The Bible and Rape Culture

The Rape of Tamar, Eustache Le Sueur (1640)

Yesterday morning I was mentioning to a friend that in lieu of all the brave women finally stepping forward to take on what most of us have experienced at least once in our lives, if not multiple times, that I really needed to write an article that explained how the Bible has unfortunately helped foster and "normalize" rape culture.

As if on cue, a few hours later Roy Moore of Alabama was the latest to be accused of sexual misconduct. If that wasn't bad enough, Alabama state officials along with Fox News host Sean Hannity then defended one of his sexual encounters with a 14 year old by... wait for it... using the Bible. (Oh, that was a fun gem, trying to rationalize it by saying Mary was only 14 when she had Jesus with Joseph. The number of holes in that argument are big enough to drive a few semi-trucks through. Let's just set aside for a moment that the ages of Joseph and Mary are never revealed in scripture, they're only assumed based on the culture, or the fact that the whole point of the birth narratives is that Mary and Joseph did not have sex before Jesus' birth. Lousiest. Argument. Ever.)

However, this isn't exactly the first time men behaving badly have turned to the Bible to justify their grotesque actions.

I've heard a lot of people wondering why these women have waited so long to come out of the woodwork. The reasoning is fairly simple: a) powerful men and the systems that protect them make it virtually impossible for your average woman to fight back if she wants to keep her job and still have a career of any sort, and b) as a so-called "Christian" nation, rape culture is imbedded heavily within our sacred scriptures, so bad behavior by men against women has been normalized... even for the women. I know I was conditioned to just try and brush it off, to stop making such a big deal about "harmless" flirtation or comments. In one instance, when I did make some complaints, I had my job threatened by "the powers that be" and told I would never again work in my field if I talked with ANYONE about a superior's bad behavior.

Between Hollywood and the Church, I've had my fair share of both verbal and physical sexual assaults and won't even go into the myriad of micro-aggressions I face every day. Most I never reported, even one that literally involved me being pinned to the floor by a celebrity-type figure and nearly raped. Like so many women, I had no desire to face all the public scrutiny and ridicule that would be involved with reporting a powerful figure. My word against his and guess who was more likely to be believed? Powerful men have been relying on this fact for, well, forever. After all, the men didn't believe the women when they told the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus. Sexual assault complaints? Please.

Instead, we find people, even women, feeling "sorry" for these men who are now having their careers destroyed due to "a few indiscretions." We've been conditioned to feel sorry for them, to excuse them, to say, "oh, well, everyone makes mistakes." This is true - but there are also real-world consequences to mistakes, and we seem to keep forgetting the women's lives who have been threatened, abused, and forever altered by these "mistakes." Or that the Bible outlines some of the horrific consequences of violence against women.

Sadly, the Bible itself is partly to blame for this phenomenon, because it is a product of its culture where women's bodies belonged to any number of men before it was considered her own. They were the property of either their father or their husbands. Whatever was done to them was not considered a violation of the individual woman, but rather a violation of the man's property.

As Christians, we tend to turn to the Bible for lessons on how to behave (or not behave as the case may be). If you've ever taken the time to actually READ the stories of the Old Testament, they're not what you remember from Sunday School. They're pretty awful stories, actually. Sex and violence play prominent roles. Any responsible scholar looks at these stories and recognizes pretty quickly that these are not people to model yourselves after.

Starting with the "Father of the Faith," Abraham. Most Christians will stare at you with mouths gaping when you point out the cold hard fact that Abraham was a rapist. When he and Sarah lost hope that God was going to fulfill his promise to give them a child in their old age, they hatched this brilliant plan where Abraham could sleep with Sarah's Egyptian slave, Hagar. As a slave, Hagar had no say in this matter. She had no option other than to let Abraham have sex with her in the hopes of producing an heir. He was the one in power - she did not own her own body. Oh, and let's not dismiss the fact that Sarah was not only complicit in this... it was her freaking idea!!

Even more troubling is the lack of condemnation for this act beyond the fact that God simply states that Abraham should have been more patient and waited for God to do what he promised through Sarah. God never comes right out and says what a horrific thing this was. Or if he did, the Biblical authors opted to leave that part out. Let's also not forget that Abraham handed his wife over to Pharaoh so he could add her to his harem, passing her off as his sister rather than his wife. Because she was so beautiful, he was afraid Pharaoh would kill him to possess her. Sarah has no voice in this fun little transaction. Which is a shame, because I'd have REALLY liked to have heard her response to this little plan. Their son, Isaac, would later do the exact same thing with his wife, Rebekah. Learned behavior, apparently.

