wing propaganda mouthpieces that hold hands with the media to advance their agendas through misinformation and duplicity. However, while the Southern Poverty Law Center is essentially a self-serving fundraising machine masquerading as a civil rights organization, CAIR has a proven track record of dangerously waging stealth jihad within our borders.
Indeed, CAIR is the largest Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in America. After three years of litigation against CAIR in federal court in Washington, D.C., AFLC has uncovered facts demonstrating that CAIR has been running a global criminal money laundering operation out of the nation’s capitol . . .
Rest assured, AFLC will continue its successful fight against stealth jihad in all of its forms!
Posted in Uncategorized
CAIR — the Largest Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas Front Group in America — is Running a Money Laundering Operation
The largest Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in America is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After three years of litigation in federal court in Washington, D.C., AFLC has uncovered facts demonstrating that CAIR has been running a global criminal money laundering operation out of the nation’s capitol.
The money laundering scheme was discovered in the course of legal discovery in unrelated federal litigation arising out of allegations by five of CAIR’s former clients that CAIR defrauded them by failing to provide the legal services they had been promised. (See here for the latest update in that case).
While CAIR bills itself as the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, it has been named by the U.S. Department of Justice in federal litigation as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial, the nation’s largest terrorism finance prosecution to date, resulting in convictions in 2008 for all five leaders of the terrorist financing ring operating as the Holy Land Foundation Muslim charity. Prison sentences ranged from 20 years to 65 years.
As brought out in the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial, CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were participants in the conspiracy, although not formally charged. These two men formed CAIR in 1994 in an effort to create a front organization to further the Muslim Brotherhood goals in this country. But, like many criminal fronts, CAIR itself turns out to be a criminal organization.
Part of CAIR’s criminal operations included representing itself to be a public interest law firm created to protect the civil rights of Muslim Americans. In reality, however, CAIR has unlawfully employed non-lawyers to engage in legal services. In one case, CAIR employed a man by the name of Morris Days as its “Resident Attorney” who claimed to represent hundreds of CAIR clients in various state and federal litigation matters. In reality, CAIR and its “Resident Attorney” were not filing any actual lawsuits on behalf of these clients. Moreover, after the fraud was discovered, CAIR attempted to cover-up the whole affair with threats of litigation against the victims and finally with payoffs to other potential witnesses.
AFLC represents five of these former CAIR “clients” who had sought out CAIR’s legal services for various matters, including workplace discrimination, immigration, and family law matters. Three of these former CAIR clients are Muslims, including two African Americans and a Pakistani.
Specifically, in 2010, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against CAIR on behalf of these CAIR victims, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After several years of legal discovery, which required Yerushalmi to go to court on numerous occasions to compel CAIR to turn over documents, which in turn led the court to warn CAIR’s in-house counsel, Nadhira Al-Khalili, that her conduct was unprofessional and would result in the court filing a formal Bar complaint against her if it did not cease. That case is now awaiting the court’s ruling on the extent of CAIR’s liability.
In the midst of gathering evidence to prove the plaintiffs’ case, AFLC discovered a massive criminal money laundering organization run out of CAIR’s D.C. offices. The scheme was created in 2005 by CAIR, which at the time was an IRS-approved 501(c)(4) lobbying organization. CAIR’s problem was that as a registered lobbying group it had to report to the IRS the source of funds received over $5,000. The specific problem was that CAIR was receiving millions of dollars from oil-rich Gulf Arabs, the same sources who were also financing the Muslim Brotherhood to prepare for the “Arab Spring” and even Al Qaeda operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. CAIR’s expensive headquarters in the nation’s capitol was financed with a one million dollar grant from a Saudi Arabian bank. At one point, CAIR even sought one million dollars from Libya’s now dead strong man, Moamar Ghaddafi, in an effort to distribute to Muslim Americans Qurans with an Islamist translation and commentary together with Muslim Brotherhood literature.
