Compare and Contrast
posted at 3:56 pm on May 5, 2009 by Laura
[ Double Standards ] printer-friendly
Two young Americans, about the same age. Both made decisions that much of the country would find questionable, even abhorrent.
Media investigation of one revealed a “journey of spiritual zeal, linguistic and cultural education,” an “emotional” young person who had an “independent spirit.” Others interviewed described him as one who “loves America” and is “a sweet kid.”
Media investigation of the other revealed intolerance (of homosexuality), a willingness to deceive and implied cheating (boob job in a beauty pageant), hypocrisy and abandonment of religious beliefs (partially nude photos). Others interviewed described her as “polarizing” and “opportunistic.”
The second young person is obviously Carrie Prejean, Miss California. The first? John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban.
.
Cross posted at PH.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
BRILLIANT, Laura!
The Other McCain on May 5, 2009 at 5:44 PM
You’re too kind.
Laura on May 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Awesome.
Slublog on May 5, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Excellent Laura, these are strange and troubling times we live in.
Tim Zank on May 6, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Wonderful, Laura.
I began to see the media start to self-destruct in the late 80’s (it may have started earlier, but that’s when I began to notice).
With only a few exceptions, it’s worse than dead now. The odor of the stinking corpse is almost unbearable.
Daggett on May 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Wonderful!
The only thing that would make it better would be to have links to the quotes in regards to Lindh.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Very revealing comparison. It still amazes me, even after 10+ years of following politics, just how biased the media is.
Kronos on May 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM
I might just start visiting the Green Room now that someone with some serious talent is contributing.
csdeven on May 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Religious Zealot, the quotes are all from the CNN article I linked on Walker Lindh. Click through for those quotes and a whole lot more.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM
All I can say is.. WOW
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Very well done. I just wish the MSM would see their hypocrisy.
deidre on May 6, 2009 at 8:56 AM
I am a homeschool mom and I am getting ready to teach compare and contrast paragraphs. And then of course we are always into current events. How timely!
PrincipledPilgrim on May 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM
csdeven – yes, I also have been a longtime fan of Slublog and RS McCain. (That must be to whom you were referring…
)
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM
PrincipledPilgrim – wonderful that you’re homeschooling. We homeschooled my daughter from 8th through high school, which turned out to be a fantastic experience.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 9:01 AM
I frequently lament my perception of always being right about the bad things. Obama is the latest-greatest example.
But the other side of that coin is my sense that conservative critics of the press almost always understate how bad it really is. This is why I was so annoyed at Ed’s whitewash of Chuck Todd, who is a left-biased clown undeserving of the benefit of doubt.
He is a liberal commentator, not a journalist. This story only reminds me that anyone failing to see the astonishing leftist bias of our media is simply a fool.
Jaibones on May 6, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Great article!
Cinday Blackburn on May 6, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Simply stated, and therefore, brilliant.
Thanks very much for posting this.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 9:05 AM
As they say in the scientific community when you present something very well
“Elegant”
LincolntheHun on May 6, 2009 at 9:08 AM
My apologies for missing that!
I’m still flabbergasted that the left thinks that I (a Christian) should want to cast stones at Miss Prejean because she got a boob job.
What the left knows and understands about Christianity wouldn’t fill a thimble.
Yet they sure seem to like to tell us what we should be thinking and how we should be reacting.
Kind of like when they wanted us to hate Gov. Palin because she stood behind her daughter when she got pregnant out of wedlock.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 9:09 AM
When one devotes enough time applying makeup before one’s mirror, it becomes difficult to see who one truly is.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Extremely insightful post Laura.
Up is down. Enemies are friends. Wrong is right. Bad is good. And Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States.
Troubling times indeed.
BardMan on May 6, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Obviously, one person stood in their way, politically, and the other did not. If someone says, “Not every form of two people humping deserves to be promoted to marriage” That’s “Outrageous!!!” But if someone halfway around the World shouts, “Death to America!!” twenty times in a row, well, for many on the left, “that’s understandable.”
RBMN on May 6, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Evan Sayet’s Heritage Foundation lectures deal with this phenomenon.
This is just a taste:
But you really need to read the whole thing to appreciate the Rosetta Stone of the Liberal Mind.