This isn't the only rape story associated with Abraham. When the three men/angels head into Sodom and Gomorrah to see if they can find ten righteous people in order to spare the cities, the townsmen show up at Lot's home (Abraham's nephew) and demand the three men be sent out so they could rape them. Lot's response is to offer his daughters up to be raped instead.

Nice.

Raping men is a horrific idea in the Bible. But raping women? Meh. Preferable to it happening to a man.

Luckily the three men at least step in and stop that from happening...only to of course rain fire and brimstone down upon the two cities.

Unfortunately, a similar story, without the angelic intervention, is repeated in the book of Judges with a Levite and his concubine when they stop for the night in Gibeah of Benjamin. The men of Gibeah go to the host's home and demand the Levite be given to them to rape. Instead, the Levite tosses them his concubine, who the men summarily rape and beat to death. The Levite then cuts her into little pieces and sends her body parts to the other tribal leaders to incite their anger so they can then launch a genocidal attack on the Benjamites.

Jacob, like his grandfather Abraham, rapes Bilah and Zilpah, his wives' handmaidens, in order to produce some of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Jacob's daughter Dinah is also raped, and an entire tribe is wiped off the planet when her brothers enact vengeance. Dinah never speaks. She has no voice in this story, but is merely a "plot tool" it would seem. Jacob - well he's upset with his son's for enacting vengeance because now they have to move for killing all those people. While ultimately the story is about the futility of the cycle of violence, it also highlights what happens when the person in power, Jacob, fails to act justly on behalf of his raped daughter. Others opt to take matters into their own hands.

A similar story of inaction leading to sons taking matters into their own hands can be found in King David's family. David's daughter, Tamar, is raped by her half-brother, Amnon. David's reaction?

He does absolutely nothing.

Tamar is sent off in disgrace and like Dinah before her, disappears from the narrative forever. However, David's inaction leads to a fostering of anger between Amnon and his brother Absalom. Absalom is livid that his sister receives no justice, so he takes it into his own hands. He kills his brother then launches a rebellion against his father and eventually dies himself by getting caught by low-lying tree branch. The point being - David's unwillingness to seek the proper form of justice leads to others taking extreme actions that lead to more violence, death and heartache.

Of course, if you're wondering where his sons learned this violent behavior from, they needed only look to their father. It was David who likely raped Bathsheba given he was the powerful king who happened to see a married woman bathing late one afternoon in her own home (voyeuristic much?) and determined he simply had to have her. As the powerful king, he felt he could sleep with anyone he desired, and even wound up killing off her husband in order to cover up the fact that he'd gotten her pregnant. This is at least in part why I scoff at the people who say "why would a celebrity rape someone? They can have anyone they want?" They rape because... they can. And then they go to great lengths to cover it up. It's the Biblical way, after all.

Then there's the book of Esther, that drips with the abuses of male dominance. The book opens with Queen Vashti refusing to parade around naked in front of her husband's drunken friends. Such a refusal is, of course, the woman's fault and therefore she needs to be deposed of immediately.
(You can read an old blog post of mine analyzing how offensive the entire book really is toward women) The solution? Round up a bunch of virgins for the King to sleep with so he can pick his new Queen.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

So is it really any wonder that two thousand years later,  men who tout the Bible as their "moral compass" and "guidebook for life" would find anything abhorrent or wrong in their behavior towards women? After all, if the Bible didn't outright and explicitly condemn it, it clearly was, and therefore still is, acceptable.

This doesn't even touch on the New Testament scriptures that your conservative Biblical literalists will yank out of context, such as "wives, submit to your husbands" and "I do not permit a woman to speak," as excuses to continue to oppress and abuse women. Never mind all the other places in scripture where women not only speak, but lead. Or that the submission text is in the context of how husbands and wives are to submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ and spends a lot more time and energy talking about how men are supposed to love and respect their wives.

Pesky details.

This may make many wonder how on earth any woman could be a Christian. It's a fair question. Many of us who were educated in the more historical-critical interpretations of scripture recognize these stories as being complicated narratives and many times examples of what NOT to do. We recognize that these characters are messy and wallow in the ugliness that is human sin, only highlighting humanity's desperate need for redemption that has to come from somewhere other than themselves. Jerry Springer's got nothing on the family dysfunction you find in the Bible.

