Reflections on the Sandusky Verdict

Former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky was just found guilty of 45 counts of child molestation. If media reports are correct, the decision was eminently just, and Sandusky was clearly guilty of disgusting crimes.

Justice has been served - and justice is only to be welcomed. But many people are demanding more than mere justice for Sandusky. Cries are coming from a host of sources that Sandusky himself be raped in prison, and even that he "rot in hell." 

That reaction disturbs me intensely. It may be a natural reaction of fallen humanity to wish horrible things on hateful people – but it is not a Christian reaction.

Most of us have skeletons of our own in our closets. I know I have absolutely nightmarish skeletons in mine. And I know that my crimes would earn me the undying scorn of those who don't know me.

I would never defend a child molester. Anyone who would commit a crime of that nature has plumbed the depths of evil, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But I would never pray that anyone, even a child molester, "rot in Hell." Nor would I pray that those who foolishly defend him rot in Hell, either (as I have seen others do).

My own sins are many. And if I would ask for mercy for myself, I must offer mercy to others.
I pray for Sandusky's repentance, not his torture and death. Even the worst humans can be converted and brought to Christ. I know this, because I have been.

Defining Sport

The egalitarian tendencies of modern feminism induces otherwise intelligent individuals to argue breathtakingly ridiculous positions. Take this article, which essentially posits that women are capable of challenging men in sports like baseball, tennis, etc. (Read the comments if you want a rebuttal.)

This article does spark the question of what exactly constitutes a sport in the first place. I am about to share some highly provocative and speculative thoughts on this topic, which have sparked several family disagreements.

So now, as punishment for my family’s rejection of my infinite wisdom, I inflict my infinite wisdom on you. (The faint of heart or easily offended should probably leave now.) Here are my criteria for what constitutes a sport:

           1. A sport must involve moderate-to-intense physical activity and some level of human locomotion. This eliminates horse racing, auto racing, boating, and other events where the mode of locomotion is machine or animal powered. This also eliminates games such as darts, archery, and other contests which measure aim and accuracy.

            2. A sport must have a measure of scoring that depends on objective means. This eliminates gymnastics, figure skating, and other contests dependent upon the whims of judges.

      3. The ELITE males in a sport must ALWAYS be better than the ELITE females in a sport. This point, as you will find, merely reinforces the first two points.

      For those of you who made it to the end without throwing a brick through their computer, I congratulate you.  For those of you offended by what you perceive to be blatant sexism:

   

Government in the Bedroom?

The feminist movement often argues that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens, arguing that the state should simply ignore citizens’ personal and sexual lives altogether.

If they really want to achieve this end, they should stop demanding that the government fully subsidize their birth control. By subsidizing birth control, government effectively intrudes into the bedrooms of its citizens.

For contraception is not health care (except in rare cases, and then it is only contraceptive per accidens.) By funding contraception, government is effectively subsidizing childlessness by choice, encouraging casual sexual behavior.

In order for government to truly “get out of the bedroom,” government would need to stop funding contraception and abortion altogether, and place no restrictions on contraceptive devices. Only then would government be truly “out of the bedroom.”

When feminists argue that “government should stay out of the bedroom,” of course, what they really mean is that government should subsidize free contraception and abortion on demand. They do want government in the bedroom – but they want government supporting their whims.

Catchy slogans like "get government out of the bedroom" distort reality.

In Defense of Quirkiness

I recently sparked a mini-controversy last week at my workplace, when I wore gloves to my workplace. I’ve also raised eyebrows over other seemingly odd habits, such as carrying around a stick to classes, perching on chairs, wearing sunglasses at night, etc.

I’d like to say I’m sorry for these quirks, but I’m not. They are deliberate, and I have adopted them for several reasons.

Besides, strange behavior is often only strange by accident. After all, fashion is a social construct, started by trendsetters and incredibly fickle. My odd fashion choices now may prove prophetic years in the future.

But there is actual logic behind quirky behavior. For one thing, it puts society's hypocrisy on full display. In a world that always claims to cherish non-conformity, it is striking how much societal pressure there is to conform to prevailing norms. People who do odd things are criticized for “being weird” or “not going with the flow,” and are not championed; instead, they are bashed for their strangeness. 

More importantly, odd behavior draws other people out of themselves. Most people are self-absorbed; odd behavior forces people to acknowledge the quirky habits of an individual. Odd behavior demands a human response, and evokes a semblance of concern from another people which polite behavior rarely does.

For humanity is depressingly object-centered. People ALWAYS notice a stick, or gloves, or any object out of the ordinary, yet rarely,observe the look on someone’s face when someone is sad, or joyful, or angry. Many people care a great deal about objects or fashion choices, but have little concern for the human person. 