The Monster on May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Love it.
LibTired on May 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Well, that and the nudie pics. Because we’re so intolerant, you see. Honestly, I don’t see how that kind of vanity and exhibitionism is terribly compatible with biblical standards. But then again, I gossiped about someone the other day and had to repent and apologize, and have engaged in all sorts of sin including holding a grudge against a family member for eight years. So my thinking is I’ll let God convict Carrie Prejean of her sins, whatever they may be, and I’ll worry about my own. And I think that’s true of most Christians. We don’t approve, necessarily… nor do we have to condemn. “What the left knows and understands about Christianity wouldn’t fill a thimble.” – spot on.
When they don’t get the “intolerant” reaction they’re hoping for, they’ll move on to another line of attack. Like that guy who got in the WH press pool – Jeff something? – and it turned out he’d been in some gay porn flicks and we were supposed to be all horrified. When we weren’t, they dropped that meme in a hurry. I think they stay on Palin because they can’t help themselves – they really are deranged where she’s concerned.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Priceless.
John on May 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Wow! That’s incredible.
4shoes on May 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM
And the funny thing is, Carrie simply does not want gays to get married. The Taliban do not want gays to live. But hey, they’re Muslims, not Christians, so it’s ok.
rbj on May 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM
To be perfectly honest, I think a case could be made that both the photos and the boob job are not compatible with God’s teachings (i.e. sins).
However, that doesn’t mean she’s not a Christian. In fact, it means that she’s a very TYPICAL Christian – one who struggles in their faith and occasionally fails.
My admiration of Miss Prejean is not based on some belief that she is somehow a “perfect” Christian (no such thing exists, anyway).
My admiration of Miss Prejean stems from her refusal to back down or back away from her beliefs in the face of some fairly harsh persecution. It would have been far easier (and more (earthly) profitable) for her to apologize for her beliefs.
As such, two pieces of scripture come to mind when I think about what happening to and with Miss Prejean:
and
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Thanks for posting. Well done.
Angry Dumbo on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
It isn’t just that the Left thinks we are intolerant. They believe we hate sex and sexuality. They think we want abortion outlawed because we want to punish women who get pregnant – that’ll teach them not to have sex!!11!1!! They think we fear and hate homosexuals because we just don’t want anyone having sex, with anyone, ever. They think we are obsessed with teaching abstinence and opposing birth control because kids should never have sex until they are married and if they do, they should be punished with babies.
I have a lot of liberal in-laws and they really believe this stuff about conservatives, especially Christian conservatives. They think we have been fighting a War on Sex for years.
rockmom on May 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Well played…well played indeed.
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Great post; great point.
Drum on May 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Heh – hit them with the University of Chicago’s survey Sex In America, then: Conservatives, especially religious conservative women, are getting it on more and enjoying it more than liberal women. Seriously.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM
It amazes me that Perez Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, gets no scrutiny of his life as the MSM savages Miss California. The guy has to have so many skeletons in his closet because of the sick, twisted mind that he has.
volsense on May 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Has anyone actually seen the “nude” picture of Ms Prejean? I have seen more skin at a checkout lane at Wal-Mart. The reason it has not been shown by some media is to give the impression it is far worse than it actually is. If it is as bad as they intimate, Sports Illustrated would be removed from the magazine racks.
volsense on May 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM
volsense – this comes back to the recent John Hawkins argument that conservatives should give the left a taste of their own medicine, especially on oppo research. We should be scrutinizing him. AND the press. As Hawkins put it (and Ace did, back during the election) if Joe the Plumber’s personal life/tax liens, etc. are newsworthy, so are reporters.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 10:51 AM
How bizzare.
Alden Pyle on May 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I agree that a case could be made, but it’s not cut and dry. Song of Solomon was fairly graphic in its praise for the female form. Esther was someone who used hers to God’s glory, seducing the King to save her own people.
Personally, I don’t see how Christians could think boob jobs are wrong, but makeup isn’t. As far as I’m concerned, unless you are harming your body, you aren’t sinning in making changes to it. In fact, I’d argue that those who do not take care of their bodies are in more direct conflict with the Bible (as it actually commands us to take care of them).