We also recognize Jesus as having been one of the few Biblical figures that stood up for women. The woman who was going to be stoned for adultery he stopped because the leaders were not holding the man equally accountable. When Mary sits at Jesus' feet and Martha complains that Mary is not helping her with her "women's duties," Jesus' response is that Mary is doing the better thing - behaving like a man and sitting at his feet like the rest of the male disciples. Women are the first that he appears to when he is resurrected and the first he instructs to preach the good news. Jesus also addresses the injustice of how divorce harmed the women in their society because of how their society did not provide recourse for the women and divorcing them would likely force them into prostitution. Or how "mere" objectification of women by simply LOOKING at them with lust was a violation of the commandment regarding adultery.

[After posting this initially, a friend of mine pointed out the following that I thought was worth noting as well: "In contrast to other Biblical texts, I’ll add that it is only women who get to rebuke or make demands of Jesus: Mary telling Jesus to make wine at the Wedding in Cana, the woman who rebukes Jesus for withholding “table scraps,” Martha who chastises Jesus for not being there. There’s also, of course, the lengthy theological conversation Jesus has with the woman at the well, despite his followers protestations. Jesus offers a powerful correction to female oppression exemplified throughout the old testament." - Jeff Paschke-Johannes]

I'll take the liberty of saying Jesus was something of a feminist. Given Jesus is the heart of God, many of us Christian women find a lot of hope in this, even if human culture has not yet caught up to God's vision of equality and equanimity between the sexes.

Yet despite that hope, we still fall prey to the reality that we have been conditioned for literally thousands of years to just accept male harassment as normative and simply a part of daily life. After all, if we complained about every instance of sexual inappropriateness by men - we'd never get anything done because we'd spend all our time filing reports. We recognize it as a seemingly futile endeavor.

Or at least, we did.

So while we are standing up and finally finding the voice that has been silenced like Dinah and Tamar, we have thousands of years worth of abuse that has never been properly addressed scripturally to contend with. Some of us recognize the scriptures are a product of their time and culture, but that doesn't mean that the silence on these issues isn't just as deafening or problematic.

It's time we, as Christians, stop looking at the Bible's characters as any sort of moral compass... with the exception of course of Jesus. It's time to condemn the behaviors that are glossed over and normalized as "cultural realities of the day" as no longer being acceptable in any world that strives to live out God's Kingdom of justice and equality. Jesus came into this world to upend power structures.

It's time we, as his followers, do just that. Including the power structures that the Bible itself helped propagate.

Politics Can't Be Left Out of Religion - And Never Has Been

The role of a modern pastor is difficult. Well, no more difficult than preachers and prophets of old, actually. So I guess the role of a modern, or not so modern, pastor/preacher/prophet has always been difficult.

On the one hand, we are called to speak the truth, to be prophetic in that sense.  Prophets are, first and foremost, truth-tellers. The problem is - the truth at times is not what people want to hear; people that pay for you to have a roof over your head and food on your table. Telling them what they want to hear, or simply choosing to stay silent, is typically the more "prudent" thing to do.

Yet that would not make us preachers of God's Word. That would make us little more than inspirational speakers. God's Word is meant to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." It is meant to challenge and it is meant to be a mirror that reflects back to us our own sinful behavior.

I tend to tread carefully when it comes to issues of politics because our congregations are made up of varying and diverse opinions on such matters. As many have said, "keep politics out of the pulpit." People leave churches because they don't like to hear about "political" issues. What I've come to realize that really means, however, is, "don't challenge what I believe, church needs to be a comfortable space for me."

Yet, politics is precisely where a prophet/preacher typically winds up. The prophets of old - Moses, Elijah, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. etc. all spent the bulk of their time challenging the political and power systems of their day by speaking out against injustices and corruption.

In particular I'm reminded of Jeremiah who did not want to speak out, but said that God's Word burned within his bones like a fire so that he could not remain silent. While I would never pretend that I am somehow on the same level as a prophet such as Jeremiah, I understand this mixture of desiring to not be controversial, but feeling as though to not speak is worse. I am called to speak God's Word as I understand it, and it is screaming at me right now.

