“Sporting a black tunic, a priest’s collar and sanitary rubber gloves, David Lynn stood across the street from the Cathedral Basilica of Ss. Peter and Paul yesterday, waved condoms in the air and bellowed at people entering the church for the 11 a.m. Mass. ‘Adults only!’ he barked. ‘Get a condom! Have safe sex with your priest!’ In a blatant publicity stunt intended to draw attention to the clergy sex-abuse scandal, Lynn offered free prophylactics to parishioners and passers-by. ‘Contribute a little extra for the legal defense fund,’ he heckled to churchgoers. ‘They need it.’ Most people who approached the basilica ignored Lynn’s rants. A handful smirked at his showy antics and biting barbs. Others frowned, and a few snapped at him… But Lynn, a computer technician and political blogger, stood his ground. ‘Have safe sex with a priest but keep them away from the kids,’ he taunted. ‘The district attorney says they like kids.’” — Philly.com (US)

You know what’s funny about this story? It highlights the fine line between politics and madness.

Consider the facts. Even if you set aside controversial topics such as abortion and the right to use prophylactics, there remains little doubt that Mr. Lynn has a just cause. As numerous lawsuits and news stories attest, a too large number of Catholic clergy has been guilty of sexual abuse and the church itself has made too many slimy efforts to protect its pedo priests. This last September, the DA’s office in Philadelphia released a grand jury report alleging hundreds of cases of abuse by dozens of priests in the area. That should piss people off, right?

And yet it’s only Mr. Lynn out there protesting on the streets, at least on this occasion. And it’s ironic that that — his lonesomeness — becomes the focus of the news story. If there had been five hundred angry people making noise outside the cathedral, the focus of the story would have been collective rage at unpardonable acts. Instead, the point of the story is that Mr. Lynn looks dangerously like a nut case.

Really this isn’t fair. Whether there are five hundred protestors or one lone protestor makes no difference so far as the cause itself is concerned. The grand jury report is not affected by the numbers of people who support or deny it. But what does change is the public perception. It’s basically an application of the “might makes right” principle. When five hundred people care enough to take it to the streets, you’re inclined to take them seriously. But when one guy expresses his rage against the system, you’re inclined to regard him as a whacko. But is that the dividing line between political action and insane ranting — the number of people doing it?

On one hand, there is a certain rationale to this innate skepticism people have toward lone ranters. If five hundred people champion a cause, it should mean that those hundreds of minds have vetted the cause — contemplated it, weighed its pros and cons, come to a reasoned decision about it. Certainly that sheer mass of reflection ought to carry more weight than the opinions of a lone ranter, who may have a thousand less valid reasons for choosing to champion a cause.

On the other hand, though, crowds are not immune from insane ranting. You ever read the famous book Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds? Or have you ever seen a mass of people commit acts (such as rioting or vandalism) that a lone individual would never have the gumption to do by himself? If you can’t trust a lone ranter, you can’t trust a mad crowd either — which makes that fine line between politics and madness even finer.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.