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Estheir, I hope you don’t mind, but despite the interesting nature of your response, I’m not going to engage in this particular discussion right now.
Not because I have a problem with the subject or with you – far from it.
But because it detracts from the main point – that the left isn’t upset because she got a boob job or posed for a picture that’s tamer than most photos on the cover of Cosmo…
…they’re upset because she dared to voice the opinion that “dares not speak it’s name”.
They WANT us to get distracted into side conversations about her “virtue” and “wholesomeness” (or lack thereof).
However, the point isn’t about her – it’s about how ugly and nasty and vicious the left can be and how they really define “diversity” and “tolerance.”
Thus a conversation about whether boob jobs and risque photos are sinful can easily wait another day.
Let’s continue to shed a light on the left’s need to assassinate the character of anyone who dares to disagree with them.
And let’s also hold up Miss Prejean as an example of staying true to your beliefs in the face of unfair persecution.
Because, remember, to the left, it’s not only OK, but admirable and laudable to support the violent overthrow of our government and to shout “death to America!”
But, to the left, it’s a hate crime to say “I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Brilliant!
No kidding! Moreover, after having them prance around in itsy bitsy teeny weeny bikinis, the ability to be shocked by a picture of someone’s back is somewhat lost on me.
Buy Danish on May 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM
I get what you’re saying and agree on the surface, but what’s also bothering me in this story is how Christians are viewed by the media. That they think we can’t or shouldn’t do these things without being viewed a hypocrite makes me angry.
They’re not only using these stories to trash Carrie. They’re using them to trash all of us.
Now, I admit there is a case to be made that we shouldn’t do those things, as there are denominations that would agree, but there are many that don’t and get ignored by media who want to paint us as fundamentalists jealous we didn’t think of the burka first.
I’m fine with not discussing it here if you don’t want to, but that’s the other thing I see at play here that makes my skin crawl. They’re not just content to destroy her; they want all of us. They want to put us in a box, and we generally let them.
I don’t just want to defend her right to speak. That’s insanely important. But I also want to defend all of us from this insane stereotype they have of us.
We get to define ourselves, not them.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Absolutely.
I get tired of non-Christians telling Christians how they should act and react and behave (especially that whole misunderstanding/misinterpretation of “don’t judge”)
But the point here isn’t whether or not Miss Prejean committed sins by getting a boob job or posing provocatively.
Regardless of whether they are sins or not, Miss Prejean is human, which means that there are other sinful behaviors that she has engaged in (e.g. we are all human, we all sin and fall short of the glory in God).
Her sinfulness, though, doesn’t make her a hypocrite nor does it somehow invalidate her beliefs.
And most importantly, she is still a Christian even though she sins.
It’s not the sin that makes her (and us) a Christian – it’s the forgiveness that we have accepted through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that makes us Christians.
Thus, I’m not really concerned about the boob job and the pictures.
I’m concerned about how she stands up to adversity and continues to proclaim her faith.
And as far as the libs are concerned, they’re not going to listen to us anyway. They have their mind set on some twisted stereotype of what Christians look like and act like and no amount of truth will sway them.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Of course they won’t, and I would never even pretend to talk to them. It’s the independents, the moderates, and even the conservatives who aren’t Christian I’m interested in speaking to. They’ve bought much of this as well.
But this is more personal to me anyway. I was very different in high school. I agreed with almost everything said of us, because it was true for me and my family.
I do hope Carrie continues to stay strong. If she falters it will be very bad for her. They may accept her as a convert (and by that I don’t just mean on the issue of gay marriage), but if she’s being genuine now, she won’t be happy with herself.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Oh, THAT media bias…
Wyznowski on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Well, the best we can do is continue to speak out and show people what real Christians (and not stereotypes) look and act like.
I’m just not sure that defending taking risque pictures is a good and proper way of doing that.
For the record, here is why I think that it could (should?) be considered a sin. I’m going to link two different bits of scripture:
This scripture pretty well establishes that looking lustfully upon a person is sinful.
But that’s entirely upon the person looking, right?
Maybe not.
Now, I’m not for putting women in burkas, we shouldn’t be ashamed of our bodies.
That said, the photo (while tame by today’s standards) IS provocative.
