What’s wrong with Sandusky’s actions?

(Updated 2:25PM)

What you are about to read will make you uncomfortable. It centers around the tragic events that allegedly occurred in State College, PA for more than a decade. I feel safe in assuming you know of what I speak. The most troubling aspect is the alleged pedophile started a non-profit to help disadvantaged youth, and used it as the ultimate “nice guy” cover up to meet more children and rape them. If it’s true, it’s sickening.

The reality of the accusations are uncomfortable enough, but I’m going to try to make you think, and it will become more uncomfortable still. My desire is for my words to have a surgeon’s precision, but no matter how gentle or precise, a cut is a cut. So please, anticipate being made uncomfortable, but my hope is that you’ll read this and think, hard.

Most of my information on the alleged incidents is coming from sports commentators, who are quick to admit they aren’t experts, but without exception declare the alleged incidents to be disgusting, terrifying, evil, etc. One of Sandusky’s former players, and current ESPN analyst asked this haunting question, “man’s inhumanity towards man is mind-boggling. Where do we stop with this stuff?

Notice what’s inferred in Millen’s profound question – a progressive slide towards greater inhumanity.

I’m guessing you’re tracking along just fine so far. You might be nodding your head in agreement, echoing Millen’s question in your mind, and getting more and more frustrated by “man’s inhumanity towards man.”

Brace yourself, because here comes the tough stuff.

What’s so bad about what Sandusky is accused of doing?

Does our culture have any moral grounds whatsoever to declare Sandusky a bad guy or his actions reprehensible? Take a minute and be careful here.

Before we lynch Sandusky, let’s consider some realities about North America in 2011.

So I ask again, what’s wrong with what Sandusky did? If it’s totally acceptable to kill a baby, how dare we say it’s wrong to rape a child.

Don’t we live in a culture that absolutely demands tolerance? Isn’t truth dependent on the individual? Can’t we do whatever we want because it’s who we are?

After all, what about Sandusky? What about his needs? Wasn’t he just born this way?

Lady Gaga thinks so, and she articulates what millions embrace,

I’m beautiful in my way
‘Cause God makes no mistakes
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born this way…

A different lover is not a sin
Believe capital H-I-M (Hey hey hey)
I love my life I love this record and
Mi amore vole fe yah (Love needs faith)…

You’re black, white, beige, chola descent
You’re Lebanese, you’re orient
Whether life’s disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied, or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
’cause baby you were born this way

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life,
I’m on the right track baby,
I was born to survive.

Since “a different lover is not a sin,” “no matter gay, straight, or bi,” isn’t is only fair to include the pedophile? Doesn’t Jerry Sandusky have the right to act upon his impulses, regardless of what you or I think is immoral?

The Journal of American Medical Association agrees with GaGa,

During psychosexual development, no one decides whether to be attracted to women, men, girls or boys. Rather, individuals discover the types of persons they are sexually attracted to, i.e., their sexual orientation. [source]

I want you to notice two important elements of the Journal’s statement:

  1. Sexual behavior is an “orientation.”
  2. “boys” are included as one we might be oriented towards.
WebMD says this about “sexual orientation”
Sexual orientation involves a person’s feelings and sense of identity; [source]

The American Psychological Association elaborates on WebMD’s description:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. [source]

The key here is identity, and that’s exactly what GaGa’s getting at when she says, “I’m beautiful in my way ‘Cause God makes no mistakes.”

Ellen Degeneres says, “I never thought it was anybody’s business who I am and who I am with…” [source]

As a society, we endorse that our “identity” or “who I am” permits me to do what I do, particularly in the realm of sexuality. If we are going to demand this application to Ellen, Elton, or Adam Lambert, we must also demand this application for Sandusky.

Who are we to judge? What give us the right to cast stones?

You might be thinking, “Ryan, you go too far. There’s a big difference here. Two grown men sodomizing each other are consenting adults and can do what they want. What Sandusky is accused of involves the abuse of a defenseless minor.

OK, I’ll grant you that. But let me ask a return question, is their any more defenseless a minor than a baby in the womb? More defenseless still, what about a baby with Down’s Syndrome? Did you know they are legally murdered at a clip nearing 90%? [source] Where’s the outrage?

