the truth shall set you free

[Mirrored from my other blog.]

I’ve been intrigued by dynamic “popular” lists for a while now. First it was BlogDex, then came Del.icio.us, and lately I’ve even been glancing at Technorati’s ‘Today’s Most Popular.

That said, I’ve noticed that on their popular movies page, Brokeback Mountain has been topping the list by over double the blog mentions for the past few days. I haven’t taken the time to discern whether a majority of these blogs are in favor of the movie or if they are recognizing it as propaganda, but I thought I’d throw in my two cents, regardless.

Actually, just about everything I want to say about this movie has been said by David Kupelian in his article ‘Brokeback Mountain’: Rape of the Marlboro Man. Please read this article in its entirety. In the meantime, here are some important excerpts:

“Brokeback Mountain,” the controversial “gay cowboy” film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews – and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars – is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage.

And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the “Marlboro Man,” that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity.

We all know the Marlboro Man. In “The Marketing of Evil,” I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time – the cowboy – and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product – cigarettes.

Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public’s mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women’s cigarette with the slogan “Mild as May”) into the world’s best-selling cigarette.

It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product’s actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people’s deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise – but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products.

. . .

Yes, the talents of Hollywood’s finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis’s suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger’s performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis’s pain. Mission accomplished.

Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis’s suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in “Brokeback Mountain.”

What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.

Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It’s what they do for a living.

Here’s something I think we need to truly think about. Masterfully produced propaganda could serve to tie us emotionally to just about any behavior, no matter how deviant or gruesome.

Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to “Brokeback Mountain,” only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like “Brokeback,” it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we’re seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.

All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors’ powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness – juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two “lovers” are together – to bring us to a new level of “understanding” for any forbidden “love.” Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox “love” as Nazis or thugs.

It’s interesting to consider that even Jake Gyllenhaal was uncomfortable as an actor simulating homosexual sex with Heath Ledger.

I was super uncomfortable … [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f—in’ hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds.

The terms “homophobia” and “stereotype” have been used and overused to mask what’s really going on in the majority of American minds. It’s the truth, most people are innately uncomfortable with homosexual relationships. Period. Kupelian rightly asks, “Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers – crossing a line he wasn’t meant to cross. It’s called seduction.”

It’s truly scary to step back and observe how this works. Human beings innately react negatively to an unnatural situation or corrupt behavior. Yet, when such a situation is desirable for some, people must be coaxed into ignoring that natural reacton. How is that accomplished? The definition of what is “natural” is slowly changed, and what is correct is subtley transformed into “evil.” Then, opposition is easily painted as ignorance or bigotry or weakness.

As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans’ throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past “homophobia” – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.

If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation – like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in “Brokeback Mountain” – will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.

Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann have written an interesting paper on abortion and risky sex among teenagers. (Download the PDF):

Incentives matter. They matter even in activities as primal as sex, and they matter even among teenagers, who are conventionally thought to be relatively myopic. If the expected costs of risky sex are raised, teens will substitute toward less risky activities such as protected sex or abstinence. In addition to modeling the decision making processes of teenagers, this insight is important in other contexts as well. Many public policies can be improved by recognizing the sensitivity of teenage sexual decisions to costs and benefits.

We study one set of policies in this paper. We show that increasing the cost of abortion for teens lowers the insurance value of abortion. This induces teenage girls to avoid risky sex, which will likely have the effect of lowering pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and birth rates among this group of individuals. While these positive effects alone might not justify parental involvement laws, they presumably should not be ignored in the debate. Behavior is not static, and claims based on the assumption of static behavior are flawed.

Wouldn’t criminalization of abortion accomplish the same thing to an even greater degree? Illegality is a deterrent for all types of behavior teens are apt experiment with. The deterrent then becomes two fold: (1) the price goes up simply because it is now a “black market” operation, and (2) lack of governmental and medical support increases the risk of a botched procedure. Why beat around the bush by raising the price? Outlaw the practice.