I don’t think it’s pornographic nor do I think she’s a horrible, terrible person for having the photo taking.
I just don’t believe that taking a provocative picture that is not meant solely for the use and enjoyment for her spouse is not exactly in keeping with Christian teachings.
Of course, now I’ll be called a prude and a woman hater or other such nonsense. Well, so be it.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Hmmm….
…a wee bit too many negatives in that sentence.
Let me try again.
I just believe that taking a provocative picture that is not meant solely for the use and enjoyment for her spouse is not exactly in keeping with Christian teachings.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. That’s the archetypal Christian conservative man and woman to them. And because they fell from grace, so have we all. They think it shows the fundamental “wrongness” of our faith and philosophy when ANY of our “leaders” are proven to be sinners and are not perfect people. They don’t care when it happens to a Democrat or liberal because “we’re not the ones preaching to everyone else how THEY are supposed to live.” The caricatures they hold of us are amazing, but very very real and dear to them. This is why so many of them were so determined to prove that George W. Bush was still drinking. Otherwise he didn’t fit the stereotype of the “Christian hypocrite”. It’s why they reveled in every paparazzi photo of Jenna and Barbara in a nightclub. I am very sure that the biggest reason the left hated Bush so much was because of his avowed Christianity, not his fiscal policy or even his war policy. They hate WHO HE IS.
It is a sort of a faith in itself, though you could never get a liberal to admit it.
rockmom on May 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Not by me. Though I do disagree with you.
The second verse, I believe, is talking about false teachers who teach others to do things that are sinful. Plus, I don’t believe that a beautiful woman is at fault if someone else sins in looking at her. That happens even if she isn’t dressed provocatively.
The only sure cure against that is the burka.
As to the first verse, I’m a little conflicted on that one. I’m not entirely convinced that Jesus was saying that all men who think of sex when they see a beautiful woman are automatically cheating, as men can’t necessarily control that. I’ve long thought he was talking more about those who would see someone and fantasize constantly, saying that it’s just as much a threat to your relationship. That is something men can control.
I’ve always felt that was more specific than it’s generally interpreted. Most women would agree that they don’t want their spouse lusting after a specific woman. That generally leads to adultery. But very few care if their husband simply looks at other women in general.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM
That’s because we generally don’t have meaningless, casual sex. We enjoy it more because it means something, something that God intended when He gave us sexual desire. “If it feels good, do it” often leaves you actually feeling dirty, used, and abandoned.
Liberals think conservative thought on sex is controlled by men who want women to be subordinate. That’s another article of faith to them. The Feminists for Life drive them batshit crazy. They really think the pro-life movement is all about men wanting to keep women “barefoot and pregnant.” Never occurs to them that it is about the babies or about fundamental principles of God-given life that we have no right to kill simply for our own convenience. They think conservatives hate homosexuals because they either fear their own latent homosexuality or fear same-sex relationships because they undermine the superior-male/subordinate female relationship that we think God created.
rockmom on May 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM
There are several quotes in the Bible about not putting “stumbling blocks” in front of a person.
It is simply not possible to argue that God thinks it’s OK to help or encourage other people to sin.
And the lust thing is pretty straightforward. We may find it difficult to WANT to understand, but it stands there plain as day. I’m not interested in humanizing Divine law. That way lies heresies such as thinking that gay marriage is OK.
And, yes, I do believe we can train ourselves to not let our base nature control us.
As far as beautiful women (and men) are concerned, the point isn’t whether or not people look lustfully upon them…
…the point is whether or not they are doing anything to help and encourage it.
If a woman is wearing a shirt that is open down to her belly button, then she’s obviously telling the world to look at her breasts, which is encouraging lustful thoughts.
And I DO believe that there is a middle ground between posing only in skimpy panties and wearing a burka.
One of MY pet peeves is discussing things with people who leap from one extreme to another. There ARE places in between two extremes.
And, yes, sometimes the middle ground is murky – at what point does a woman’s (or man’s) dress switch from ok to provocative? I don’t know.
But I’m not really worried about the middle ground, it’s the the ‘no doubt’ that is more important. And there is little doubt that this particular photo is provocative.
