When the bad guys have pushed that kind of thing sufficiently, they will then take the next step. In fact, their agenda is far enough along that they have already been taking it. What’s with that tired old category consensual? The first place that this comes under assault is with age of consent laws. Those laws presuppose the old order of Christendom, and a childhood protected from sexual predations was a cultural artifact of the Christian gospel. I thank God for it. The apostles of Progress are trying to dismantle the entire thing, and I really don’t think we should be helping them in any way.
Douglas Wilson
3 Comments
Comments are closed.
Isn’t Wilson being hypocritical when he was willing to give Wight a pass as being in a courtship, rather than being a sexual predator? That is, if I’m reading his *wordsmithyness* correctly.
@Darlene: Yes, you have read it correctly, but it’s actually worse. In order to defend Jamin Wight, Doug Wilson had to completely demolish Idaho’s age of consent laws, which protected her. So when he wrote, “The first place that this comes under assault is with age of consent laws,” he described his actions with regard to Natalie. He assaulted the age of consent law, in order to defend Wight from the just charge of sexual assault of a child under 16 years of age.
Of course, the irony is that Wilson says that if were the devil, he would do exactly as he did.
Clarification: I specifically referring to the part in Wilson’s quote: “Those laws presuppose the old order of Christendom, and a childhood protected from sexual predations was a cultural artifact of the Christian gospel.”
Wilson wasn’t too keen I viewing Wight as a sexual predator in Natalie’s case, but rather sought to hide Wight’s crimes by calling what occurred in Wight’s and Natalie’s case as a “courtship.” Hence, he has placed blame on Natalie for the crimes Wight committed. I wouldn’t call that being willing to protect predators for the sake of the gospel.