Atheist morality: Seattle’s gay Democrat mayor resigns after child sex abuse allegations

Young people seem to like gay marriage more than they like individual liberties
Young people seem to like gay marriage more than they like individual liberties

The main thing I remember about this man is that he strongly pushed for gay marriage in the state of Washington, and that he was celebrated by atheists when gay marriage became the law in Washington. Everyone was proud of him, proud of gay marriage, and proud of their state, because this is the kind of morality that atheists champion.

The far-left New York Times reports:

The mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray, said on Tuesday that he would resign after announcing in May that he would not seek a second term. Several men have comeforward to accuse Mr. Murray of sexually abusing them decades ago, when they were underage.

The announcement came just hours after The Seattle Times published a story with an account by a fifth man, Mr. Murray’s cousin, who said Mr. Murray had abused him in the 1970s.

[..]Mr. Murray, 62, a Democrat, is the city’s first openly gay mayor, and had served in the State Legislature for many years before being elected in 2013.

[…]The liberal Mr. Murray is generally considered a father of Washington’s same-sex marriage law, which he pressed in the State Legislature for years.

The radically-leftist New York Times isn’t about to tell you what this Democrat gay-marriage activist actually did – that’s not news that’s fit to print. For that you have to go to Life Site News.

Gay activist Terry Bean and Barack Obama
Gay activist Terry Bean and Barack Obama

Not the first time

Here’s some Democrat concern for the chldren, reported in the far-left CNN, of all places. Headline: “Obama backer, Democratic fundraiser Terry Bean charged in sexual abuse case”.

Excerpt:

A prominent supporter of President Barack Obama and co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign was arrested last week on charges of sodomy and sexual abuse related to what authorities said was an encounter with a juvenile male.

Terrence Bean, 66, a major Democratic donor and a celebrated gay-rights activist, was indicted on two felony charges of sodomy and a misdemeanor count of sexual abuse by a grand jury and arrested in Oregon Wednesday, according to a statement from the Portland Police Bureau.

[…]The charges relate to an alleged encounter the two had with a 15-year-old boy in Oregon last year, The Oregonian reported. Bean’s attorney has denied the charges and said in a statement that Bean is the “victim of an extortion ring.” CNN is not naming the alleged victim because the network does not identify minors or victims of sexual assaults.

[…]Bean, a real-estate developer and co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign, is a powerful figure in Democratic politics.

The Oregonian reported that he helped raise more than half a million dollars for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, and Federal Election Commission records show he’s contributed thousands to Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others.

Photos posted online show him with the Obamas, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and aboard Air Force One with the President.

In remarks at a 2009 Human Rights Campaign dinner, President Obama thanked Bean, calling him a “great friend and supporter.”

This goes right to the top of the Democrat party. Gay activists are connected to people at the top of the Democrat party. When a person votes Democrat, they’re either pedophiles themselves or they are (effectively) voting for increased normalization of pedophilia.

Pedophilia is nothing but the elevation of the desires of selfish adults over the protection of children. And we already know where the Democrats stand on that – we just have to look at how they reconcile irresponsible recreational sex with the right to life of the unborn. This is the party of adult selfishness. They don’t care about the needs of children at all. They see children as commodities, instead of people made in the image of God in order to know God.

Objective morality for atheists

I have a friend who is an atheist who tells me that he doesn’t need God to ground objective moral values. He is a good person, he says. He supports gay marriage. He was proud when the Seattle mayor got gay marriage passed in his state. He says that objective moral values are easily grounded on atheism.

Let’s review what objective morality (moral realism) really means in practice for atheists:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

(Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85)

Whatever morality atheists try to claim, the truth is that their worldview cannot ground it rationally. This universe is an accident. There are no objective human rights. There is no objective morality. There is no free will nor moral agency. There is no judge of our actions when we die. Other human beings are just lumps of matter to be used for our own pleasure, as long as we are powerful enough to escape the disapproval of those accursed Bible-believers. Assume that every atheist is either like the Seattle mayor or is proud of what he is doing. That’s what atheists vote for, after all. This is the world they want to actualize through their voting. The whole point of atheism is to get rid of moral restraints on the pursuit of pleasure. The great virtue that motivates young atheists to turn away from the Bible is just “I want to get drunk and have premarital sex without consequences”. End of story. It’s not intellectual.