While Professor  Singer believes parents should be free to kill their baby at any time in the first 28 days, society is also struggling to define a “minor.” So, what is a minor? Depending on your country and what you want to prohibit, a minor could be anywhere between 15 and 20. In undeveloped countries that number can fluctuate even more.

Can you see how slippery this is?

In case you are concerned that I’m overstating my position, let me allow the advocates for homosexual behavior, and the elimination of age-of-consent laws to speak for themselves.

Were you aware that the “Gay Rights Platform” of 1972 included the following?

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. [source]

Were you aware of the organization NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)? Perhaps unnecessary to share, but one of their tenants is,

We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives. [source]

[Former FBI agent, Bob Hamer, went undercover to  investigate NAMBLA, you can watch the book preview here, and buy the book here.]

Did you know that when sitting Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, was an ACLU attorney, she tried to get the consent age lowered from 16 to 12? she wrote,

Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. [source]

This is the slide I’m trying to point out. We are all outraged by Sandusky’s alleged offenses. But, according to the Grand Jury Report (not for the faint of heart), at least four of Sandusky’s eight alleged victims would have been legal partners if Bader-Ginsberg had her way, because they were 12 or older.

Not only are we going to have to permit pedophiles their rights to molest children, because it’s their “identity;” we’re going to take the stigma away by dismissing age of consent laws. Let Millen’s words echo, “man’s inhumanity towards man is mind-boggling. Where do we stop with this stuff?”

I’ll share my answer. We won’t stop. We’ll simply declare it morally acceptable.

This post is intended to shock but, as you can see, it isn’t that far from reality.

This issue highlights the moral relativism of today. We are united in our outrage at the alleged molestation and cover-up. But we have to ask ourselves, “what moral grounds do I have to condemn Sandusky’s actions?

The question our society must ask is how we can condemn Sandusky and have legal abortion at the same time? How can we celebrate homosexuality and condemn pedophilia? We cannot have it both ways.

It’s wildly unpopular in 2011 America, but the Biblical worldview is the only way we can condemn the alleged acts. Without a moral anchor, we will continue to slide towards even greater inhumanity.

I believe absolute truth exists. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. I believe God planted an awareness within our souls of good and evil, and I believe He spelled it out in the Bible.

What Sandusky is accused of doing is an abomination. It’s an act of treason against humanity. It’s evil. However, it’s not evil because I don’t like it, or because it’s not cool to hurt children. It’s evil because God said so.

For further reading on the legalization of pedophilia and it’s direct link to homosexual activity, read this article.
 
Just another disturbing note I found on NAMBLA. This is from a Mayo Clinics proceedings report titled, A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues
 

Pedophilic abuse is often not reported for a variety of reasons ranging from fear (eg, worried about not being believed, will be physically harmed if child reports abuse), emotional reasons (needy child identifies with the pedophile), or guilt (feels responsible for what happened). In the study by Bagley et al, the most common response why individuals who were molested once did not report abuse was that they could “handle the abuse” and it “didn’t bother” them (50.7%), with the second most common response being that they were afraid of how other people would react (40%). For children who were abused multiple times, the most common response was that they felt partly responsible (57.7%) or that they did not want the person prosecuted because of some degree of attachment (44.2%). It is startling that the North American Man/Boy Love Association Web site uses research with similar findings (eg, it did not bother me or I liked the experience) to justify its position on why it should be legal for adult men to have consensual sexual relationships with boys. (formatting mine)

 

 
Advertisements

16 comments

  1. You’re right to point out the hypocrisy of punishing pedophilia while condoning abortion, but resorting to Biblical law is not the only available basis for setting moral standards in a society. Law is a funny thing… even though it gets codified and enforced by authorities, the legitimacy behind it depends not only on the power those authorities hold, but also the willingness of a society to submit to it. Surely you can recall the many instances when a society has decided for itself that it didn’t like a law or a form of government and rejected it through a decisive vote or a revolution. The range of laws active in a society, then, are a reflection of public will. This, I think, is the key to understanding why Americans accept abortion and homosexuality but condemn pedophilia. Regardless of the ways in which you can pidgeonhole pedophilia into categories with either homosexuality or abortion, society recognizes pedophilia as a concept all its own that is heinous and unacceptable in ways that abortion and homosexuality are not.

