Which comes first, a bad philosophy that leads to sin, or our desire to excuse our sin by coming up with a bad philosophy to cover for it?
One thing is for certain - good art never springs from bad philosophy; neither does good literature. And neither, it would seem, does good literary criticism.
In the past month or so, some readers of this blog have been eager to excuse child abuse by pointing to the obvious fact that adolescents have hormones, and that they can behave seductively, even toward adults. This simple truth is then used to foment a bad philosophy - the notion that sexual maturity equals psychological maturity. And this bad philosophy is then used to cover for adults who molest children as young as age 12.
Sick as this all is, it gets worse.
The U.S. Supreme Court, that stellar institution that gave us abortion on demand, now grasps on to a thread of Bad Literary Criticism that connects to an appallingly bad philosophy, that ties in a nice little package the sexual exploitation of children.
Wonder why we need to redeem Shakespeare from this post-modern morass that makes him into whatever monster we see when we look in the mirror?
Well, when Romeo and Juliet can be used to justify child pornography, you have your answer.
Joseph Pearce says this better than I, over at our Christian Shakespeare website.