Moral Health

The very idea of a father showing hardcore porn to his young daughters is so despicable that it invites taking the law into one’s own hands.  Yet, that is what we have with daughters of Crystal Buckner.  She is divorced from her husband and father of the two daughters.  And the father is showing films of porn to his 8 and 9 year old daughters.  The problem, alas, is that owing to a law created in 1970s parents in Texas are allowed to show harmful material to their children.

This is a marvelous case in which the intent of the law has misfired.  No one—I mean absolutely no one—could have meant that it is alright to show hardcore pornography films to young children.  Indeed, in the 1970s is was not possible to do so because such films were only available in theaters and it was not legally permissible to take a 8 or 9 year old into a porn theater.  Alas, the father is forcing his father to view on-line pornography.

Now, it is the fact that children could not be taken into pornographic theaters in the 1970s that inclines me to think that the creators of the law did not have pornography in mind in putting in place a law according to which parents could show their children harmful material.  The law clearly was intended to block the intrusion of the government into the way in which parents raise their children, merely because the parents have unusual practices.  We understand that what some might deem harmful, others may not regard as harmful at all.

In the past, religious differences illustrated this point rather poignantly.  Why?  Because in the past it would have been perfectly “natural” for a Christian to think that parents raising their children according to a non-Christian faith were in some important sense harming their children.  The Texas law passed in the 1970 allowing parents to show their children harmful material made it illegal for any Christian to take action against non-Christian parents raising their children on the grounds that the non-Christian parents are harming their children by not raising them as Christians.

It would never have occurred to the Texas legislators to think about pornography because (a) pornography was already understood to be adult material to which children should not have access and (b) in the public arena the fact of the matter is that children did not have access to porn.

Now, imagine parents showing their children how to kill themselves.  After all, if the children simply “act-out” what they see on the film, then it will certainly be true that the parents did not kill their children, although upon the death of their children the parents might very well benefit from a huge life insurance policy.  Does anyone really think that this action of showing the children how to kill themselves is protected by that infamous Texas law?  Surely not.

To be sure, showing children pornography is not at all on the same plane as showing children how to kill themselves.  Just so, it takes a pretty deranged person to show pornography to children.  If nothing else, then, there is the issue of the father’s own mental instability.

Whatever the father might be doing, it cannot possibly be said that he is merely teaching children different values—values that are rather uncommon in most parts of Texas.  Quite the contrary, the father is some version of what I shall a visual pedophile.  He “gets off” on watching children being exposed to sexual material.  And this is tantamount to a form of abuse.  Indeed, it is to use children for prurient interests.

So, I am not at all persuaded that James Farren (the Randall Court District Attorney) cannot do anything.  It seems to me that he has too quickly conceded that his “hands are tied”.  When I consider how creative lawyers can be, I am more than a little appalled that Mr. Farren has not been a tad more creative.  After all, there is the issue of child abuse.  And I have indicated a way in which the father’s behavior can be readily countenanced as child abuse.

District Attorney Farren may not take the law into his own hands.  However, he may certainly be sufficiently creative in thinking about the applicability of the law.  And if indeed folks are so worried about counter lawsuits that in an instance such as this no one is willing to do anything to protect the children, then it has to be said is that as a nation the United States is doomed.

Just a few days ago, we have the case where 20-some people in California watched a gang-rape and now we have the case of a father showing hardcore pornography to his 8 and 9 year old daughters.  The bright side, of course, is that there are great many people who do not behave in these ways.  Painfully, though, there are sufficiently many people who do and the shadow of evil which they are casting is increasingly longer.

There is no doubt about it: a murderer can be wronged, and can be rightly awarded damages for the wrong done to him.  For instance, supposes that a murderer is a brilliant artist and someone destroys all of the murderer’s paintings while he is in prison.  It seems fair enough that the murderer can sue for damages.  Again, it is one thing to be a murderer; it is quite another to be a child molester; and if the newspapers accuse a murderer of being a child molester, there is indeed something quite right about the murderer thinking that he has suffered an injustice owing to this false charge.

Bernie Madoff, for example, swindled people out of millions of dollars.  He did not molest any children; and he would rightly take offense at that accusation.

Alas, the case of Tremayne Durham is nothing like any of the situations depicted above.  Durham is suing for a refund from the man that he took hostage, after having murdered someone who worked for that man.