    Abortion, while unfortunate and brutal, is sometimes performed to preserve the life of the mother or to avoid subjecting a child to a life of debilitating illness. That doesn’t mean it is always or even frequently performed for the best of reasons, but because it has its beneficial applications and society recognizes this, it remains legal. I’m not saying I agree with it in all cases – indeed I would NOT – I’m just pointing out that a critical mass of people in American society are unconvinced that it should be abolished.

    Homosexuality is tolerated for an even less controversial reason: by itself, it simply doesn’t mean that much. If two consenting adults of the same sex decide to have a relationship, it may be unnatural in terms of how many people view nature, but society’s main priorities – peace, order, health – are not threatened. Say what you will about the destruction of marriage and the family as institutions at the hands of gays, but as long as Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian and the like can drag the name of marriage through the dirt as they do, that argument will never hold much water.

    Pedophilia is different because there is absolutely no way an adult forcing a child to have sexual intercourse against its will is even remotely beneficial to anyone except the perpetrator. And, crucially, society recognizes this and consequently upholds a standard against it, God-fearing or not. By some standards, YES, it is hypocrisy. But if enough people in a society choose to overlook a Biblical conception of things and use a different set of priorities to govern what they will and won’t accept, that’s how it stays unless you can convince them otherwise.

    1. J, you make some salient points, most of which I agree with. I believe you have illustrated exactly what I am trying to say. Our society has jettisoned itself from any moral anchor, leaving right and wrong in the hands of the majority, or the people in power. This is bad.

      I also agree that Spears, Kardashian, and the like are hurting our society. That’s just it, from a biblical perspective sexual perversion includes heterosexual promiscuity. I could talk for hours about the destructive impact “Victoria’s Secret” marketing has on our society. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Where I disagree, is in saying that because Spears, etc do it too, we shouldn’t condemn the homosexual activity. The argument holds water because the Bible says they are both wrong.

      I’ll ask you a question.

      Was slavery morally acceptable on January 30th, 1865?

      Our country said it was legal at that time. On the 31st, congress passed the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery. I would argue that it was wrong on the 30th and the 31st, regardless of the law. That being said, It is absolutely necessary for people to speak out against immoral behavior, even if it’s currently legal. The holocaust was conducted under the influenced will of the majority.

      Speaking of the holocaust. A primary element of it was Eugenics. Eugenics is The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. A logical follow-up step is what the Nazi’s did, eliminate the living who have un-“desirable heritable characteristics.” The modern American manifestation is what you described as “Abortion, while unfortunate and brutal, is sometimes performed to preserve the life of the mother or to avoid subjecting a child to a life of debilitating illness.”

      I shared a couple links about this in the post. As the father of a child with un-“desirable heritable characteristics” (Cerebral Palsy) the thought of killing him in the womb was, and is, absolutely unthinkable. Eugenics fuels the pre-natal genetic testing that results in nearly 90% of children with Down Syndrome being killed. This is bad.

      To your final paragraph, I’d encourage you to read the paragraph from the Mayo Clinic I just added to the post. I’d encourage to to read the whole study as well. It details the strategies the pedophile uses in getting their victims to “consent..” As it turns out, a very low percentage of the pedophile cases can be categorized as “rape.” I’m just pointing out that the adults aren’t “forcing a child to have sexual intercourse.” It’s a sick manipulation of impressionable minds, perpetuated by organizations like NAMBLA.

      Lastly, I’d encourage you to read the posts from “The Journey.” It’s a series of my posts stemming from two different books: “The power of the powerless,” and “Adam, God’s beloved.” Both are memoirs of people living with people who had un-“desirable heritable characteristics.” I think you’ll find them compelling as it pertains to your view about aborting children with disabilities.

      Thanks for reading, and thanks for your constructive, well thought out comment. Please stick around.

  2. You are right on, Ryan!! I wish you would send what you wrote to every major newspaper in the U.S. maybe some would print it as an opinion piece.

