Posted on 11/19/2011 12:24:59 AM PST by servo1969
11B40 asked a good question, which is why I’m so focused on McQueary, when it was Sandusky who committed the crime. It’s because I have no fellow feeling with Sandusky who, if the allegations are true, is a perverted monster. I therefore don’t need to analyze my behavior or parenting decisions with regard to his conduct. McQueary, however, is Everyman. Each of us could be in his shoes.
McQueary’s response to a horrible, unexpected situation wasn’t perverse or illegal. Instead, it was just the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior that an ordinary human could commit. I have within me the capacity to do exactly what he did — but I want to be better than that. That’s why I’m also hammering away at columnists who explain what he did, not just to offer explanations, but also to excuse his conduct. Like them, like all of us, I could be McQueary, but I don’t want to be McQueary.
(Excerpt) Read more at bookwormroom.com ...
When I got home, my son was still very upset, partially because he knew he’d done something wrong (both destroying a book and destroying a religious symbol) and partially because he was worried about getting expelled from school. Without actually meaning to, I made him even more upset. On my way back home after his call, I’d already called a friend whom I knew was taking her kids to a non-denominational youth night at the local church. I figured it would be good for my son immediately to go to a place where the book of God matters. When I mentioned I’d told her, he completely broke down, sobbing hysterically. “How could you? She won’t respect me any more.” (And I can’t tell you how glad I am to know that he realized that what he did would impair his standing in the eyes of the community.)
It got worse for my little guy when I opened my email and discovered an email from a friend and neighbor who didn’t know that my son had confessed, telling me about what happened and adding that several of the children on the bus were quite upset. “Oh, no! None of the parents will respect me anymore. This is horrible. I wasn’t thinking. I didn’t mean to destroy God’s property.” More sobbing. My son wrote our neighbor an abject apology for having committed an offensive act, and she sent a gracious reply.
I wasn’t pleased with what my son did, but I wasn’t angry at him. It seemed to me that he was angry enough at himself. He knew that he’d done an irresponsible and offensive act, although he did so foolishly and entirely without malice. He also felt very keenly that what he had done might diminish him in the eyes of people he respects and whose respect he desires.
Indeed, I was quite pleased that he was upset and able to identify his own wrongdoing, rather than arrogant and dismissive. He could have gone the other route: “It’s just a book, and people who believe in it are stupid, and I should be able to rip up a book if I want, etc.” That he didn’t, that he immediately realized he’d made a mistake, was a comforting reminder that my son is a fundamentally good person, who is simply a long way from maturity. He is not, thank goodness, a punk or a sociopath. A good (not angry or accusatory) talk about decency and respect, a total media blackout for two days, and a rather pleasant evening for him at a church youth group (he wants to go back) were, to my mind, entirely sufficient responses.
What was really interesting — and here we’re back at my whole obsession with McQueary and a society that passes the back and practices moral relativism — was the response from a liberal friend of mine. Rather than acknowledging that my son had done something wrong, his ire was all focused on the old man who had handed out Bibles.
“That’s illegal.” ”
No, it’s not. He wasn’t on school property, and he wasn’t handing out anything that is illegal or that is prohibited to minors, such as drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or pornography.”
“Well, it ought to be illegal. You can’t just hand out Bibles to people.”
“Um, actually, a little thing called the First Amendment says you can.”
He was shocked." -snip-
Was there something queery about McQueary?
I can’t quite peg an Everyman as caring so little about a blatant molestation (if that’s what Sandusky was engaged in) that he wouldn’t do what he could to stop it. But again the story seems to be that McQueary caught Sandusky in the act and Sandusky immediately stopped. So now McQueary might be wondering, did I really see what I thought I saw. And he never brought it up with Sandusky to try to get a clearer picture of the matter. He mentioned it to some superiors, and it never went anywhere. As for the boy, now a young man — it seems he can’t remember the encounter. But other such stories are now swirling around Sandusky, suggesting that McQueary hadn’t been tricked by his eyes.
Everything’s in a purple haze.
I think I read somewhere (perhaps someone else knows this for sure) that Sandusky was a good friend of McQueary’s dad. If so, it might have been a helluva shock for McQueary to walk in on that scene. I think it would be easier to take action against a total stranger raping a kid than to act against someone in the quasi-familial position of being your dad’s friend.
That said, McQueary still should have followed up later and made SURE the police had been notified. But I can understand (though of course not condone) him freezing in the moment.
He should have taken the boy with him.
This is what liberalism does to our society......reduces our morality and makes us question right vs wrong.
Graham Spanier, Penn State’s President, mandated absolute acceptance of the homosexual agenda on campus and would not tolerate anything less than a full embrace of the liberal, homosexual agenda.
In our corporations, men are afraid to compliment women for fear of sexual harassment. Executives are afraid to discipline minorities for fear of racism. Companies fear layoffs of older employees for fear of ageism.
This is what liberalism does to our society. It makes us stop from doing what is right, to making us second-guess ourselves.
But remember, liberalism on college campuses is even more radical than anything we have witnessed in business or society.
Penn State has been transformed into a stronghold of liberalism by the leadership of Graham Spanier and others.
McQueary probably questioned himself before reporting what he witnessed, knowing the history of tolerance of such things by Spanier.
McQueary probably thought about the female basketball coach who was fired for her anti-lesbian comments and believed he may suffer a similar fate.
I do not excuse McQueary, but simply offer the explanation that nobody will admit.......this is the fault of radical liberalism embracing the homosexual agenda that minors can grant sexual consent.
I had a deal with my sons that if they told the truth and expressed understanding of what they did wrong and were sorry, there would not be trouble from me.
If however, they lied or they waited for someone else to tell on them, or rationalized doing the wrong thing, they would be in trouble with me.
McQueary, with all his excuses and fibs, would be in trouble.
As Conservatives believe in personal responsibilty and do not excuse someone who should have known the right thing and chose to do the wrong thing.
I agree that the purpose and goal of moral relativism and the various agendas are an attack on absolute moral truth, but in the end, the responsibility must rest on the individual to do what is right no matter what the consequences are.
McQuery was a grown man, who left without the boy and is still whining about how traumatic it was for HIM.
Sandusky never should have left that shower room in one piece.
Exactly. This is what's in store for the military. The straights will have to keep their mouths shut and hope they don't end up in the crosshairs, while the new Ernst Röhms run wild.
Agreed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.