Hot Topics
Miley Cyrus Untamed
Tell me if this story sounds familiar. A cute, bright-eyed, and talented little girl starts living the American dream as a youngster acting in commercials and singing in talent competitions on television. Soon she’s the centerpiece of a Disney program aimed at children ages 9-14, a supposedly wholesome role model with a southern upbringing and a prayer journal. Things really start to get interesting when she blossoms into a drop-dead gorgeous young woman with a multi-million dollar recording contract and a risque music video that raises the eyebrows of some and the heart rate of others. While tame by “today’s standards”, there are some of us who raise a red flag that this is not a healthy road for a young woman to walk down. Nevertheless, soon fame is propelling her to dizzying heights …until the inevitable crash.
It’s Deja Vu All Over Again
We’ve heard this story before. We know how it ends. In 1999, a young Britney Spears burst on the scene in a tantalizing school girl outfit and a few flirtatious dance moves. Up until that point she was the star of the reinvented Mickey Mouse Club, which at the time was shown on an incarnation of The Disney Channel that was only offered as a premium cable channel and, thus, not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. I remember that summer of 1999 very distinctly, because I was a young and inexperienced preacher desperately trying to sound the alarm to my small charge of teens and parents. “Mark my words,” I said to a small but growing congregation on the south side of Indianapolis. “If Britney continues on this path, in five years her life will be a disaster.”
I did not have to be a prophet to make such a pronouncement. As I said, we have all seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. Sure enough, before that five years had passed, Britney Spears had rocketed to the top of the entertainment pantheon with a relentless stream of songs and videos in ever-increasing doses of unbridled sexuality. Then, in 2004, almost exactly five years after the warning I issued to that gathering of teens and parents, the Circus de Britney began. The next four years would see Britney going from pop princess to public pariah. K-Fed, kids, divorce, drugs, indecent exposure, brushes with the law, rehab, and the infamous shaving of the head were daily tabloid fodder. Like many before her, and sadly, many after, Britney crashed and burned before our very eyes.
Well, move over, Britney. There’s a new sheriff in town, and thanks to two unstoppable cultural juggernauts known as The Disney Channel and the World Wide Web, this tween queen is poised for a level of superstardom previously unimagined by mortal man. With a producer mom and an entertainer dad whose mullet was nearly as famous as his voice, Miley Cyrus has the pedigree, the ambition, the resources, and the talent to make it all happen. The question is, what all is about to happen? Mark down this date, May 4, 2010. Having just watched the world premier of Miley’s newest music video, I Can’t Be Tamed, I am convinced that Miss Cyrus just had her Britney moment. Hannah Montana just grew up.
The Evolution of Miley
The video was dubbed by the E! network as “The Evolution of Miley Cyrus”. Evolution, indeed. It featured Miley as a strange bird-like creature, Aves Cyrusis (yes, that taxonomic classification is actually included in the video), replete with impressive, albeit computer-generated, wings. She is seen crawling from her nest and breaking free of her cage, all the while surrounded by other dancing creatures in similar bird-like getup. The video is at once bizarre, dark, tribal, animalistic, sensual, adolescent, and silly. The beat, vocals, and choreography are strongly reminiscent of Spears, while the costumes and “storyline” are sort of a mix between a broadway production of Cats and a Duran Duran video. While tame (pun absolutely intended) by modern standards (more on that in a minute), Miley’s wardrobe and provocative dance maneuvers leave no doubt in the viewer’s mind that Miley does not want to be regarded as a kid anymore. I think we get the point.
By now you may be thinking, “Ok, so what?” I don’t blame you. As I said, we’ve seen this movie before, and we all know how it ends. I’m sure Miley and Billy Ray are counting on a happy ending, but neither history nor biblical teaching leave much hope for that. This is the road that seems right to a man but ends in destruction (Proverbs 14:12), and the list of celebrity examples is a veritable who’s who of young starlets: Whitney Houston, the aforementioned Britney Spears, and Lindsey Lohan top the list. One has to wonder just how much influence Miley has over the army of girls who have grown up with Hannah Montana, and to what extent Miley’s choices will impact theirs. That, however, is another discussion for another day.
