But are the British entirely without blame because we refuse to
publish the pictures? No. Because this whole incident is but a symptom
of our Europe-wide immoral, immodest culture, a culture where
promiscuity, pornography and perversion flow unchecked. Indeed, our
entire entertainment industry thrives on adulterous sex in particular
and a mocking disregard for the Ten Commandments in general.
Of course the money-making motive is behind all
this. 'Filthy lucre' is the apt expression. Not that there is anything
filthy about feminine beauty. But the beauty of a man's wife should be
for his eyes alone. The kind of decadence that ignores such privacy
merely fuels public male lust and should be disallowed and even
criminalized. Rightly did the Apostle Peter sum up the vice of our
visual age. We are a society with 'eyes full of adultery, and that
cannot cease from sin' (2 Pet. 2: 14).
Is the refusal of the British press to publish (so
far) evidence of a residual Puritanism? I certainly hope so. One would
like to ask these hypocritical editors and their equally-hypocritical
male readers this question: would they like topless pictures of their
wives, sisters, mothers, etc available for all the world to see? And
have they spared a thought for Prince William's feelings in all this
shameless publicity?
For those who see a relevant connection, I am not
making any concessions to Islamic culture at this point; behind the
seemingly-modest burkha barrier is a variety of sexual irregularities.
No, I am appealing to the kind of Judeo-Christian values which once
prevailed in great measure throughout Western society, values which
preserved and protected the purity and beauty of married life, at the
same time creating a context of innocence and modesty in which to raise
happy and virtuous children. Such are the desperate needs of our
sex-obsessed society.
Unless we return to our roots, the lusts of the jungle will be our ruin!
No comments:
Post a Comment