Durham had ordered an ice cream truck from Rob Chambers.  However, Durham changed his mind about getting the truck and wanted a refund.  So far so good.  The problem is that Durham decided to take matters into his own hands in order to get the refund.  Indeed, in the effort to obtain a refund, Durham ended up killing one of Chambers’ employees, namely Adam Calbreath.  And there is the rub.

Surely a most natural thought is that in going so far as to commit murder in order to get the refund Tremayne Durham thereby forfeited his right to the refund.  The right to money that we are owed is not an entitlement to do anything we please in order to obtain what we are owed.  And if what we do is heinous enough, then it ought to turn out that we forfeit our right to the money that we are owed.

Otherwise, we end up with some utterly embarrassing moral and legal outcomes.  Suppose, for instance, that Durham had decided to rape Calbreath instead of killing him.  Why?  Because he, Durham, felt humiliated in not getting his refund and he wanted to inflicted a sense of humiliation upon either Calbreath or Chambers.

Not all wrongdoings are heinous and, of course, we can debate whether a given wrongdoing is heinous enough.  However, there can be no doubt about the heinous character of rape and murder.  Accordingly, the very idea that the resources of the law itself could be used in order secure a refund for a person who commits such wrongdoing is indeed morally obnoxious.  It is to profane the legal system.  Yet, that is precisely what is happening in the case of Tremayne Durham.

The issue here is not whether the law can be rightly used to protect a criminal.  Of course it can.  Yet, we must not unwittingly legitimate heinous behavior; and that is precisely what we do if we allow a murderer to use the legal system to go after a refund when the murder was committed in order to obtain the refund.

As I have already indicated, someone’s being a murderer does not give anyone a right to keep or still the murderer’s precious paintings.  By contrast, if the person who is owed a refund merely broke a window the owner’s home or office, I am still prepared to say that the person is still owed the refund—though minus the payment for the damage done.

But nothing can replace a life.  Nothing can erase the psychological trauma of being raped.  So when a person has committed one of these dastardly deeds and the resources of the state are used to secure his refund, then what we have is surely tantamount to a new form of a miscarriage of justice.  Instead of a guilty person going free, what we have is a person has been guilty wrongly profiting from the resources of the legal system.

One aspect of the genius of the American legal system is that no one can be re-tried after having receiving a verdict of “not guilty”.  Surely it is another thing entirely to profit from the resources of the American legal system when one has been found guilty of a heinous crime such as murder.  Here we have a very simple and non-controversial principle, namely that murder is never an acceptable means to obtain money that one is owed and anyone who uses such a means thereby forfeits his right to use any legal resources to obtain that money.

One might very well ask: Why did they not they, the Founding Authors, think of that?  The answer, I suspect, is that once upon a time—certainly when the Constitution was written—there would have been a sufficiently strong sense of shame that no person found guilty of committing murder in order to get his money back would ever have thought to do such a thing—unless, of course, the person deemed himself to be innocent.  .  Alas, there is little or no shame nowadays.   Besides, Durham hardly claims to be innocent.  Thus, the problem is not that he takes himself to be dealing with a wrong committed against him in the only way that he can.  Quite the contrary, he is simply out to take advantage of an opportunity.  And this he is doing using the taxpayer’s money.  That is totally unacceptable.

I am willing to go so far as to that Durham should legally forfeit any claim to the money even if could use his own money to go after Chambers.  Here is a simple principle: Murdering anyone (family members; employees) legally associated with the person who owes money to one automatically cancels debt.  The debt is legally rendered non-existent.

Now, it needs to be said that Chambers does not come across as a particularly honest man.  And as they say, “If it sounds too good too good to be true, then in all likelihood it is”.  Just so, the way to go about dealing with a con-artist is not commit murder.  Not allowing Durham to go after Chambers for the money does not in any way validate con-artists.  Rather, it simply validates the principle that murder is never acceptable as a means of trying to secure what is owed to one.

The simple principle that I have put forward no doubt needs some modification.  For example, we might want to make exceptions for instance where money is earmarked for family members, especially children, and so the money would go to them.  So there can remain a debt to be settled when the money would go to people other than the murderer given that they have a legitimate claim to it.  Exceptions would undoubtedly make for complexity.  Alas, there will still be causes, where pristine clarity that the debt is canceled prevails.  Durham’s situation is a case in point.