[via Marginal Revolution]

November 8, 2005 is your opportunity to vote on Propositon 2 which constitutionally defines marriage as “one man and one woman.

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

There is some interesting commentary on the proposition over at the Lonestar Times (Houston).

FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE ABOVE IMAGE!
Here are some various formats for your printing/blogging pleasure.

For screen resolution:
* 544 X 800 GIF
* 340 X 500 GIF
* 163 X 240 GIF

For printing:
* Full-Page PDF
* 4-to-a-page PDF
* Now by popular demand: Black & White, 4-to-a-page

According to The Telegraph, BBC News has begun editing out the word “terrorist” from its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings.

This editorial decision is justified by guidelines which state that credibility is undermined by “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments.” According to the BBC, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding” and should be “avoided.”

Rod Liddle, former editor of the Today program has said that the BBC is guilty of “institutionalized political correctness” when covering Muslims, particularly. The interesting thing about all of this is that their removal the word “terrorist” is more of an emotional value judgment than the use of it. What happened in London was terrorism. Was it not?

If the BBC is truly instituting “political correctness” regarding Muslims, then their avoidance of the word “terrorism” says more about their views than biased reporting. That is, if they seek to protect the Muslim community by nixing the word terrorist, it becomes clear that they think of Muslims when they use the word.

Here’s the kicker: Al Qaeda wants credit for the attack. So, is this really an issue of “emotion” or “values”? Seems to me it’s more about fear of reporting the facts. The BBC knows that this attack has the potential to rally support for the “War on Terror”, a war that the Beeb would love for it’s readership to consider unnecessary. This is a simple case of editorializing the news, and it’s bad journalism.

Jeff Sharlet of TheRevealer.org recently published an article in Rolling Stone entitled, The Young and the Sexless. The article discusses young Christians and abstinence, and though it’s an interesting read, it is largely misleading. The sub-headline reads, “A new generation of young men and women is embracing celibate life.”

Celibate has a very specific meaning: giving up sexual relationships (including marriage) for life. That certainly isn’t what these young people plan to do. I realize that such a criticism is pedantic, but it certainly sets the stage for the rest of the article. Sharlet begins:

What if the true face of the Christian right in America is not that of Dr. James Dobson or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson; not that of an aging, comb-over preacher orange with pancake makeup, smiling orca rows of ungodly white teeth on The O’Reilly Factor or Hardball? Nor that of spittle-flecked Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, roaring that God hates fags? What if the true face of the Christian right is, instead, that of a twenty-four-year-old religious-studies graduate student at New York University?

This introduction is telling, and the entire peice builds from here. Sharlet argues that “Chastity is a new organizing principle of the Christian right”, in other words, politically motivated. Though he certainly has a case by describing a segment of the “Christian right” this way, highlighting abstinence in a political context ignores the majority of young Christians who practice abstinence for fundamentally moral reasons - the way they have been since Christ reiterated the sanctity of marriage in Matthew 19. There’s nothing new about it.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. of The Christian Post responded to Sharlet’s article in a similar vein:

When Dunbar describes sexual abstinence as a form of rebellion, Sharlet jumps to the political sphere. As he sees it, conservative Christians are now pushing the issue of sexual abstinence in order to make “every young man and woman part of an elite virgin corps.

Clearly, Sharlet hasn’t been hanging around conservative Christians for very long. Anyone who thinks that the idea of sexual abstinence is a recent development tied to a political agenda within the Christian right just hasn’t been in touch with conservative Christianity.

