I recently saw a news story about a man named Erin Escobar. He was involved in an anti-immigration enforcement protest in California. He was dressed appropriately, wearing sweatpants and a T-shirt. Such clothing would allow him to be nimble and, if needed, avoid arrest.
The film shows Escobar causing some minor damage to government property. When detained by the police, he spat something in the face of the arresting authorities.
With good cause, then, Escobar was arrested for destruction of property and assault. The video evidence shows that he was guilty. He was understandably detained for three days while the charges were processed. He was then released to await his day in court, where he could plead guilty or defend himself against the charges. Whatever one’s view about immigration policy might be, we could all agree that what happened to Escobar made sense. He would have his day in court to explain whether his actions warranted any punishment. There was nothing strange about what the government did.
But it quickly turned into a circus. Escobar held a press conference on the steps of the municipal building. He had hired a lawyer to speak on his behalf.
Escobar was not dressed in sweatpants and a T-shirt. He was in a woman’s dress. The lawyer proclaimed that even though Escobar was a biological male, he was, in reality, a woman. He claimed that when he was arrested by the police, he was abused and humiliated because they placed him in detention with men. His constitutional rights were violated, as he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. He had to dress in front of other men and use the bathroom facilities with them.
Such humiliation demanded that the government compensate Escobar. The lawyer would take the state to court and sue for $10 million. That comes to more than $3 million for each day Escobar had to use male bathroom facilities.
What a turn of events! Escobar had victimized others but now claimed to be the victim. He owed the government money for the destruction he had caused but was now demanding that the government pay him! He wanted to be housed with women in the detention center, but one wonders what the women in that facility would have thought about showering with a biological male. Imagine the uproar that would have occurred if the authorities had done such a thing! The authorities rightfully placed a man with other men. Anything else would have been abnormal.
Anybody with any measure of sanity who watched that news conference would be left scratching his head. Unfortunately, they would also realize that Escobar might get his ten-million-dollar payday. The criminal might be called the victim. The one who caused damage might be paid handsomely for doing so. What was bad (Escobar’s actions) might be called good. What is good (the government’s actions) might be called evil.
It was a strange display. But the Bible warns us of such things. Such depravity has always existed. In Isaiah’s day, the prophet said that the Jews often called what was good evil, and what was evil good (Isa 5:20).
About 700 years after Isaiah, Paul saw the same things going on in his culture. He describes how the depravity of men’s minds will lead them to do insane things (Rom 1:18-32). Two thousand years after Paul, the same theme is demonstrated in Escobar’s case. The Jews in Isaiah’s day, Paul’s observations in his own, and a recent news conference in California show the depravity of human flesh. We are capable of the most perverted and dark thinking that turns light into darkness and darkness into light.
Won’t it be great when the righteous King comes and puts an end to all this nonsense?
