Creationist Voyeurism: Case #6

We may need to start a new section of our Table of Contents for these cases. As you recall from our recent post, Another Creationist Bathroom Voyeur, we are developing a new scientific hypothesis:

[T]here may be some heretofore unsuspected — what shall we call it — Creationism-Voyeurism Syndrome — CVS? Maybe, in honor of the first case we learned about, it should be called the McConaghie syndrome. [A reference to David McConaghie — see Creationist Suspected of Bathroom Voyeurism.]

The question we’re asking is this: Is there something deep within the creationist brain that causes such perverted behavior? Or maybe creationism isn’t the trigger; perhaps there’s some disorder that produces both creationism and voyeurism? We don’t know, and we realize that at this point we’ve collected only a few of these bathroom voyeurism cases — and not all of them were reliably reported as being creationists. That’s understandable. Except for preachers, where the creationism is obvious, few perverts are asked about creationism.

The evidence keeps piling up — especially on slow news days when there’s nothing else to write about. We learned of today’s case study in The Province of British Columbia. Their shocking headline is Ont. hockey volunteer faces dozens of child porn, voyeurism charges in locker-room video probe. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

PETERBOROUGH, Ont. — A man who police say was very active in the Peterborough hockey community is facing 62 charges in connection with a child pornography and sexual assault investigation by two Ontario police forces.

Police say the charges stem from alleged incidents involving multiple victims, including dozens of child porn and voyeurism charges linked to videos allegedly made in locker rooms, primarily in the Peterborough area.

[…]

Police say a search warrant was executed on Monday at a home in Peterborough and James Alex Brunton, 65, was arrested.

Yes, dear reader, we can anticipate your reaction: Come on, Curmy, there’s lots of voyeurs out there, including the bathroom type, but where’s the creationist connection? That’s coming right up. The news story says:

Police say Brunton is very active in the Peterborough hockey community and has served as secretary, manager, assistant or volunteer for the Peterborough Minor Petes AAA, the Lakefield Chiefs Jr. Hockey, the Peterborough Junior C Lakers and the Kawartha Komets Special Needs Hockey.

He has also volunteered at the Telecare Distress Centres of Canada, police said.

That last group is the connection we’re looking for. Here’s their website: Telecare Distress Centres of Canada. If you click on “History” you’ll find this:

The Telecare model for a crisis intervention telephone ministry originated in Sydney, Australia in 1963. … The first LifeLine related service in Canada was founded in Sudbury, Ontario on October 4, 1965, by the Rev. D. Bruce MacDougall of St. Peter’s United Church.

Here’s the website for that church: St. Peter’s United Church. If you click on “About us” you’ll learn that their parent organization is the United Church of Canada. We don’t find them in the National Center for Science Education’s listing of Statements from Religious Organizations that accept evolution, so until demonstrated otherwise, we’ll assume they’re creationists. [Addendum: as pointed out in the comments, they’re not a creationist denomination.] Back to the news story:

Brunton is further charged with 25 counts of voyeurism, 12 counts of making child pornography and 12 counts of possession of child pornography stemming from his alleged involvement in covertly making videos in hockey team locker rooms.

All right, that’s enough. We now have another data-point for our hypothesis of a deep and disturbing connection between creationism and bathroom voyeurism.

At what point should we regard our hypothesis as a well-established theory? A few more cases should do the job. Until then, it’s certainly prudent to regard creationist organizations — and their bathroom facilities — with suspicion.

In our Curmudgeonly benevolence, we cry out to all creationists: Repent! Learn some science. Abandon your foolish creationist beliefs before you follow the path that leads inevitably to personal ruin!

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Creationist Voyeurism: Case #6

  1. Garnetstar

    Sorry, SC, before a theory is established, it must be found in the sacred text of an ancient holy book. That’s the scientific method.

  2. Of The United Church of Canada, our Curmudgeon notes:

    We don’t find them in the National Center for Science Education’s listing of Statements from Religious Organizations that accept evolution, so until demonstrated otherwise, we’ll assume they’re creationists.

    FWIW, a page on their website (entitled Overview of Beliefs includes the following statement:

    The Bible is central to The United Church of Canada. As a source of wisdom, personal prayer, and devotion, we believe the Bible can bring us closer to God…

    We often refer to a [Biblical] passage as “the Word of God.” By this we mean the writer was inspired by God.

    Yet we also know the various books that make up the Bible are the stories of two ancient communities trying to be faithful to God under difficult circumstances-ancient Israel and the early Christian movement-and some of what was experienced and written then doesn’t fit with today’s world. We don’t condone slavery, for example, or stone those who commit adultery.

