Well, okay, this is just plain ridiculous. Sorry, but it is. Are you honestly asserting that extramarital sex never took place before movies and TV started showing it happening? I can’t believe you would suggest something so silly. We may disagree about certain issues, but you seem far more intelligent and erudite to make such an asinine suggestion.
So, instead, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you mean something different, to wit: Extramarital sex did, in fact, happen, but it is immoral (or amoral) to actually show it. Never mind Shakespeare; never mind the part of the Bible where Lot’s daughters, through ignorance, take it upon themselves to repopulate the planet by sleeping with their father.
In other words, you believe that art should show humanity as we want to be, in some sort of idealized state. It is immoral (or evil; choose your adjective) to show humanity as we actually are. Even though extramarital relations are as old as the covenant of marriage itself, it is improper for us to deal with them in a storytelling context.
Please clarify this for me. There’s no point in continuing the discussion if we haven’t established our respective starting points.
Well, we won’t be hearing from Ben again. He said the name, so now, according to rabbinical teachings, he’s going to be struck by lightning.
OK, on to serious stuff. The post by FriendofGod on the topic of sexual attitudes on TV displays once again how many Christians are unable to view themselves as members of just one religion among many. Yes some shows display actions that are against Christian morality, but they are also against Jewish morality and Islamic morality and against the morality of many other religions. Why should these shows be described as being opposed exclusively to Christianity?
Furthermore, how can we say that there is a general assaults against sexual propriety at all? Although there are certainly many shows which do show adultery and other misdeeds, many of them are highly critical of such actions, and there are also still numerous shows where characters do uphold high moral standards. Maybe what FoG and others are mad about is that they no longer have complete control over the entertainment industry, the way they did during the era of the production code.
<Hijack>If you’re talking about Buchanan, you’re incorrect on several points. He’s hardly an ally of Bush, since he has been an opponent of both Georges since 1992 or so, and most recently ran against Bush as a “Reform” (tee hee) candidate, and claimed certain knowledge that ballots scored to him were really for Gore. Also, all Buchanan said was that the US should have stayed out of the war (which would have let Hitler win). Ironically this puts Buchanan in agreement with the US Communist Party in the 1930’s. Buchanan’s a loon and the GOP should be proud to have him as an enemy.
<end of hijack>
<Back on topic> In review of this thread and the like - I’ve found in general that the faulty arguments of fundamentalists are a greater threat to my Christian beliefs than anything Gould or Sagan could say.
Andy
P.S. Someone mentioned “The Sparrow” - Haven’t read that yet, but I’ve always enjoyed religious SF of the kind I’ve heard “The Sparrow” is - have you read “A Case Of Conscience” “Canticle for Leibowitz” or “More than Human”?
My personal favorite is when I hear a Christian coworker lament the sex and adult scenes on TV that their poor children have to see (apparently their televisions don’t have OFF buttons) - but then will turn around and talk about how fantastic a particular gun battle was on another show.
Oh, please. IF we’re going by cinema (to stick to the OP) the most put-upon religious group, by a very wide margin, are Muslims. Sit down one evening and try to watch Executive Decision AND Rules of Engagement; either of those movies are more insulting and racist towards Arabs and Muslims than all the films released this year will be towards Christians.
FoG, your response was interesting, but didn’t really answer my question. Let’s try again. (I’ll still address the points you made, but first let’s get this over with.)
I had originally asked you:
You responded:
I retorted:
Then you finally gave an example of sex on television. The problem, oh FoGgy one, is that this has noting to do with any of the points in my question! You later got to a few of the points, but I’m at a loss as to see what sex on television has to do with anything.
Anyway, on to what you said:
No! My God! Next thing you know, they’ll show a country’s leader sleeping with one of his underling’s wives, and then, when it looks like he might get caught, he’ll send that underling to his death!
Oh, wait. That’s not TV. That’s the Bible – the story of King David.
Oh, please. Just because standards have changed does not make it “an outright attack” on your religion. Believe it or not, everybody doesn’t sit around thinking, “Hmmm. How can I attack Christianity today?”
So you do believe there is a conspiracy? It’s just one without a specific leader?
If your “dozens” of other examples are as poor as this one, you’re in trouble.
Read: You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. Thanks for playing.
Yes, there are countless stories. That’s exactly what they are: stories. Now, if you could provide countless pieces of evidence, that would be much better. But I guess you can’t do that.