Again, though, that doesn’t make her a hypocrite.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM
With regard to the burka… I wrote a post a while back on Christian modesty that still gets a lot of search engine traffic so evidently it’s a topic people are interested in.
Mandating the Hijab? The Christian Modesty Survey
Key graf:
As to Prejean and her “hypocrisy” – the fact that I wouldn’t make those choices nor would I support my daughter doing them doesn’t take away from Religious_Zealot’s point that Christians sin, and from Esthier’s point that there is legitimate debate on what constitutes sin in this case. We DO get to define ourselves, and that means a certain amount of infighting, at the end of which everyone still isn’t going to agree.
The left would find it very convenient for people who disapprove of Prejean’s behavior to go postal on her and reject her outright, including her message… but I won’t. Prejean’s not trying to make a biblical case to defend it. (I would argue with that but then my argument would be about her biblical interpretation, not her behavior.) After I became a Christian, I still continued to do things that I now consider reprehensible. Change and maturity take time. Peter was impulsive, prideful and foolish, outright denied Christ, and later on when he “should have” known better engaged in legalism for which Paul called him to account. Peter in Luke or even Acts was not at all the same guy as in 1 Peter and 2 Peter. I’m not about to hold Prejean to a higher standard than Peter, who God used throughout his Christian life during all stages of growth, and not just after he had matured. God can, and is, using her right now for His purposes. That’s good enough for me.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Great post.
But I need to ask you to clarify what you meant here.
Are you saying you would argue with Prejean if she made a Biblical case to defend her boob job & posing for the picture?
Or are you saying you would argue with Prejean if she made a Biblical case to defend her original point – that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
Not trying to pick a fight, I just lost the train of thought there.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I would argue with Prejean if she made a Biblical case to defend her boob job & posing for the picture. At the post I linked above, we had a lengthy argument in the comments about this issue, and here’s the best analogy I could come up with:
When I wave a chocolate cake under a diabetic’s nose, knowing full well that person should not eat it, that it harms them, the diabetic is still responsible for turning away from it and doing the right thing. But I am responsible for *knowingly* tempting that person, for knowingly making their life harder, for deliberately causing them grief that could have easily been avoided. The diabetic knows he should not have the cake, and it’s his job to turn away from it. My behavior doesn’t change his responsibility, they are two entirely separate issues. But I’m responsible for harming him in this situation. The person who knows full well that the diabetic will be harmed by the cake and waves it under their nose anyway has sinned. Just like the Christian who understand the concept of sexual purity but deliberately dresses in a way that evokes thoughts of sex has sinned.
Does that make sense? The knowledge of good and evil, and motive are what count. When you are called to Christianity, you are called to a life of sacrifice, and that includes choosing to dress in a way that does not harm others. It includes going out of your way to not harm others in all things, not just your clothes.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Absolutely.
As I wrote earlier, God does not want us to help or even encourage others to sin.
As Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians (the particular subject there was eating meat sacrificed to idols):
In a society where free and frequent sex with multiple partners is considered the norm, stating that the photo was not in line with Christian teachings certainly comes off as prudish.
But at the heart of these teachings is the second greatest law – to love our neighbors. We can not possibly love our neighbors if we are willingly and willfully encouraging them to stumble and fall in their faith walk.
That might not seem “fair”, but God has a different idea and view of what is “fair.”
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM
The only ones I know (with those specific words) were ones talking about Jesus, how he’s the stumbling block. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Nor am I doing so. Hope that’s clear.
For the record, I wasn’t intending to jump to extremes. I just believe that’s the only way to be sure, just like abstaining from sex is the only way to be sure you won’t get pregnant.
But isn’t it necessary to know where the line is if you’re arguing that being too revealing is a sin?
A bikini? Yes, no? A two-piece (slightly less revealing)? Truth is, there’s little difference between them, and a one-piece isn’t much better. The only difference is the lack of belly shown, but both intend to be revealing and cling to a woman’s body.
And what about men? Showing off their abs and chest? Why is that allowable?
As far as I’m concerned, if a woman is wearing something skimpy, she could just be showing off her body, not so you could lust and look at her breasts but so that you can see something she’s proud of, just like the women at these pageants do with the evening gowns and bikinis. Or like any model posing for a picture, trying to look her best.