Mohler is surprisingly fair, admitting that, “at times…[Sharlet] reveals interesting insights and incisive analysis… seem[ing] to understand the cultural awkwardness that comes with a commitment to sexual abstinence.” However, it seems to me that Sharlet’s apparent “understanding” and general empathetic tone has to do with those featured in the story, and not because of any value Sharlet sees in abstinence. The interesting thing about this article - perhaps the very reason it made it to the pages of Rolling Stone - is the presentation of these young men as unambiguous hypocrites. In his response, Mohler seems to miss this point completely, offering his grossly understated description of Matt Dunbar and his friends:

These young men are not total ascetics. They enjoy food and other pleasures, but they see sex as belonging to an entirely different world.

Sharlet is more honest about matters:

Matt Dunbar is a handsome young man, though his face is still ruddy with acne. He has rounded cheeks, a soul patch beneath his lips and soft eyes that hold yours like he trusts you. He’s not a prude. He will say the word “f—,” but he will never, not even in the wedding bed he hopes God has prepared for his future, embody it as a verb. He will make Christian love.

Let’s face it, Rolling Stone has an image to portray and a lifestyle to cultivate. Christianity has no place in its editorial strategy. Sharlet is a smart guy and makes sure to tell us that Matt claims to be fighting a “spiritual war against the world, against ’sensuality’” and is then quick to note:

It’s a never-ending war, and not one that can be fought alone. Which is why virgins like Dunbar tend to travel in packs, to church and to Bible studies but also to parties and even to bars. Dunbar and his friends help one another stay “pure,” which they consider “authentic.”

Authentic? I hope and pray that true Christians are as appalled by this irony as the staff at Rolling Stone are likely amused. Non-Christians don’t even bother with an attempt to say party- and bar-hopping are activities designed to help one “stay pure.” They certainly don’t buy it from a Christian’s mouth. I’m reminded of Neal Stephenson’s Diamond Age and his descripton of hypocrisy:

“. . .this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another.”

That is exactly what Sharlet and Rolling Stone have done, and “Christians” such as Matt Dunbar are poster children for their message. These young men are doing nothing more than setting themselves up as targets; modern Christians that want to tout certain parts of scriptural morality while fully imbibing “mainstream culture.” Dunbar may be right when it comes to sex and it’s place, but he seems to have overlooked an equally important admonition:

If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15:19).

Sharlet points out that their church - predominantly single men and women under 30 - is growing so fast that they won’t commit to real estate. “Not having sex means talking about it constantly,” he says, and then cites sermon titles such as “Desperate Sex Lives” and “Sex & The City.” This embodies their serious problems. The very titles of what would and should be Bible lessons are, instead, plagiarized from mainstream, sex-driven culture. It’s obvious that the purpose and desire of these youngsters - though impossible - is to serve two masters. Once again, Sharlet soaks up the inconsistency like a sponge:

Church takes place on a stage set for a play. Half of every service features the Journey band, a competent ensemble that sets hymns to grunge and emo arrangements. During my visit, I can’t take my eyes off the three female backup singers, especially a redhead on the right, swinging her hips in loose cargo pants that are nonetheless tight in the a–. She’s braless and grooving, way too sexy for church, shooting a single finger over her head — the “One Way” Jesus sign Billy Graham embraced more than thirty years ago.

Ted Olsen, of Christianity Today says that it’s about evangelism and “speaking the language of the day.” The problem with such an analysis is that evangelism never shows up in this story. Dunbar and his cronies never highlight the fact that they avoid fornication because it is morally wrong and they want to please God. It’s presented as almost entirely selfish - a temporary sacrifice for the sole reward of incredible sex. Have they forgotten the real reward? Sharlet illuminates this sex-driven religiosity in a way that sounds eerily like the promises of Mohammed:

Which is it? Is sexual chastity an old tradition, or a new counter-culture? Both, of course, but not simply because “the culture” has shifted radically left. . . . They’re not simply looking backward to the golden age that never was — they’re inventing a whole new narrative of paradise, one with sex at its heart.