It is tremendously disconcerting that 1 out of 7 (or 8, depending on the story one reads) female students at Paul Robeson High School is pregnant. And, needless to say, Principal Gerald Morrow is to be commended for wanting to help these exceedingly young-mothers-to-be. Alas, what is at issue here is the very thin line between helping these young women and condoning what has happened. If Morrow is to succeed, it is precisely this line that he must not cross. The women are to be helped, but the practice of having children out of wedlock and at such a young age must not be condoned.
I distinguish sharply between what I shall deconstructive shame, on the one hand, constructive shame, on the other. The very idea behind destructive to shame is to make the person feel morally and socially unworthy for that which she or he has done. Destructive shame takes a wrongful act and insists that the wrongful act reveals that the very person essentially has no social or moral worth at all.
In a word, then, destructive shame goes too far precisely because it essentially rules out the possibility for rehabilitation.
Constructive shame, by contrast, does not deny the wrong. Not at all. Rather, constructive shame takes the wrong committed and turns it into a learning moment. The very idea, then, is that shame can very well be a catalyst for doing good.
If Principal Morrow is to really make a difference, he cannot afford to eliminate shame altogether. Getting pregnant in high school is an enormously irresponsible thing to do. It is not good for the very young female student. It is not good for the infant. Getting pregnant in high school is not a form of excellence. It is not anything of which anyone should be proud.
Just so, getting pregnant at 16 is a mistake that can be turned into a majestic learning moment. And this is only proper way to succeed. The analogue here is roughly that of loving parents saying to their child “We are ashamed of what you did, but we still love you”. Far from devastating the child, the statement sends just the right message to the child: “What you did was wrong, but we are going to move on in a positive way from there.”
There is the saying “No pain; no gain”. Alas, this saying has some applicability in the moral domain as well. Shame can serve as an ever so poignant reminder of what not do again, and also as an ever so profound inspiration for providing guidance to others.
Back to Paul Robeson High School: Well, the name and various photographs of students here and there would suggest that Paul Robeson High is a predominantly black high school.
Far too often, the thought nowadays would seem to be that criticizing the behavior of blacks is some form of betrayal to the black community. Indeed, it seems that no matter how harmful the behavior is, someone will argue that criticizing the behavior is wrong because the behavior is behavior that flows from African roots or because criticizing the behavior contributes to racism against blacks.
Well, nothing will contribute more to the languishing of black people than the complete absence of criticism, where criticism is appropriate. Black people do not have a claim to moral perfection. And constructive criticism has always been a most significant key to flourishing. It is downright stupid to suppose that black people are the exception to the truth that constructive criticism is absolutely a key to flourishing.
These high school mothers-to-be should talk both to one another and to their females who are not pregnant about why it is important not to become pregnant in high school. They should talk about what they must give up, even as they talk about how they shall forge ahead.
Getting pregnant is a life-altering event—a life altering event that no high school should student should ever experience. It is terribly disingenuous and misleading not to put the point precisely this way.
Better every teenage female at Robeson High School should know this truth than to be told the lie that there is nothing wrong with being pregnant as a high school student.
What is manifestly true, of course, is that no child has any less moral value regardless of the circumstances under which that child was conceived—be it rape or the full blessings of a loving marital covenant. However, issues must not be confused. The moral worth of a child is one thing. The behavior that got that child into the world is quite another. Some forms of behavior that cause a child to be brought into the world are most morally commendable. Other forms of behavior are absolutely not. Principal Gerald Morrow must not lose sight of this truth. Or so it is if he is to succeed in making a difference for the better at the Paul Robeson High School.
Morrow must take the mistakes of the past made by each female student who has become pregnant and use those mistakes as a vehicle for launching self-discipline and self-respect on the part of these students—both pregnant and not pregnant. He must give the students who are not pregnant the power to say “No” to the sexual advances of teenage boys. And in this regard, avoiding a sense of shame can go a very, very long ways in terms providing a person with a reason to resist temptation. Thus, the pain of shame serves as the launching pad for a most important moral victory, namely that of saying “No” to the sexual advances of teenage boys.
I have heard teenage girls say that they want a baby because “They want someone to love them”. Obviously, this is to confuse roles ever so mightily. It is the parent who has the responsibility of loving the child. Not the other way around.
Principal Morrow will succeed if he can increasingly bring it about that more female students in the high school graduate without becoming pregnant. He will not accomplish that end in the absence of the tool of constructive moral shame.

Here is an astonishingly simple truth: No human being is right all the time.  This means quite simply that neither Democrats nor Republicans are right all the time.  Alas, one would not know that from what one sees and hears on the political scene.  And if there is one message more than any other that politics is sending to children, that message is “To hell with you”.

