2012

(Scriptoriumdaily.com) by John Mark Reynolds

When I was a kid, I used to root for people to pick the next year as the date of Christ’s return. Since I really wanted to get married, I did not want the Day of Doom to come too soon. Using my childish reasoning, I figured that since the Savior had said no man knew the day or hour of His coming this meant that any date picked must surely be wrong. If you picked it, He would not come.

That makes as much sense as basing a belief in the end of the world on a misreading of the Mayan calendar and much more sense than the movie 2012.

The world will not end in 2012, but creativity in Hollywood died around the time of the filming of Klute . . . 1971.

As a result jillions of us rushed to the theater to watch a long movie full of sound and noise signifying destruction. Evidently all the hope and change of the last election have some people hoping that God or nature will hit the reset button and allow them to start again.

Of course, the fact that most of us will be dead does not deter anyone since the characters that survive in this movie are so brain-dead that any of us can reason we can do as well. Religion, of course especially the Christian religion, is useless at the end of the world . . . at least in this kind of film, but since reason, republican values, and storytelling are also useless my faith was in good company.

Perhaps President Obama will nationalize Hollywood soon and fix the creativity gulf that threatens to swallow California. If I were to make a disaster movie for this new government agency, I would promise to include the ten essential elements for any disaster movie.

First, a misunderstood husband with skills useless in our present world, but valuable for a doomed planet.

Second, an ex-wife or girlfriend with a boyfriend or new husband totally cool in this age, but doomed in the age to come.

Third, a cute kid who is plucky and full of quips will be saved by his dad who will have no effective way to shave. There will be a second cute teen daughter in the movie who says little but will find water in which to fall.

Fourth, shots of the end of monuments including some in New York, Rome, and Washington.

Fifth, an African-American or other “minority” president since in the weird racism of Hollywood only a minority President can preside over the end of the nation.

Sixth, if it is a Christian movie a swing will blow back and forth in the wind following the disappearance of a child. If it is not a Christian movie, some person will die while praying ineffectively. Bonus for a rosary in the shot.

Seventh, waves will crash over some city proving Plato still controls our icons. Some stupid media types will die trying to get the shot to audience cheers.

Eighth, some scene of doom will be shown to us on a television screen, usually in a store window.

Ninth, the government and all qualified people will have no clue, but loners will know exactly what to do.

Tenth, the movie will end with some “subtle” sign of hope such as a flower blooming or a shot of a pregnant woman.

I am ready for my disaster movie stimulus check.

Morality, Hollywood Style

(AlbertMohler.com) written by Albert Mohler

Moral hypocrisy is an ugly thing, regardless of its source. Hypocrisy is a moral trap of constant threat -- the price of holding any moral standards at all. To hold to the truth of moral judgment and then to allow for the transgression of that moral judgment is hypocrisy in its essence. The only total escape from the threat of hypocrisy is to forfeit any claim to moral standards at all.

Hypocrisy is found in ample supply among both conservatives and liberals. The conservative variant seems most evident when political or religious leaders are found guilty of transgressing the very principles they preach. The hypocrisy spreads in both extent and significance when those who claim to be conservatives attempting to conserve moral wisdom, excuse those who flaunt their personal disregard for that wisdom.

The liberal variant seems most evident when, for example, moral relativists all of a sudden discover moral scruples. It turns out that even postmodern relativists and the children of the 1960s do believe in moral principles after all. Yet, the cultural left has always found sexual morality most difficult to define or defend.

The other liberal variant that so often appears is the argument that artists or celebrities or academics are above the morality to which the rest of society is accountable. In the end, the children of the sexual revolution have gravitated toward a sexual morality that boils down to consent. In its essence, this sexual morality holds that anything consenting individuals do with each other sexually is beyond moral censure. And anything means anything. An ethic of consent is all that remains after the ethic of moral rules is discarded in the name of liberation.

That leaves the definition of consent as the issue of central concern. Who can and cannot give adequate consent to sex? Feminists have been quick to point out, quite rightly, that women are often forced into situations in which consent is an illusion. Thus, they have been steadfast defenders of laws and moral codes that protect women from situations in which consent is not genuine. They have insisted, rightly again, that the very young, the vulnerable, and those under threat of harm (such as an employee approached by an employer) cannot grant meaningful consent.