To avoid reporting these millions of dollars from the dubious Islamist sources and to avoid registering as an agent for a foreign sovereign as required by federal law, CAIR created a separate company called CAIR-Foundation, Inc., to serve as an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) charitable organization. CAIR itself quit filing any federal tax returns from 2008-2010 and allowed the IRS to withdraw its status as a 501(c)(4), converting itself to a regular for-profit corporation. CAIR also stopped all of its operations and became simply a holding company, transferring, at least on the books, all of its employees and equipment to CAIR Foundation.
The result is that CAIR now receives millions of dollars from foreign Islamist sources every year, but only has to report the amounts of its income and not its sources. CAIR then transfers these monies to CAIR Foundation as loans or grants, and CAIR Foundation then only has to report its source as CAIR. The result is a criminal money laundering operation that allows CAIR to funnel millions of dollars from dubious foreign sources into a lobbying group fronting as a charity without the legally required disclosure of sources.
Indeed, CAIR is so brazen about its operation that it maintains only one website for CAIR, which does not even mention CAIR Foundation. In this way, CAIR receives smaller donations from presumably Muslim Americans made payable to “CAIR,” thus allowing CAIR to decide which “CAIR” will get the money. These small U.S. donations are then deposited into CAIR Foundation’s bank account, which in turn reports these small innocuous donations to the IRS. The big money transfers from the Gulf, however, are conveniently deposited in the CAIR bank account, which does not require any disclosure of the source of the funds. This presents no problem to the Gulf Islamist terror financiers because they are obviously not looking for a U.S. tax deduction. What CAIR does not explain of course is why a Gulf Arab would be transferring these kinds of sums to a holding company that has no employees or operations.
An interesting, but as yet unanswered question is why the IRS would have registered CAIR Foundation as a legitimate 501(c)(3) organization in 2005? An even more intriguing question is why, in 2012, the IRS re-registered CAIR Foundation as a legitimate 501(c)(3) charitable organization, particularly after it had lost its status because it failed to file the organization’s federal tax reports (on IRS form 990) for three consecutive years and in light of the obvious illegal use of CAIR as a money laundering front? This, at a time when the IRS was improperly holding up conservative and pro-Israel groups’ applications for the same 501(c)(3) status causes even heightened concerns.
CAIR’s criminal financial operations raise a whole host of questions the IRS and the Department of Justice should be investigating. The obvious question to be asked now is whether the IRS can get past its politically-motivated witch hunt of the Tea Party and pro-Israel groups and whether the Department of Justice will finally prosecute CAIR and its founders for their direct and indirect involvement in the material support of terrorism.
Former Clinton Foundation Official Arrested for Inciting Violent Jihad
Hillary Clinton had Huma Abedin and Bill Clinton had Gehad el-Haddad. The surprising storyline of the Clintons’ affinity for Muslim Brotherhood-linked employees took another turn this week when former top Clinton Foundation official Gehad el-Haddad, now a Muslim Brotherhood operative, was arrested in Cairo for inciting violent jihad. According to the Free Beacon,
El-Haddad gained a reputation for pushing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist agenda in the foreign press, where he was often quoted defending the Brotherhood’s crackdown on civil liberties in Egypt.
He was raised in a family of prominent Brotherhood supporters and became the public face of the Islamist organization soon after leaving his post at the Clinton Foundation.
Read the entire article here.
AFLC’s Defense of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) & Response to Critics
In a must see video, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise responds to critics of AFLC’s public policy initiative, American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which is model legislation that was drafted by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.
In this compelling video, Muise debunks the often repeated and wrongheaded criticisms of ALAC advanced by those with good intentions, such as Joe Carter, who criticized ALAC in “The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws
,” which was published in The Gospel Coalition Blog, and by those with evil in mind, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which objects to ALAC for obvious reasons: it undermines CAIR’s goal of imposing sharia in America.
Posted in Uncategorized
Islam and 9/11
Today, September 11, 2013, is a solemn day of remembrance for Americans. Or, at least it should be. For many of our fellow citizens, and for most of those who work inside the D.C. Beltway, the remembrance takes on a Kafkaesque quality. Yes, they too remember the 2,977 victims of this aerial jihad, but they have reduced in their minds the jihad to some generic extreme act of terrorism, without source, without doctrine, without purpose.