As Neil Cavuto has once remarked: It would be nice just once to hear politicians say “I am sorry.  I made a mistake.  I was wrong.”  Instead, what we get is insufferable grandstanding on both sides.  Indeed, if anything is clear it is clear that each side is more interested in finding ways to blame the other side than finding ways to cooperate with the other side.  And that surely is a most unwholesome moral message to send to children.

The arrogance of politicians on either side bespeaks an ill-will that makes them all rather unfit to govern the nation.  Of course, I am speaking in broad generalities here.  There are exceptions.  But the exceptions prove the rule.

Since I mean to be making a very general point in this blog-entry, I shall not mention the names of any politicians, lest that be seen as being hypocritical.  However, I shall mention the name of a group, namely Acorn.

One does not have to be a saint in order to see that the group has behaved in rather inappropriate ways.  Even if one embraces the ideals of Acorn, one should have considerable moral qualms with many of the approaches that Acorn has taken.

One does not have to be a genius to see that Acorn sees to subscribe to the view that it is justified in using any means whatsoever to achieve its goals.  Likewise, one does not have to be a saint to hold the view that this approach is entirely unacceptable.  So there be complete outrage on the part of both Democrats and Republicans.

Acting with integrity is incompatible with using any means whatsoever to achieve one’s ends.  And we should want our children to embrace the ideal of integrity.

Alas, if what children do is tied to how politicians behave, then politicians are clearly teaching children “To hell with integrity”.  And, of course, to say “To hell with integrity” is also to say “To hell with honesty”.  Needless to say, without honesty and integrity on the part of individuals, trust and goodwill between them is simply impossible.  And where we lack trust and goodwill between individuals, what we have is some version of hell on earth between them.

No doubt, there are many reasons why today’s children lack the moral fiber that children seem to have once had.  Radical changes in technology most certainly constitute a factor.  Perhaps that is it.  Owing to technology one now see more clearly the moral blemishes of politicians.  Perhaps in the past, it was possible for politicians to maintain the façade of integrity.  And so we could see them has having a measure of moral decency notwithstanding the reality that they were absolutely corrupt.

Well, there is perhaps no greater sign of just how corrupt politicians are than the fact that in the face of the reality that they are pretty much on full-display 24-7, they are doing very little, if anything, to foster a public image of integrity.  Alas, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that in general politicians are clearly indifferent to the ideal of integrity.  And this shows that in so many words, politicians are none other than moral monsters.

This, then, is the moral and social reality that permeates our society and which children experience in a multitude of ways: Our politicians are moral monsters.

Many of the practices of Acorn are just as despicable as anti-abortionists who hold that they are justified in murdering doctors who perform abortions.  In either case, the judgment of moral unacceptable behavior should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is a Democrat or a Republican.   I mean, as the case of Nazi Germany shows, one has to be morally bankrupt to suppose that murder or massive deception is a moral prerogative one’s party.

Offhand, we are perhaps naturally inclined to hold that Democrats and Republicans are quite removed from folks who are Nazis.  Well, it is true that no one overseeing gas chambers.  And we would all like to think that no would ever do such a thing.  But I ask: Except for some measure of blind faith, what concrete reason(s) do any of us have actually to believe that our politicians would not do such a thing.  For what we have every reason to believe is that, with utterly rare exception, they are all entirely self-serving individuals.  And I suggest that one will be extremely hard-pressed to find adequate moral space between entirely self-serving individuals and Nazis.

If I am right, then we have some clarity why the United States is going to hell in hand-basket.  About the only thing that politicians inspire nowadays is self-centeredness.  Not courage.  Not integrity.  Not virtue.  Or to put the point a more poignant way: What politicians inspire can only be properly described as evil.  Or so it is, once we stop being polite. So the next time, we look at the beginning of evil behavior in the children around us, just ask yourself: What has your politician done lately to inspire moral excellence on the part of this or that child?

There is a very satirical site about the radio talk show host Glenn Beck. The name of the site is

http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

At the bottom of the site, the owners of the site make it quite clear, indeed, that they do not think that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Alas, one has to get to the very bottom of the site; and there is no reason to think that most people will do that.
The aim of the site is have Glenn Beck experience the kind of smearing that he does to others—subliminal smearing, as I shall refer to it. This is when a question is raised in a way that strongly implies that one is guilty of some egregious wrongdoing although no straightforward declarative claim to that effect is made and, moreover, it not easy to offer a satisfactory rebuttal to the insinuation.
Consider, for instance, the following assertion on the site:

PC LOAD LETTER: Skleenar: If Glenn Beck didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990, wouldn’t it be the prudent thing for him to simply release his legal records proving that he didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990. It is very interesting that he has not taken this simple step. Instead he hides it behind an army of lawyers. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE, GLENN?