Instead, I would like to turn our attention to the lyrics of the latest product of the evolution of Miley Cyrus. In an interview with Ryan Seacrest after the video’s premier, Miley explained that the song and the video were not just about “the sex” (although she admitted the video was sexy). Rather, she said the video ought to be appreciated for its creativity, the central message being, “I don’t want to spend my life trying to please other people. I just want to make the music and the art that I want to make and be happy.” To Miley Cyrus, then, I Can’t Be Tamed is a song about freedom of individual expression.
Are We Getting The Message?
Now, I do not know if Miley wrote this song or if someone else did, and beyond what Miley said in the interview, I do not know what messages were intended by the lyrics. However, I do know that a person’s worldview necessarily manifests itself in every aspect of ones life, and for an artist, this certainly includes ones art. When I look at the lyrics of this song, I see a surprisingly accurate presentation of the postmodern worldview, and I am about to explain why. Before I do, I wanted to clearly state that I am well aware that the songwriter may or may not have included these ideas with the intention of specifically promoting a particular philosophy such as postmodernism. Rather, I think it is a testimony to just how great of an extent postmodern thinking has permeated our culture.
The chorus is a rhythmic repetition of four declarations:
- I can’t be tamed.
- I can’t be blamed.
- I can’t be saved.
- I can’t be changed.
If there were such a thing as a postmodern creed or anthem, I cannot think of a better way to state it succinctly. Allow me to elaborate briefly on each point.
I can’t be tamed – If we are, after all, just cosmic accidents, then we are no better or worse than the other animals that inhabit our planet. Moral imperatives are a meaningless and useless restriction, and the greatest “evil” (if postmoderns accept the existence of such a thing) is to cage the beast. Domestication via religion or any other means by which individual expression is suppressed only hinders a person’s ability to reach the ultimate goal, which is self-actualization and self-expression. Miley said it herself. The song is about breaking free of the cage and being who she wants to be, and while she reports that her mother is a bit of a disciplinarian (“I’m always getting grounded,” says Miley), I Can’t Be Tamed sends clear visual and aural signals that to be wild and free is far better than to submit to some rule that one did not make up for oneself.
I can’t be blamed – When moral relativism rules the day, not only is there a rejection of any limitations on ones behavior, but there is also a rejection of any classification of ones behavior as wrong. “Don’t judge me,” is the mantra of the postmodern generation. There is no room for blame in the postmodern worldview. Without a universal truth, there can be no real right or wrong, and without any universal meaning or purpose in life, there is no ideal to which a person ought to attain. I am who I am. I do what I do. I cannot be blamed for being who I am. It is neither right nor wrong. It just is. You can almost hear this line of thinking in the opening lines of the song when Miley sings, “I’m hot like that” and “I’m built like that”. Why shouldn’t I have men pining for me all the time? I am attractive. Attractive people attract people. You cannot blame me for that.
I can’t be saved – Following logically from the first two, the idea of salvation is anathema to the postmodern, for there is nothing from which to be saved. There is no eternal reward awaiting a life of sacrifice, and no eternal punishment awaiting a life of excess. The best and only response to life is to experience it to the full, as the scripture says, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (Isa. 22:13)
I can’t be changed – Taken to the extreme, this is the final conclusion of postmodernism, naturalistic atheism, and moral relativism in their various forms. There is no reason that I am what I am. I just am. I am chemicals and genes and electrical impulses assembled at random with only the appearance of design as the result of the irresistible forces of natural selection. In a strange paradox for a worldview that accepts the slow changes over time of Darwinian Evolution as the explanation for all things, the postmodern could be the ultimate fatalist, asserting not only that changing oneself is unnecessary, but that it is also impossible.
The Brave New Postmodern World
This worldview sets me free from all moral and behavioral restrictions, releases me from all guilt and personal responsibility, renders meaningless any fear of lasting consequences for my actions, and relieves me from any inner compulsion to improve based on external expectations.
I can’t be tamed.
I can’t be blamed.
I can’t be saved.
I can’t be changed.
All of these declarations are in direct conflict with the truth as revealed in the Bible. The Scripture teaches that we can and should submit to authority and the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Rom. 13:1, James 4:7); that we bear personal responsibility for our actions (Gal. 6:7-8; Rom. 3:23); that there is an eternal punishment from which we can and must be saved (John 3:16-18); and that we can improve by becoming more and more like Christ, ultimately resulting in a complete transformation when He returns (Rom. 12:1, 1 Cor. 15:51, 2 Cor. 5:17).