To be sure, we will all remember the innocent victims of 9/11/01. Indeed, we now have the Benghazi 9/11 victims to recall as well. Along with the U.S.S. Cole victims, the U.S. embassy bombing in Lebanon victims, the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon victims, the Fort Hood “Workplace Violence” attack victims, the Boston Marathon bombing victims, and many many more.
But, what is astounding about so many Americans and especially about our political leadership from both parties and the massive national security bureaucracies they now employ to keep us safe presumably is the absolute disconnect, or fear, to see the Islamic elephant in the room and around the globe. Terrorists who murder in the name of Islam are jihadists or mujahideen, as they term themselves. The doctrine they all follow, even though they speak different languages, come from different countries and cultures, and even from different Islamic sects, is sharia or Islamic law. Hundreds of millions of Muslims understand this law as binding on them as a matter of religious divine dictate and they also understand that it requires a global political hegemony called a caliphate where every man, woman and child is ruled by sharia. That is, if you blaspheme Allah, the Prophet, Islam, or the Umma, you may very well be subject to death. We of course call this blasphemy free speech. If you apostatize from Islam, you will be subject to death. We of course call this apostasy religious freedom.
Now, to be sure, there are presumably hundreds of millions of men, women, and children who consider themselves Muslims and practitioners of Islam who reject classical, traditional, and authoritative sharia. They wish to be peaceful and respectful of others. But even granting this as empirically true, all that means is that there is an Islam that seeks global dominion through violence if necessary, and another Islam beating in the hearts of otherwise good people. Moreover, a studied or even a quick look at the Muslim world demonstrates beyond any reasonable argument that the politicized, militarized, violent, and aggressive Islam is dominant, or at least, dominating events across the Muslim world and wrecking havoc in our Western world.
Yet, the Beltway types and the leftists and even the libertarian types refuse to acknowledge what we all see daily in the news. They claim these acts are not of the “true” Islam. The problem they have, of course, is that they cannot tell us how to distinguish true Islam from untrue Islam without relying on an incoherent tautology. That is, when asked how they know which is “true” Islam, they say it is the one they deem peaceful. The problem with this definitional bootstrapping beyond the illogic of it all is that the politicized, militarized, violent, and aggressive Islam has the better doctrinal and historical pedigree. Moreover, muscled Islam also seems to have captured the hearts, even if only passively, of a solid majority of the Muslims who have been surveyed around the Muslim world. Thus, year after year, survey after survey, a majority of Muslims tell us that they desire a global caliphate ruled by sharia, imposing capital punishment for blasphemers and apostates.
So, how is it possible that we don’t remember this connection to Islam on 9/11? The answer my friends is not blowing in the wind. It is the existential truth that is now the progressive West. We hold no truths to be self-evident except that there are no truths, at least there are no truths that cannot be quantified by mathematical physics. If a thing cannot be measured or placed within a probability equation, it is no longer certain and it must therefore be belief. Beliefs, or what we typically call in modern parlance, opinions, are notoriously uncertain, fleeting, and malleable. Our “belief” in the uniqueness and the superiority of our country, of our political system, of Western civilization is no longer an article of faith, and thus true. It is but one opinion among many other equally uncertain opinions or beliefs. Who are we to judge Islam or jihad? Let’s just reduce it all to body counts and call it a kind of extremism or generic terror or workplace violence. It is not for us to look up from the sand in which we’ve buried our heads to see the rampaging Islamic elephant.
We shall not judge another man’s Islamic beliefs. No, we shall only remember things that can be measured. All else, Gd, family, country, these things have no truth of existence based in a common Judeo-Christian faith. They are to be reduced to “things” that can be measured and reconfigured like a mathematical equation. What was once our Founders’ Gd, is now humanism. What was once our beloved and sacred country, is now the Global Village predicated upon transnationalism devoid of borders and full of merely temporarily undocumented workers. What was once our family, is now torn asunder and reduced to body counts of two things, be they men, women, or presumably any two (or more?) bodies moving in time and space.
