NEW BLOG

Yeah, um, this isn't my blog anymore.  This was from way back when in college.  If you want to see the blog I am currently keeping, visit:

www.jakeporter.wordpress.com

CLEARING SOME THINGS UP

This entry is dedicated to the education of all those people who refuse to look beyond the headlines.

*Enron*

Enron's chairman met with the president and vice president in the Oval Office, gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years, and donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities. The chairman stayed at the White House 11 times, had access to the administration at its highest levels, and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction. The president under whom this happened wasn't George W. Bush, but Bill Clinton.

*John Kerry*

Kerry has certainly changed his tone on Iraq and WMD's.  On the campaign trail he has continually slandered Bush for "rushing to war" and being "stubborn" when it came to Iraq.  He has accused the President and Vice President of purposefully misleading the American people by exaggerating the threat of WMD's.  But consider this words before he was running for president:

In January 2003, Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real. "[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." (Senator John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

Just Before Voting To Authorize Use Of Force, Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As "Real And Grave Threat." "Mr. Kerry … said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States." (Dave Boyer, "Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War," The Washington Times, 10/10/02; H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Said Decision To Go To War Should Be Based On Intelligence About Iraq’s WMD. "We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." (Faye Bowers, "Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’," [Salt Lake City] Deseret News, 9/18/02)

In 2000, After Eight Years On Intelligence Committee, Kerry Cited Threat Of Iraq’s WMD. "I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq …" (Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

After Four Years On Intelligence Committee, Kerry Urged U.N. To Eliminate Iraq’s "Suspected Infrastructure For Developing And Manufacturing" WMD. "The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction … Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security.’" ("US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq," Agence France Presse, 12/12/97)

FALSE OFFENSE AS PLEASURE and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

Consider the following quote from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, spoken by the Elder (Book 2, Chapter 2):

Above all, do not lie to yourself.  A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth either in himself or anywhere around him...  A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense.  It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn't it?  And surely he knows that no one has offended him, and that he himself has invented the offense and told lies just for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated for the sake of effect, that he has picked on a word and made a mountain out of a pea--he knows all of that, and still he is the first to take offense, he likes feeling offended, it gives him great pleasure, and thus he reaches the point of real hostility...

What an incredible insight!  How true!  Confession:  I love being offended!  It makes me feel so proud, so high and holy, so self-righteous.  (Of course, I'd never choose those words at the time.)  "How could THEY do/think/feel THAT!?"  Oh come on--you do it too!...

I reacted in such a manner a lot back in high school, often to the lyrics of popular music that my friends or my sister listened to.  I've done this in college when I've heard the ravings of liberal professor who I think is trying to cleverly indoctrinate rather than objectively teach.  Anyway, I do this.  I confess: I use offense as a means of feeding my pride with pleasurable self-righteousness.

So, don't take the following as self-righteousness on my part.  I am not saying any of this to point an accusing finger in the faces of the many people who've been offended by "The Passion of the Christ."  I recognize that there is a such thing as real, legitimate offense.  And there are people who have been legitimately offended by Mel Gibson's film, I'm sure.

However, it is so interesting to me how some of the same people who praise such movies as "Saving Private Ryan" or even "Natural Born Killers" are so turned off by Gibson's visual portrate of Christ's suffering.  They claim the violence is "over the top" and "disgusting" and "unnecessary."  Many have attacked Gibson, believing he actually painted a worse senario than what the Bible documents.  However, the facts simply don't support such a claim.  If anything, Gibson undershot the violence.

The Bible talks about people riping out the beard of Jesus.  Imagine the amount of skin a chunk of coarse facial hair would take with it.  And all that beating about the head with fists and sticks.  Surely teeth would be missing.  But the Jesus of "The Passion" still has a mouth full of bloodstained pearly whites while hanging from his cross.  What about the simple fact that viewers only saw two hours of violence in the movie?  The beating and mocking and whipping continued much longer than two hours in reality.  I could go on, but I'm getting off topic.