Note to Miley: I can be tamed. I can be blamed. I can be saved. I can be changed. So can you.
Graduation Prayers And The Fallacy Of Supposed Neutrality
I am writing this piece in response to an article published by The Indianapolis Star on March 11, 2010. The article is attributed to the Associated Press, and is entitled, “Greenwood student sues to stop prayer”. The article reports that Mr. Eric Workman, an 18-year-old senior at Greenwood Highs School in Johnson County where I reside, is suing the school to prevent students from offering a public prayer at the graduation ceremony. Whether to have the prayer as part of graduation was reportedly put to a vote by the seniors of the student body at the beginning of the school year, the result of the vote being overwhelmingly in favor of the prayer. Mr. Workman contends that both the vote and the prayer violate his constitutional rights.
I would like to address some of the specific points presented in this article, and in particular, the quoted statements attributed to both Mr. Workman and his lawyer, ACLU attorney Ken Falk.
“You can’t have a vote whether or not to violate somebody’s constitutional rights,” Falk said. “It just doesn’t work that way.” I would agree with that statement at face value, but in this case, it begs an important question. Just whose constitutional rights are being violated, and how does one measure the constitutional rights of one student against that of another – or in this case, many others? It seems that according to Mr. Falk, Mr. Workman has a constitutional right not only to not pray, either privately or publicly, but also to not have to listen to anyone else pray. On the other hand, it seems that 1000 or more other students do not have the right to pray or otherwise freely express their religion in Mr. Workman’s presence. I find this odd, especially considering Mr. Falk cites the First Amendment as the source of Mr. Workman’s supposed constitutional right. Since the First Amendment deals with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, how is it that Mr. Workman’s freedoms of speech and religious expression are held in higher esteem than that of 1000 other students?
I can assume that the argument would be something to the effect that Mr. Workman is not trying to prohibit anyone from freely exercising his or her religion, but rather trying to prevent his being forced to participate in a religious exercise with which he does not agree. Mr. Falk said of Mr. Workman, “he does not believe that anyone should involuntarily be subjected to prayer and religious beliefs [and that people at the ceremony should not be compelled to take part in a religious exercise].” (The bracketed part of the previous quote comes from the article in The Star and is not directly attributed to Mr. Falk.) I find that a curious position to defend, especially considering that, according to the article, “Workman is currently ranked first in his class and expects to speak at graduation.” Obviously Mr. Workman believes he has the right to freely speak at graduation. Has anyone spoken to him about specifically not espousing his religious beliefs as part of his remarks? I certainly hope so. After all, by his own admission, no one should be involuntarily subjected to religious beliefs.
At this point some readers may be ready to protest. While the article does not specifically state that Mr. Workman is an atheist, the implication is there due to his claim that he should not be involuntarily subjected to “religious beliefs” and should not be “compelled to take part in a religious exercise”. The argument goes that if Workman is an atheist, then how could he possibly make any comments that promote his religious beliefs, since he has none?
This argument is completely fallacious, and yet I hear it frequently presented in cases such as these. The assumption is that atheism is not anti-religious, but rather a-religious. To be more specific, we Christians are to believe that atheists are simply not Christian; they are not anti-Christian. While I certainly accept the possibility that not all atheists are openly hostile toward Christians in a personal way, it simply cannot be logically demonstrated that atheism is a belief system that takes some sort of neutral or void position when it comes to religion. Atheism is every bit as much of a religious belief system as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. It is neither true nor possible that the atheist believes in nothing. He most certainly believes in something. He believes that there is no God. Depending on the atheist in question, he may believe in something he calls “rationality” or “science”. Unless the atheists among us expect the millions of Christians in this country to concede the non-existence of God as an objective fact, then atheism must be viewed for what it is, a religious (or philosophical, if you prefer the term) position, and not a scientific or legal one.