With so many “things” to remember and no faith to anchor our existence, with but beliefs and random opinions to be counted daily by pollsters to tell us the “truth” of the numbers, is it hard to understand why we don’t remember what needs to be remembered on 9/11?
Posted in Uncategorized
AFLC Month in Review: August 2013
We are pleased to report to our supporters each month our significant activities and accomplishments, all of which are made possible by your generous support. Here are the highlights for August 2013:
On August 5, we announced that we negotiated a settlement agreement on behalf of our clients, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and its executive director, Frank Gaffney, to end a federal lawsuit filed last year concerning the use of the well-known slogan, “Peace through Strength,” which was popularized by President Ronald Reagan as he led America to victory in the Cold War. A small policy organization trademarked the slogan and subsequently sued our clients for using it. After we took up the fight, the organization caved in and agreed to cancel the trademark and pay a portion of CSP’s legal costs.
On August 6, we filed our reply brief in support of our motion for summary disposition, arguing that former Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown‘s defamation suit against our client, Ericah Caughey, is frivolous and should therefore be dismissed. On August 7, AFLC Co-Founder & Senior Counsel Robert Muise presented oral argument in support of our motion in a Michigan state circuit court.
On August 10, Muise was a guest speaker at a conference in Michigan that discussed the topic, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” The conference was well attended and informative.
On August 13, Muise was a guest speaker at an event sponsored by a Catholic men’s group. The topic of his speech was Islam and the U.S. Constitution.
On August 16, we filed a motion for summary judgment in a Michigan federal court, asking the court to rule that the refusal of a Detroit-area transportation authority to run a “Leaving Islam” advertisement on its buses violated the U.S. Constitution. This week, we are filing a lengthy brief in opposition to the transportation authority’s motion for summary judgment.
On August 19, we filed a federal lawsuit challenging Obama’s newly announced regulations regarding the application of the Obamacare contraceptive services mandate to religious organizations. The lawsuit was filed in D.C. federal court on behalf of Priests for Life; Father Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests for Life; Dr. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Pastoral Associate and Director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life; and Janet Morana, the Executive Director of Priests for Life. Our lawsuit alleges that the new regulations violate the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing religious organization to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
On August 20, we filed our reply brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of our petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to review and reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decision that dismissed the civil rights lawsuit of Crystal Dixon, who was fired by the University of Toledo for expressing her personal viewpoint on homosexuality in an op-ed in a local newspaper.
On August 20, Muise also had the privilege of participating as a guest speaker in a national webcast to discuss religious liberty in America. The webcast was hosted by Priests for Life and Fr. Pavone. Other guest speakers included Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Senator Rick Santorum.
On August 21, in a victory for AFLC, a federal judge entered a final order permanently halting the enforcement of a City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, ordinance that prohibited a pro-life advocate from displaying a “Free Ultrasound” sign in his vehicle, which he parks outside of a local Planned Parenthood. The order also requires the City to pay $7,000 in legal fees and to reimburse the demonstrator the $50 he had to pay in past fines.
On August 28, we filed our reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in defense of several Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a Muslim mob for preaching the Gospel at the 2012 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. The brief demonstrates that the law enforcement officers present at the scene had a constitutional duty to protect the Christians from the attack.
On August 30, we filed our opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking the court to overturn the denial of our clients’ trademark application for “Stop Islamisation of America” and “SIOA,” which the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s (TTAB) concluded was disparaging to Muslims. In our brief, we argue that the term “Islamisation” is not a disparaging term, but rather refers to a political movement to implement Islamic law or sharia as the law of the land.
Posted in Uncategorized
Homosexuality, Morality & the Reciprocal
The (allegedly) Republican Governor of NJ, Chris Christie, recently made headlines (and received accolades from secular progressive liberals) when he banned “gay conversion therapy,” thus normalizing deviance. See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/19/nj-gov-christie-signs-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy/.