    1. Thanks for your encouragement! I’d never considered it, but I just might do it. I’ll have to clean it up a bit, maybe shorten it, but maybe they’d run it. I won’t hold my breath though. Voices that don’t glowingly support homosexual behavior are normally dismissed from the traditional media outlets.

      10:42 update. I checked around and most papers want Op-eds to be 750 words or less. My post was 1,800+. I’ll do a re-write and see what I can do 🙂

  3. Wow–gets you thinking! Thanks for being brave enough to say it, Ryan. You actually inspired me the other day to speak w/ a classmate about not using the “r” word on her Facebook info page. I know that’s off topic, but thought you’d like to know. 🙂

    1. I’m glad to hear that Becky! The Special Olympics launched a big campaign to stop the “R” Word a year or two ago, so hopefully we are making an impact. Words are slippery, and powerful. A word can be neutral, even positive, in one decade and ugly in the next. The “R” word (retarded, if anyone is wondering) has become an ugly one and it needs to disappear from our slang vernacular.

      Thanks for checking in!

  4. Ryan, thank for your equally salient and constructive reply to my comment.

    In reading back over all we’ve written, we agree that people in our society do (and have done) some heinous things. We disagree in two places – one related to content and one related to logic.

    On content: Eugenics has a horrid legacy in this country and abroad. I have read Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race from cover to cover, along with the Kallikak Family study and a host of related documents, and the lengths to which these Social Darwinists were willing to go to eliminate the unfit and the “feeble-minded” are unbelievable. I do not, however, believe abortion is the same thing. Madison Grant and the Eugenic Records Office people and the folks who ran sterilization programs in the states abused state power to enforce a particular eugenic vision of what society ought to look like, who should partake and who should not. The Nazi atrocities are much the same – state power being used to shape society.

    When a woman chooses to abort her baby, she is not forced to do so by the state – she makes that decision herself. That is, she exercises her personal liberty to be in control of her own body. Yes, it’s similar to eugenics in that she gets to decide what criteria the unborn person has to meet before she’s willing to carry it to term, but unlike the eugenics movement or the Holocaust, the questionable act is done on the basis of the mother’s own moral code. Obama didn’t tell her to do it. Nancy Pelosi didn’t tell her to do it. She’s not the victim of a Madison Grant or a Lothrop Stoddard coming up with crackpot theories about the chances of her child being “feeble-minded” and then sterilizing her whether she wants it or not She made that decision herself, for reasons she herself chose and has to live with. Would you or I agree with the woman’s reasoning for aborting this hypothetical baby? Maybe. Maybe not. But, again unlike the eugenics movement or the Holocaust, the person who made the final decision to terminate a life was the person whose body contained it and who would ultimately be responsible for nurturing it, and it was done before that life began outside the womb. Now, granted, you and I likely disagree on when “life” begins, and that difference is pretty much insoluble. My main point here is to differentiate between eugenic programs of the state, where individuals have no choice, and abortion, where the individual is the one making the choice.

    On logic: Your main argument, if I understand you correctly, is that adhering to Biblical law would solve most or all of these complex issues because the Bible comes down fairly clearly on most of them, unlike our present code of social legislation. Instead of bending with the admittedly flexible whims of society, we stick to God’s plan and that’s the end of the discussion.

    I disagree that God’s plan is so clear-cut. Even if we were to choose tomorrow to exclusively follow Biblical teachings in regulating society, someone would have to interpret what is written in the Bible. Someone would have to make a judgment call in those cases where the Bible contradicts itself. Furthermore, someone would have to act from a position of power to impose their interpretations on everyone else. That, to my mind, is fundamentally unfree. Even if you throw in the promise of being able to toss out unpopular interpreters in the next election, you’re still faced with a system of government deriving some of its legal framework from a law that cannot be changed by man. Under the present government, law and the moral code behind it change as society changes – they reflect society as well as possible within the limitations of our electoral system. I fear the consequences of letting any human dictate the terms by which I live in the name of God. The concept has been tried before, and while it has at times resulted in progressive, stable societies, it has also resulted in such unfortunate episodes as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Humans, in my view, are competent to interpret God’s word and will for themselves and anyone who comes to them willingly for advice. I do not believe humans are competent to govern a state by God’s word, period. Whether I am right or wrong on that is a matter of sheer opinion and is ultimately pointless – people today will adhere to whichever system they feel is right, regardless of what you and I think.