Yet, we are led to believe by Mr. Falk and others like him that forbidding Christian prayer in public is somehow religion-neutral. This supposed neutrality is a fallacy. However, it is not, as some Christians may believe, killing religious expression in America. No, it is favoring one and only one form of religious expression, atheism, over all others. Jesus, the Cornerstone of Christianity, said, “He who is not with me is against me.” (Luke 11:23) The very nature of the claims of the Bible make neutrality impossible. Atheism is a contrary position to Christianity, not a neutral one. Therefore, the idea that prohibiting one form of religious expression (offering a Christian prayer) in favor of another form of religious expression (not offering the prayer because of unbelief) is somehow fair, neutral, and equitable is bogus. Any high school, school board, court, or legislative body that takes such a position is codifying into law or policy that atheism is preferable to Christianity. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause if there ever was one.
We have a situation brewing here where it is possible that the desired religious expression and speech of 1000 or more students will be abridged in favor of the sensibilities of a single student, or perhaps a few students. Not only that, but in the most bitter of ironies, this same student will be given the very platform the students desiring to pray will be denied. When he has the floor, will he take the opportunity to espouse his belief system? Will he exult in “reason” or “free-thinking”, “science” or “rationality” over the worldview of Christianity? Will he speak of anything he believes at all that is in any way contrary to Christianity (or Hinduism or Islam or any other religion undoubtedly represented in the student body)? If he does, then I submit to you that he becomes the very thing he says he opposes, one who involuntarily subjects others to his religious beliefs. No doubt all the students will be expected sit quietly and politely while he speaks, freely sharing whatever he might wish to say, and yet somehow it is unconstitutional to expect the same courtesy from him. Apparently we now live in a land where it is illegal for some to be opposed or offended, but not others. If so, we have lost our freedoms of speech and religious expression already.
In this instance the religious freedom of the many is being subjected to the personal preferences of the one. We used to have a word for that in America. We called it tyranny, and we hated it with such passion that our forefathers crossed a vast ocean, faced untold hardship and danger in the new world, and took up arms to ultimately free themselves, and us, from it. Will we now stand by idly and silently while lawyers, politicians, and judges seek to subject us to tyranny all over again? I, for one, will not.
Angels We Have Heard On High…And Had Them Removed
The athiests are at it again, ever vigilant in protecting us from the scourge of religion run amok in the public square. According to an article by Joshua Rhett Miller published on FoxNews.com, Sonoma County (California) Administrator Chris Thomas ordered the pictured angel and all other “religious” symbols removed from Christmas trees on display in all government buildings after a single complaint was filed by 65-year-old atheist Irv Sutley. I say a single complaint with confidence, because Jim Toomey, public information officer for Sonoma County, said that he knew of no prior complaints about the Christmas trees. It is ironic that in a supposedly democratic nation a single citizen can impose his will on every other citizen in an entire county of the populous state of California without a hearing, review, or a vote.
To be fair, Sutley claims that the religious symbols on the Christmas trees violate a 1989 Supreme Court ruling stating that such displays constitute an illegal endorsement of Christian doctrine. Even if the Supreme Court has ruled as Sutley says, the assertion is utter nonsense, no matter who is making it. If putting religious symbols on a Christmas tree is government endorsement of the Christian religion, then demanding their removal amounts to government endorsement of the atheist religion. Mr. Sutley’s worldview is clearly influencing his interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The only way that Mr. Sutley can claim that the First Amendment applies to the presence of Christian (or Buddhist or Judaist or “anything of a religious nature”, as he says he opposes in the article) symbols and not their government-mandated absence is to assume first of all that atheism is not a religion or belief system (which, of course, it is), and second of all that the government enforcing removal of such religious symbols does not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion by those citizens who are not atheists (which, of course, it does). It appears that none of the Sonoma County officials involved in this incident have bothered to examine these claims for logical consistency. Instead, they simply bowed to the wishes of a single man who said the symbols were “extremely offensive” and part of the “cult” of Christianity.
I just don’t believe government has the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior. – Irv Sutley
There are several questions I would like to ask about this statement.
- Does the fact that Mr. Sutley does not believe the government has a particular right mean that it, in fact, does not have that right?
- From whence does the government actually derive its “rights”, or more accurately, its powers and authorities? Realize, gentle reader, that any answer to this question other than “Irv Sutley and/or those who believe like him” causes his argument to fall apart.
