As a former leftist, I long ago gave up on the idea that we could ever expect this immoral ideology to be consistent in its application of rules of conduct.
Let’s take the case of Bill O’Reilly.
I think we can all agree that the left had it in for the Fox News star, long before a parade of women made allegations against him of sexism and sexual harassment.
Now, let me say at the outset, I do not condone sexual harassment. Nor do I generally believe in treating anyone unfairly because of their sex. The moral code I try to follow is the Judeo-Christian biblical model.
But the left clearly doesn’t. They’re making up their own rules as they go along.
So, for me, adultery is wrong. Sleeping around is wrong. Being obsessed with sexual conquests is wrong.
Maybe Bill O’Reilly is guilty of some of that. Maybe he’s not. If he is, he’s certainly not a good role model for Americans. And I can certainly understand that if a network faces many millions of dollars in settlements with women making allegations against a TV anchor and is facing many millions in lost advertising revenue over the claims, it has the right to take him off the air.
However, let’s think about this in the context of leftist ideology. It generally insists that people are who they are sexually and there is generally nothing they can do about it. Someone who is “gay” can’t change. Someone who is bisexual can’t change. Someone who was born anatomically a male could really believe he is a female, and we should all understand his need to live out that fantasy.
They can’t help being what they are – and sex drives and predilections are impossible to change, the left tells us.
Do I have this right so far?
If so, what if Bill O’Reilly can’t help himself?
Aren’t there lots of men and women prone to adultery?
Aren’t there lots of men and women prone to sleeping around?
Should there not be some consideration and tolerance for men and women who are simply being who they are sexually?
Or is it only homosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians and “transgenders” who have the right to be who they are? What about the poor male slob who just can’t stop hitting on women?
Come to think of it, are there no women sexually harassing men? Or is that OK? Or is that a form of reparations for the long history of men oppressing women and taking advantage of them?
I’m just saying …
Why are some sexual rules subject to change and others not?
Because I was indoctrinated into this view at an early age, I know what the left will say to this. So let me answer my own question. The left would say: “Bill O’Reilly was charged with sexual harassment of some of these women. That’s where he went over the line.”
Maybe so. Maybe he’s even guilty. But wasn’t Bill Clinton accused of sexual harassment – and even forcible rape? Didn’t his wife know all about it and participate in cover-ups and smears of the victims? Wasn’t he the president of the United States when many of these allegations were made?
Where was the left in trying to bring him to justice? Did I miss that effort?
That’s right. Bill Clinton not only got a pass from the left, he was defended by the movement.
Tell me, is it worse when a TV anchor tries to sleep with every other woman he crosses or the president of the United States?
Is it worse when a TV anchor uses the “power” he has to satisfy his profound, predestined sexual urges or when the most powerful person in the world uses his leverage to get what he wants?
Color me confused.
Is it only LGBT people who are what they are without any ability to change? If so, why is that? And, if that’s true and some people are just born that way, could it be that some people are born serial adulterers? Are some straight men and women just hopelessly promiscuous?
If so, why isn’t Bill O’Reilly crying sex discrimination?
Or could it be, as the Bible says, that all people are born with a predilection toward sin and simply need to repent, turn away from it, stop doing it and ask forgiveness from God?
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|