    Having said all this, Ryan, I want to conclude by saying that we both want a good society, one that punishes immorality and rewards morality. We differ on what the standards should be, and that’s OK. I respect your faith in Biblical law as a moral anchor, and I hope you’ll respect my doubts about its practicality. Let’s keep talking – this is thought-provoking and fruitful.

  5. All morality is manmade because god is not real (except as a concept in the imaginations of gullible people). When the precious Bible was written, god was commanding his chosen people to kill their enemies, along with the enemies wives, children, farm animals, etc., and even commanded his chosen people to put the Midianite virgins into sexual slavery. At the time the Old Testament stories were written, this type of behavior was standard operating procedure. When many of today’s fundamentalist Christian sects were starting, homosexuality was considered evil (or, later, a psychological problem). When the LDS church was founded in the 1840s, they characterized African-Americans as being less than whites, and therefore not allowed in the priesthood (until, shockingly enough, the 1970s when racial equality was finally gaining some ground). The point is that religious rules and morals are totally made up by humans, and therefore reflect the values of that time and place. The problem that you, sir, have with abortion and homosexuality is that you want (much like the Taliban) to cling onto medieval prejudices that you have ascribed to a fictional divine power. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

    1. Dr.Nietzsche,

      Are you saying it is wrong for God’s chosen people to “kill their enemies, along with the enemies wives, children, farm animals, etc., and even commanded his chosen people to put the Midianite virgins into sexual slavery?”
      Are you saying African-Americans should be considered equal to whites?

      I get the impression that you believe it wrong to kill enemies, etc and you believe African-Americans and whites are equals. My question to you then, “On what grounds?”

      I’d like to point out the Holocaust was founded in evolutionary theory, and your namesake was an influencer as well. Nietzche proposed no political drive, but his view of morality and “Higher Men” encouraged Mr. Hitler in his genocide of Jews, and his view that the Africans were a rung below the Aryans on the evolutionary ladder. Fueled by eugenics research in the United States, they worked to eliminate those deemed feeble minded, etc. Were they wrong? Was it evil?

      You cannot condemn the LDS church, as you did in your comment, and embrace Nietzsche at the same time. They are mutually exclusive positions. Either Nietzche is correct – God is dead, morality is fluid, etc leaving you no grounds to criticize the LDS church, the Old Testament accounts, or anyone else. They, and we, are free to kill and eat whomever we so choose. Or, Nietzsche was off base, and it’s right to declare slavery, etc wrong.

      I’ll agree that humans have the capacity to abuse all things, even good ones, for their own gain, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we must declare the original idea a falsehood.

      For example, food is necessary and good. We need it to survive. We have a gluttony issue in America, along with various eating disorders, corrupted food sources, food producers only concerned for profit, etc. However, food is still good and necessary. We’d be fools to declare all food evil because of the evil within men.

      I’m still struggling to wrap my mind around your statement that I would be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan because I believe it is wrong to kill defenseless children, sexually molest children, and participate in homosexual behavior.

      Again I would ask you, is the Taliban bad? Are they wrong to blow people up? I get the impression you think so, yet again, you have no moral grounds for your position.

      Your fundamental misconception is your belief that God is not real. Your logic generally makes sense when that is your presupposition, except when you attempt to make moral judgements. At that point you are borrowing from the Christian worldview to justfy your belief that their is no God. Logically speaking, that does not hold water.

      I believe God doest exist. And that belief fuels my other beliefs. I believe that you, me, the African-American, the white, the Saudi, and the Afghan, are all vlauable because they are all created in the image of God and worthy of respect. I believe life has meaning and loving our fellow man is critical. I believe you and Nietzsche are free to reject God and have your wish granted, although I hope you’ll change your mind. I believe the world is broken and corrupt, and I believe it’s because of the evil in men, AKA sin. I believe God offers the only plausable solution to the world’s brokeness, and that’s redemption through Jesus.

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