Of Bride Wars and White Dresses

Recently the Mrs. and I rented a movie called Bride Wars. Quick summary: two little girls vow to someday participate in each other's weddings which, for some reason I don't understand, simply must be held at the Plaza Hotel in New York. They grow up and circumstances force them to hold their ceremonies on the same date and time. They become bitter enemies. Hilarity follows.

The professional reviewers appear to have disliked Bride Wars. I thought it was mildly amusing, but I have a weird sense of humor. There are much worse movies you could watch. That's not my point; I just want to comment on one aspect of the film.

While there is no nudity or sexual activity, both the main characters are obviously living with their husbands-to-be while the weddings are being planned. "So what," you may say. Everyone lives together before marriage nowadays. Well, no, not everyone does. But obviously many people do.

Another case of Hollywood trying to pervert our culture? I don't think so. I think it is a case of Hollywood reflecting our culture. Cohabitation prior to marriage is now so common that it's unremarkable - even in a PG-rated film.

To me, it seemed a little strange to see these brides happily planning their elaborate weddings while already sharing a bed with their fiances, all the while seeing nothing ironic or unusual about it. The first part of the movie even shows both women impatiently waiting for proposals. Hello? You're already sleeping with him. Of course he's in no hurry to give you a ring.

A lot of sociological research suggests that couples who cohabit and then marry have higher divorce rates and unhappier relationships than those who don't. The reasons for this are debatable, and we've all known people who managed to make it work. Likewise many people who go through the right steps in the right order still end up in divorce court.

In any case, our culture seems to have turned a corner in its attitude about marriage. The push for same-sex marriage is succeeding because straight people have already redefined how family life is supposed to work, and not for the better. Having established - at least since the 1960s and maybe earlier - that marriage is nothing more than a contract between willing partners, and that it is perfectly acceptable for people to behave like families without any form of commitment, we now have no logical reason to restrict the arrangement to one man and one woman. Any combination will do.

Where this will lead us as a society is unclear; no culture has ever gone the places we are now going and lived to tell the tale. Maybe 21st century America will be the exception.

Or maybe not.

American Idol Misses Out

So American Idol is holding auditions around the country. A young man named Bruce Dickson came to the Dallas try-outs. Bruce is 19, Christian, and comes from a home-schooled family. He made it past initial screening and went before the Golden Trio of TV judges: Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul, and Simon Cowell.

As you can see from the picture here, Bruce is an attractive, athletic guy, and apparently has some musical talent as well. Before his chance to sing, Bruce was asked to share something interesting about himself. His response: "I've never kissed a girl." He went on to explain that he has made a pledge to remain chaste until he is married.

The three judges, accustomed as they are to Hollywood hedonism, almost fell out of their chairs. This just didn't compute. It was like Siamese twins had showed up and asked to sing a duet. Needless to say, Bruce did not get a chance to go on to the next round. Randy Jackson's parting advice: "Go kiss some girls."

It was the voice-over narration by Ryan Seacrest that really makes me mad, though. "Maybe next year he'll come back less a boy and more a man."

So let's get this straight. Because, unlike most of his peers, Bruce chooses not to sleep with every girl who will have him; because he actually seems to understand the meaning of love and commitment; and because he refuses to go along with the pelvic obsession of American culture, he isn't really a man. He's still just a boy. That is the way Ryan Seacrest sees it.

I'll be a gentleman here and not question anyone's manhood, except to say that I think Bruce has nothing to be ashamed of. I also think he's probably better off staying out of the Hollywood spotlight. It's hard enough to maintain purity in places like Bastrop, Texas, where Bruce lives. In the kind of cesspool American Idol glorifies, I'm sure it is almost impossible.

Lydia at WWWtW makes a good point: the very goal of shows like American Idol is to create sex objects for the titillation and pleasure of the audience. Is this the kind of thing a Christian who values chastity should want to compete in, much less win? Maybe not. On the other hand, aren't we called to engage the culture and try to change it for the better? It's a tough call.