Notice that typically we do not have legal records which prove that we have not committed a crime. I have no legal records to prove that I did not commit the burglary that took place in Syracuse a few nights ago. Neither do you.
Now, the challenge to prove that I did not commit a crime flips the American judicial process around: Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, it is the other way around: One is guilty until one proves that one is innocent. That is the satirical move of PC Load Letter with respect to the charge that Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.
Two questions readily present themselves: (1) Has the site gone too far? (2) Is Glenn Beck guilty of subliminal smearing?
At the outset, we might want to distinguish between (a) subliminal smearing with respect to person-to-person heinous immoral behavior and (b) subliminal smearing with respect to non-heinous criminal behavior that is person-to-person. Surely, subliminal smearing with respect to person-to-person heinous immoral behavior is entirely out of order and bespeaks a maliciousness that can only be characterized as abject cruelty.
In particular, subliminal smearing with respect to person-to-person heinous immoral behavior is unacceptable even if the target of such smearing is someone who is unequivocally guilty of subliminal smearing with respect to person-to-person heinous immoral behavior.
Surely, Smith is not justified in murdering the members of Lee’s family just because Lee is murdering the members of Jones’s family. Nor would Smith be justifying in subliminally smearing Lee’s family with the person-to-person heinous immoral behavior of child sexual abuse.
So, the owners of the site

http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

are doing what is terribly wrong in their subliminal smearing of Glenn Beck with person-to-person heinous immoral behavior. So it is even if Beck himself is guilty of such smearing others with person-to-person heinous immoral behavior. This is a particularly clear instance in which two wrongs do not make a right.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Quite the contrary, two wrongs tend to lead to a further escalation of immorality which, in turn, fosters a moral climate of greater meanness and viciousness. Thus, we lose in virtue of winning.
On the Glenn Beck show, Beck strongly criticizes both Democrats and Republicans. And certainly Barack Obama has of late been one of Beck’s primary targets. He thinks that Obama is a socialist or even a communist. Not surprisingly, then, Beck also thinks that Obama is destroying America. As far as I can tell, this kind of nastiness is part and parcel of politics nowadays. Both sides are equally nasty to one another.
Although I find this kind of nastiness disgusting, I do not see that it is on the order of the subliminal smearing of another with a person-to-person heinous immoral act. I should like to distinguish further between subliminal smearing with respect to a competing political ideology and subliminal smearing with respect to personal criminal behavior.
Glenn Beck has surely said some outlandish things about Obama. However, I do not think that he has accused Obama of anything remotely close to child sexual abuse or rape or murder.
Beck most certainly does think that Obama is hypocritical and a masterful liar; and Beck thinks that Obama’s association with Acorn reveals these traits. Again, accusations of this sort seem to be grist for the mill in politics. What is more, accusations of this sort fall considerably short of subliminally smearing another with person-to-person heinous immoral behavior.
Lest it be thought that I am really biased here, consider Representative Alan Grayson’s charge that in rejecting Obama’s health care plan the Republicans are imposing a Holocaust upon America. Here we have a Democrat striking out at Republicans with a very malicious claim. Still, the charge stops short of accusing any Republican with person-to-person heinous immoral behavior. And a Republican might just as easily accuse Democrats of being Nazis.
Glenn Beck is a public figure. Accordingly, the rules of defamation of character are different for him. But even that which is permissible can be abused. Indeed, with free speech we can do that which is evil all the while doing what we have a perfect legal right to do.
I hold that we have an unequivocal abuse of free speech when an individual engages in the subliminal smearing of public figures with person-to-person heinous immoral behavior. The accusation of rape and/or murder should never under any circumstances be acceptable forms of subliminal smearing.
I have no qualms whatsoever with people attacking Glenn Beck and doing so ever so vociferously for that matter. The same holds for Rush Limbaugh. Indeed, I am sure that both would agree that being publicly criticized about just about anything and everything, and even being misunderstood, comes with the territory. In fact, there can be no doubt that President Barack Obama would say the same thing.
This leaves critics with plenty of room to say all sorts of mean and malicious things and yet stop considerably short of ever subliminally smearing a public figure with a person-to-person heinous crime.
If we do not have the will to draw the line here, then what we thereby portend is that we lack the will to be a nation of morally decent citizens.