What if much of the offense caused by "The Passion of the Christ" is rooted in fear of exposure?  Dostoevsky says that people know when they are not truly offended and are merely "exaggerating for the sake of effect."  I'm not so sure how conscious this is.  But it sure works! 

Nothing is as "offensive" as the Good News of Christ.  Why?  Because it claims authority and truth.  Not just truth, but the truth.  People who have lied to themselves about their state, who believe they are "good enough" people save themselves, don't like to be told that they share blame for the violence of "The Passion of the Christ." 

Reaching real hostility after viewing "The Passion" could be nothing more than a pleasurable moment for secularists and intellectuals who think themselves to be far above the need for the crutch of religion.  The moment can serve as a reinforcement of their own biases as it shields them from any real soul searching, self-examination, or true criticism in the academic sense. 

So if you're upset about Gibson's movie, please let me know your reacion to this weblog entry.  I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. 

Email: JacobEarlPorter@aol.com

THE FARCE OF EVOLUTION

She looks so scared!  Poor Janet...

Janet, Janet, Janet.  Was it purposeful?  Was it an accident?  Who gives a rip!?!  The blame does not rest soley on the backs of Janet and Justin.  The fault belongs to all of us in this society that glorifies a cheapened sexuality. 

I mean, whether Janet's breast was supposed to be completely exposed or not, she was wearing an outfit that sure made it easy for everything to be exposed.  Think of the visual production of the halftime show, the lyrics of the "songs," the outfits.  It's all "sexy."  We made Janet Jackson who she is because we encouraged her with our dollars.  And we continue to do the same with Brittany and rest of the crowd.  As long as our dollars continue to go to the sexiest, raciest, most promiscuous entertainers, the limits of what is acceptable and what is not will be pushed and pushed and pushed...

