“Will my boys grow up viewing woman as no different than the porcelain urinal on the wall of the boys’ room—an object (not a person) to relieve themselves into whenever they feel the urge or need? And will my daughters grow up believing that’s who they’re supposed to be? I hope not.” – Walt Mueller

When I first came across this quote it saddened and disturbed me. This is because it is remarkably accurate with its portrayal of the society and culture we live in. The worst part is that not many people care. Most people just accept this as the reality in which we live. There is a general consensus among westerners that Islam’s treatment of women is barbaric and that they view them as property to be owned like slaves. But rarely do we see those same westerners consider how they treat women. The above quote highlights that our society/culture does not treat women much differently. Slaves. Just in a different format. Brainwashed to believe that is all they are, porcelain urinals to be used whenever men have the urge or need. The quote reflects the very sad state of our world today.

Identified as the ‘raunch’ culture where ‘porn is the norm’ , you don’t have to go far to see the objectification of women by the main stream media, by men and even by the women themselves. It’s a vicious circle. Each influencing the each other, going around and around in a reinforcing pattern that only cements this view of women in our culture.

” If we honestly evaluate how women are frequently portrayed in the media, it is easy to see that they are often marketed as objects and used to sell products. And it is definitely easy for all of us – men and women alike – to judge our value on external appearances and functionality rather than our intrinsic value as children of God. ” – Paul Masek

The main stream media seems to be the biggest culprit when it comes to influencing society and culture. But they are just responding to the existing culture and giving them more of what they want. Society wants raunch, so the media gives it to them. Why does society want raunch? Because they have been already brainwashed by what the media gave them previously. And around it goes.

Take music for example. How does encountering sinful or even questionable lyrics influence society in a harmful way? Anthony Gerber answers this way :

” Is a child harmed when she encounters her parents fighting with one another? And what if that fight was played over and over and over like an iPod on repeat? If she is not harmed in a strict sense of the word, at the absolute least she will become numb and dulled to such occurrences. And this is certainly harmful for a whole litany of reasons which a good psychology book is ready to reveal for us.”

In music it’s the beat, the bassline or guitar rift that draws us into the song. And once the music has “hooked” us, the lyrical content can then do its work. It’s the same pattern with other forms of media. TV and movies will hook you with laughs, drama, music, special effects or action. Then once you are hooked many sinful themes are smuggled in and are absorbed by us un-noticed. For example the sit-com “Friends” uses a lot of humor to attract an audience. But the characters are promiscuous. So society keeps going back for the humor while all the time being conditioned to accept promiscuity as a normal behaviour for society because that’s what their idols are doing on TV. By the way, “Friends” is a relatively mild example of what is out there. If this is the effect “Friends” has on society and culture then how much more will sit-com’s like “Two and a Half Men” and “How I Met Your Mother” be a positive influence for the objectification of women.

An interesting article I found on the topic of music and culture called “Dysfunctional Love Songs” by Chris Stefanick is worth checking out. Where he discusses how the love songs getting all the air play seem to have a common theme; if it isn’t dysfunctional, it isn’t love.

“Thanks in large part to misguided love songs, teens tend to mistake things like codependence, enmeshment and promiscuity for love. It’s funny how the things they come to look for in dating relationships are precisely the things that set them up for failed marriages.”

The original article in which the “porcelain uninals” quote came from (“Dear Oprah“) is also well worth a read. Some notable parts are:

“After years of listening to music and watching videos on MTV, BET and VH1, I have to conclude that one of the most prominent life-shaping themes in today’s popular music is human sexuality, both what it is and how to experience it. The lyrical and visual messages are powerful and life-shaping, especially for our impressionable young children and curious question-filled teens. Because they are listening to and/or watching several hours of music a day, messages about sexuality come through loud and clear. In fact, a recent article in Pediatrics reports on a Rand Corporation study that found that “listening to music with degrading sexual lyrics is related to advances in a range of sexual activities among adolescents.” A growing body of research supports this relationship of cause and effect”

“My reason for mentioning this to you is that on September 25, 2006, just three days before your show “What Pedophiles Don’t Want You To Know,” Janet Jackson appeared on Oprah to promote her musical comeback and the next-day release of her album 20 Y.O. I want you to know that I think Janet Jackson is an extremely talented performer. I am, however, concerned about some of her musical messages—both lyrical and visual—and what those messages are teaching children and teens about sexuality.

Toward the end of your show, you introduced Janet Jackson with these words: “For the first time, Janet’s going to perform a song from her brand new CD in stores tomorrow, 20 Y.O. Here’s Janet Jackson singing ‘So Excited!’” I then watched her sing this new song, a song that I knew was sure to be marketed to and embraced by her young fans. I can’t help but see a huge incongruity between the song’s lyrics and the valuable message you sent to viewers just three days later.

I listened to Janet Jackson sing these words:
Breathe – You get me so - Get me so excited - I’m hot, come on, so get ready – And I’ll open my spot for you – Anytime you want me to – So you can act bad – Don’t hurt me – Look sexy – Talk dirty – And I’ll open my spot for you – Anytime you want me to – Get me so excited – For some reason – It might be the money that turns you on – But for me it’s an attitude that keeps me tight on the floor – And no words are suitable to describe your swagger babe - And my body is in overdrive when I have you inside of me – Do you like it when I do it? – I go head to toe – And whenever you pursue it – You’ll never hear the word no – So forget about them other girls baby – Cause now you’re rollin with a woman baby – I’ma keep you body thumpin baby - It’s the least I can do – Cause you get me so excited – So amused by mind control that I wanna get two steps up – As for me I’m a let you know that my body’s smoking hot – Throw me up against whatever’s close and get to bossin me around – And everytime I give you the assist you know how to slam it down - Is ya is ya is ya hungry? – I gotcha – I gotcha – I gotcha licking on my – Licking on my – Licking on my body like it’s something to eat …

At the conclusion of the song you said, “Janet Jackson! Thanks, Janet! Thank you, Janet! We’ll be right back. That’s so cool.” Oprah, I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Knowing what I know about kids, the age of the kids who embrace Janet Jackson and her music, adults, and how they are all acting out sexually in our culture, I don’t think Jackson’s song was cool at all. Instead, it made me sad. When I later watched the song’s video, I was struck by the sad irony that some scenes depict Jackson and the male object of her song engaging in sexual foreplay and activity, in of all places, a dirty and dark men’s restroom, right in front of a wall full of urinals.”

So what can we do to battle this “moral mindlessness” plaguing our society? We need to employ our minds rather than just our hearts when it comes to determining whether a song, tv show or movie stays on or is turned off. We need discernment that comes from knowing right from wrong, good from evil and morality from immorality. That, I think, is a massive problem in society (including the church). So many people have no idea of the moral standard set out in the Bible. And if they do know the standard, they don’t care or don’t think it’s that big of a deal (even amongst those professing to have faith).

We need to first look to our own hearts. Do we look women in the eyes or do we give them the ‘up and down’ look that focuses on their bodies? Do we mindlessly consume media? Does pornography or lust have a hold on us? The Lord wants us to love women as He does, and He can help us to do so. I love the idea of following Jesus so closely that we actually see other people through His eyes. Women are so much more than porcelain urinals, even if they feel that way about themselves, and even if they are treated as such in the media and by men in their lives.

None of us are immune to the influence of society and culture. I know I’m not. Conditioned through much of my non-Christian life to view women like this, it is an extremely difficult conditioning to break. I need help. We all need help. It can’t be done alone. We’re not strong enough. We need help from the only one who can help because He has overcome the world.

To finish I would like to borrow again the words of Paul Masek.

“I also want to beg you women who are reading this to help us brothers out! In our over-sexualized culture, it is not easy for us to look you in the eyes; we have been trained otherwise and need to be reprogrammed. Not only will it help us if you expect – even demand – to be respected by men, but please call us out when you are not respected. We need to be challenged. And finally please prayerfully consider rediscovering modesty; try not to dress in a way that will incite the men in your life to look at you as an object. You have no idea how much the pursuit of modesty – and expecting more out of us – can help us out.”

Richard Dawkins was recently challenged to a debate with William Lane Craig. He declined. Craig, he said, was a “deplorable apologist for genocide” with whom he would not share a platform. The genocide in question is that of the Canaanites in the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy (see link).

One of Richards more famous quotes from “The God Delusion” on this issue is:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

One of the biggest problems that many people have with God as detailed in the Bible, which Richard has so clearly demonstrated above, is that of His judgment against nations like the Canaanites. One only has to read Biblical history to find God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women and children. Not even the livestock are spared. So what are we make of this? Is God a moral monster?

Paul Copan has attempted to answer this challenge in his book “Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” His answer to the charge that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites is that this was not the genocide that it appears to be from a simple at face value reading of the text; that the text is hyperbolic and an exaggeration of what actually happened; that these were more like disabling raids of the military bases/cities and religious centers and not the leave no survivors destructive conquest that one might assume from a face value reading of the text. The passages on the women and children are just sweeping language being used as a disabling metaphor where central structures are undermined so that the Canaanite influence is disabled. For a more thorough explanation you can check out this interview (3rd hour) with Greg Koukl on his radio show at STR or their blog. Otherwise you can get his book.

While Paul Copan’s explanation on the issues of slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice and the treatment of women in the Old testament seems sound to me, I think Clay Jones comes to the correct conclusion on the issue of the “divine genocide” of the Canaanites. He argues in his treatise, “We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t  Understand What Happened to the Canaanites”, that the face value interpretation of the text is the correct interpretation. Clay also appeared on Greg Koukl’s radio show in an interview that can be found here (3rd Hour) which is where I got most of his answers for the rest of this blog post.

The first thing that needs to be examined is the culture and behavior of the Canaanites to see if there could be any justification for their obliteration as described in the Old Testament. Archeologist William Allbright tells of an ancient Canaanite poem where the Canaanite God Baal, rapes his sister while she is in the form of a calf 77 even 88 times. We have here rape, incest and beastiality in the same act. Baal also has sex with his mother and daughter. If this is who the Canaanites worshiped, if this is their God whom they emulate, then according to Jones, this is certainly what they themselves are doing. And these acts are borne out with further study of Canaanite culture. God outlaws these practices in Leviticus and this sin is punished when both the Canaanites and Israel committed them. And that punishment was harsh. Sodom and Gomorrah were examples of Canaanite cities who were judged by God with good moral justification.

So how does Clay Jones answer the complete destruction passages of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Clay starts off by making an observation of our own culture. We seem to have been inoculated to sin. Average people just does not care anymore about many sins. Our culture does not even recognize them as sin, let alone understand what the term sin actually means. We have become so Canaanite-like in our own culture to the point where, as Clay put it, “Studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation”.

Livestock

Why kill all the livestock? You do not want to be around animals that are used to having sex with people. In Clay’s article he gives an example of a female gorilla sexually attacking a psychologist.

Women

If you want to erradicate these practices from a culture, then why would you leave women who were just as guilty and as equally dangerous as the men in participating in these practices.

Children

Yes the children too. Firstly what age do you start separating children from adults? 18? 12? Clay tells of fostering children because he and his wife could not have their own children. They learned that kids coming into your house at from as young as 4 years old were bringing their culture with them. Now, what if you had killed their parents? What would teenage rebellion look like for those children who were spared. Certainly they were exposed to a highly sexualised culture and were very much likely to have been molested by that time.

So how do you stomp out that culture in order to prevent if from affecting the Israelites adversely? If you want to erradicate the sinfullness of the Canaanites, how else can you do it?