I don’t personally have a problem with that and don’t see it as a sin. If it is, then no Christian should be competing as a model. I dress modestly myself, but that doesn’t mean men don’t look (according to my husband; I never saw them).
Men can show off their strength through fights or weight lifting competitions, and that doesn’t seem to be a problem, even though they don’t dress modestly when doing so. But women are treated differently when showing off their bodies.
I just don’t think Jesus meant to prohibit any of that.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I only take that passage from Paul to mean that you need to treat individuals differently. For instance, if a Christian believes eating food sacrificed to idols is wrong (even though Paul acknowledges that it isn’t), then don’t do that around them.
It doesn’t say don’t do it.
Some men just won’t care if you dress immodestly around them and won’t be affected at all. Some, won’t be able to handle themselves. I think there’s a difference.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Well, Jesus was surely not OK with the whole “looking lustfully” thing.
Neither was he OK with helping or encouraging people to sin.
Thus, it’s not much of a leap to see that Jesus was not very big on dressing in a manner and way that would encourage “lustful” thoughts.
You know, no one said figuring all of this out would be easy.
But we’re surely not supposed to throw it out because it’s hard.
And you know, neither you nor I are the ones that “draw the line” – it’s God.
I like what Laura wrote about it – it’s what’s in your heart when you dress.
Surely one can where a burka and still be looked at lustfully.
And surely there is a point where it’s not the problem of the one wearing the clothes, it’s the problem of the one looking.
But also surely, there is a point where a man or woman dresses for the intended purpose of “getting a rise” out of the opposite sex.
Now, I don’t think that means that a Christian can’t be a model – that would be assuming that all clothes that models wear are provocative. That’s simply not true.
But I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that modeling for Fredrick’s of Hollywood isn’t something that Jesus would approve of.
Honestly, I think you’re trying to cloud the picture more than it needs to be.
Wear clothes that flatter but aren’t telling the world that they’re free to “check out the goods.”
In the end, if any of us is confused on where the “line” is, it’s probably best to take it up with the big guy and ask Him straight out in our prayers.
But we can’t deny the line exists simply because we have a hard time seeing it.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Actually, it very much DOES say – don’t do it: “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM
As you illustrate with the bathing suit debate, rules can extend out to the ridiculous; what, we’re going to start measuring how many square inches of skin are revealed? That’s a line that will never be finished being drawn and argued over. To me, the “sin line” is drawn at motive. If she has no concept of sexual purity or her concept honestly is not being violated by what she wears, then how can it be sin? However, I’d be very interested in gaining a better understanding of why she’d want to show off her body though… what’s that supposed to accomplish? Cui bono? I’d invite her to consider why she makes the choices she makes and ask her if she’s considered their effect on other people. That’s exactly the sort of self-examination we ought to be engaging in all the time anyway; it’s a big part of the sanctification process.
I’m *really* not bothered by swearing. I’d use the f word fifty times a day, left to myself; I think it’s a descriptive and useful word that does an excellent job of conveying emotion and tone. In spite of that, I very rarely swear so as not to offend other people, and because it would harm my witness as a Christian. It gives people an excuse to discount the rest of my message by calling me a hypocrite. So I refrain for their sake, not for my own.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Really doubt that.
Most are, and if a Christian will refuse them, then she can’t do much outside of posing for Walmart catalogs. She certainly wouldn’t be able to compete in a beauty pageant.
I’m certainly not doing that at all. Strippers are obviously using their body with the intent of literally getting a rise out of man.
If that’s what you’re going for in your outfit, you’ve crossed the line. If all you want is for a man to do a double take, then I have no problem with it.
But why is Fredrick’s worse than the swimsuit competition?
Honestly, I’m not trying to argue, but the way you and Laura are talking, I don’t see how you can justify her being in the pageant at all.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:08 PM
No.
Paul was telling Christians to be careful around other Christians so that their actions do not cause another person to sin.
This is best stated here: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.”
Paul continues his argument saying that his freedom is bounded by his duty/obligation to help other Christians and to do his best not to cause them to sin. “”Everything is permissible”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive.
