Why is the Left Turning a Blind Eye to Sexual Abuse?

Over the last few months, there have been quite a few incidents in which individuals or organizations on the left have been ignoring or minimizing sexual abuse.

The first that I observed was Planned Parenthood.

OK, a left leaning organization helps a person posing as a teenaged girl to conceal sexual relationships with adults.  Mind you, the above video is one of several.  This was done in several locations.

Then, came the ACORN videos.  At multiple locations, ACORN workers advised people posing as a pimp and a prostitute, on how to evade taxes, hide prostitution, and how to hide the importation underage girls for the purpose of prostitution!

Then, the left comes out to defend Roman Polanski.  After all, he plead guilty to drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year-old girl!  Here is some video:

Here are some names on a petition signed by many Hollywood lefties, supporting Polanski.

Woody Allen
Wes Anderson
Darren Aronofsky
Jonatham Demme
Stephen Frears
David Lynch
Martin Scorsese

More can be found here.

So, just when you think it’s over, there’s more.  It has been uncovered that the “Safe Schools Czar,” Kevin Jennings, failed to report a sexual relationship between a high school student and an adult.  At the time, Jennings was a schoolteacher, and as such, was a mandated reporter.  He was legally obligated to report this abuse, but did not do so.  Basically, we are left with a situation in which the “safe schools czar” failed to report alleged child sexual abuse!  Not very “safe,” is it?

Now, Jennings has been attempting to explain this away.

“Teachers back then had little training or guidance about this kind of thing,” Jennings said. “All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.”

His statement came amid new discoveries about his descriptions of his interaction with the gay high school student, whom he called “Brewster” in his 1994 book, “One Teacher in 10,” and in a speech he gave in 2000.

In his 2007 autobiography, “Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir,” Jennings writes nearly the same story, but he calls the student “Robertson.”

On page 162, Jennings writes: “Robertson soon told me the tale, about someone he’d met in Boston, how he thought he loved him, how heartbroken he was when his calls never got returned…”

Well…My opinion is that Jennings was hired by the administration because he is ideologically aligned with the left.  He is a published author, as well as the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.  Basically, he has the politically correct ideas for the Obama administration.  Some are suggesting that this was a vetting problem.  I have to conclude that the administration doesn’t actually care.  They want ideologically pure people to promote their agenda, and would really like FOX News and bloggers to go away so these things wont’ be exposed.

So, it is a mistake now.  It apparently was OK when he was discussing it in his books.  Might the difference be that he is now receiving public scrutiny?

Ordinarily, any one of these examples could be viewed as an aberration.  Put them all together, and it frankly makes me sick to my stomach.  But why is this happening?

Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people. It comes in two forms: ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism.

Ethical subjectivism holds that morality is relative to individuals; cultural relativism holds that it is relative to culture. Both deny the existence of moral absolutes, of objective moral truths that hold for all people in all places at all times.

According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop.

If moral relativism is true, therefore, then we should not ask whether an act is good or bad in the abstract, but only whether it is good or bad in a particular situation.

If there is no right or wrong, or good or evil, it’s easy to explain away crimes against children.  It’s also apparently OK to ignore or break the law, provided that your ideas are “correct.”    This leads to the rule that the “ends justifies the means.”  If one is working to a goal that is desired, and violating ethics and laws are needed to achieve it… well, you get the point.  If ACORN advances the agenda of the left, it’s apparently OK to overlook the child prostitution assistance?  If Roman Polanski is a renowned director, it’s OK to overlook raping a child?  Since Planned Parenthood provides abortions, it’s OK to overlook child molestation?  Not a very good track record, is it?

This idea has permeated politics and society for some time now.  Remember the Clinton administration, when we were told by the left that his affair(s?), perjury, and obstruction of justice were just his personal life?  Remember that his polling data needed to be separated into job performance and personal approval?

Let me say this, I have worked in various capacities in the course of my career.  I have been an administrator at several levels for the last nine years.  Without exception, I can say that people that have no standards in their personal life have little to no standards in their professional life.  This cannot be separated, as people do not magically change when they go to work, or take an oath of office.  If they are corrupt in their own lives, they will be corrupt at work.  taking that into consideration, is it any wonder that our politicians and other public officials are so corrupt?

If there are no standards of right or wrong, we will see more and more of this equivocation.  I would love to think that the left really doesn’t support abuse of children, but I’m only seeing action once the exposure becomes so great that it can no longer be ignored.  That leads me to believe that many people will look the other way when crimes or negligence is discovered, as long as the agenda is moving forward.