In 2009, AFLC’s Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi penned an insightful essay that, in light of the Governor’s actions, the Supreme Court’s “same-sex marriage” decision, and the general decay of morality in our society, is a must read for all concerned citizens. It is reproduced below:
The legal dynamic duo of Ted Olson and David Boies have made the news and the talk-show rounds promoting their lawsuit on behalf of gay marriage. Olson, a conservative Republican former Solicitor General, and Boies, a liberal Democrat who is known as a litigator’s litigator, were once adversaries locked in the epic battle over Florida chads, which ultimately played out in the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Now, the two men have joined forces to beat back the gay-bashing Christian hordes in California who dared to amend the state constitution to insist that marriage should be preserved as a union between one man and one woman.
The dynamic duo’s legal case, laid out in interviews and various op-ed essays, notably by Boies in a July 20th oped in the Wall Street Journal, is based on a three-tiered argument that begins at the level of social science, elevates itself to science proper, and then concludes at the moral level. Robert J. Loewenberg of the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies has termed this argument the Reciprocal. Meaning, if you can reduce the basis of a political discourse to science or mathematical symbol, you win because science permits no discrimination based upon value judgments. Alternatively, or reciprocally, if you reduce the argument to all that is not science, that is opinion or belief, you win as well since society may never discriminate between any two things once the differentiation is understood as unscientific. The dirty little secret of the Reciprocal is that nothing today is admitted to being anything but science or belief. In a word, the Reciprocal rules all. Point-game-match.
Thus, the first leg of the dynamic duo’s case for the constitutionality of gay marriage is that there is no “legitimate” policy to deny homosexuals the “fundamental right” to marry a same sex partner. By “legitimate” they mean rational, as in validated by data collected by social scientists. Proposition 8 in California, therefore, is illegitimate because there is no basis in social science to prohibit gay marriages. This reliance on social science as the poor cousin of the “hard” sciences is a respected argument in constitutional jurisprudence, but it has a difficult time standing fully on its own without some help from its more pedigreed hard science cousins. We will see this shoring up with hard science momentarily.
The specific social science argument in favor of gay marriage is that since gay unions have now been accepted as commonplace and we see no measurable (i.e., empirical) social, economic, or political harm in these unions, any moral argument against gay marriage is irrational. Even more specifically, since heterosexual marriage and family life is not affected deleteriously by granting homosexuals the same privilege, society’s bias in favor of opposite sex marriages that will produce naturally conceived children remains unharmed by eliminating any legal bias against homosexuals.
But, social science only goes so far, and the reason is that statistics applied to social phenomena are notoriously subject to manipulation. The Christian right often comes into court loaded with its own empirical-statistical evidence about the negative influence homosexual marriages will have on the children of these unions, typically adopted or artificially conceived. While the Christian social science advocates are at a distinct disadvantage since most social scientists with academic degrees will amass as a “consensus” in favor of the progressive no-harm side, the very hint that the social sciences are really nothing more than beliefs dressed up in empirical fact allows the ‘hard’ sciences to make an entry and rescue the argument from uncertainty.
The hard science argument in this case is based upon biology. Human sexuality is a fact of genetic composition, which in turn is a product of evolution. Even the age-old argument over homosexuality—nature or nurture or some combination thereof—has been denuded by evolutionary biology’s newest “discovery” that man like all matter is locked in an ever-evolving environmental process that precludes any rational person from claiming that evolved behavior X at time Y is somehow more moral or better in any scientific way than behavior not-X.
In the Journal op-ed authored by Boies, hard science’s shoring up is accomplished by declaring that even if homosexual marriage were in fact perceived by an overwhelming consensus in our society as a bad thing, homosexuality is a status determined by evolutionary biology and not subject to correction.
Once homosexuality has been turned into something akin to race (i.e., biological), all past discrimination becomes evil (meaning, scientifically irrational) and the legal argument, based upon 20th century jurisprudence, has been converted from rational basis to compelling interest. Now the state must show that gay marriage threatened harm to a compelling state interest and that there was no other less discriminatory fix available to protect this interest. As you can well imagine, the compelling interest argument is one that a state rarely musters successfully.