More atheism objective morality:

Related posts

14 thoughts on “Atheist morality: Seattle’s gay Democrat mayor resigns after child sex abuse allegations”

  1. I have no comment to add, other than how much it saddens me to see lives being destroyed and those doing the destruction are being celebrated in parades.

    Meanwhile they mock and would like to remove the existence of those that want or protect the rights of all citizens no matter their age or status.

    Like

  2. they are (effectively) voting for increased normalization of pedophilia.
    This. If only the black constituency, which is supposedly and notoriously homophobic, would *get* this.

    Like

  3. Did you ask your friend how can he ground objective morality in atheism? If i had to Guess he was just arguing in circles like most atheists who tried to do it

    Like

    1. Yes, and pointed out a variety of books defending moral realism on atheism. However, there is no way to generate an objective ought on humans in an accidental universe. Atheists chafe when they realize this, but rejecting morality is one the most common reasons to become an atheist. And you can see their immorality when they enthusiastically support the pedophile in his legislative efforts. The real goal of atheists when it comes to morality is to destroy it. Free Selfishness on demand and without exceptions, no matter what it does to children. Survival of the fittest, the strong abusing and killing the weak. That’s what they vote for, then in debates they claim to be moral.

      Like

      1. Exactly, i have tried to look up to any to atheist’s arguments to ground morality. It goes from the laughable (Sam Harris) to the circular (objectivism)

        Like

    1. So, Jeffery do you actually have any case for moral realism? All you did was pointing out the faultness of Dawkins’s argument agaisnt moral realism, the “dishonesty” of apologists in quoting Dawkins as an authority in moral philosophy, as in His View the evolutionary process and the universe seems amoral in It’s core (His actual área as a scientist) while ignoring His arguments agaisnt religión (as they has been all debunked) as William Lane Craig pointed out in His comments on the Carroll debate it Is appropiate to use scientist opinión in scientific matters while ignoring their philosophical/theological Views If such Views are incoherent (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/still-more-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate).
      Like you just did in your article to point out that Dawkins naturalism was consistent with the evidential problem of evil, while saying that His argument agaisnt moral realism wasn’t good.
      One can make a probabilistic argument agaisnt moral realism in naturalism:
      (1)Moral perception Is a natural cognitive feature
      (2) On naturalism such natural cognitive features can be either reliable or unreliable (like the belief in God)
      (3)To be reliable, the natural cognitive features must be self-evident (Logic)
      (4)Moral perception Is not self-evident and therefore not reliable
      (5)Without moral perception, we don’t have ground to know facts about moral realism
      (6)Moral realism probably does not exist.

      Like

      1. Armando,
        “So, Jeffery do you actually have any case for moral realism?”
        Yes I do, but that’s beside the point. WK quoted Richard Dawkins to bolster WK’s view that objective morality is incompatible with atheism. I devoted an entire post to showing why WK, like many other apologists, is guilty of quote-mining. I think you misunderstood my point about Dawkins’ arguments against theism. I agree with you that they are largely unsuccessful. My point was that it’s hypocritical to say, on the one hand and when discussing his arguments against theism, Dawkins is out of his element, but then, on the other hand and when discussing morality, act as if Dawkins is some kind of authority on metaethics. He’s not.
        As for your probabilistic argument, I think you’ve confused moral ontology with moral epistemology. Moral realism is a thesis about moral ontology. Your argument is epistemological. It’s a category error.

        Like

        1. My point was that it’s hypocritical to say, on the one hand and when discussing his arguments against theism,Dawkins is out of his element, but then, on the other hand and when discussing morality, act as if Dawkins is some kind of authority on metaethics.

          Dawkins is an authority on meta-ethics. Dawkins is a household name and widely influential. Is it deserved? That’s a different question entirely and beside the point. He can simultaneously be both an authority and out of his element and it isn’t hypocritical to point that out.
          When attempting to debunk [his flavor of] atheism/naturalism, spending significant time on Dawkins’ quotes is not “quote mining”, it is entirely appropriate. You seem to object to using quotes when a formal inductive argument would be preferred. Well sure, but he’s written books, given interviews, and made speeches utilizing informal arguments. Various quotations of Dawkins (not just this one) indicate quite clearly how he views a number of sexual and other moral ethics with respect to his naturalism. These are fair game for criticism, whether they are formal or informal.