I suspect you just don’t pay attention to anything that doesn’t get you mad.
I think the main problem here is that you see “an agenda” pretty much everywhere. So of course you will see one in the newspaper. And on TV. And in the workplace. And in the entire world. The rest of us aren’t looking for Satan behind every bush and therefore can be a bit more objective.
But this is nothing more than fundamentalist porn! Of course there are countless stories about Christians being persecuted, because FC’s get off on the idea of martyrdom. I mean, think of Columbine, and Cassie Bernal or whoever it was who supposedly “said yes.” The entire story was a crock- but on the radio you could hear FC’s singing cheerily morbid songs about how “I want to be like the martyrs,” and you heard plenty of FC’s talking to reporters about how exciting it was that there was a real martyr in their community, and how they wished that they could die for God like she did. (Wished, that is- wishing is a very safe way to indulge one’s fantasies.) My mom told me an interesting story this morning- she was at a church group in which a woman was talking about her missionary activity. She converted a six year old girl whose father said that he’d kill her if she went to church. The girl went anyway, and her father beat her to death. The girl’s last words on her hospital bed were, “Daddy, I forgive you.” The woman was ecstatic, declaring excitedly that she had “created a martyr!” So you see, pedophiles aren’t the only ones who abuse children in the pursuit of their fantasies.
Where is the real persecution in America? Not too long ago a homosexual was tied to a post with barbed wire and left to freeze to death. A Wiccan girl was suspended because one of her teachers got sick and the principal accused the student of casting a hex on the teacher. Not too long ago a crowd of Christians actually stoned a parade which was marching for religious tolerance! Our FC President has even gone so far as to withdraw funding for international birth control programs, on the grounds that paying for condoms- paying for the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies!- will somehow cause there to be more abortions.* The real problem with religious intolerance in this country is that fundamentalists are persecuting everyone else. If FC’s faced up to the fact that they are the ones feeding everyone else to the lions, they would have to drop their masturbatory fantasies of being the underdog. So instead, they tell tales of folks who couldn’t bring a Bible to work; stories involving just enough persecution to be exciting but not enough to become implausible. It’s like the guy you knew in high school who would titillate his listeners with stories about how he slept with such-and-such pretty cheerleader. No one would believe him if he claimed to sleep with all of them at once! Of course, the restriction of plausibility is removed once you start fantasising about what horrors the future might hold, which is how Pat Robertson was able to make short fundie porno films about jackbooted American police breaking up prayer meetings. Never mind that jackbooted thugs aren’t actually doing this in America; Robertson knows he can make money by pandering to FC’s sick fantasies.
FoG, can you provide even a shred of evidence for any incident of persecution of FC’s that is even half as bad as the incidents I named? Because if not, it seems to me that you’re just giving us a load of fundamentalist porn.
George W. Bush seems to be pursuing a strategy of “pornography as policy.” His policy will vastly increase the number of abortions, not decrease them. But results aren’t important; what is important is whether the policy will let his pro-life supporters feel like they are fighting abortion. The policy makes him look very tough on abortion, and so succeeds wonderfully as porn even while it creates a pro-lifer’s nightmare as policy.
That was me. Haven’t read Case of Conscience, but I’ve read the other two. More than Human was years ago on a Sturgeon kick, before I was mature enough to get it, so I don’t really remember the book beyond its being kind of freaky (and I had vague flashbacks to it while reading Greg Bear’s Darwin’s Radio). I will say, though, that I love Canticle for Leibowitz, and have read it several times. The Sparrow, so far at least, is, in my opinion, even better. I highly recommend it to every reader, not just fans of sci-fi or spiritual books (or the combination thereof); it’s simply a great, great novel.
And FriendofGod: When you say evil atheists want to destroy Christianity, and you are asked to name one of them, any one, and you can’t, impartial observers have no choice but to conclude that they don’t exist and dismiss your argument. If you want to win us over, find specific, concrete citations – names, organizations, position papers. Without evidence, your claims are nothing more than vaporous paranoia.
Wow! Lotsa responses today. No time to delve into all of them right not but I have a minute to address some of DavidB’s issues:
I can see how you would think that. Let me explain where I’m coming from a little better. Again, for easy reference the original quote:
My response was, no, not a worldwide conspiracy but that …
I italicized “all of the individual elements” to point out that I was just pointing out one tiny element. There are multiple facets, and all of them combined work toward a goal of destroying Christianity, etc etc. I’ll explain further in a sec, but first let me comment on this:
If every TV character in the past 30 years who was sexually immoral suffered the same level of consequences that King David did for his sins, you’d have a point. The Bible portrays sexual sin as sin, not as something fun to do that has no consequences. With rare exceptions, TV characters dont suffer for premarital sex. It’s shown as normal and healthy behavior. That is the core deception that has crept into our society.