Those at

http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

most certainly think that they are getting even. Well, they are getting even by being evil. And that modus operandi is necessarily none other than a Pyrrhic victory.

One does not have to be a prude about sex in order to find rather stunning the deafening silence on the part of feminists regarding the David Letterman scandal of having sex with subordinate females who worked for him. This is a paradigm example of the abuse of power—the kind of abuse of power that has been deemed definitive of sexism.
I sharply distinguish between having sex with one’s subordinates and having sex with individuals who are not one’s subordinate. However morally inappropriate a sexual liaison may be in terms of showing disrespect for marriage vows (or an otherwise committed relationship), such a liaison nonetheless falls short of being marred by an abuse of power. Sexual immorality need not involve an abuse of power.
What we have with Letterman, though, is indeed none other than an abuse of power. Accordingly, it is disconcerting that there has not been an outcry on the part of feminists and the public generally.
In an article entitled “Where is the Outrage Over David Letterman?” by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Ali Hamoudeh of New York is quoted as saying “We love Letterman no matter what he does. He brings us joy. And that’s all that counts—he brings joy. Besides, who cares?”
Again, one might ask: Where is the feminist outrage to such a statement? More poignantly, one might ask what has happened to even a semblance of moral decency on the part of human beings. There is a stunning moral numbness to behavior that is unequivocally wrong—a moral numbness that bespeaks a very, very, very deep decline in the very moral fabric of society.
What is particularly interesting in this case is that it is not all clear that Mr. Letterman is even contrite about his morally inappropriate sexual behavior. Being contrite would not excuse Letterman. Nor would it be a reason not to penalize him. Just so, the lack of contrition on his part—the lack of even the appearance of contrition on this part—is most revealing of an indifference to brazen forms of wrongdoing.
Once more, in “Where is the Outrage Over David Letterman?”, it is noted that the National Organization for Women does not even list sexual harassment in the work place as one of its top concerns. By contrast, standing up to those on the Right is said to be one of the top concerns of NOW.
What makes the preceding paragraph so utterly disconcerting is that would seem to imply that rape is somehow more wrong when it is done by a Conservative than when it is done by a Liberal. And it is my view that an organization automatically loses its moral legitimacy if implies such a view or has a policy that invites such an interpretation.
I understand, of course, that it is with an adult woman that Letterman had sex. Accordingly, there is a drastic difference between his case and the case of Roman Polanski. But precisely what we all know is that horrendous sexual harassment can involve two full-fledged adults with one being the harasser and the other being the victim. In fact, sexual harassment generally has presupposed adulthood on the part of both individuals; otherwise, what we have is statutory rape.
Now, I am of the old school that rape is wrong regardless of the color or ideology or economic standing of the person who commits it. There is no alternative view that even has a chance of being morally defensible. This is why the case of Roman Polanski is obvious: He committed a wrong for which he should do the time.
The same holds for sexual harassment in the work place: It is wrong. And in the case at hand, there is no issue that we have sexual harassment here or, in any case, quit inappropriate behavior—an abuse of power. For Letterman he has admitted this.
Now, this much is clear: When organizations in a society are effectively deciding that the moral gravity of sexual misconduct is a function ideology of the permits who commits the act, then that society has lost its moral bearings. Or, in any case, the society is well on its way to doing so.
The United States is well on its way to being a society that is without moral bearings. The only thing that seems to matter nowadays is that one utters a racial epithet or one shows brazen disrespect for a minority member. As wrong as racism is, there are also other wrongs of equal or greater gravity. Between sexual harassment in the work place and various forms of racial disrespect, surely there are forms sexual harassment that far surpasses a white person’s yelling “You lie” to the President of the United States.
And if the United States cannot see this decline, then the failure to see this truth is unquestionably a sign that the country has lost or is quickly losing its moral fiber.
The case of David Letterman increasingly makes me think of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I would love to see just 10 famous celebrities take Letterman to task morally for his inappropriate behavior.
I noted above that Hamoudeh made the following remark: “We love Letterman no matter what he does. He brings us joy. And that’s all that counts—he brings joy. Besides, who cares?” The implication here would seem to be that if a person makes people feel good about themselves, then it does not much matter what he says. Not unlike Nazi Germany.