- Assuming Mr. Sutley is correct, and the government does not have the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior, what constitutes sectarian behavior? The Random House Dictionary defines sectarian as “narrowly confided or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.” Is it not obvious that Mr. Sutley’s statement is completely arbitrary? One could just as easily say that prohibiting the display of Christian symbols on a Christmas tree intrudes on Christians and forces them into sectarian behavior, namely, that behavior limited to the interest, purpose, and scope of the atheist. Mr. Sutley’s statement is self-refuting and hypocritical, for in making the claim he is doing the very thing he claims to oppose.
The Sonoma County government’s response to Mr. Sutley’s complaint is equally irrational.
To avoid any controversy and to satisfy this gentlemen’s concerns, the ornaments were removed. – Jim Toomey
The second part of this response makes sense. The ornaments were removed to satisfy Irv Sutley’s concerns. However, the first part can be true only if the atheist position is exclusively non-controversial. This can hardly be the case. The Sonoma County government has simply traded one controversy for another, favoring one worldview over another. I wonder if a single Christian were to respond with the complaint I have outlined here, namely, that prohibiting the display of Christian symbols is an illegal prohibition of the free exercise of religion, if the Sonoma County Administrator’s Office would respond as quickly and easily by replacing the symbols. If the answer is “no”, and it likely is, then the government, be it the local government of Sonoma County, the U.S. Supreme Court, or both have taken a position of favoritism toward atheism and prejudice against Christianity.
It is not clear from the article whether Mr. Sutley presumes that his position is somehow “neutral”, so I will not assume that he is claiming neutrality without sufficient knowledge. I will, however, remind the reader that Mr. Sutley’s position is not neutral. Neutrality when it comes to worldviews (belief systems or religions – whatever term you prefer) is impossible. The very nature of Christianity demands that everyone choose a side. “He who is not with me is against me,” Jesus said (Matthew 12:30). Perhaps the most important thing we believers in Christ should take away from this is the fact that the easiest way for a local government to avoid controversy is to endorse atheism. What does that say about our efforts to be salt and light in our world?
Christianity Will Not Be Tolerated
A recent article from OneNewsNow.com reported that the new Administration may have a decidedly different view of the National Day of Prayer from the Bush Administration. While President Bush always embraced the National Day of Prayer with an official White House observance, this year’s organizers say that they have yet to hear that the White House will be holding such an official observance. The article goes on to say that certain advocacy groups are trying to break what they perceive to be the National Day of Prayer Task Force’s monopoly on the event. Apparently, these groups sent a letter to President Obama asking him to declare the National Day of Prayer a day for all Americans of all faiths, and even for nonbelievers.
The objection, of course, is that the National Day of Prayer Task Force is a Christian organization promoting prayer in Jesus’ name to the God of the Bible. To use one of the more ubiquitous buzzwords of our day, the aforementioned advocacy groups would prefer that the National Day of Prayer Task Force be more tolerant of people of other faiths, or, no faith at all, which I presume to mean atheists and perhaps agnostics. (As an aside, one has to wonder exactly how an atheist would participate in a day of prayer. From what I know of atheists, they would consider the idea rather absurd.) This is simply the latest example of the increasing perception and presentation of Christians as being intolerant of anyone who does not believe as they do.
Understanding that people who identify themselves as Christians may or may not behave in a manner that is in keeping with biblical teaching (that is a subject for another article), let us take a step back and ask the question that is truly being asked, "Are Christians intolerant because Christianity is intolerant? Is Christianity intolerant of other religions?" The immediate problem we encounter when answering this question is that the definition of the word "tolerate" has been hijacked, of late, as have many other words in our language whose definitions we all basically agreed upon at one time. Since he who defines the terms controls the argument, many Christians may be finding it frustrating, if not impossible, to convince those outside the faith that they really are not intolerant bigots.
The word tolerate simply means "to permit". It means "to put up with, to allow the existence, practice, or presence of." However, the more and more common use of this word and its many derivatives, especially in the context of conversations about Christianity, has come to mean "to accept as right, true, or valid; to ascribe equal value to a differing position, belief, or lifestyle." How we answer the question, "Does Christianity tolerate other faiths, even unbelievers," depends on which definition of tolerate we are talking about.