Oh I believe there’s a specific leader in the spiritual realm. I’m sure you can guess who it is ;). But no, I definately don’t believe there’s one human leader somewhere in a dark basement running the “Beast” computer.
Back to the main point: what I was trying to say is this: there are combined factors in the media and in society in general that is working toward a certain mindset about Christians: that they are all a little bit nuts, they’re dangerous, they’re not “tolerant” enough, they want to take away your rights. It’s been very effective. When’s the last time you saw a religious person portrayed in a positive light on a network TV show or movie? (NOTE: The exception seems to be Catholics. For whatever reason, thats the one denomination the networks seem to like). I have actually seen rare exceptions. I still remember watching an LA Law episode in it’s final season where they gasp introduced a fundamentalist Christian woman who was … pretty, intelligent, and good at her job! I was in shock. I remember reading an article about it in TV Guide. They said it was in response to the very real and understood complaint of Christians to being marginalized in the media. It’s very similar to what’s happening with gays on network TV today only they’re slightly more successful. I’d say virtually half of the TV shows today have a sympathetic gay character. Sympathetic born again Christian characters are nowhere to be seen, but crazy so-called “Christian” characters can be seen from time to time, as usual.
Okay enough of my rant … I’ll try to return later in the week to respond to some of the other points being made.
I went, in some depth, into this idea of a decline in morality over on the Pizza Parlor, Friend, and since I know you’re active over there, I’ll simply direct you to it. Do a search for sex education in the schools.
What I have to say is that, on average, kids are more honestly moral today than they were when I was growing up. The double standard of appear one way in public and do something else on the sneak has given way to being honest about one’s life. Couples, adolescent or adult, who would have had sex and hidden the fact now are open about it. As a result, public evidence of greater sex outside marriage is up by quite a lot. But I’d venture to guess that the actual incidence is pretty close to the same. I have no figures to back this up, just five decades of experience of human nature and a good observing eye.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Ten months, two days, 21 hours, 5 minutes and 4 seconds.
12355 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,544.60.
Extra life saved: 6 weeks, 21 hours, 35 minutes.
Well, this is some distance from the LaHaye point, but at least it’s almost plausible.
Still, I’d say that the media’s skeptical portrayal of born-again/fundamentalist Christians does NOT extend to the rest of Christianity. The Amish came off rather well in Witness, I thought. The only anti-Morman piece I’ve ever seen was made by a fundamentalist group. How often are Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like attacked?
I wish people wouldn’t say “anti-Christian”, when what they mean is “anti-biblical-literalist” or “anti-fundamentalist-Christian”. It is a deception when a smaller group pretends to speak for a substantially larger group.
Finally: Part of the reason Catholics are portrayed well in Hollywood relates to their clergy’s choice of wardrobe. When central casting calls for a “man-of-the-cloth”, a Catholic priest makes a pretty convenient choice.
Back to the main point: what I was trying to say is this: there are combined factors in the media and in society in general that is working toward a certain mindset about Christians: that they are all a little bit nuts, they’re dangerous, they’re not “tolerant” enough, they want to take away your rights.**
Unlike various elements of Christianity who:
Use their considerable financial influence on political elections, witness Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition in the mid-90s.
The LDS and Roman Catholic Church who use there financial and political influence to pass laws in California and, most recently, in Oklahoma, forbidding same sex marriages from being recognized.
That wonderful representative from Georgia, Bob Barr, who when discovering that Wiccans were using a military base for open religious gatherings, threw a hissy fit and tried to block funding for the military. All this despite the fact that:
1)Wicca is a recognized and accepted religious practice in the military.
2)The gatherings were done in full accordance with the rules and regulations that governs such events.
3)There were no complaints from ANYONE about these gatherings 'til Bob Barr heard about it.
Please go on FoG and tell us how the media is so wrong about portraying some Christians.
The girl was and is not a Wiccan, she’s a Catholic. She was accused of being a witch because somebody had once seen her reading a book about Wicca. Which makes it all the more absurd, if that’s even possible.
