Re: Karma and sin

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Did Pete sin by not being aggressive enough in fighting child porn? I'm sure 
> his lawyer advised him to keep quiet, but was Pete remiss in seeing this evil 
> and not making a huge fuss about it?

Would I call that a sin?  No.  First off, it was a mistake for him to go onto
an illegal site by himself, using his credit card.  There are any number of ways
he could've found out more information as to the content of those sites than
by going it alone.

He could've contacted other groups already fighting the battle.  He could've
contacted the authorities & sat down with a detective; perhaps they would've
explained the severity of the images & even provided a few examples if he
so desired.

But, for some unknown reason, he had to do it alone, at *his* home, on *his*
computer.  How can he do it alone?  Why *did* he do it alone?

Second, perhaps he did "drop the ball," so to speak, by not doing more
when he found the shocking pictures he must've known were there.  Maybe
he should've raised more of  fuss, but I think he had already crossed a line & 
he knew it.  So did his lawyer.  What he didn't know was that the Operation 
Ore people *also* knew he had crossed that line when his credit card info
turned up. 
  
> If Pete had taken the standard advocacy route on this, like Bono, for 
> example, gone around to government officals and pushed an anti-child porn 
> agenda, then he would be identified with the cause and this fiasco would not 
> have played out in the same way. By seeing the evil and doing too little 
> against it, did he sin and so invite trouble into his own life?

Again, it wasn't a sin.  Your Bono example is a good one.  Why didn't Pete
go *that* route instead?  Lobbying, bugging politicians, press events, etc.
That makes sense (hindsight is......).

That's why some Who fans & many rock fans are perturbed by Pete's
actions.  From one's own computer room & on one's own computer is
not a smart way to research & attack the child porn industry.  Sure, Pete's
done some dumb things in his life but who'd have thought he'd ever do
something *that* dumb?

> BTW, I think this could be where Pete owes an apology, that is, some kind of 
> atonement--not for investigating or for paying, but for not doing enough 
> when the opportunity was there.

So, you *would* accept an apology, then?  ;-)


- SCHRADE in Akron