Selective Outrage: The Child of Hypocrisy

Selective outrage is the child of hypocrisy. It also has a way of revealing people’s true motives. There’s been a lot of selective outrage in the news recently. Three prime examples come to the fore:

A great deal of justified outrage has been expressed over the policy of the United States to separate children from their parents who cross illegally into the U. S. at the southern border. This outrage has been directed at President Trump, in spite of the fact that children of illegal immigrants have been separated from their parents since well before he became president (though it’s happening more frequently because of Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration).

Why is there so much outrage now? Because the press is reporting on the separation of families, and so people are learning about the policy. The press didn’t report on this when Barack Obama was president. Why? Because Barack Obama was president. Now that Donald Trump is president, it’s a story. People are rightfully outraged about children being separated from their families. I think they would have been outraged about the practice during the later years of the Obama administration if they had known about it. But, since the press didn’t report on it, most people had no idea. The outrage of the press is selective, depending on who is president. Thus, their true motive is revealed: not concern for the children, but the goal of damaging Trump’s administration.

Democrats didn’t care much about this when President Obama was in office because Democrats apparently think the policy is only a problem when a Republican is in the White House. Republicans didn’t care much about this because Republicans don’t seem to think the policy is a problem regardless of who’s in the White House. The outrage of Democrats is selective. The outrage of Republicans is non-existent. Congress could address this matter seriously and take action to stop the policy. Will they? Is the pope Presbyterian? No. Why won’t they? The Republicans won’t take action because they don’t think the policy is a problem, and because being “tough” on illegal aliens (and their innocent children!) pleases their base. The Democrats won’t take action because they have a greater interest in the policy remaining in place so they can use it as a wedge issue in the up-coming 2018 mid-term elections. And then in the 2020 elections. And then in the 2022 elections, …  Thus is the true motive of politicians revealed: not concern for the children, but the goal of exploiting the children for political gain.

Here’s another example of selective outrage on immigration:

A report by the ACLU released last month documents what they claim is a pattern of abuse of unaccompanied children caught crossing the border. These children, according to the ACLU, suffered terrible abuse at the hands of U. S. Custom and Border Protection (CBP) agents. The ACLU’s report is based on their investigation of more than 30,000 pages of documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. The report documents claims of verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and the denial of necessary medical attention. If the report is accurate, it’s a damning critique of CBP. Have you heard about the report in the press? Probably not. It’s not gotten much coverage. Have Democrats on Capitol Hill been grilling and demanding answers from members of the Trump administration? No. Not at all. Why not? Because the report covers alleged abuse that took place during the years 2009 and 2014, when Barack Obama was president. Thus is the true motive of the press and the Democrats revealed: not concern for the children, but the goal of protecting President Obama’s reputation.

Here’s another example of selective outrage on the matter of child abuse:

Later this month, Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, is expected to release a report written by a grand jury documenting the abuse of children carried out by Catholic priests in the dioceses of Pennsylvania. The report will include testimony of victims gathered over a period of more than two years. The report will certainly be explosive. The great majority of those interviewed were abused years, sometimes decades ago. This is the first time many are being given the opportunity to tell their stories and have them received in any official capacity.

The probe was initiated by Kathleen Kane, the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Kathleen Kane is the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania because she was forced to resign when she was dis-barred and found guilty of one count of perjury, one count of false swearing, three counts of obstructing administration of law, and four counts of official oppression in connection with grand jury leaks.

This state-wide probe of the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania was called for by State Rep. Mark Rozzi. Rep. Rozzi has sponsored in the past bills that would suspend the statute of limitations on child abuse accusations against those who have worked for private institutions. Children who were abused by those who worked for public institutions would enjoy no suspension of the statute of limitations. This is interesting because, according to reports from recent years, Pennsylvania is at the top of the list of states when it comes to accusations of abuse committed by employees of the public school system. The state is also suffering an increase in child abuse generally, while resources are stretched and caseworkers overwhelmed. Neither Rep. Mark Rozzi, former AG Kathleen Kane, current AG Josh Shapiro, or anyone else, has called for a state-wide probe investigating abuse in the Pennsylvania public school system.

So, the outrage of AG Kane, AG Shapiro, and Rep. Rozzi is selective: those abused by priests decades ago get to tell their stories and, if Rep. Rozzi has his way, the opportunity to file lawsuits against their alleged abusers, while those abused by public school employees last September do not get an opportunity to either tell their stories or sue their abusers (much less to sue the state). Thus is the true motive of these people revealed: not concern for abuse victims, but political gain and, likely, the chance to discredit and bankrupt the Church while providing cover for public school abusers and those who protect them.

“When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8).

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s