    All of which strikes me as something falling short of the good Ole Time Religion Red in Tooth and Claw (like our dear friends of Westboro Baptist)–but I have no expertise in religious doctrine. And while I am not aware that either Casey Lumpkin or David Klingdiddlehopper have ever directly called for adulterers to be stoned, I little doubt that the theocratic regime they would happily introduce if able would introduce such zealotry with gleeful abandon.

    Actually, as I think on it, I wasn’t previously aware that Canadians worshipped anything apart from maple syrup and moose. Tundra Boy, pick up the white courtesy telephone and illuminate, please!

  3. Garnetstar notes:

    before a theory is established, it must be found in the sacred text of an ancient holy book

    Yes–and then backed up by an eyewitness account. So, Curmy, when it comes to cases of bathroom voyeurs: Were you there?!

  4. When your religious upbringing is tell you that naked is the way of satan, and girl parts are dirty and a temptation by satan, and to look at girl parts is going to send you to hell. Voyeurism is a surprise? Why?

  5. If you were a gastrotrich, this blog would have existed for the equivalent of +/- 42,500 years so this does qualify as an ancient holy hypothesis.

  6. This reminds me of the something I have been working on. There is an emergence of “grown children” in the world. We are told from birth what we cannot do, and sadly by the time adulthood reaches us, we rebel against all that we feel oppressed by. It is a mechanism of a social disease. To try to control the free will only leads to rebellion, no matter how slight. There are voyeurs in the world simply because they are told that they cannot. No one likes to be controlled.

  7. L.Long says: “Voyeurism is a surprise? Why?”

    It’s like evolution. After Darwin published, lots of people said: “It’s so obvious. Why didn’t I think of it?”

    But the best part of voyeurism is that the word “voyeur” is so … so French!

  8. “We don’t find them in the National Center for Science Education’s listing of Statements from Religious Organizations that accept evolution, so until demonstrated otherwise, we’ll assume they’re creationists.”

    Uh, that’s a stretch. I think L.Long is closer to the mark — it’s more a matter of strict religious upbringing than creationism per se. It’s just that creationism is another by-product of a strict religious upbringing, so the two (voyeurism and creationism) may often go hand-in-hand.

  9. retiredsciguy says: “Uh, that’s a stretch.”

    Yes. I had read the same statement of faith that Megalonyx mentioned, and it wasn’t specific enough about creationism, so that’s why I looked to see if they were on NCSE’s list. I was willing to abandon the whole post if that church had been there, but they weren’t.

  10. The French don’t even have a different word for voyeur. They must have stolen it right from American.

  11. As a data point on The United Church of Canada, back in 2008, when “Darwin: The Evolution Revolution,” was touring Canada, no corporate sponsors could be found for it. The United Church Observer, an independent magazine affiliated with UCC made a small but public donation. Eamon Knight, a Canadian and longtime creationism opponent, report his impression of the UCC in the comments here:

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2008/03/singing-praises.html

  12. Thank you, John Pieret. That changes our characterization of the church — but not the voyeur.

  13. The whole truth

    I don’t understand why anyone would say that the people of that church, or any other christians, muslims, and virtually every other religion are not or may not be “creationists”. If someone believes in and/or promotes a ‘creator’, they’re a creationist. The particulars of their creationist fantasies are only relevant in the sense that additional labels can be attached to creationists, such as ‘young Earth’ creationist, ‘old Earth’ creationist, ‘muslim’ creationist, ‘deistic’ creationist, ‘christian’ creationist, etc.

    There are lots of other labels that can be and are applied to creationists (usually by the creationists themselves) to describe the particulars of their creationist beliefs, such as methodist, lutheran, catholic, baptist, evangelical, fundamentalist, protestant, biblical inerrantist, sunni, shia, mormon, etc., etc., etc . They’re all creationists.

  14. This is a comment from V.Hutchison, but because of some technological glitch he’s not able to post it, so I’m doing it for him:

    cmkline is likely correct. It is not uncommon for those charged with sexual crimes to come from families with very strict religious upbringing, where sex is a dirty word and things sexual are direct from Satan. Thus, the later rebellion and acting out against the teachings of their families and ministers. I have had several liberal clergy members and practicing psychologists express this view and also stated that child molestation, etc., was more common in such families.

  15. I expect the NCSE list of statements from religious organizations is limited to American organizations, which is why the United Church of Canada is not on it. As the largest and most liberal Protestant Church in Canada, which elected a gay, married Reverend as their current moderator (highest national position), I am quite sure they have no official problem with evolution whether they have made a statement on it or not.

    Of course, one can find pockets of creationism among certain minority of their more conservative clergy and members. That’s par for any liberal church which does not excommunicate dissenting members. Anyhoo, an affiliation with the United Church of Canada does not identify one as a creationist (usually the reverse), though it doesn’t completely rule it out either.

    Nor, unfortunately, does it rule out the occasional voyeur.