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. ” (1 Corinthians 10:23-24)
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM
That’s conditioned on the friend, not on the eating. That’s what I meant. If it causes him to sin. That’s a big difference.
And on that I agree. I don’t agree with the rest. If the word is offensive to some, then don’t say it to them, but if you’re around people who don’t think anything of it, then I see no problem. They may say you’re not being a good witness, but I disagree. You are being a good witness. You’re obeying God. They just don’t realize what that means.
That’s part of my problem with this whole scandal. They think Christians need to be a certain way, and that makes it easy for them to dismiss us. But they’re wrong. We’re not the legalists they make us out to be.
Yes, but he was talking about specific actions that by themselves were not sins.
As he admits, eating the food is not a sin. That’s the point.
He doesn’t say don’t eat the food even if Christians agree that it’s not a sin and won’t sin in seeing you eat it. It’s all conditioned on the Christian’s response, and it’s not just limited to idol food.
That’s why I say you must treat people differently, because it’s not just one thing and changes from Christian to Christian. Maybe some Christians think watching TV is a sin. Around those, don’t watch or talk about TV, but that doesn’t mean you can’t watch or talk about TV to other Christians who don’t see it as a sin.
I’m very familiar with that passage. I’m also familiar with (paraphrasing) “I will be everything to everyone so that I can lead them to Christ”.
This would imply that to the idol meat eaters, he may eat the meat so as to win them over, so long as doing so doesn’t hurt his Christian friends of course.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM
One shouldn’t doubt the lustfullness of the human mind.
1) Actually, most aren’t. Most modeling jobs are for things like Sears catalogs and Target flyers.
2) A Christian should refuse anything that takes them away from the Lord, regardless of the monetary impact.
3) Maybe Christians SHOULDN’t take part in beauty pageants. Enjoying the beauty of the human body is one thing, to become a slab of meat that’s compared to other slabs of meat is something else entirely different.
See, you just answered your own question about where we can draw the line.
I think this is one of those questions that if you have to ask it, then no answer will help you.
Maybe we can’t justify her being in the pageant.
I’m not about to start picking up stones, but I think there are better things for a beautiful Christian woman to do than to parade around and be judged almost solely on their looks.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Actually, that’s what I meant. It would be something, but it’s not supermodel status and never could be.
I haven’t disagreed. I just disagree that it takes them away from God.
So then she was unbiblical to start off with?
Again, I keep going back to Esther. She’s the Bible’s beauty pageant winner. If it weren’t for her good looks and her ability to seduce a king, her people would have been slaughtered.
Yes, I know where I draw it. You just seem to be wavering somewhere much further up there. That’s what seems too cloudy for me.
Why is it any worse for a beautiful woman to be judged on her looks, something God gave her, than for an intelligent woman to be judged on her IQ, something else God gave her?
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM
But it’s NOT conditional because he was writing to a community where it WAS happening. It wasn’t a hypothetical situation.
And the general point is still true and valid – don’t encourage someone or help someone to sin.
How much MORE valid is the teaching, then, for actions that ARE sins?
No.
The point is that one’s actions, whether correct or sinful, should never be a stumbling block to others.
Our freedom of actions is bounded by its impact on others.
Or, to sum up everything Paul wrote there – if the action itself is not a sin, yet it causes someone else to sin, then you still have sinned.
Of course, but that really has nothing to do with posing provocatively or dressing in a manner that would knowingly produce lustful thoughts in others.
Our freedom to dress provocatively, then, is bounded by its impact on others.
If dressing provocatively causes others to sin, then we should not dress in such a way.
It’s not that complicated.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I’m not justifying it. I don’t think that being in a beauty pageant is the act of a mature Christian (and that’s not really a function of chronological age.) That said, I am not saying she’s not a Christian, or even that she had bad motives. And I’m especially not saying that God’s not using her in this situation to accomplish his purpose; I think that he is.
Agreed. Years ago I knew a guy with a foot fetish. When he came over, I always put on socks. With regard to nudity, bathing suit contests, and skimpy clothing generally – it’s really not in doubt how that sort of thing affects the majority of men. When I presented myself that way, it was purposeful, and I knew just how effective it was so I certainly can’t claim innocence. If Prejean really doesn’t “get” it (and surely sometime in her life she’s heard the same arguments I’m making and evidently been unmoved) then I’m content to wait until God convicts her heart about it.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that all Christians thought this was sin. That’s what it was conditional on.
