The recent events at the University of Pennsylvania bring up some interesting thoughts. Clearly the acts involved were heinous. Clearly there is a good old boys network that protects, or at least shelters, members of the "team". Clearly football is such a money maker that if you touch it you die. Clearly Paterno and the President of the University had to go.
That said there was a debate on Meet the Nation this past Sunday that merits discussion. I am not familiar with one of the commentators but I am familiar with David Brooks, the much celebrated columnist of the New York Times. While all agreed that the actions taken by the University were justified, one commentator said that crimes of this nature are part of the fabric of society. While regrettable, the only recourse was to make sure that the laws had stiff penalties for those who did not report either the crimes or reports of the crimes. In other words lock the barn, fully, after the horse has escaped.
Brooks, who I had always known as the lone conservative commentator at the Times had a different view. He believed that society has lost its "yardstick" that differentiates between good and evil. Evil acts were the subject of legislation. In effect, moral instruction of the young and old alike had been forsaken. People no longer knew what was morally right and were without a moral compass.
From my perspective it looks like Brooks is "right on". You can look at garbage television where risqué language is now the norm in prime time. You can look at a raft of movies that sell potty humour very well. You can look at people who are attacked in the streets while onlookers move on. On a more human level you can see the devaluation of the sexual act to almost zero among teens and even pre teens. However, this kind of reaction is normal for any person of advanced years who always claimed that the youth were going down the drain. I can remember a time when Jack Benny was banished from the airwaves for a risqué remark that would not raise an eyebrow today. So, what's happened.
In the United States the slippery slope was founded in first amendment rights. Much of what we would have called pornography in my youth was permitted as an exercise in free speech. Books that were formerly banned were given a reprieve under the same rights. Movies that had formerly only shown a bedroom occupied by husband and wife as one with twin beds were replaced with movies that open showed gay sex. Hee Haw was the first of a string of television shows that featured (albeit funny) sexual innuendos. These shows, while mildly in bad taste, bear little resemblance to current television shows where specific sexual references are common. These shows are said to reflect the current ethos among the 18-24 year old viewers.
That being said, sexual predators are hardly new. The Catholic Church bears witness to sexual crimes that go back well over 50 years. Nor are sexual deviants a new phenomenon. Better reporting and better detection have shone a better light on these unfortunate crimes.
And then there is the "pill". The pill was introduced just after we were married. No one, at that time, could foretell the sexual revolution was was to follow. The hippie mantra of "make love not war" was followed literally. These hippies grew up to be fairly normal parents but they were parents who had smoked pot and had a liberal attitude toward sex. They were hardly the ones to come down on casual sex.
Add to that the societal acceptance of what was once known as sexual deviance. I am referring to gay and lesbian relationships. During my youth I am sure that there were as many gays and lesbians as there are now--not in number but in proportion to the population at large. However, this kind of behaviour was not talked about and rarely accepted as any kind of norm. If course all that has changed, and for the better.
So where are we on the subject of "original sin". Clearly moral values have changed dramatically in the 75 years of my life. For the better? Not always. For the worse? Sometimes. I do want to point out two things that I think are the hallmark of this kind of discussion. The first is casual sex. If sex is a fundamental act of procreation, if sex is the ultimate act of selflessness between partners, then I believe that casual sex is a devaluation of that "sacredness". The second point is one of taste. If the only humour that is current is based on four letter words and bathroom references then I think that there has been a devaluation of this art form. If bystanders see a crime being perpetrated and say and do nothing or laugh at racist jokes then humanity has been devalued. The roll of organized religions are not very helpful in that regard. The task must be taken over by responsible parents and educators who can point out that certain thing are, plain wrong. Unless this is done we will all revel in the garbage can of human relations.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment