Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Porn, social conservatives, feminists, and seemingly strange bedfellows.

As the old saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. Case in point would be an issue where third wave feminists and Evangelical social conservatives, or tradcons as Aurini likes to call them, walk hand in hand, the issue of pornography. Now before I get into this let me be clear on something, I'm not celebrating or condoning porn. As a person of faith I feel it's not something one should indulge in. But as someone who believes in individual liberty and small government I'm convinced that any sort of attempt to ban it would be harmful and a violation of people's natural God given rights. Also, while I don't think porn is good for you by any means, it's not nearly as harmful as my fellow Christians have made it out to be. It's more like a mental and spiritual junk food, relatively harmless in small doses, but too much will rot you from the inside out.

So you may have noticed that there is a large potion of the feminist movement that seeks to outright ban pornography. The most well known of this group being the infamous Gail Dines.
By the way, ever notice that these women leading the anti-porn movement tend to be women no one would ever want to see naked. Like ever. But these misandric critters are not the only ones leading this assault on free speech. Many of my fellow Christians also fight along side them. The Churchianity version of Oprah Dr. James Dobson was actually on some government task force against porn in the 80's. Regular listeners of his might notice he rarely misses an opportunity to steer a conversation on sexuality to the "scourge" that is dirty movies. And after Iceland enacted some anti-porn legislation John Stonestreet praised the move on Breakpoint. I have tried to explain to my fellow Christians that if they keep cheering this type of legislation on, which is much more about getting control of the internet than porn, they will be in for very rude awakenings when these powers get turned on Christian sites, like Breakpoint for example. That usually falls on deaf ears.

But why has this seemingly strange alliance happened? Well, because once you get past the surface it's not all that strange. Aside from a few issues, mostly abortion, there's very little difference between Churchianity and the feminists. I had this hammered home to me a few months ago when commenting on a Breakpoint thread about declining marriage rates. I made the following common sense point.

There is a reason men in my generation, the Millennials, are opting out of marriage. Due to the misandry of the family courts marriage is unquestionably a raw deal for men. Make no mistake, having a Y chromosome makes you a second class citizen in family law (and many other areas these days). Beyond the religious obligation what possible reason would a man have for legally tying himself to someone who, on a whim, can throw him out of his home, take half his money, and turn him into a life time wage slave in the form of alimony? Until this is addressed and reformed in the family courts system marriage will continue to decline.

And then I got a whole bunch of non arguments like  It's sad that you have such a low opinion of women. Basically they argued like feminists. And that's kind of what Churchianity is, basically a religious version of the misandric feminism in our culture. Look at the movie Fireproof that came out a few years ago, in this movie we are meant to see the husband as a scumbag for looking at porn, but we are meant to be sympathetic to the wife who almost has an actual physical affair. The whole crux of the movie was that everything was the man's fault, even when it wasn't. I could go through tons of examples of how feminized Churchianity is, but I would suggest checking out Dalrock for more on it.

So as the saying goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows, but sometimes those alliances reveal that the groups in question have far more in common than either would admit. I've called these left wing social justice crusaders "The Left Wing Moral Majority" on here before, and it's becoming more and more obvious that Churchianity is basically just feminism with a thin layer of Jesus on top.  Perhaps this just shows that a moralizing statist is a moralizing statist no matter how they spend their Sunday mornings. Perhaps it just goes to show there is really no difference between the liberals and the modern conservative movement. Perhaps strange bedfellows are rarely so strange once you really look at them.

1 comment:

  1. ever read the book why men hate going to church? i agree that unfortunately "churchianity" has catered to the feminist, bringing touchy feely emotional type programs and format styles. i'm afraid churchianity crawled in with the feminists who were there first, ever since eve ate the apple. where's the battle front mentality, the all in, pressing forward, claiming ground, serious, focused, visionary christianity, pushing the gospel forth into all the world? Do i even think i have received anything worth taking to the world? there ARE churches with this focus and interestingly enough, the pillar/foundation churches won't be in bed with the feminists or anyone else, not the abortionist, the homesexuals (even the mennonite church has become a bedfellow) or the socialists . . .not because they condemn these people, and not because they are fighting against them but because the battle is so clearly outlined for these armored up christians because they see their commander in chief, what he has done for them and now in turn the orders they've been given. there is no room for compromise. the joke is on us for being distracted, tricked and blinded by the enemies attacks. and that is the one point i would disagree with, a little porn is not ok. what soldier would allow one enemy to cross the line just because he's just a little guy? what if he happens to take out the guy beside you . . . sin is sin and we must make every effort to fight against it. BUT, we don't condemn any sin in a rock throwing way, "he who is without sin cast the first stone . . . ", NO we condemn it knowing that we have done it, and are capable of repeating it in the future, realizing the weakness of our flesh . . .So, having said that, i position myself to make every effort to fight against every sin, and that is a point that needs to be made. the church often finds itself distracted by the campaign sins - fighting against the "world's" sins (abortion, homosexuality, etc . . .) what about lying, pride, obesity, slander, anger, unforgiveness, bitterness . . .or simply and most sinfully, loving self instead of loving God with heart soul mind and strength? . . . so as a soldier as i strive daily, the spirit of God within me warring against my sinful nature. so my conclusion . . . to never take a stand against any social issue? no, but the one thing that must happen is that the truth of the gospel must be held up and never compromised no matter if we're holding up a sign against abortion OR if i'm standing in front of my kitchen sink struggling with feelings of criticism towards someone in my life - it's all the same battle, i would argue that the kitchen sink might be the more difficult battle!!! we are sinners, God is Holy, Jesus paid the price, , we take on the righteousness of Christ, able to stand before a Holy God and not be obliterated . . . now that's a high calling. I agree one hundred percent Chris., to that i say "CHURCH, GET OUT OF YOUR PAJAMAs AND ARMOR UP!"

    ReplyDelete