This whole Janet-breast debocle says two things to me:  (1) We continue to move sexuality from the sacred to the secular (for more on this subject, see my Octagon article which I've pasted bellow), and (2) concerned Americans need to remember the powerful voice that our economic system gives to each dollar.

~~~~~~~

While walking across campus just before Thanksgiving break a faculty member asked me if I attended a performance of Tongue in Chic. Then he said, “You know, much of the campus has been holding its breath waiting for your response.” I don’t know if it’s true. Are a great number of you holding your breath in anticipation of reading the rest of this? Probably not. It is my understanding that the college’s administration expressed some concern about Tongue in Chic. As one person told me, certain administrators were concerned about what the “evangelical Christian” population on campus would think. I want to make it very clear that I am not speaking for the Christian Fellowship or for all evangelical Christians. I’m writing based on my personal convictions.

I’ll begin with praise. Carrie Moss, in the last Octagon, said she was “blown away by the talent that exists within the purple and gold borders of our campus.” I could not agree more. My expectations for my peers’ musical ability was more than surpassed. They sang as a chorus, and their voices were as strong as that of fifty people. The choreography was creative and well done.

But much of the content left me brokenhearted. The vast majority of the musical numbers glorified the high level of sexual promiscuity that is becoming increasingly accepted and expected in our society. Was Tongue in Chic revolutionary? Should we call it bold or original? Not really. The show’s appeal to a stripped-down, purely physical sexual appetite fits in perfectly with the culture at large.

And the worst part is that I almost feel like I need to apologize for not being “okay” with a production that turned pedophilia, prostitution and incest into light humor. Let’s be realistic. The show crawled right to the edge of what could be considered softcore porn. But I don’t fault the cast or production team as much as our culture.

Pornography in America is a $10 billion a year business. Hollywood releases around 400 films each year, and the porn industry releases 700 movies each month. Students at Northwestern, Columbia, and NYU now take classes in “porn studies.” In our fast-food nation, McDonald’s restaurants are outnumbered by “adult” bookstores by a margin of at least three to one. Tongue in Chic was not counter-cultural or rebellious. In fact, it was mainstream and normal.

This month Playboy magazine is celebrating 50 years of publication. Hugh Hefner, who began the publication, didn’t put his name in the first issue. He feared that if the magazine failed and he was tied to it, he wouldn’t be able to find another job. History now shows he had nothing to fear. While we can’t give the man credit for inventing the field (the word “pornographer” first appeared in the dictionary in 1850, eleven years after the invention of the photograph), we can certainly say he provided the fuel for porn to enter into mainstream America.

Hefner, an advertising genius, knew just how to package pornography in an aura of pseudo-sophistication. He named the product “adult” entertainment for “men” and presented himself as a Victorian gentleman at the hunting lodge. The joints today that call themselves “Gentleman’s Clubs” are benefiting from the language Hefner created 50 years ago that made what used to be risqué not only acceptable, but downright desirable.

Asked about what Playboy was doing to women, Hefner once said, “The major beneficiary of the sexual revolution is women, not men.” The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL Pro-Choice America agree with that statement. Margaret Sanger, an early champion of birth control and the sexual revolution, wrote, “Through sex mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to earthly paradise.” I suppose this may be the case. As a result of pornography and “sexual liberation,” women are free and equal--they are free and equal to be as promiscuous as men.

I must admit that this leaves me scratching my head in confusion. “Sexual liberation” does not appear to aim for equality between men and women. I don’t understand how acceptance of promiscuity has increased the value of women in society. If anything, the porn culture demands that women empty their internal goods (intelligence, creativity, emotions) and have skinny bodies, huge fake breasts, no babies (infertility is even better!), and men who are not willing to commit to anything more than a quickie.

My mind is also boggled by the notion that religious tradition and orthodox values regarding sexuality were holding humanity back, and that freedom from all these restraints is elevating humanity to a new level of sophistication. The way I see it, if we allow ourselves to give in to every whim and fancy of our animal instinct, to obey each fickle desire and chemically-based impulse, we are lowering our humanity to the level of a wild beast. To “elevate” human sexuality by striping it of all potential beauty and reducing it to answering a base desire makes no sense at all to me.

America’s mindset about sex has certainly undergone a revolution. We don’t need to look any farther than our favorite network TV sitcoms to see how much more commonplace sex is today than in the days of Mr. Ed. If Sanger was right, we ought to be well on our way to that earthly paradise. What else do we know is different in the 30 or 40 years since the sexual revolution really took off?

Before 1960 people worried about only two STDs (syphilis and gonorrhea); today we have about 25. Some are harmless. Others are fatal. All are humiliating. Currently 1 in 5 Americans between 15 and 55 are infected with STDs. An additional 12 million people, one in twenty of us, are newly infected each year. And 63% of these new infections affect people less than 25 years old.