According to the dictionary definition, the first definition offered above, Christianity is tolerant of all people without dispute. Jesus made it clear that the kingdom of God was open to whoever wanted to enter it by faith in Him. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, he made it clear that unbelievers were not to be uprooted, rejected, scorned, or persecuted by believers. "Let them grow together," Jesus said, "until the day the Father comes to separate them." Paul said in Romans 12:18, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." To live at peace with everyone, especially those who do not accept Christ or Christianity, requires tolerance in the purest sense of the word. To not allow someone to practice Hinduism or Islam or Judaism or Atheism, to forbid it, would hardly foster peace. The fact is that there is not a single teaching in the New Testament instructing Christians to not put up with or allow the existence, presence, or practice of unbelievers. Indeed, Brian Toon, the vice chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, made it a point to say that all Americans of any faith were welcome to organize their own prayer gathering or attend one organized by the task force. Unfortunately, he said that some have sought to abolish the National Day of Prayer instead, which brings me to my next thought.
Compare the actual Christian teaching on tolerance to how Christians themselves are being treated in this country. We are constantly being opposed at every turn in public life, being told we cannot pray, cannot preach, cannot express our values or promote Christian doctrine. We are told we can be Christians if we wish, but we are not to bring our Christianity to the state house, school house, voting booth, board room, or pretty much any other area of public life upon which government has placed its hand (which, these days, is just about everything). It is becoming increasingly evident in our society that it is Christianity that will not be tolerated, not all these other faiths that imply such persecution at the hands of Christians.
Do not be deceived into thinking that all certain activists want is a seat at the proverbial table. "Just acknowledge that we are welcome to participate in the National Day of Prayer, and we will be satisfied." If that were true, we would not be having this debate, for that has already been done. No, what is demanded is "tolerance" under the new-and-improved politically correct definition. We are to stop praying in Jesus’ name, because that is so exclusive and intolerant of the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Atheists. Really? Are the Muslims going to stop invoking the name of Allah or Mohammed when they pray? Will Hindus drop the universal "Om" from their prayers? Such suggestions are preposterous for adherents to those faiths, of course, and yet somehow it is perceived as fair and equitable that Christians deny their faith in the name of tolerance.
How is it tolerant (using the dictionary definition) to demand that a Christian be more tolerant (using the politically correct definition) of Islam by acknowledging that it is "just as true, just as likely to be valid, on equal moral footing as Christianity"? Will a sincere Muslim do the same for Christianity? No, of course not. If we will just take a moment to examine this rationally, it will be easy to see that if two faiths make mutually exclusive claims to truth, it is impossible for them both to be correct, at least not in a rational universe. Christianity teaches that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" and that "no man can get to the Father [God]" except through Him. Islam teaches that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. They both cannot be right. That’s not bigotry. That’s LOGIC.
Now, some may seek to rectify this impasse by suggesting that God has chosen to reveal himself to different people in different ways. However, to accept that explanation, one must accept that God is a dissembler of sorts, if not an outright liar. Neither a Christian nor a Muslim could ever accept this and be what he claims to be. Others might argue that, somehow, we "know" that God doesn’t really exist. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what religion you are. It’s just a social construct, anyway. If that is the case, then why persecute Christianity? On what basis is the value judgment being made amongst religions? While it may have happened somewhere once, I have yet to hear of an atheist taking a Muslim to court over some public display of religion. However, there seem to be daily examples of legal proceedings of atheists versus Christians. (I am speaking in terms of my own perception, of course. I do not have first-hand knowledge of every legal proceeding in my country. All I know is that when atheist sues Christian, it makes the news. When or if atheist sues Muslim, not so much.)
It is frequently argued that the real objection those who are not Christians have to Christianity is the aggressive nature with which Christians attempt to "push their beliefs on everyone else". This is a disingenuous argument, however, for a couple of reasons. First, there is the underlying assumption that it is wrong for Christians to try to persuade people to become Christians. The only logical foundation for such a moral judgment ("Christian evangelism is wrong") would be the belief that Christianity is not true. If it is true, how can anyone be harmed by being invited to join? In non-cultic, authentic Christianity, no one is, or indeed can be, forced to convert. Sharing one’s beliefs and trying to convince another that they are true is not the same as forcing another to accept those beliefs and live by them. Second, the demand that Christians keep their Christianity out of public life is, in itself, the very intolerance of which they are accused. Whose beliefs are being forced upon whom? Who is not tolerating whom?