As for Jesus... well, Jesus was killed on account of politics. Crucifixion was a form of Roman Imperialistic capital punishment typically reserved for... (wait for it)... political dissenters. Jesus promoted dangerous ideas that flew in the face of worldly economies and powers. He wanted to elevate the poor and oppressed and tear down the powerful. That was threatening to the powerful.

There's a reason Jesus pointed out that Israel tended to kill its prophets. They didn't like the truths that were being shoved in their faces. They didn't like being told they were racist when they held disdain for the Samaritans, who were fellow Israelites. They didn't like being told that the very foundations of their worship, the Temple, was built upon injustice - that it excluded the most vulnerable and marginalized of society whether they were "unclean" or too poor to afford the sacrifices and taxes that the Temple system required. Not to mention Solomon built the original Temple with slaves and by over-taxing his people to the point that they eventually rebelled when Solomon's son took over as king and the kingdom split and divided into two factions and kingdoms that would become bitter enemies.

Here in America, we don't like being told that many of our "sacred" institutions and traditions are founded on similar injustices. The moment one suggests such a thing through a simple act of humility such as taking a knee in silent protest, they are called ingrates, unpatriotic, and typically told to just get out of the country if they don't like it. They are accused of causing division rather than uniting.

The problem is... we are already divided. We are like the Israelites in that sense. Some of us built what we now enjoy off the backs of our fellow Americans, and shockingly those who were not the ones "in charge" see what has been built very differently. As someone recently pointed out, "Racism is so American, that when we protest racism, it is seen by the average American as protesting America." There's a shocking and stunning, yet very simple, truth in that statement.

While I am an American, born and raised, I find that identity secondary, for I am first and foremost a Christian. Christ knows no national, political, racial, or gender allegiances. "For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female." (Galatians 3:28) Jesus speaks for the Puerto Rican, Mexican, African, Asian and yes, even Arab, as much as he speaks for the white Anglo-Saxon American. He points out our sins equally, and redeems equally.

Here in America, we have a great sin. We have many sins, don't get me wrong, but there's one in particular that runs deep through the roots and fabric of our founding: it's called racism.

From the very inception of this nation, we have been guilty of racism. Whether it was declaring the natives of this land inferior "heathens" that deserved to be subjugated or exterminated, to the African slaves our white European ancestors brought over in shackles. At the core of everything that is "American" this sin underlies that reality. White people have been and continue to be in power as a result of colonialist imperialism. Therefore, as the "ruling" race and power in this country, we have an obligation to address this issue. As Jesus stated, "To whom much has been given, much will be required." (Luke 12:48)

Whether we are aware of it or not, racism infiltrates the very fabric of Americanism, from our National Anthem (the third verse refers to how during the War of 1812, the British offered freedom to black slaves if they fought against Americans. These black slaves shockingly thought freedom sounded better than slavery. Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star Spangled Banner, wrote about the blood of these "hirelings and slaves" as being treasonous to America), to even our constitution that declared a black man/slave was only worth 3/5ths of a white man (even that was only granted after they instituted the 13th Amendment, which was originally for tax purposes). Racism is found embedded in the bedrock of our constitution, our songs, and hence even our flag.

Some may argue, "but that is the past. How can we be held responsible for what has happened in the past?"

We are held responsible because it is NOT in the past. We may no longer shackle non-whites with literal irons and chains anymore, but the systems of power that were at work then continue to be at work now. If you are white and you are able to say, "we just need to move on," that right there speaks of the privilege you experience as a white American. You can move on because it does not affect your daily life. This is not the case for millions of other non-white Americans.

I have heard arguments about how white people wish they could get the same certain "entitlements" that are afforded to black people in our society, such as scholarships that are given only to minorities. While it is true that being poor can be found within all racial types, the percentages of those who live in poverty in this nation are skewed heavily in the direction of minorities. 9% of white Americans live in poverty, compared to 22% of black Americans, 20% of Hispanic, and 13% of all other minority races. (The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation)  That means nearly 1/4 of all black people in this country live below the poverty line. Think about that.

That is why certain "entitlements" exist. Despite all the accolades white people tout regarding the "American Dream," cycles of poverty are not so easily broken, especially when one is battling not only poverty, but racism as well. The "rags to riches" story is atypical, not the norm. It is therefore justice to help those who start out way behind the starting line. One look at the distribution of power along racial (and gender for that matter) within our governing bodies such as Congress reflects this reality.