The large emphasis on HIV and AIDS has causes many to be uninformed regarding the threat of other STDs. These diseases can result in infertility, cancer, and death. The human papilloma virus (HPV) infects 38% of sexually active females between the ages of 13 and 21. This disease often results in cancer of the genitalia and kills more women in our country than AIDS. Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which is usually caused by gonorrhea or chlamydia, affects 1 million new women each year is and is the leading cause of hospitalization for women between 15 and 55, apart from pregnancy. PID also causes scarred fallopian tubes, which block passage of a fertilized egg into the uterus. The growing embryo will cause the tube to rupture. Between 1960 and 1990, there was a 400% increase in tubal pregnancies, the majority of which caused by STDs. The worst part is that 80% of those infected with an STD don’t know it and will unintentionally infect their next sexual partner.

But what about “safe” sex, right? Can’t we relax about all this stuff and just use protection? A study by Rutgers University found that STD infection varied little with the form of contraception used. Whether they used no contraceptive, oral contraceptive, the diaphragm, or the condom, 35 to 44% of sexually active students were infected with at least one STD.

The idea of the condom and all the wonderful protection it brings is simply not backed up by the facts. The above mentioned Rutgers study found that virtually no protection from STDs is provided by condoms, the hero of the safe sex message. A study from Florida looked at condom use by couples in which one partner was HIV positive and the other was not. Just under 20% of previously uninfected partners were found to be HIV positive after 18 months.

Sex has been brought out into the open, turned loose. So how are we feeling? Liberated? Happy that the Playboy philosophy is now our culture’s philosophy? Now that sexual ethics have been freed from the bondage to religious and traditional conservatism, don’t you feel better? Not me.

Even if all the effects of pornography and promiscuity were absent, even if STDs were not infecting teens and young adults by the millions, even if women were not hollowed out to become objects for men’s physical pleasure, I would still think that our cultures beliefs about sex are tragic. Today sex is like ordering a pizza or trading baseball cards, thought to be a purely physical act like running a three-legged race.

But I cannot stop here. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand. I am not anti-sex. I am very much pro-sex. While many Christians have mistakenly overreacted to the sexual revolution and demonized sex, I believe the Bible actually teaches that sex is a sacred act, a precious gifts from God reserved for a husband and wife. God created sex so that two individuals could become “one flesh.” And through that physical and spiritual act of intercourse, two lives can come together and create a third life. Hmm... three in one--sounds like another Christian doctrine (the Trinity). What a beautiful thing! God’s own being, His very nature, is the source of sexual love. Sex was fashioned in God’s image, to be in God’s likeness. It makes complete sense to me that God fully intended for one of the mountaintop experiences in life to be the moment when a man and woman are physically joined together. The Bible doesn’t teach sex as a duty, but celebrates sex for both its procreative and pleasurable purposes.

Sex is about intimacy, romance, and mutual submission born from deep, self-sacrificial love. How romantic is it to stand buck-naked, completely vulnerable, before someone who has not committed the rest of his life to you? My heart was broken this past summer when a teenage girl from my church back home said, “I slept with him last night. Do you think he likes me?” During Tongue in Chic, as women and men stripped down to nearly nothing, I couldn’t help but think that the true value of their sexuality had been severely underestimated.

I am not “holier-than-thou.” I certainly have not been holy in my past, and many can back that up. I’ve made plenty of mistakes, hurt a lot of people, and been hurt by a few people myself. I would get with someone and have my “fun,” and it would only leave me emptier and wanting more (not just in frequency but in degree). My intentions weren’t altogether bad. I did desire intimacy. (Actually, I was terrified of being alone.) But I wasn’t seeking intimacy as much as I sought after self-satisfaction. And ultimately, in many (not all) of the cases of my past promiscuity, no love or intimacy could be found--only two self-centered people using one another for physical pleasure, giving away precious pieces of our hearts.

The growth of genuine human relationships is stunted by sexual liberation through pornography and casual sex. As the porn gets more hardcore and the partners grow in number, the physical, spiritual, and intimacy-driven desires for sex are reduced to Newtonian mechanics and an inability to derive pleasure from a monogamous love relationship. Playboy cover girl and former Hefner girlfriend Sandy Bentley said, “The heterosexual icon [Hefner]... had trouble finding satisfaction through intercourse; instead, he liked the girls to pleasure each other while he masturbated and watched gay porn.” When our sexuality is “liberated” enough, even the horniest old goat cannot find physical pleasure in the bodies of beautiful young females, willing to be his love-slaves. Where is Hefner’s love, his romance, his intimacy or even community? It cannot be found. In the end he is a solitary masterbaiter.

I hope I’m not misunderstood. This isn’t meant to be an attack against the students involved in Tongue in Chic or anyone who loved it. I’m not trying to offend anyone. I am just sharing my believes about how precious and sacred sex is, and how dangerous it can be to take it from its intended context. Sex is a lot like fire.

As winter goes on, we will probably all find ourselves huddling around a fire at some time or another. And we will enjoy it for its light and heat and energy. Fire is a great thing. We couldn’t live without it. But taken from a safe, confined environment, fire can do a lot of damage. Just ask the people of southern California.