It seems neither illogical nor unfair that a nation in which more than 80% of the population still calls itself Christian, notwithstanding the actual practice of that 80%, that a National Day of Prayer would be predominantly Christian. The cries of exclusion and intolerance are simply the result of contradictory worldviews. In the end, the true measure of tolerance will lie in who is permitted to exist, practice, and be present in everyday public life. If current trends continue, it may not be the Christians.
25 Years Later, 1984 Seems Closer Than Ever
It was 1984. I was in the eighth grade and had made a rather peculiar new year’s resolution. I was going to read George Orwell’s 1984 in 1984. Understand that as the sun rose on the “me” decade of the 80′s, the year 1984 had an almost Y2K mystique about it for those familiar with Orwell’s work. In 1948, Orwell envisioned a dystopian future in which a minority ruling class of elitists runs the world, controlling the citizenry not by dictating what it may or may not do, but rather by dictating what it may or may not think. For all you younger folks who think Big Brother is just a reality show on TV, you may find it interesting that it was Orwell who introduced us to Big Brother, the ever-watchful, god-like eye of the state who never missed a thing. The Thought Police were always on duty.
Today, 25 years later, some of the ideologies upon which Orwell’s nightmarish regime were based seem frighteningly prescient. Many parallels can be drawn between Orwell’s vision and modern society, some more evident than others, but I want to focus on one of the prevalent themes of 1984 that seems to keep coming up in the news of late – thoughtcrime. Orwell described thoughtcrime as “the essential crime that contained all others in itself.” The totalitarian regime of 1984, called simply the Party, had gone so far as to not only legislate appropriate, legal speech (Newspeak, Orwell called it – eerily reminiscent of political correctness), but to also dictate legal and illegal thought. The Party maintained that if they could control the thoughts of the citizens, they could remain in power indefinitely. By the Party’s own confession, power was their ultimate and only goal.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.”
It would be difficult to argue that remaining in power is not the goal of a great number, if not the vast majority, of political insiders small and great in America. The recent switching of party affiliation of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter had little or nothing to do with a change in his ideology. Rather, he saw a significant challenge facing him in the upcoming Republican primary, and so to increase his chances of remaining in office, he switched parties. The elevation of political expedience over principle is hardly limited to government at the federal level, however. In the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in the state of Vermont, the first state to do so as a legislative act rather than as a response to a court order, the outcome came down to a single vote in the Vermont House needed to override the governor’s veto. The final voting house member, Jeff Young, was a first-term representative who switched his vote, having voted no for the bill to become law, but then voting yes to override the veto. Published reports say that Young is still philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but that he decided voting with his party would help him be a more effective lawmaker.
“You realize that, you know, it’s a poker game in some ways. Chips on the table. I’m a freshman. I have no chips. If I…had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want. I don’t have that option. It’s the way the political game is played.” – Jeff Young
From his own mouth, Mr. Young declared that it is more important to remain in a position of power than to defend a principle in which he supposedly believes. Jesus said that our “yes” ought to be “yes”, and our “no”, “no”. American politicians want us to allow them to say “yes” and “no” at the same time so that they can please enough of the people enough of the time to stay in office.
What does any of that discussion have to do with thoughtcrime? I am glad you asked. At the top of the latest newsfeeds is the latest incarnation of the federal hate crimes bill, or I should say, the latest update to the federal hate crimes law. Indeed, such a law has existed at the federal level since 1969, allowing for greater penalties for crimes motivated by hatred toward a person or group based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. Without doubt, the statue was motivated by the racial turmoil of the 1960′s as African Americans struggled to be free from societal prejudice. Yesterday, the U.S. House voted to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes. So-called social conservatives and people of faith, primarily Christians, vehemently oppose this legislation, fearing that it will limit the rights of believers to speak freely about what the Bible teaches with respect to homosexuality. Supporters of the bill poo poo those objections, claiming that “the only language that would be criminalized is language that would meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement. Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, cannot be criminalized,” said Frederick Lawrence, law professor at George Washington University.