Having moved the argument from the rationality of statistics in the social sciences to the compelling certainty of biology, the dynamic duo’s argument finally comes to rest on the other side of the Reciprocal—morality or belief. This tack grants that a large segment of American society views the world through a Christian (sometimes referred to as the Judeo-Christian) moral lens and that this group has a First Amendment right to cling to their belief. However, because religion is mere opinion or belief and lacks the certainty of science or even the rationality of the social sciences, it can never be the basis for a discriminating law.
The problem with this argument against morality-based legislation, however, was foreseen by Justice Anton Scalia when the Supreme Court first appeared to embrace it in Lawrence v. Texas. There the Court, with Justice Kennedy authoring the majority opinion, concluded that the state’s moral basis for prohibiting homosexuals from engaging in sodomy was not rational. Left unsaid, but certainly implied, is the conclusion that this morality legislation prohibiting homosexual sodomy was not supported by either the hard or soft sciences. Without that “objective” rational basis, morality alone is an arbitrary and uncertain basis to deny a man his liberty to engage in private consensual sex with the object of his choosing.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia described the societal dilemma this new a-moral jurisprudence presented:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bower’s [the Court’s earlier decision on anti-sodomy laws] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
In other words, America’s constitutional law is now understood to prohibit laws forbidding behavior touching upon sex or any other “fundamental liberty” on moral grounds. Morality standing alone is mere belief, uncertain, and as such irrational, or at least not rational. While Justice Scalia provided a list of horribles that may no longer be penalized, his own listing failed “to cabin the scope” of the Court’s almost full-throated embrace of the Reciprocal.
Given the Court’s rejection of morality standing alone as a valid basis for criminalizing what most would consider aberrant or even deviant sexual conduct, what does the future hold for the most “immoral” of sexual perversions, i.e., pedophilia?
A year before Lawrence, in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, the Court was comfortable assuming that sex with children was “abusive” and, as so defined, “an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”. We must suppose, enlightened as we are by Lawrence, that what saves laws against pedophilia from being declared unconstitutional are not “the moral instincts of a decent people”, but rather the abusive nature inherent in the child-adult sexual relationship. Thus, social science can be employed to make the argument that children lack the maturity to consent to such behavior and that sex with a minor will result in substantial emotional harm to the child, which in turn will cause societal harm as the individual harm aggregates.
But the question must be asked: does science save us here? Is the Court right about the lack of mature consent necessarily constituting abuse, and is it inevitable or even probable that adult-child sex results in “empirical” harm to the child or to society?
Let’s begin with the consent issue. Do we as a society worry about a child’s inability to consent if adults wish to smile at the child? Do we worry about “consensual” waving at a child or playing peek-a-boo with an infant? Or, do we bother with consent issues when a parent convinces the child to brush her hair or to take a bath? No. And the reason we don’t is because none of these acts carry any “moral” opprobrium. They are what we might call morally neutral.
Similarly, a growing number of Americans don’t consider sex an act laden with moral overtones. Indeed, the atheist essayist Christopher Hitchens argues that Christian morality has destroyed man’s freedom to enjoy sex by imposing all sorts of religiously engendered taboos. So, why isn’t sex like washing your hands?
The answer, of course, is because our Judeo-Christian moral foundations say it is properly an intimate and essentially holy act to be vested in the divinely sanctioned institution of marriage between two adults of the opposite sex. Now, it is true that much of this Judeo-Christian foundation has eroded, but enough remains to inform us as a society that certain acts are “repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”.
But, Muslims who follow their prophet Mohammed, who, according to Islamic sources married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was but nine, find nothing wrong in forced marriages and therefore sexual relations with young prepubescent girls. The only reason Muslims would today find this behavior reprehensible is because they have absorbed Judeo-Christian standards (one reason to applaud colonialism).