          Like

          1. “Dawkins is an authority on meta-ethics. Dawkins is a household name and widely influential. Is it deserved? That’s a different question entirely and beside the point. He can simultaneously be both an authority and out of his element and it isn’t hypocritical to point that out.”

            When assessing an inductive argument from authority, the word “authority” doesn’t mean someone who is influential or famous. The word has a technical meaning; what it really means is an appeal to expertise. So I can agree with you that Dawkins is practically a household name and at the same time point out that he is not an expert on metaethics (or any other branch of philosophy, for that matter). In that sense — the only sense relevant to assessing the argument — Dawkins is not an authority.

            And notice we are down a rabbit hole. The fact remains that Seattle’s ex-mayor has nothing to do with ‘atheist morality’ as WK claims.

            Like

          2. Well, I think it’s natural for atheists to want to believe that they are moral people, the same way as they want to believe that the universe is eternal, that the universe is not fine-tuned for life, that the origin of life is no big deal because unobserved aliens seeded the Earth with life, and that the fossil record shows the gradual emergence of body plans and organ types. Etc. I can understand that atheists will want to believe what is comforting to them. “We can be moral too!” Of course that’s what they want to say. They have a need to justify themselves, whether their worldview can ground it rationally or not.

            But, for those of us who are based in reality, rather than Star Trek or Star Wars science fiction, we can look at history and see what atheists have done when given political power. We can make inferences about how a person will act when their worldview requires the denial of a design for human beings, human rights, free will, consciousness, objective moral duties, moral accountability after death, an afterlife, etc. I understand that there are some atheists who want to claim that objective morality is possible in a naturalistic universe. But to all individuals who do have rational faculties, this is, of course, ridiculous. It is comforting for atheists no doubt, to claim “me too” and “good as you”, but it’s just not consistent with the atheist worldview. Atheists necessarily deny everything – and I mean everything – necessary for the moral life. Morality is nonsense for atheists, regardless of what they would like to be true. I’m sure that Seattle’s pedophile mayor would say that he believed in objective morality in public as well, but his private views were consistent atheism: survival of the fittest, might makes right. What else could there be in an atheist universe except Bill Clinton fidelity and Anthony Weiner self-control? Other people aren’t made in the image of God to know God, they’re just animals to be abused by those who are stronger and more powerful. A fatherless girl or boy isn’t someone special to protect, it’s something to rape and abuse for pleasure. Because you only live once, and then you die – just don’t get found out by those nasty, judgy Christians with their chastity and sobriety. These are the people who atheists vote for, because this is the “morality” they believe in. Atheists are one of the most consistent Democrat voting blocs out there.

            What the news story shows us, Jeffrey, is what happens when atheists vote based on their denial of morality. They vote for pedophiles. Why? Because atheism is entirely about the attempt to live for self and pleasure, as if morality were an illusion. Seattle is one of the least religious cities in America – the desire to throw off traditional morality is strongest there. Atheists celebrated when this pedophile led the effort to legalize gay marriage, because they view natural law sexual morality as the enemy. Atheists put into a power a man who shared their desire to destroy unborn children and to privilege adult desires above and beyond the needs of children (needs that are obvious to non-atheists who can do morality). You can’t tell much about the morality-talk coming from atheist mouths, you have to look at the laws they vote for – laws that privilege the depravity of adults over the needs of children. Because moral obligations are intrusive on the atheist pursuit of pleasure, atheists have to get rid of them – and get rid of anyone who tries to shame them. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman what the attorney general of Washington thinks about human rights. Or ask Christians in North Korea how well they are making out in an atheist nation.

            So. It’s an atheist city. They voted for atheist laws. And they elected a pedophile. This was atheism in action. The strong abusing the weak is consistent atheism. And atheists are only sorry now because their true allegiance has been exposed perhaps a little sooner than they wanted.

            Like

  4. Often they claim they can ground stuff in common sense, but that always fails because that works for so few issues

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s