Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Media Birds of Prey?

Long time readers of this blog know that I take the conservative, biblical position on homosexuality and most social issues in general. Today, the folks over at WorldNetDaily posted this thoughtful piece on Chaz Bono, the mannified name of the former Chastity Bono, daughter of Sonny and Cher. Chastity has been undergoing sex change therapy to become a man. As Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association points out, the surgery and therapy will do no good. She will still be a woman no matter what.

I posted the photo of Sonny, Cher and Chastity, because that is the Chastity I remember from her long-ago television appearances - a sweet, smart little girl. She obviously grew up a very troubled young woman. I posted the link to Bryan's column because I think he's on to something. Aside from the sin of homosexuality and all the heartbreak that often attends those who fall into it, there is also the sin of a media who loves to feed on this kind of thing for all sorts of varying agendas. Profiteering on tragedy and wickedness. It's no different than the Coliseum entertainment of yesteryear. Bread and circuses for the masses to help distract people from the real problems of society.

Today, they're celebrating and promoting perversion. Next they'll make a spectacle out of ridiculing people who stand for truth and righteousness. And ridicule will only be the beginning. In fact, it's already started. I'm waiting for them to throw Christians to the lions again. It's coming, because we will never approve of what the media culture approves.

What's ahead for our culture unless the Lord intervenes in His grace and mercy? The Apostle Paul gives a pretty sober warning:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).

Note the last line? "Give hearty approval to those who practice them." Reminds me of another Scripture. "Woe to those who call good evil, and call evil good."


Cindy Swanson said...

I remember reading once that one of Cher's friends secretly introduced Chaz to lesbianism. I understand Cher is now struggling with her only daughter being a man. Interesting.

Dungy said...

Sola - You cast yourself and likeminded Christians as the (potential) victim(s) of discrimination and persecution, but I ask you, who is the aggressive party in this situation?

You a free to criticize any party or behavior that you wish. Likewise, any party is free to criticize you on the grounds that you are a bigot.

You are free to use legal means to attempt to ban behavior that you see as disruptive to society. Likewise, others are free to use legal means to try and stop you.

If you had the means to ban homosexual behavior, I have little doubt that you would do so. How then can you so unabashedly see yourself as a victim, simply because the media would portray you as a bigot?

Who is coming after who, here?

Solameanie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Solameanie said...

Interesting comment, Dungy, because sodomy actually WAS illegal in most states until fairly recent years. And those laws were not in place merely because Christians objected to sodomy on moral grounds. Sodomy was typically frowned on by society at large, Christian or not. It would have been interesting to walk into an old West saloon sometime and see what would have happened if someone made a homosexual pass at one of the gunslingers bellied up at the bar.

Regardless of this, I think you missed the entire point of my post. People often do. The point of the post is that Christ can deliver people out of destructive lifestyles. The Christian position on homosexuality (and any other sin for that matter) is compassionate because we are looking at it from an eternal perspective. I realize you don't believe, but those of us who are believers take God's warnings about sin very seriously, realizing that sin has eternal consequences. And Christians who fail to warn society about those consequences will be held accountable for their silence. Another point of my post was pointing out the way that the media is aiding and abetting the growing hostility toward traditional Christians.

I also must take issue with the usage of the term "bigot" these days. Bigotry is by definition an irrational fear. I am not opposed to homosexuality on irrational grounds, or because of fear. I am opposed to it because I believe it is morally wrong.

People, of course, have the right to engage in whatever behavior they like. But there will be consequences.

Dungy said...

I don't see how past laws and attitudes necessarily have any bearing on the issue. As I've pointed out in the past, laws and attitudes toward a number of things have been overturned, for good or ill. Whether a circa 1880 gunslinger would take kindly to being propositioned (on moral grounds or not) has little to do with the modern day culture war.

The meat of this has to do with legality; that is, one party legislating against another. I think we're on the same page as far as people having a right to their opinions, whether regarding morality and social norms.

You have not directly stated (at least since I've started reading your blog) whether you would support or encourage legislation against homosexual behavior or sex change operations. I gathered/assumed that you would be supportive of such legislation. I may have misjudged, in that respect. I invite you to set me straight.

If, however, I'm right, then I see a misrepresentation of the truth going on. That's my point.

You view homosexuality as morally wrong. Some of society, including the mainstream media view your opinion as intolerant (e.g. morally wrong).

As far as I know, Chaz Bono and the mainstream media are not encouraging acts of violence against you or others like you. Nor are they encouraging legislation to silence you. And they certainly aren't considering throwing you to the lions. They don't like you, but they aren't planning on violating your rights to free speech.

If you, on the other hand, would encourage legislating against people like Chaz Bono, then you are unfairly portraying yourself as a victim of coercion, whilst also intending use legal means to coerce her/him. I don't know the proper word for that, hypocrisy doesn't exactly fit, but it's definately poor form for a truth-teller.

So that was my point. This was somewhat conjectural, since I'm elaborating on a point that hinges on an unproven assumption, but there it is.

Solameanie said...

Dungy, I need to make a correction on one thing I said in my earlier reply. I misspoke i.e. bigotry. I had in my mind the term "homophobia," and a phobia is an irrational fear, not bigotry, although true bigotry might well be prompted by an irrational fear. But bigotry is not an irrational fear by definition.

Apologies for the mis-definition, although I would reject the bigotry charge that often gets flung at Christians.

I don't know that I would necessarily advocate legislating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, although I would resist coercive legislation trying to make me approve and accommodate it, i.e. forcing Christian churches, schools and parachurch organizations to violate their consciences and bylaws by hiring homosexuals, as we've seen happen in some countries/regions.