Tired of Fox News

Apparently this is the week for TV anchor people to make idiots of themselves. First we had ESPN's Dana Jacobson with her drunken tirade against Notre Dame. Now John Gibson of Fox News is dancing on Heath Ledger's grave. Check this out. (via Mark Shea)

I don't have any particular affinity for Heath Ledger. I didn't see Brokeback Mountain, but I liked him in The Patriot and A Knight's Tale. Whatever kind of person he was, he's dead now and his family and friends are grieving. Making his death the butt of jokes is a low-class thing to do. I expect such things from shock jocks, not the author of The War on Christmas who is a popular figure on the "conservative" news network. At least Jacobson had the excuse of being drunk; Gibson was sober when he said these things, and probably even wrote the lines in advance.

I used to be quite a Fox News junkie. Over the last year I've grown tired of their fixation on celebrity gossip and grisly crime stories. The political coverage is still good but I've lost interest in that, too. Guys like Gibson and Sean Hannity now strike me as little more than blowhard shills for the Rubber Hose Right. I don't miss them at all.

Maybe I should start a support group for ex-Fox News addicts. Anyone else out there feel the same?

Boorish Anchorwoman Begs For Lightning

This sounds like a delightful woman. I'd like to meet her someday.

[from AFA] ESPN and its parent company, ABC, have refused to take any action against ESPN anchorwoman Dana Jacobson for her hateful, slurring remarks against Jesus, saying "F-- -- Jesus."

On January 11, Jacobson was speaking at a celebrity roast in Atlantic City, N.J., when she unleashed a profane tirade, saying, "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus."

"Touchdown Jesus" is the popular moniker for a statue of Jesus raising his arms, located on the Notre Dame campus.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke with ESPN about the attack and received an e-mail from Jacobson which basically treated the incident as a non-event. The statement said, in part, "I respect all religions and did not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words."

Jacobson's comments were at a public event where she was representing ESPN.

The fact that neither ESPN nor ABC has taken any action against Jacobson indicates they have a bias against Christians. Donohue said that Jacobson should be fired.

This anti-Christian bias of the networks is becoming commonplace. Actress Kathy Griffin used her appearance on the Emmy Awards program to tell Jesus to "suck it," responding to athletes who thank Jesus when they achieve certain levels. No action was taken against Griffin.

Bill Donoghue's latest post reports that ESPN has suspended Jacobson for a week, but he appears to have initially thought her insult was directed only at Notre Dame - not Jesus Himself. Apparently there is a video of the event that ESPN refuses to release. Donoghue wants the video made public so we can all know exactly what was said. Newsbusters has more details. Here is what ESPN has to say.

As usual, Notre Dame responded with class.

Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said, "While we in no way condone Ms. Jacobson's comments, we're aware of the circumstances in which they occurred, and in the interest of forgiveness, trust that she and ESPN will address the matter in an appropriate way."

I am not in the least surprised that an ESPN anchor would say such things. This is the network that glorifies the vile exploits of athletically-talented gangsters who in a more civilized society would be placed behind bars where they cannot serve as objects of adulation for impressionable teenagers. That we live in such a society is only partially the fault of ESPN, of course. TV networks air the things they think we want to see. Ms. Jacobson is simply a reflection of our neo-pagan culture. Nonetheless, there is no reason for Christians to patronize a network whose stars feel free to fling curses at our God and institutions like Notre Dame that are dedicated to His service. There are better things to do with our time anyway.

Ms. Jacobson is also a coward. If she really wanted to stir up trouble she would have directed her insults at Mohammad. She did not - and if she had, ESPN would not need to be pressured into taking action. Jacobson would have been fired within microseconds and told to leave the building quickly before the car bombs could get there. This double standard says all we need to know.

UPDATE: David Kuo - and apparently most of his readers - think Christians are just whining about this incident. Why are these people even reading a site called "beliefnet?"

Also, I forgot to mention that ESPN is owned by Disney. I'm sure Uncle Walt would be proud.

UPDATE 2: Bill Donohue now says after further discussions with ESPN he now feels the network has taken appropriate action, and he considers the matter closed. Sister Mary Martha has a few words.

