Morality, Religion & Philosophy: March 2005 Archives
Illuminaria has an excellent post connecting sexual deviancy and sexual abuse. As I wrote the phrase "sexual deviancy" I paused to consider whether anyone would be offended by my decision to label the actions of a girl who "on at least four occasions within a very short time period [] performed oral sex on several boys at a time while others watched" sexually deviant. But then I thought, if we have to throw out sexually deviant then we may as well throw out sexual abuse as well, right? Anyway, Illuminaria writes:
What the hell? The allegations are that on at least four occasions within a very short time period she performed oral sex on several boys at a time while others watched. I understand that more teens are having sex and stuff, but this is not normal teenage sexual behavior. The only ones who think it is are NAMBLA and other perverts, people who watch too much porn, and idiots.Kids who are abused start to sexualize everything. They see themselves as having no worth other than through sex. They are the sort of people who are servicing 13 boys in a week’s time, while others watch. And sexual abuse is very common, more common than many people think.
Normal human behavior for females, even in a sexually permissive society, looks nothing like this. Yes, these days there are many more young girls out there having sex with their boyfriends, but the “sluts” have most likely been abused, and that’s how it’s been over time immemorial. The only reason that it seems to be a new phenomenon now, is that it’s more socially acceptable to reveal it. You think in the 50’s there weren’t any girls who were giving multiple blow jobs? No, that stuff probably went on then as much as it does now, it’s just that there weren’t any Katie Couric specials about it.
I think this is probably right, though as a commenter on her site points out, birth control was much more difficult in the 50s without the pill or latex condoms, and studies do show -- for whatever they're worth -- that teenagers are more sexual now than in the past. I think a large part of the problem is that the baby boomers have made absolutely terrible parents, as a generation. I've written about my own generation of millennials and I think we may turn out to be far less licentious than our parents, because we've seen the horrible effects first-hand.
It's really odd to me that people get offended by my comments on this site when I imply -- apparently subtly -- that I think Christianity is "better" than other religions. Writes Mike Guitiz on this post about public execution:
I read many of us claim to be Christians. That torture and public executions are for savages. Like the public execution of the child killers in Iran recently, who were flogged and hung. Who the hell are you to claim to be so much better than any other race, creed, or faith. They did what they saw fit. We on the other hand just let "Mrs. Terri Schiavo" die slowly. My, how Christian a people are we!Posted by: Mike Guitiz at March 27, 2005 08:13 PM
Who do I have to be to claim that my faith is "better" than another? Don't most substantial and consequential spiritual belief systems directly assert that they are superior to any other? Christianity is the same in doing so, and a Christian will necessarily believe that non-Christians of whatever religious/irreligious stripe are wrong in their thinking.
Thinking that your system is true and others are false is a sort of "better"-ness, but in a very objective fashion that doesn't track Mr. Guitiz' connotations. It's not that I think that if one were to compare the various costs and benefits of Christianity, atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc. -- like comparing health plan coverage -- that Christianity would come out on top. To a believer, that sort of comparison is meaningless. Likewise, the wordly "results" of the belief systems -- such as Terri Schiavo's starvation and Iranian executions -- are meaningless. To the believer there is no comparison to be made, because one system is true and the others are mere figments of imagination. It's pointless to argue over which is "better" when only one is real.
I don't see why this assertion is offensive to anyone, considering how common it is. Yes, I believe that non-Christians are going to Hell because they have rejected Christ. I am only going to be admitted to Heaven because I have accepted Christ, not because I'm holier or smarter or "better" than anyone else in any way. That doesn't strike me as an arrogant position.
The idea of submission isn't particularly popular in our day and age, but the Bible teaches a lot about obedience. If one believes that one is justified in doing whatever one can "get away with", then the only reason to submit to anyone else is if you're afraid of resisting. That, and stupidity, is the connotation of being called a sheep for questioning an open invitation to civil disobedience, but as I wrote originally, I think there's a lot of value to a general policy of obeying the rules.
Sure, Patterico and the rest will probably get away with whatever they end up doing (not much, most likely), but to what end? They may succeed at resisting the expansion of stupid campaign finance speech restrictions, and if that's their most important consideration then they'll end up winners in their own eyes. My decision was made with a different calculus, however, because my highest ambition is to affect the world for Christ. That may ocassionally require opposing the forces that dominate the order of our world -- through legal or extra-legal means -- but the Bible is pretty clear in admonishing us that the governments of the world are established by God and should be obeyed.
Romans 13:1-71Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
And Paul, there, was writing about the Roman Empire, which was far more oppressive than McCain-Feingold.
Now, I love free speech, and I think campaign finance reform is a stupid joke. Will I vote for candidates who oppose speech restrictions? Yes. Will I write letters to my representatives and urge them to protect my right to free speech? Yes, I already do that. Could speech restrictions eventually impede the cause of Christ? Yes, of course. I never said I was inconvincible. Perhaps Patterico is right and this battle is the one to fight, but if so it's not clear to me. Until it is, I'm going to err on the side of obedience, not because I adore the American government, but because of my love for God.
(HT: Doc Rampage for the pointer to Patterico calling me a sheep.)