Having said that, I do believe in the oft-derided "slippery slope," in that where do you stop once you begin legalizing aberrant behavior? Will we allow bestiality or pedophilia someday? Will those who oppose such things be called intolerant bigots?

Solameanie said...

One more observation. Today's homosexual activists make much of the word "tolerance" and calling for it. If that was truly all they were after, they might well succeed in getting it even though the majority will still disapprove of their sexual behavior.

However, the truth is that today's militant homosexual activists do not want mere tolerance. They demand acceptance and approval, and for all children to be indoctrinated by force that the lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. Anyone who disagrees or objects to this is "bigoted and intolerant." And to me, that is beyond breathtaking.

Joseph Ravitts said...

If I were to make a point of telling football fans, every day, "Playing football is in no way a greater athletic achievement than playing checkers," I would certainly be an aggressor of sorts against football. So, if a football fan argued back against me, just in words without threatening harm to me, and I pretended that only HE had started a dispute, I would be a liar on top of being argumentative.

Homosexuals, by what they do, are saying that marriage, a foundation stone of civilization, is no more dignified or worthy than any other sleeping arrangement anyone might think of. Therefore, if we argue back, it IS NOT we who are creating the initial disagreement.

Dungy said...

Sola - In response to "I would resist coercive legislation trying to make me approve and accommodate it", I would resist that too.

When you say that militant homosexual activists demand acceptance, and are willing to use force to obtain it - I can't disagree with that on it's face. "Militant" would seem to literally indicate that. But how many truly militant activists are there? Are they representative of the whole, or just a lunatic fringe? I try to keep on top of current affairs, this included, and I've never came across a credible source that advocates the use of force of law against peaceful dissent.

To get back to your initial point, I certainly wouldn't characterize Chaz Bono or Dancing with the Stars as militant.

Mr. Ravitts - I disagree that equating checkers with football is an act of aggression against football. That aside, your analogy would be more fitting if football fans viewed checkers as an illegitimate form of competition, and some consider banning it altogether.

Dungy said...

Sola - Another thought. I have no doubt that there are radical leftists (some homosexual, some not) who think that Christian fellows like yourself should be jailed, or worse for your beliefs. Likewise, I know that there are radical right wingers (like the KKK) who advocate violence, coercion and intimindation, and call themselves "Christian".

It do not compare you to these supposed "christians", for one because it's bad form, for another because it's untrue. You are exercising peaceful dissent, not advocating violence.

Likewise, I do not think that the mainstream media and most of the movement for gay marriage, lgbt rights, etc etc.. is represented by the radical left fringe, or militant gays. They may disapprove of your views, even condemn it, but they don't intend to throw you in jail.

If you think that these militants are, however, representative of the whole, then that would indeed be a threat to worry about. But I would have to ask that you back that up with some evidence.

Solameanie said...

Have to take Mom to the doctor in a few, but I can remember at least a couple of examples of violence from homosexuals. There were the "Stonewall" riots in the 1960s that pretty much fueled the modern gay rights movement. In more recent years, we've had militant gay groups such as "Act Up" who have invaded church services and committed acts of desecration etc. They're not all peaceful flower children.

Dungy said...

Dude, seriously?

Solameanie said...

I take it you've never heard of these incidents? Google them.

Dungy said...

No, that's not why I was incredulous. Anyway.

I'm wasting my time and yours.

I bow out. I wash my hands.

Solameanie said...

Dungy, that rather disappoints me. You ask for some evidence, and I provide it (albeit hurriedly) and then you "bow out."

Just to what are you objecting, and why? If you don't explain yourself, how can I give you an answer that will satisfy you? Somehow, I doubt that I can given the latest response from you, but I am surprised that you'd just throw in the towel so easily.

Perhaps your own point of view blinds you as to the level of growing hostility to the evangelical viewpoint of things. How many political rallies have I seen in recent months where conservative speakers have been shouted own, chased off stage, had food thrown at them, threats of having their children taken away (in Europe especially) and a whole host of other incidents. Mainstream conservatives do not act in such a fashion. But we are seeing the radical left engage in this with increasing frequency.

Sorry if that offends you, but so be it.

Dungy said...

I freely admitted that there are fringe leftists in America. The evidence you provided is a good example of that, tis true.

However, what I asked for is evidence that they are representative of the whole. The stonewall riots and a fringe group of crazies from the late 80's hardly qualifies.

There's your explaination.

I am just a guest on this blog, and I've taken up too much of your time as it is. I mean no disrespect or ill will, I just don't think there's anything productive to be gained from this. I'm becoming aware that I'm not sufficiently expressing my point. That's my problem, not yours. You have been very hospitable to debate, so thank you.

Solameanie said...

I think I see where the miscommunication might be coming from. I don't mean to imply that all the mainstream media are urging outright violence at this point, or that all leftists are advocating violence against Christians.

However, I do believe (and this is certainly verifiable) that there is a leftist bias in the mainstream U.S. media. We are also seeing a growing hostility toward Bible-believing Christians - a hostility that is fed by the way such Christians are portrayed in the media and in popular culture, films, entertainment etc.

It is my view that if this continues, we will see violence against Christians escalate, and it could well be joined by government pressure and coercion. We've already seen examples of it in history through the years, and modern society is not immune.

Part of my belief in this is governed by biblical prophecy, which foretells very difficult times for believers in what the Bible calls "the last days."

Hope that helps a bit.