Rebuilding Gomorrah on Reality TV

I have created a new tag on this blog called Rebuilding Gomorrah. Many people, I think, don't quite comprehend the depths of depravity our society has reached, and how near it is to all of us. Click the link to see what I mean.

Today's example comes from the Czech Republic but will soon be on a screen near you...

Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- If you want to watch Nick having sex with a prostitute, he's happy to let you.

The 36-year-old bank-security technician drove eight hours from his home in Metz, France, to Big Sister, a Prague brothel where customers peruse a touch-screen menu of blondes, brunettes and redheads available for free. The catch is clients have to let their exploits be filmed and posted on the Internet.

``Sex is no taboo,'' Nick says, though he asked that his last name not be used. ``You have to free your mind.''

Big Sister is marrying 21st-century technology with the world's oldest profession to profit from the public's appetite for ever-more graphic reality TV. Since 2005, more than 15,000 men have taken up the offer of free sex in return for 15 minutes, or less, of fame, according to the brothel. Big Sister is now expanding into the U.S. with a local version of its Web site.

Visitors to the virtual brothel pay 29.95 euros ($43.88) for a one-month subscription to a smorgasbord of sex listed by position, preference and number of people. Big Sister also produces cable TV shows that air on Sky Italia and the U.K.'s Television X, as well as DVDs such as ``Sex Hyenas'' and ``Voyeur's Eye.''

``Our goal is to attract as many people as possible to catch the first reality sex TV,'' says marketing manager Carl Borowitz, who goes by the name Carlos. ``This is National Geographic for adults. Everyone's curious to watch their neighbor.'' [more]

(How, you might ask, did I happen to find this story? It was at the top of the Bloomberg "Most Read" list today. It's happened before.)

I'm not sure who is more depraved: the people who manage this enterprise, or its customers. A liberal-minded person might argue that it's all voluntary and no one is harmed. I beg to differ.

Consider poor Nick, who is quoted above (something tells me that Nick isn't exactly a Don Juan back home in France.) This 36-year-old, unmarried "bank security technician" isn't doing himself any favors with this activity, especially if he has any visions of ever settling down with a woman. And there is probably a woman in France who would like to settle down with a guy like Nick - but she won't get to do so because he has taught himself that women are nothing but sex objects. She's a victim, too.

Then there are the prostitutes. They may be well-paid, but at what cost to their dignity, their health, and their self-image? Finally there are the thousands of people, mainly men, who view this material and become addicted. Many marriages are destroyed in this way, leaving wives and children shattered into pieces. From there the trail of destruction expands geometrically.

Yes, pornography has been around for a long time. The difference is that now it travels at the speed of light. It's a big problem in society, in our churches, and in many families. There are some good resources here and here for people who are touched by this evil. And make no mistake - it is evil.

Obscenity at Barnes & Noble

So this weekend I went shopping at the new Barnes & Noble in my area. Mrs. D.O.T.S. and I were pleased when it opened because there were no other bookstores nearby.

At the front of the store near the checkout counters is a table featuring 2008 box calendars, the kind where you tear off a page each day. There are all manner of such calendars: dogs, cats, cartoons, happy thoughts, etc. I took a picture of it for you. Which one grabs your attention? Keep in mind this is only a few steps away from the children's section of the store.

I dare say most eyes will be drawn straight to the bright red "Sex Every Day In Every Way 2008 Daily Calendar." (Click here for a better look on the B&N web site.) This is just what America needs because, as you know, we just don't think about sex often enough in this country. Having such a daily reminder will be good for everyone.

If people want to buy this thing, so be it, but is it really a good idea to display them out in the open, alongside products that will draw the eyes of small children? There are more than words, too. The box has illustrations that graphically depict people engaged in a variety of (ahem...) acrobatic maneuvers. I don't want to show them on my blog, but you can click here for a small sample.

On the same table was another calendar, shown in the second photo. If you can't read it, the headline reads "The Dictionary of Corporate B------t." This is slightly less offensive than the sex calendar but still not appropriate for public view, in my opinion. Movies that use this word get a PG-13 rating, so parents at least know what to expect. Barnes & Noble doesn't give you the courtesy of a warning.