Yet, Muslims are not alone in this rather approving attitude toward adult-child sex. In Japan, the national criminal code sets the age of consent at 13 (which is raised by law in certain local jurisdictions). So, there are certainly many people and societies who don’t view adult-child sex as “morally repugnant”.
What this means, of course, is that as a society we are concerned about coercive consent in sexual relationships because we have labeled sex something other than brushing our teeth. By imposing our “religious” filter on the act, we have elevated “consent” to some moral high ground. Yet, if we were to remove the religious or subjective moral filter and rely upon science, any claim about the morality of pedophilia based upon the “moral instincts of a decent people” is on its face vacuous. Devoid of our unscientific “moral instinct” unique to a “decent people”—at least in our case that means the Judeo-Christian moral instinct—you can know nothing about the virtue or vice of pedophilia.
Indeed, if we move onto the second argument, which claims that there is a rational, empirical basis for a secular law against pedophilia, the logic is at best tentative and at worst circular. The tentative argument rests on a social science analysis of the individual and societal costs of such behavior. But, this means that if science can marshal enough empirical evidence to show that consensual, non-violent, adult-child sex is not harmful, the rational basis for such laws would evaporate. Indeed, social scientists have already gathered empirical evidence which suggests that child-adult sex at a young age, even in our current religiously-biased society, does not necessarily lead to subsequent trauma and this, the researchers argue, should lead to a more nuanced and scientifically enlightened approach. (See, Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. & Bauserman, R. (1998). “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), pp. 22-53.)
But more than tentative, this argument turns out to be circular. What would happen if our society adopted the secular, scientific view of sex? That is, sex is not a divinely sanctioned act between a married man and woman but simply a biological urge to reproduce and play in the Darwinian arena of survival.
Arguably, the only reason adult-child sex might cause a child emotional or psychological harm is because our society starts with the Judeo-Christian premise about sex and such behavior. If children were taught by their guardians, peers, and society at large that sex was like brushing one’s teeth, how could they be traumatized by it?
What this means to the secular “social science” adherent is that pedophilia is not morally wrong because that characterization is meaningless to science and wholly subjective and arbitrary as a social norm. Indeed, given the science-belief Reciprocal, we are but one vote away from embracing a moral positivism predicated upon science devoid of Judeo-Christian foundations. In this way, we (as in a majority) could merely agree (democratically of course) to treat sex of all types like brushing your teeth. It might not be something we’d do in public, but it certainly ought not to carry any moral opprobrium. A child who had sex at age 5 or 9 would be like a child who brushed her teeth at that age and of absolutely no concern to society (presumably it would still make sense to make it a crime to cause a child physical harm).
But alas, this whole discussion becomes absurd because no decent Jew or Christian would tolerate such a view of the world. And even those among us who reject such religious affiliations understand still today that child-sex is morally repugnant. But this is so because we as a people have embraced the Judeo-Christian moral compass even as so many mindlessly mouth objection to it.
Yet with each passing day, with each scientific advancement or “progress”, we lose sight of that compass. And, to remove that compass from us altogether—as the Court has done in Lawrence and as our dynamic duo suggests we do now with the institution of marriage—is to render our society no society at all but a mass of homogenous solitary particles of matter combining in endless but ultimately meaningless ways, bound only by the laws binding all matter, everywhere. And, as all political societies progress closer to this certainty of the science-opinion Reciprocal devoid of any common faith in transcendent truth, we move inexorably closer to the Reciprocal’s political articulation in the science-democracy one world order.
And, it is not hard to predict the future. Today, to speak in public of the moral abomination of homosexual conduct is to be set up for ridicule and, in some jurisdictions in Europe, possibly an indictment for hate-speech. But this was not always the case. Just a few years ago, it was a crime to engage in such behavior. As was the case with adultery and other such “moral offenses”. But in the science-democracy political order, we embrace “scientific advancement” as a measure of both time and social-political progress. In our new world order, we view technological advancement as human advancement simply. We have reduced “being” in human being to a historical ontology based upon the movement of matter. In a word, we have rid ourselves of what it means to be Man and replaced it with literally nothing.
Posted in Uncategorized