The article is summed up with what Sharlet’s been getting at the entire time. He says, “Like the fundamentalists of old, today’s Christian conservatives define themselves as apart from the world, and yet the modern movement aims to enjoy its fruits. (emphasis mine)” Can Dunbar and the other “Christian hipsters” possibly be happy about this portrayal? Perhaps it’s exactly what they want - the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario - iced with the notion of purity by their adherence to a single tenet. It seems they have forgotten (or maybe they have never learned) that sex is not the only sin.

I’m in the process of reading Neal Stephenson’s Diamond Age, which I recommend highly. It’s science fiction (more accurately “cyberpunk”), but Stephenson turns out to be a very savvy social commentator as well. The book parallels a lot of the ideas that I plan to deal with on this site, so I’m going to use a short passage as a springboard introduction. To give some context, the book takes place in the future, where nanotechnology has exploded and become a part of everyday life on practically every level. In the midst of this advancement exists a group of “neo-Victorians” who emerged from a childhood of moral relativism desiring a return to the virtuous lifestyle of the Victorian age. The passage I’d like to consider is a discussion among a few neo-victorians regarding the nature of hypocrisy.

“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others - after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?” . . .

“. . .this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.”

Stephenson very aptly describes hypocrisy and it’s usefulness in passing “non-judgmental” judgment. This brings to mind the focus on hypocrisy throughout the Bible - particularly in the New Testament - and whether or not it is, in fact, the “monarch of all vices.”

In Diamond Age, hypocrisy is presented as a “ubiquitous peccadillo”, that is, a small, relatively unimportant offense or sin. It was perceived by some as a greater sin, namely those in the midst of moral relativism. Their critical, “censorious” nature persisted, even in the absence of objective morality. Keenly noted is the “ferreting out” of hypocrisy in the political arena, an area of discourse which seems to focus more on trumping competitors than searching out the truth. Unfortunately, this mindset is not limited to politics; we all employ it to a certain degree, the secular world certainly applies it to Christians, and it is a particular blight within the church itself.

The question at hand is this: Is hypocrisy really a “piccadillo”, or is it the “monarch of all vices”? As early in the scriptures as Job, we see proverbial warnings against hypocrisy coupled with the instruction that hypocrisy is simply temporary deceit. Francis Bacon, in his essay on Truth, quotes Montaigne as follows:

Montaigne saith prettily, when he inquired the reason, why the word of the lie should be such a disgrace, and such an odious charge? Saith he, If it be well weighed, to say that a man lieth, is as much to say, as that he is brave towards God, and a coward towards men. For a lie faces God, and shrinks from man.

In other words, deceit is nothing more than cowering before our fellow man for fear of temporary humiliation or pain while simultaneously standing up to all-knowing God, blatantly disregarding His demands for virtue and honesty.

Job 27:8 says, “For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?”

In his sermon on the mount, Jesus urges his disciples to worship from the heart in privacy, rather than displaying their devotion in hypocrisy (Matthew 6:2,5,16). Immediately following these examples, Christ points out that hypocritical judgment is unrighteous (Matthew 7:5). Note Matthew 15:7-9:

“Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men.”

In Matthew 23, Jesus focuses on the Pharisees’ hypocrisy by describing the superficiality of their behavior.

He says, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.”

James 3:17 says,

“But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without variance, without hypocrisy.”

Hypocrisy is undoubtedly a grave sin. It misplaces one’s allegiance causing one to fear men and scoff at God. Beyond this, the cause of Christ is damaged and souls are eternally lost when supposed “disciples” live hypocritically. Countless times in my studies with friends have I heard the excuse “the church is full of hypocrisy.” To many, this justifies their rebellion. Let us consider again Stephenson’s description of hypocrisy. He notes that even those that have abandoned morality for “relativism” are capable of recognizing hypocrisy.

“For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another.”

It has been said that the sermon lived is more effective than the sermon preached. This rings true when we consider that those who desire to destroy the faith - though they may not know one scripture - are capable of recognizing our hypocrisy. With this in mind, let us always remember to be peaceful, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere as we seek to do God’s will and bring the lost to Christ!