I took one of the sex calendars to a female store employee and asked her if she thought it was appropriate to display where children would almost certainly see them. She took one look and called the manager.

He offered no regrets whatsoever. All he could say was "People have different tastes" and he would pass on my concern to their corporate office. I again asked, what kind of person could even remotely think that it is appropriate to let children see this product? He would not answer the question. So I wished him a Merry Christmas and left without buying anything.

If B&N is like most large retailers, the store manager is given detailed directions from above on how products are to be displayed. He probably doesn't have authority to move them. This means B&N has made a corporate decision that it doesn't care if young children are exposed to sexually explicit images. Their first priority is to make money however they can. That is their right, of course. It is also my right to not shop at their store. I urge everyone else to do likewise.

One more indication of the priorities at Barnes & Noble: there is a large display of Phillip Pullman's atheism-promoting Golden Compass line of children's books and related merchandise. If they can't corrupt your kids one way, they'll find another way to get the job done. Their persistence is admirable.

You can express your concern to B&N management by using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Moms go after CVS; Is Barnes & Noble Next?

Golden Compass Points The Wrong Way

It seems that almost every time a good book is made into a movie, the result is a disappointment. Stories are twisted, characters changed, important themes lost. So when an atheist author openly admits something like "My books are about killing God," it isn't inevitable that the film version will share that goal. But when the film is aimed directly at your children, do you really want to find out?

Such is the case with The Golden Compass, set for release on December 7. Based on a trilogy by British author Phillip Pullman, it appears at first glance to be a childhood fantasy featuring talking animals, good vs. evil, and a precocious young heroine. However it comes from the mind of a man who doesn't believe in God and clearly wishes no one else did, either.

Of course atheists are entitled to write books, produce movies, and spread their beliefs however they wish. The rest of us are in turn entitled to ignore them, which is probably the best response the The Golden Compass. The problem is that the nature of this film and the promotions surrounding it will lure children into the story. If this then leads them to read Pullman's books, bigger problems will follow.

... "The Golden Compass" (1995) is the first book in Pullman's trilogy. The second book is titled "The Subtle Knife" (1997) and it is followed by "The Amber Spyglass" (2000).

Collectively, the trilogy is known as "His Dark Materials," a phrase taken from John Milton's "Paradise Lost." This is appropriately titled in my opinion, since each book gets progressively darker -- both in the intensity with which Pullman attacks the Catholic Church and the Judeo-Christian concept of God, as well as the stridency with which he promotes atheism.

For example, one of the main supporting characters, Dr. Mary Malone, is a former Catholic nun who abandoned her vocation to pursue sex and science. The reader does not meet her until the second book, by which time the young reader is already engrossed in the story. By the third book, Dr. Malone is engaging in occult practices to lead the two main characters, a 12-year-old boy and girl, to sleep in the same bed and engage in -- at the very least -- heavy kissing. This is the act through which they renew the multiple universes created by Pullman.

Another example is Pullman's portrayal of the Judeo-Christian God. Pullman refers to him as "The Authority," although a number of passages make clear that this is the God of the Bible. The Authority is a liar and a mere angel, and as we discover in the third book, senile as well. He was locked in some sort of jewel and held prisoner by the patriarch Enoch, who is now called Metatron and who rules in the Authority's name. When the children find the jewel and accidentally release the Authority, he falls apart and dies. [source]

Aside from the obvious anti-Christian themes, The Golden Compass is specifically anti-Catholic. The evil priests, the "Magisterium," and the portrayal of the Vatican in the books are bigotry that would cause a public outcry if it were directed at any other group.

To cut to the chase, The Golden Compass is a trap. The release date just before Christmas is no accident; clearly Pullman hopes children who see the film will then ask for the books as Christmas gifts. I saw a trailer for it (just before Bella, strangely enough) and I can tell you the special effects were slick and well-done. Kids will want to see this movie. Parents like these who let kids "make their own decisions" could well make it a success at the box office. Christian parents who care about protecting their children's faith don't need to be part of it.

UPDATE: Philip Pullman Calls Critics "Nitwits"