"A Dateline Special: Squirming Nasty Cockroach Men"
On Friday night, NBC broadcast its third installment of "To Catch a Predator," the network's august program of exposing sexual deviants. The entire approach is to lure these men into middle-class suburban houses where they presume they're going to have a sexual encounter with a minor. Waiting for them is a news reporter, who, with transcripts of their chat room conversations, confronts the individual about his intentions. The result is almost always the same-- tepid dissembling and evasiveness, and, when the hidden camera is revealed, abject shock and embarrassment.
I imagine most would find this modern-day Scarlet Letter shaming perfectly acceptable, the just punishment for such heinously criminal behavior. As I watched the first half-hour or so of this show (which is about all I could take) I myself could only think of cockroaches-- not as much for the thoroughly reprehensible aspect of their behavior, but for the fact that NBC is nabbing only a pittance. There are thousands more crawling around in the walls.
This observation is one that I would think is not uncommon among viewers of this fare. What I think may be a bit less prevalent are what I think are the more important facets involved here.
1. During one commercial break, an ad appeared for Brokeback Mountain, an acclaimed film about two men who become sexually intimate with one another. Splashed on my television set was all the glorifying stuff about how great a movie it was, how many Oscar nominations it has picked up, and so forth. This struck me as perversely ironic. In one moment these people are amplifying how evil it is for a man to engage in sexual activity with a consenting 13 year-old (whether it is actual consent is reasonably in question, but that is not the issue here), in the next they are exalting unabashed homosexual activity, and then seconds later are back to bashing pedophilia.
My question is, what's the difference? Really, on what basis can you condemn pedophilia and condone homosexuality? Who's to say one is right while the other is wrong?
2. At one point the news reporter asked one of these cockroach men a question like, "Why have sex with a 13 year-old, why not a 22 year-old?" Did this mean that the only wrong kind of sex is that with a 13 year-old, and that it would have been okay if he had sexually exploited a vulnerable 22 year-old?
I guess I just ask again, what's the difference? Sure a 13 year-old doesn't know any better, but excuse me, having sex with anyone with whom one is not married is wrong. There are many 22 year-olds who also don't know any better. And if you confront them about their careless behavior they shrug it off as "I'm an adult," "I can do what I want," "If I want to mess up my life I can." Does this make it better?
3. Finally I asked, are all of these men godless secular atheists? There were something like forty-some-odd of them, if I remember the number correctly. Did NBC just happen to corral that portion of the 4% of those willing to claim there is no God? (This is based on the statistic that 96% of the U.S. population claim to believe in God.)
Or is it possible at least some of these men had some church upbringing? My question is, if that is the case, and I just don't think for a second that it isn't, how did the church fail them? Of course the seasoned Catholicist is going to say, "Oh, well well well, sexual predators come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and religious backgrounds." That's fine, I understand that, those without Christ are still sinners prone to commit sinful acts such as these.
But those truly in Christ cannot do those things, simply because they actually love another individual they encounter and would die before they harm them. Am I saying good decent Christians aren't saved? Or that they are never in need of healing from the past woundedness in their lives that is the primary force that would move them to do these things? Absolutely not.
What I am saying is that churches that are grafted to the World cannot offer what it is that would put these men in a position to love with Christ's love as they should. A church that has a 501c3 contract is only a God club that may sometimes spew bits of pithy relief to men overwhelmed with these desires. It runs on the same fear that consume these men, and therefore we are left with "Yep, thur're just as many Christians out thur as any other folk." Oh well. Sigh. Ho-hum.
Let's just continue to get real angry at them when we watch spiffy Catch-'Em shows like this. My guess is that when we've tired of "To Catch a Predator Episode XVIII," we'll move on to the next Catch-'Em cop show for a different revulsion high, but the cockroaches will still be out there feeding. What's just as rotten is that the roach motel 501c3 God clubs will continue to convince us that they're doing their duty.
Such is the Catholicist Nation.