But wait, I hear you say, the Bible talks of the continued Canaanite presence in the region after this “divine genocide” occurred. How does Clay answer that? Clay directs our attention to those “divine genocide” texts and points out that Gods command was only for a specific region. There was still a Canaanite presence outside the region that the Israelites were to inhabit and that’s why there were commands still in place not to take wives from outside the Israelite culture etc. But as we read further into the text, the likes of Kings David and Solomon did not uphold these commands perfectly (by taking wives from outside the Israelite community) and thus the Canaanite culture was reintroduced into the Israels culture and corrupted them to the point where God then dealt harshly with the Israelites via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

So in conclusion, I think we can accept the text at face value. The question that remains is what do you think of God for commanding such a thing? Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases? If you have a problem with the selective judgment of the Canaanites then how do you feel about the almost complete destruction wrought by God of the whole world during the Flood? And how do you feel about the impending destruction of everything at Armageddon?

Recently, apologist Frank Turek has written a short but excellent article on the hypocrisy of LGBT activists who accuse Christians who oppose homosexual behaviour of being bigots. He also shows how they abuse the term “bigot” by mis-applying it to everybody who disagrees with their position, even when they have valid reasons for doing so. In the process, they expose themselves as the real bigots. Here is Turek’s article in full:

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Original Article

• Frank Turek  - Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

The debate over the increasing acceptance of LGBT lifestyles in mainstream culture is one issue which — at least in Canadian society — has been more or less dominated by one side, which seeks to label all dissenters as “bigots,” “homophobes,” and even “extremists.” If you do not give them your unconditional assent and affirmation, they will level the most relentless forms of criticism against you. And this is precisely the case in the recent controversy over Toronto city mayor Rob Ford’s decision not to attend the annual Pride Parade.

To give a little background to people who are unfamiliar with this issue, Rob Ford is one of the most Conservative city mayors that Toronto has had in a long while. This particularly manifests in his policies regarding LGBT issues. He has publicly stated that he disagrees with same-sex marriage during his mayoral campaign, has refused to show up at a Pride flag raising at a public square, and has at least once threatened to cut public funding to the city’s annual Pride Parade. After all, why should the city spend public funds on such a parade anyway? Shouldn’t the LGBT community get its own funding if it wants a parade? Mayor Ford isn’t even targeting the LGBT Pride Parade in particular on this issue, since he has said in an article for The Star that “the public sector shouldn’t be funding parades, no matter what parade it is … The private sector should be sponsoring these parades.”[1] Be that as it may, the Pride Parade still got the funding that it wanted. There is just no stopping the LGBT agenda these days.

That being said, however, the biggest faux pas he has made recently (at least from the standpoint of the politically correct Left) was his refusal to attend the pride parade which took place earlier this month, on the grounds that it conflicted with a family tradition where he would spend the long weekend in a cottage away from the city. The responses that have been produced by Leftist pro-LGBT commentators and activists on newspapers and blogs have been merciless; most of them show relentless criticism of Mayor Ford for his personal choice. Now, if that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is. These activists who demand society to affirm and support their ungodly lifestyles and personal preferences become very militant when others make personal choices that contradict the party line that LGBT activists force everybody else to follow. It seems that these days, their unofficial slogan is, “Support our campaign against bullying. If not, we’ll bully you until you do.” Read the rest of this entry

Short answer – Yes.

When it comes to marriage, the question boils down to this; what “right” does someone with a heterosexual sexual orientation have that someone with a homosexual sexual orientation does not? The immediate response from those in the pro-homosexual camp is that homosexuals can’t get married. This is clearly not the case. What needs to be kept in focus during this debate is that “rights” are accrued to individuals. This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”. Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”. If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to. This is not meant to be cold hearted. It is an answer with regard to legality and “rights”. What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government. Clearly not an equality issue. Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law.

When it comes to individuals, this argument is compelling with regard to rights proper. But what happens when the rights of homosexual couples are brought into the equation? And in this regard they may seem to have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that constitutional “rights” are accrued to individuals, not groups. Governments always treat couples differently than they do individuals. For example, if two people enter into a contract to buy a house, then there are certain laws and obligations that apply to those two people as a couple that don’t apply to other couples who aren’t buying a house. Why? Because their circumstances are unique. And because they are unique, they get unique treatment under the law. The question then becomes; Is the unique treatment under the law justifiable given the unique circumstances? And given our example, those involved in the sale of a house are treated differently to those couples who are not. So the government does not treat you the same, because the circumstances are different.

