Tempest in a Teapot
Have been working on grades this morning, but took a few minutes to check my favorite websites; one of them of course is Christianity Today, a website that allows me to avoid paying for a subscription and keep up with the news at the same time. Like most sites, it has some blogs, and one of the entries, or boards, or topics, or whatever they are called, concerns the Miss USA issue. Here it can be found. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/04/miss_california.html
Now, I don't really want to waste any more keystrokes than already have on this issue, but I can't help it, so here goes.
1. With all the Christians really contending for the faith on this planet, is this the woman we want to hold up as some sort of role model? I was shocked when Charles Colson suggested that yesterday on his radio program. She's in a beauty pageant, people!! The epitome of what we don't want our daughters to do. If she were building a house for Habitat, teaching in the inner city, or working with AIDS patients in Africa, would she get such a forum? No, but she's pretty (no prettier than a lot of girls I know); she's got a hot little booty; and she's willing to strut around in a string bikini in front of leering men--so she gets a forum. Is this virtue?? Please. The same New Testament that teaches that the homosexual act is sin teaches women to put their clothes on. No wonder the Muslims don't take us seriously!
2. Who is Perez Hilton and who really cares? How do these people get a forum? It's the blogosphere. Well, here I am, blogging. Why he was chosen to judge a beauty contest, I don't know. Perhaps since he's gay, he supposedly isn't swayed by the women's sexuality, is that it?
Seems like stereotypical thinking to me. Again, the people least deserving of a forum get one. (and I include myself in that group)
3. As for her opinion, well, I didn't hear it. I imagine I agree with her viewpoints, but the whole defense is "this is what I believe, this is what I was taught" just doesn't hold water as an argument. Or maybe it does today. If we are going to defend traditional marriage (how stupid that we even have to put that adjective in front of the word "marriage"--until five years ago that was the only kind of marriage there was--) we're going to need more than "these are my feelings, my parents taught it to me." And I fear we are losing the debate on a number of fronts because of this emphasis on subjectivism. I had a student, himself gay, argue for gay marriage because he "was in love." What's love got to do with it? Marriage is a cultural institution for the good of the whole, not the good of the one or the two. We don't believe that any more as a culture, so gay marriage makes perfect sense because it's just about the couple and their feelings.
This says nothing about the "civil rights" side of it. That's thornier, but we've never defined marriage to any one at any time as a right. There are other rules against it--family, age, species (I'm getting stupid here, but we do). We conservatives are being intimidated by the subjective arguments.
4. Of course, this says nothing about the reaction and fascism of those who opposed her view. That's my new word, fascism. Fascism doesn't allow dissent, and that's where we are going in this environment. Discourse today boils down to calling someone a name, the b-word; yeah, now there's healthy debate, there's a strong argument.
5. Finally, and I'm poking fun at myself now, the fact that this "story" gets airtime or print at all means that something that matters doesn't. So what got pushed off the page or agenda? Something that matters, I'm sure. Say, what we can do for the Invisible Children, for Darfur, for poverty in our own country, the lack of educational advancement, etc.? Or if not a negative news story, how about a story about someone actually doing something to make the plight of someone better? Someone who is helping an AIDS patient rather than a tempest in a teapot over one woman's opinion on gay marriage?
The news media is a joke--no, a joke is supposed to be funny, and there's nothing funny about the state of the news media today. Spiro Agnew protested the bias in the 60s; I wish bias were the only problem.
Now, I don't really want to waste any more keystrokes than already have on this issue, but I can't help it, so here goes.
1. With all the Christians really contending for the faith on this planet, is this the woman we want to hold up as some sort of role model? I was shocked when Charles Colson suggested that yesterday on his radio program. She's in a beauty pageant, people!! The epitome of what we don't want our daughters to do. If she were building a house for Habitat, teaching in the inner city, or working with AIDS patients in Africa, would she get such a forum? No, but she's pretty (no prettier than a lot of girls I know); she's got a hot little booty; and she's willing to strut around in a string bikini in front of leering men--so she gets a forum. Is this virtue?? Please. The same New Testament that teaches that the homosexual act is sin teaches women to put their clothes on. No wonder the Muslims don't take us seriously!
2. Who is Perez Hilton and who really cares? How do these people get a forum? It's the blogosphere. Well, here I am, blogging. Why he was chosen to judge a beauty contest, I don't know. Perhaps since he's gay, he supposedly isn't swayed by the women's sexuality, is that it?
Seems like stereotypical thinking to me. Again, the people least deserving of a forum get one. (and I include myself in that group)
3. As for her opinion, well, I didn't hear it. I imagine I agree with her viewpoints, but the whole defense is "this is what I believe, this is what I was taught" just doesn't hold water as an argument. Or maybe it does today. If we are going to defend traditional marriage (how stupid that we even have to put that adjective in front of the word "marriage"--until five years ago that was the only kind of marriage there was--) we're going to need more than "these are my feelings, my parents taught it to me." And I fear we are losing the debate on a number of fronts because of this emphasis on subjectivism. I had a student, himself gay, argue for gay marriage because he "was in love." What's love got to do with it? Marriage is a cultural institution for the good of the whole, not the good of the one or the two. We don't believe that any more as a culture, so gay marriage makes perfect sense because it's just about the couple and their feelings.
This says nothing about the "civil rights" side of it. That's thornier, but we've never defined marriage to any one at any time as a right. There are other rules against it--family, age, species (I'm getting stupid here, but we do). We conservatives are being intimidated by the subjective arguments.
4. Of course, this says nothing about the reaction and fascism of those who opposed her view. That's my new word, fascism. Fascism doesn't allow dissent, and that's where we are going in this environment. Discourse today boils down to calling someone a name, the b-word; yeah, now there's healthy debate, there's a strong argument.
5. Finally, and I'm poking fun at myself now, the fact that this "story" gets airtime or print at all means that something that matters doesn't. So what got pushed off the page or agenda? Something that matters, I'm sure. Say, what we can do for the Invisible Children, for Darfur, for poverty in our own country, the lack of educational advancement, etc.? Or if not a negative news story, how about a story about someone actually doing something to make the plight of someone better? Someone who is helping an AIDS patient rather than a tempest in a teapot over one woman's opinion on gay marriage?
The news media is a joke--no, a joke is supposed to be funny, and there's nothing funny about the state of the news media today. Spiro Agnew protested the bias in the 60s; I wish bias were the only problem.
Comments