For more on the 501c3 church and its true impotence, click here.
For those of you who pay some degree of attention to God's word, check out the second chapter of the letter to the Colossians, verses 20 to 23. You can't miss the fact that a 501c3 contracted church is worthless at keeping people fully pure sexually.
I imagine most would find this modern-day Scarlet Letter shaming perfectly acceptable, the just punishment for such heinously criminal behavior. As I watched the first half-hour or so of this show (which is about all I could take) I myself could only think of cockroaches-- not as much for the thoroughly reprehensible aspect of their behavior, but for the fact that NBC is nabbing only a pittance. There are thousands more crawling around in the walls.
This observation is one that I would think is not uncommon among viewers of this fare. What I think may be a bit less prevalent are what I think are the more important facets involved here.
1. During one commercial break, an ad appeared for Brokeback Mountain, an acclaimed film about two men who become sexually intimate with one another. Splashed on my television set was all the glorifying stuff about how great a movie it was, how many Oscar nominations it has picked up, and so forth. This struck me as perversely ironic. In one moment these people are amplifying how evil it is for a man to engage in sexual activity with a consenting 13 year-old (whether it is actual consent is reasonably in question, but that is not the issue here), in the next they are exalting unabashed homosexual activity, and then seconds later are back to bashing pedophilia.
My question is, what's the difference? Really, on what basis can you condemn pedophilia and condone homosexuality? Who's to say one is right while the other is wrong?
2. At one point the news reporter asked one of these cockroach men a question like, "Why have sex with a 13 year-old, why not a 22 year-old?" Did this mean that the only wrong kind of sex is that with a 13 year-old, and that it would have been okay if he had sexually exploited a vulnerable 22 year-old?
I guess I just ask again, what's the difference? Sure a 13 year-old doesn't know any better, but excuse me, having sex with anyone with whom one is not married is wrong. There are many 22 year-olds who also don't know any better. And if you confront them about their careless behavior they shrug it off as "I'm an adult," "I can do what I want," "If I want to mess up my life I can." Does this make it better?
3. Finally I asked, are all of these men godless secular atheists? There were something like forty-some-odd of them, if I remember the number correctly. Did NBC just happen to corral that portion of the 4% of those willing to claim there is no God? (This is based on the statistic that 96% of the U.S. population claim to believe in God.)
Or is it possible at least some of these men had some church upbringing? My question is, if that is the case, and I just don't think for a second that it isn't, how did the church fail them? Of course the seasoned Catholicist is going to say, "Oh, well well well, sexual predators come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and religious backgrounds." That's fine, I understand that, those without Christ are still sinners prone to commit sinful acts such as these.
But those truly in Christ cannot do those things, simply because they actually love another individual they encounter and would die before they harm them. Am I saying good decent Christians aren't saved? Or that they are never in need of healing from the past woundedness in their lives that is the primary force that would move them to do these things? Absolutely not.
What I am saying is that churches that are grafted to the World cannot offer what it is that would put these men in a position to love with Christ's love as they should. A church that has a 501c3 contract is only a God club that may sometimes spew bits of pithy relief to men overwhelmed with these desires. It runs on the same fear that consume these men, and therefore we are left with "Yep, thur're just as many Christians out thur as any other folk." Oh well. Sigh. Ho-hum.
Let's just continue to get real angry at them when we watch spiffy Catch-'Em shows like this. My guess is that when we've tired of "To Catch a Predator Episode XVIII," we'll move on to the next Catch-'Em cop show for a different revulsion high, but the cockroaches will still be out there feeding. What's just as rotten is that the roach motel 501c3 God clubs will continue to convince us that they're doing their duty.
Such is the Catholicist Nation.
For more on the 501c3 church and its true impotence, click here.
For those of you who pay some degree of attention to God's word, check out the second chapter of the letter to the Colossians, verses 20 to 23. You can't miss the fact that a 501c3 contracted church is worthless at keeping people fully pure sexually.
Comments
Post a Comment