Earlier this month a British Navy chaplain was awarded significant financial damages after leaving the navy due to "sexual intimidation." Briefly the facts of the case are that Rev Mark Sharpe claims he was forced to leave the navy after being constantly exposed to hardcore pornography on dvd in the mess room. Much of it would be classed as illegal, some of which involved animals. Apparantly he was told by his superiors to turn a "blind-eye" It appears that the officers thought it was acceptable. It is as if pornography is used as "bromide for the 21st Century"

So here is the dilemna....what would you have done in his situation?

On the surace it may seem obvious, of course he did the right thing. Why should any Christian, let alone a minister, be subjected to this filth. But is it as simple as that? Does it change your opinion if I tell you he was only 24 days at sea on HMS Manchester when he left?

My mate Dai Hankie
had an interesting perspective. "If you are a missionary into a different culture, you have to at first accept its norms before you can change them."
This in no way accepts the depravity but suggests that nothing will change if Christians do not infiltrate "the world." Does your opinion of the situation change if you realise that Rev Sharpe settled out of court for a rumoured £50,000? Surely if had wanted to really ensure the situation was highlighted he would have taken his case right throught the courts?

On a radio phone-in show by far the majority of those calling in could not see what the problem was. Surely the navy crew should be allowed to watch pornography after a tough shift when they could be months at sea? Does it affect your view of this if I tell you that ships are crewed 24 hours a day and as such if you are on the crew you could subjected to it at breakfast time?

So what would you have done, left the navy and highlighted the problem or stayed and tried to change it?