Like most Americans, I was brought up to respect things like the flag. Though to be honest, the flag to me is a symbol that points to something else. It points to what this country is supposed to stand for: freedom and equality. This ideology was imbedded in me deeply growing up. My father flew the American flag outside our home daily. We have always been proud Americans.

However, what it is supposed to stand for and what it actually stands for might be very different depending on your experience in America (or outside America). Nationalism and patriotism serve a function and role in our society, and I understand that. My grandfather was awarded a purple heart for his sacrifices at the Battle of the Bulge. As an American, he fought against a competing ideology - a competing nation that also had great patriots for their country.

As a Christian, however, I am forced to look beyond patriotism and nationalism. I do not disrespect in any way the sacrifices hard-working Americans have made over the centuries for the sake of our nation, for the sake of promoting certain ideals regarding freedom and equality.

That does not mean I don't also see where these supposed American ideals do not actually get lived out in reality. That those freedoms we are so proud of are not actually being equally applied to all people in this country who are just as American as I am. In fact, when we call people who choose to exercise their freedom SOB's, "ingrates" or worse - call for their execution (which I've seen), we are ourselves violating the very tenets of what the flag symbolizes. When we blindly enforce certain "respect" or even dare I say "worship" of such a symbol, we have turned it into an idol of our own making.

Which makes it even more troublesome to me how we have wrapped Jesus in our flag. Jesus... the man who promoted the idea that people should give up all their possessions and follow him. (American capitalism shudders at the very notion.) That to be blessed means you are hungry, poor, meek and pretty much everything that is opposite of what we consider strength and power in America. (Read the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount if you don't know what I'm talking about.) The man who was offered worldly kingdoms and turned them down, because they were but poor reflections of the true Kingdom of God. This Jesus who told parables that challenged all notions of what power and strength actually look like in God's Kingdom. The man who called upon us to love our enemies, even when they continually seek to harm us. God's economics also don't play well in America. After all, what employer in America is going to pay the same wage to the guy or gal who shows up early in the morning for work as to the person who doesn't start until five in the afternoon?

I don't think Jesus wants to be wrapped in our flag. I think Jesus probably sees America much the same way he saw Rome: a worldly power that showed its strength by human force and uses worldly ways to determine value and worth, while Jesus showed his strength and power by dying at the hands of that force and elevated those the rest of society deems worthless and of no value.

The question that I ponder is would Jesus take a knee if he'd been an American? Would he have been one of those ingrates, or SOB's, who never served in the military and determined that the systemic racism and inequality in this country was worth protesting? Was worth...dare I say... dying for? I'll let you ponder that one on your own and come to whatever conclusions you want.

It was a sad day for me, however, when last weekend a friend of mine who is raising two children she adopted from Ethiopia stated that the NFL spoke the gospel more clearly to her children and their experience and reality than the church ever has. That something that is itself an idol (American football) spoke against another idol more effectively than the followers of Jesus Christ.

It's a sad day when people say, "Pay attention to REAL problems like what's happening in Puerto Rico," not realizing that the humanitarian crises that is unfolding due to American lack of compassion and action on the island's behalf is driven by the exact same racism that is being protested on American football fields. There is an attitude that Puerto Rico is not "worth" salvaging because it was hit by two hurricanes in rapid succession. It's a good thing Florida, New Orleans, Houston and the entire East Coast are not subject to that same criteria. Or California when it is repeatedly rocked by earthquakes. Or the midwest when tornadoes rip through wreaking destruction across the heartland. We have the resources and we have the means to get the supplies where they need to go. We just aren't willing to commit those ships and resources for that purpose. The problem is, the people in Puerto Rico tend to speak a language other than English and most aren't white. Our "American values" are showing...

That should be unconscionable if you are a Christian. Heck, if you are a human. This is not the same as being wary of supplying aid to a nation that has a government in place that will not ever let the supplies get to the people who need it. Puerto Rico is a US Territory. The ones who are blocking the aid: the United States. We have become the corrupt institution that denies aid to its own citizens, determining who is "worth" helping and who is not. I guarantee had Mar-A-Lago been destroyed, aid would have been supplied immediately.