Mr. Lawrence will have to pardon my skepticism. What happens when those holding the power to prosecute and punish redefine the terms, as our highest courts have done with reckless abandon of late? If it is easy for me to conceive of an argument whereby the teaching of a religious doctrine can constitute a conspiracy, evangelism can constitute solicitation, and a church service can constitute direct incitement, how much more are those who oppose the moral code of Christianity going to be able to put together very clever, and very convincing arguments to that effect? Yes, I am speculating, but the writing is on the proverbial wall. Once our government ventures into the realm of punishing people’s thoughts and emotions, and not solely their actions, it takes on the role of God and religion, defining not only what is appropriate behavior, but also what is appropriate belief.
Do not misunderstand me. A biblical worldview absolutely has established bounds of right and wrong thinking. The difference is that it is God, who knows everything and has always been there, who establishes the rules of moral thinking and conduct, and not a popularly-elected oligarchy concerned primarily with the preservation of power above all other goals. Do not be deceived. This legislation has nothing to do with protecting anyone. Actual crimes are already punishable under the existing law, from slander, to assault, to murder. Ultimately this legislation will prove to be about controlling not only what people may say, but what they may believe as well.
If you think I’m way over the edge of reason here, consider for a moment the much-publicized remarks of Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean in response to a question posed by Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton is quoted as asking, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” It is abundantly obvious that the question is asking for a statement of opinion, a statement of belief. What do you think, Miss Prejean, that other states should do in response to the issue of same-sex marriage? The answer Carrie gave was like the shot heard round the world given the amount of media attention it has received.
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage…And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”
The response infuriated Hilton, who went on his own blog and hurled profanity-laced insults at Prejean, accusing her of being stupid, among other things. The media has reported that, when pressed for a reason why he was so dissatisfied with her answer, Hilton said that she needed to be more inclusive with her answer, a uniter and inspirer, not a divider. I find it interesting that Hilton considered her answer to be so divisive and so politically incorrect. Prejean said later that she was trying to be biblically correct and not politically correct, and for that, she is to be commended. However, if we examine her answer, it is clear that she was being a lot more inclusive, uniting, inspiring, and compassionate than she could have been while presenting a biblical worldview. She started off by lauding the concept of liberty, the ultimate American ideal. Others in her position might have said that there ought to be laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, but she did no such thing. She said, “In America, you can choose, and I think that’s great.” She went on to truthfully answer the question she was given, i.e., what do you think? What do you believe? For that, Perez Hilton made it abundantly clear that she didn’t pass the test of one worthy of representing the beliefs of her nation. She ran afoul of the thought police. She committed a thoughtcrime, the essential crime that contains all others in itself.
I find Perez Hilton’s assessment particularly odd since, by any and all practical and verifiable statistical measures, Miss Prejean does represent the position of the majority of Americans. It was implied by her detractors that she did not represent the people of California well with her answer, but if memory serves, the people of California were asked in the last election what they thought about same-sex marriage, and the majority agreed with Prejean. In every state where the issue has been put to a vote of the people, 30 so far, the people have agreed with Prejean. To say that Prejean’s answer was divisive is a dubious assertion given the facts. Perez claimed that Miss California did not lose the competition because of her beliefs, but because of her answer to the question, but this is disingenuous on his part. He knows as well as the rest of us that you cannot separate the answer from the belief. Did he want her to lie? Is dishonesty a quality the judges are looking for in Miss USA? No, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Hilton, and those like him, do not want the Carrie Prejean’s of the world to lie. They want her to give the answer they are looking for and be sincere about it. Her thinking must be in line with the desired orthodoxy.
By this time you may think that this article was all about homosexuality, but it is not. That is simply the hot-button issue around which the deeper issue I am trying to address is currently centered. There is a discernible push from powerful forces in our society and our government to make the desired orthodoxy become the established orthodoxy. The question is not simply, “Is homosexuality or same-sex marriage right or wrong?” Rather, the question is, “Is it right or wrong for an American to believethat homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong?” The same question could be asked of a host of other moral issues from abortion to pornography. When the government passes laws that punish motives, thoughts, and beliefs, it is saying to its citizens that they should look to government and not God for what they ought to believe. If that is not a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, I do not know what is. We may not be living in the Orwellian dystopia yet, but the legality of holding a biblical worldview is very much in jeopardy.
I will leave you with one final quote from 1984 as food for thought.
“We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”