Of course, the most vulnerable are the youngest, and the most vulnerable of all are the youngest when exploited by adults. This moral wisdom -- the wisdom of any sane society -- has been affirmed by virtually all but the most scandalously outrageous figures driven into the moral wilderness.

Until now?

The response of so many Hollywood leading lights to the arrest of filmmaker Roman Polanski now suggests that, at least when it comes to one of their own, sex with children is within the pale. This deserves and demands a closer look.

The cultural left has responded to the arrest a week ago of Polanksi with outrage -- directed not at Polanski but at the arrest.

The facts are not in dispute. Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. The girl had been invited to a "photo session" with the famous director but Polanski gave her alcohol and drugs and then twice had sex with her. Polanski entered a guilty plea based on an agreement that he would not be prosecuted for rape or sodomy (crimes for which he had been indicted). He fled the United States before his sentencing and has generally avoided any nation that has an extradition treaty with the United States. His arrest in Switzerland set off international protests.

The French cultural minister expressed outrage that the United States would demand Polanski's return. Within days, over 100 Hollywood luminaries had signed a petition demanding Polaski's release. Names on the petition included Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Tilda Swinton, and Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein defended Hollywood's defense of Polanski, referring to his sex with a 13-yer-old girl as a "so-called crime" and telling The Los Angeles Times: "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion . . . We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." In other words, our morality is superior to you unartistic types with your moral scruples about sex with children.

As Terry Teachout commented in The Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Weinstein is, of course, a moral idiot." Clearly. The larger question is why so many Hollywood types have jumped so eagerly to defend Polanski. Whoopi Goldberg said on "The View" that what Polanski did "was not rape, rape." Then what is rape, rape?

The Los Angeles Times reported:

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said. "And it touches on a question that's been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law.

Is the celebrity above the law? The case of Roman Polanski is tragic to the core. He went on to have an affair with a 15-year-old actress even after fleeing justice in the United States. He was always warmly embraced by Hollywood, receiving a standing ovation when he was announced as the winner of an Oscar for "The Pianist." He gave his acceptance speech by satellite broadcast. Hollywood was glad to oblige.

Give Katha Pollitt credit, the feminist left-winger supreme was quick to denounce both Polanski and his Hollywood enablers:

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

The moral gap between Hollywood and "Middle America" is vast, though for some reason many Americans blind themselves to this fact. The Hollywood embrace of Roman Polanski and their outrage at his arrest in Switzerland shines a floodlight on this gap.

Are art and artists above moral accountability? The Hollywood elite seem to believe so -- and even to be willing to lend their names to the defense of the morally indefensible. Is the celebrity above the law? Watch this case closely.

Myths Die Hard in Hollywood

In case you missed the Oscars last week (I did), Sean Penn won the Oscar for Best Actor for his role in "Milk," a film depicting the life of gay rights advocate Harvey Milk.

In his acceptance speech Sean Penn said the following:

I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.

You can watch a video clip of it here:



Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager of ProtectMarriage.com, made the following observations about the Oscars:

...viewers weren’t two categories into the awards show when a gay screen writer bashed the Mormon Church, as much as said that supporters of Prop 8 are hateful bigots and promised that, soon, gays would have the right to marry. He even promised that the Obama Administration would make sure gays could marry “federally.” That brought a big round of applause.

It is perhaps not surprising that Hollywood liberals would use their “awards” show to campaign in favor of gay marriage. After all, many of these same liberals donated or raised millions of dollars to attempt to defeat Proposition 8.

What is perhaps surprising is their brazen attempt to influence public opinion against traditional marriage by manipulating people into thinking that this is a “human rights” issue, or a “civil rights” issue, or even an “equal rights” issue. What they don’t tell people is that gay couples in domestic partnerships in California already have equal rights! Gay domestic partners in California enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses.