We humans observe sunglasses on a man's head, but fail to see the sorrow in his eyes; we compliment a young lady on her new dress or hairstyle, but ignore the glow of her newly in love.

But human beings are PEOPLE – humans with thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and not merely constructs of bodies and attached objects. And any means by which I can help people understand that, even seemingly odd ones, I will utilize.

Even the caricature of caring wrought by quirkiness is better than no concern at all. So I'll keep wearing my sunglasses and gloves, thank you very much.

The Nonsensical "Love is Love" Argument

“I love him, and he loves me! Who are you to hinder our love for each other? Love is love!”

This "argument" in favor of gay marriage is common. It is also an emotional appeal masquerading as a serious argument.

It is based on the false assumption that sexual attraction is equivalent to love. If sexual attraction is love, and any attempt to forbid love is discriminatory, then homosexual marriage must be clearly acceptable.

The proponents of this argument ignore the fact that the same logic could be used to justify “consensual” incest, or polyamory, or any type of relationship between two consenting partners.  

Why should the state forbid a brother and sister who are sexually attracted to one another from marrying? Because incest is disgusting? Many people say the same about gay marriage. Because the children the couple bear might suffer disease? The couple can simply contracept, and refuse to bear children. 

If a 30 year old teacher and a 15 year old student both consent to a relationship, then why should the state interfere?  Because the relationship is inherently coercive? Who determines whether or not a relationship is inherently coercive, anyway? 

If sexual attraction is synonymous with love, any type of consensual sexual relationship is acceptable. After all, love is love!

Modern Confusion of Manhood

In modern society, being a man is often conflated with physical and intellectual prowess. The ability to attract women, the ability to beat other men to a pulp, and the ability to defeat opponents in contests of strength or skill or chance – these are all treated as expressions of true manhood. 

These abilities are all positive goods. The ability to defend oneself against other males, to outwit opponents, and to attract women are all things that males should strive to cultivate. 

But they are not the essence of manhood. And the confusion of these positive goods with true manhood is symptomatic of a dearth of manhood in modern society.

For the essence of manhood is self-gift. Man was made to give himself to others, to give his time, effort, abilities, and even his body to serve others and the kingdom of Christ. True manhood is about service of others, not about power.

Manhood, in its truest sense, is most truly expressed when one is able to resist one’s disordered desires, so as to more effectively sacrifice himself for others. Christ, through His total sacrifice of Himself on the cross for others, is the truest man ever to live.

Thus, true manhood manifests itself in ways which are largely scorned or taken for granted, especially in an increasingly feminized society.  

It takes more strength to restrain oneself when every part of one’s body is screaming to be sated (i.e., through food, or through sex, or through TV watching), than to simply give into desire. It takes more strength to hold one’s anger in check and bear injuries patiently and with love, than to lash out at a taunting foe. It takes more courage to stand for a principle that the world denies and mocks, than to simply give in on important issues when expedient.

But it is these basic principles of manhood that modern society denies and mocks. Manhood is instead seen as an expression of power, of exerting physical or intellectual or sexual control over another. True manhood is therefore treated as empowerment of oneself and self-aggrandizement, at the expense of the good of others.

And as a result, men who abandon their posts and seek only their own gratification increasingly grow more common in modern society, as the spirit of self-sacrifice which is the essence of manhood is denigrated in favor of a conception of manhood based on power.

The Chess Theory of Understanding People

On occasion, this blog ventures into highly speculative territory. This post dives deep into uncharted waters.

Understanding human beings is like playing chess. Reading humans is as simple as understanding their personality and their goals, and understanding chess players is like understanding their styles of play and skill level.

For humans are predictable creatures of habit, who act in what they believe to be their own self-interest. Push a man in one direction, and he will respond based on what he believes will benefit him. (Of course, what a man sees as his self-interest may actually not be best for him.) After a while, human choices become dictated by previous decisions – the man who goes to college for engineering takes path which after awhile excludes other choices, for example.

Human beings also have very distinct personalities. One particular person might be flamboyant, one might be quiet.

People make seemingly irrational decisions, based on false preconceptions, external factors, or simply honest error.

The comparisons between human beings and chess players are striking.  

Chess players also favor certain openings, certain types of moves, and adopt aggressive or defensive styles of play, depending on their personality. After a while, their moves become dictated by their style of play and the situation at hand.

Chess players are also known to make blunders, based on external factors or their own misreading of situations.

This analogy does not posit that humans lack free will. But habit is very, very strong, and people rarely change their habits without a great deal of effort. After a while, those habits tend to define person.

To cultivate knowledge of another person, one must get to know them. The more skilled the reader of a person, the easier people become to predict. Some have a gift for reading others, as well.

The more one gets to know people, the better one can “read” and understand the personalities of others. Similarly, the more one studies chess, the better one will become as a player.