Homosexuals have the freedom to do all the things that married people do – pledge their love, live together…etc. But the State does not recognise that relationship. It will not licence it, privilege it or control it. Why? Because it has no reason to do so. Governments are free to make provision for homosexual couples, and they do in some cases (civil unions), but civil unions between same-sex couples are not the same as marriages between opposite-sex couples. This is because they function differently in the culture. Long term heterosexual unions, as a rule, as a group and by nature, produce the next generation. Same-sex unions do not. Heterosexual unions are very different to same-sex unions in a way that matters to the State. This is why it is appropriate for the State to treat those unions differently. They are not obligated to declare them exactly the same when they clearly are not the same to the State when it comes to policy purposes.

While this may seem quite reasonable to most people, the homosexual activist will most definitely not be convinced. This is because they don’t really care about the facts of the matter; the issues of law. What they care about is getting public approval of same-sex relationships. That’s what it’s all about. This is not about equality of rights but rather a restructure of culture so that there is complete public and official government approval of homosexuality.

The distinctions offered here are entirely legitimate. Will they make any difference to the homosexual lobby or those sympathetic to them? No. Not one bit. Because what they want is for everybody to say that their lifestyle is the same as everybody else’s and that what they do is just wonderful. I’m not willing to say that. There are many others not willing to say that. The State of California was not willing to say that (Prop 8). Legitimate distinctions have been made with regard to public policy, to which the other side has become so unhinged that they broke things and punished people (in response to the Prop 8 decision).

Anyone who thinks should be able to see the difference. And I don’t know why we should apologize for the obvious. But this is what the politically correct leftist culture is forcing upon us.

What is demanded of us is a rationale. And when a rationale is given, it becomes very clear that they do not want a rationale, they want things their way. They want approval. Which strikes me that homosexual people are the thinnest skinned people on the planet. This then leads us to ask the question, why?

[Paraphrased from Greg Koukl's radio show, Stand to Reason]

Last weekend, our very own Adam brought to our attention an article that was published in Australian’s Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 5 May. The author, Ms Nina Funnell, lamented that she believes women still do not have total authority over their own bodies. There is the Pill (which, I might add, recently became 50 years old) but yet there is still no widespread abortion-on-demand in Australia. On the latter, she is of course right: in Australia, only the State of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have decriminalized abortion. In all other states and territories, abortion remains illegal in just about all circumstances. As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless.

Read the rest of this entry

Those of you who think that the issue of gay equality is about fair-mindedness, tolerance and respect for differing views, think again: a Mississippi high school has cancelled its annual student prom shortly after they declined the requests of one of its students – a lesbian – to bring along her girlfriend as her prom date and to wear a tuxedo instead of a dress. The teen, Constance McMillen, has since been encouraged to sue the school. She was also awarded a scholarship check of $30,000 from talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres for her bravery in challenging the School District’s ruling.

But does she have a right to attend her school’s prom on her own terms? And should the school be forced by law to hold the prom in order to cater for McMillen’s requests? Should the school be coerced into making provision for the exception?

Read the rest of this entry

One thing that hasn’t been abstaining from the news in the past fortnight is culture’s attitude towards sex. There are two counts in particular that caught my interest: one was State-side, aroused by curious questions from Oprah Winfrey on her namesake’s show; the other was a reactive orgasm from Australia’s media and some members of it’s Federal Government (including the Deputy Prime Minister, no less) towards remarks made by the Opposition Leader.

Both instances concerned the topic of sexual abstinence and, while both were delivered a world apart, both were raised in praise of abstinence. In the US, it was Bristol Palin’s (daughter of 2008 US vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin) commitment to abstain from sex until marriage; in Australia, it was Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott’s parental exhortation for his three daughters to remain virginal until marriage.

In either case, neither of the comments made were received with any measure of intellect. Just an incredulity and a penchant for political power play.

Read the rest of this entry