Frank Schubert is right. Myths die hard in Hollywood. This particular myth which is so prevalent is the myth of "equal rights." This is the myth that says the issue of same-sex marriage is about equal rights and that homosexuals are being discriminated against. Nothing could be further from the truth. I addressed this issue a few months ago in two different blogs: the first part is here and the second part here. The two main related points were as follows:

The same-sex marriage debate has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, especially here in California due to California Family Code 297.5. Same-sex couples are afforded the same rights, benefits, and protections under California law. It's just not called "marriage." And that brings us to what this debate is really about. This is not about civil rights. It is about a piece of paper called a "Marriage Certificate" which the gay community desperately wants in order to have their lifestyle legitimized and validated in the eyes of the government and society. It is about redefining marriage. But no one person or society has the right to redefine this institution based on their own personal desires. Same-sex relationships will never be equal to monogamous, long-term, committed, heterosexual relationships, no matter how hard one might try to make them. Simply redefining the word "marriage" to include your relationship doesn't make it a marriage. Marriage is something in particular. And it cannot be redefined to include unnatural relationships any more than one can redefine the nature of a carburetor to include a water pump and expect the two to function equally for the same task.

Even without this California Family Code, same-sex couples would still have equal rights. There is NO unequal protection under the law. The same definition of marriage applies to all, regardless of your sexual preference. Homosexuals CAN get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. And neither can a heterosexual. The same law applies to all equally. This point seems to be completely missed by same-sex marriage advocates.

These two observations alone completely destroy the myth of "equal rights." I have yet to hear any proponent of same-sex marriage adequately address these points. Yet the "equal rights" myth is continually perpetrated by agenda-driven individuals, organizations, and Hollywood, in an attempt to indoctrinate the naive and vilify critics. It is understandable why supporters of same-sex marriage want to make this an issue of "equal rights." The public is much more likely to be sympathetic toward the cause if they feel there is unfair treatment. Frank Schubert notes:

Liberal Hollywood activists like Sean Penn know a thing or two about reaching audiences. They make millions – tens of millions – learning how to connect with an audience. One audience they no doubt hoped to influence on Sunday night was the California Supreme Court, which is hearing challenges to invalidate Prop 8 in just ten days. Another audience probably watched the show from the upstairs of the White House in Washington. Still another audience is made up of voters here in California, enough of the 7 million of whom they hope to shame into repudiating their votes cast in favor of traditional marriage the next time the issue is on the ballot. Traditional marriage has served society well, and there are many sound reasons why people support one man, one woman marriage – including continuing the best institution to give children both a mother and a father. Prop 8 wasn’t an attack on gay couples, it was an affirmation of traditional marriage – but you didn’t hear that at the Academy Awards.

Again, Frank Schubert is right. Notice how Hollywood attempts to win the debate. Hollywood doesn't say, "We believe so strongly that supporting same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior is the morally superior and intellectually defensible position that we are going to sponsor 100 national debates in an attempt to persuade the public through sound reasoning and argumentation." No, instead, Hollywood spends millions of dollars creating sitcoms and movies which constantly portray homosexual characters and the homosexual lifestyle in a positive light. Think of shows like Will and Grace, The L Word, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and Boy Meets Boy. After our celebrity-obsessed society has watched these programs for several years they have formed emotional attachments and bonds with the characters. They begin to associate the homosexual lifestyle with the easy-going, fun-loving homosexual character portrayed on their television.

In other words, I have noticed that people often reach a moral conclusion regarding homosexual behavior based on how they perceive the individual practicing that lifestyle. If the individual is a decent, hard-working, "nice" person, these positive caricatures are often carried over and applied to homosexuality itself. Never mind the facts or inherent dangers associated with the lifestyle. Our culture has essentially been indoctrinated through slick rhetoric. And when you combine this type of emotion-filled rhetoric with the prevalent philosophy of moral relativism (which says there are no moral absolutes that apply to all people, in all places, at all times) you have a recipe for disaster. This was no more evident then in my discussions with supporters of same-sex marriage this last election year. I asked one relative why she supports same-sex marriage. Her response: "I have friends who are gay." The implication was that having gay friends somehow morally justifies the homosexual lifestyle and warrants the redefinition of marriage. This is the kind of sloppy thinking that results when you give up reason and morality for rhetoric and relativism.

Conclusion: Whenever someone says that same-sex marriage is about "equal rights" you can be sure of one thing: that person has no idea what this issue is really about. Furthermore, we need to be aware of how Hollywood portrays this debate in an attempt to persuade our society, especially younger generations. Ironically, for all his talk about "shame," it is actually Sean Penn who should be ashamed. Shame on you Mr. Penn. Shame on you for misleading the public and continuing in willful ignorance regarding what this debate is really about.