As most know, I don't think it's possible for me to write a blog post and not mention the book of Revelation somewhere. So I would be remiss to not mention it here. What I see getting played out in our country right now, and among Christians in particular, is the timeless question Revelation asks: Who do you belong to? Do you belong to the beastly and oppressive systems of the world, or do you belong to the lamb who was slain in order to set people free? Which will have your allegiance? Which will you stand - or kneel - before in submission? This question was asked to a variety of different Christian congregations in the first century (seven, to be exact) - those who were being persecuted, and those who were living rather comfortably within Roman society. Each congregation heard, no doubt, a different message. Some were confronted and made to feel uncomfortable, while others were offered hope in the midst of despair.

Therefore if my willingness to say I do not idolize America makes me unpatriotic, then so be it. Nations rise and fall. What is here today is gone tomorrow, but the Kingdom of God, where my citizenship truly lies, is eternal.

All I can think of is what would have happened if more patriotic Germans had stood up and said, "Sorry, we cannot support the Fatherland if it is going to exterminate a large segment of its population, as we don't see that as upholding German values." What if more people had knelt in protest instead of feeling it was their duty to salute the Nazi flag? (There was a time I would have said this was an extreme example used for shock value, but with what is happening with the rise of Nazism and white supremacy in this country - this is no longer hyperbole in my opinion.)

With all of that said... now I will sharpen up my resume and start my job search... :)

Moral Outrage Doesn't Affect Everyone Equally

Yes, I found the picture Kathy Griffin took with a beheaded Donald Trump repugnant. Yes, I think losing her job at CNN was likely the right call for CNN. (Just like I thought it was the right thing for A&E to dump Duck Dynasty after public comments they made, only that didn't happen. Because, ratings. And money. And white straight men.) Was it a gross attempt to do something shocking in order to create controversy and get herself launched back into relevance? Yes. It backfired in a way she was not anticipating, but yes.

However, let's take a step back and ask ourselves: what environment have we created as a society where Ms. Griffin thought that posting a photo like that MIGHT possibly be OK? What's the track record here?

We have a local government candidate in Montana who body-slammed a reporter - committing ACTUAL violence that absolutely impedes the principles of free speech and is a prosecutable offense - and his constituents still elected him. His punishment? He'll likely pay a fine that will in the long run mean nothing to him because he's already wealthy enough to just let that one go. He'll continue on in his job and he'll actually be powerful enough to create POLICY that affects the very things we are taking issue with.

Kathy Griffin is a comedian who posted a picture. Who is more dangerous to the public? A comedian who posts a picture, or a governmental representative who actually physically attacks people and gets to continue to make public policy for the rest of us?

We have a President who was caught on tape talking about how he can sexually assault women and get away with it because of who he is. A President who can claim to shoot someone in public and get away with it. And he was right. He did. All he had to say was that it was "locker room talk" and the public accepted it and fell into line. He was still elected President, and now he whines about how "unfairly" he gets treated. I'm not even going to run through the list of offenses against societal decorum this man has breached because this blog post would go on for far too long so I'll leave it at that.

Kathy Griffin stated she wanted to show girls that they can do whatever men can do.

Only she just proved - no we can't. If you're not a white male running for political office, you can't get away with that. The repercussions are NOT the same. Not at all.

Let's take Bill O'Reilly - a man who for years paid people off not to expose him sexually harassing the women he worked with and creating a hostile work environment, and a news agency willing to look the other way until advertisers started pulling their money. Is his career ruined because Fox eventually fired him? (weeks after the controversy first became public as opposed to the next day like what happened with Griffin) Not likely. He's already got a podcast that his faithful will continue to listen to. In fact, just doing a google search shows that Bill O'Reilly still has a voice because there are still articles being written about him as he goes off on how he's going to write an "exposition" on his firing. And he will make money and he will be fine.

So it's really no wonder Kathy Griffin thought she could do what she did and not suffer the consequences. None of the men she has been covering on CNN have suffered the sting of accountability for their actions. Why should she?

She forgot her "place" in society. She is not a white male in a position of power.

While in no way do I defend what Ms. Griffin did - I understand why she may have thought it was appropriate. Our President says and does outlandish things all the time. As a Huffington Post OpEd article recently pointed out - his actions and words actually have the potential to lead to REAL beheadings. Griffin's likely won't.

So while I cannot defend what Griffin did, I think we need to recognize the shameful double-standard we have adopted regarding who does and does not suffer the consequences of their despicable actions. Our "moral outrage" only goes so far as a society. Who we elected as President to represent our nation to the world is living proof.