Sure, but again, it depends on the person. Not everyone will lust after a woman if he sees her in her bikini. Some will. That’s where it’s conditional.
I’m not disagreeing with that. You’re not saying no to me.
But don’t lose site of the point that Paul wasn’t saying Christians couldn’t do this if there were no Christians who would sin if they did.
That’s an important point.
And if it doesn’t, then it’s at your discretion.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM
So?
Are you suggesting that if we can be the biggest, richest, most popular people in our chosen field than we’re failures?
Or are you suggesting that Christians should care more about success in THIS world than success in the NEXT?
So what if I am suggesting that?
BTW – Esther did not willingly enter that contest.
Esther 2:8 ” When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem.” (emphasis mine)
Esther was beautiful, but she didn’t choose to be a beauty pageant contestant.
And just because a beauty pageant is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s something God approves of.
Who said it was OK for an intelligent woman to be judged on her IQ?
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Nudity yes. Bathing suits, no, I have to disagree.
Sure, there are some who look at women like that and keep mental images for later, but most don’t. Most can see a woman in a bikini, think she’s hot but otherwise care little about it.
In fact in countries with nude beaches, it’s such a cultural norm, that you don’t see pervy men just gaping at women unless they’re tourists.
If we’re to protect even those men, then maybe it’s never permissible to wear sandals, since you do not know about a stranger’s foot fetish.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM
No.
Seriously? If you’re not going to treat me like a serious Christian, then you don’t want to have this conversation with me.
Not at all my point. I’m simply arguing, that we’re ceding all of those jobs and saying no Christian should go there. Is that really what we want?
She became a national spokesperson because of her faith and because she’s beautiful. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.
I’m well aware. How does that change my argument?
Even though this pageant was the only path God gave the Jews for saving themselves?
So it’s not then? We’re not to praise people with high IQs either?
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:07 PM
God isn’t judging us by what the majority of people think/believe.
God is judging us by how we live by His teachings.
And His teachings are pretty clear about causing others to stumble (sin).
How/when do we know that no other people will sin because of our actions?
If we’re not sure, then we sure err on the side of caution.
Since the definition of “provocative” means “to provoke”, and to dress provocatively means to provoke attention and sexual feelings in others, then your statement makes absolutely no sense.
The whole point in God’s teaching is to be careful and wary about what we do around others and what our actions/words cause in others.
Since the whole point of dressing provocatively is to get the opposite sex to appreciate your body, then there is never a time when dressing in such a way is not causing someone to stumble.
This is not a workable position.
The better debate is over what constitutes dressing provocatively.
But again, wearing only short, flimsy undies is definitely provocative.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Which, as I said, can only mean a burka. Anything else, and it’s subjective.
Fine, wrong word choice, but I didn’t think we were having a semantics discussion.
I don’t see how that helps. It’s all subjective. My argument was that you use that and dress accordingly.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Look, if you can’t take a deep discussion wherein you might be incorrect about your interpretation about scripture…
…then maybe you shouldn’t engage people in these discussions.
Part of being a Christian is making a choice between building up treasure here on earth and building up treasure in heaven.
Any and all jobs that ONLY build up treasure here on earth we SHOULD be ceding (and JOYFULLY ceding).
The job description of supermodel doesn’t seem especially conducive to building up treasure in heaven.
God uses our sinful ways and bends them to His wishes.
The most famous example of this is Joseph, whose brothers acted in an evil manner toward him.
But God used their sin to provide salvation for his family.
This is best summed up in Genesis 50:20 “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.”
Time after time God uses our bad, wrong and sinful actions to enact His will.
That doesn’t make the actions themselves righteous, though.
Another example is David and Bathsheba. David DEFINITELY sinned by seducing her and having her husband killed.
But God used what happened to bring forth Solomon.
Thus, we have to look more closely at what is happening before we conclude that such-and-such a thing is right or wrong.
You changed verbs.
Your initial verb was “judge”, then you changed it to “praise.”
These are two different things.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Again with the extremes.
If you can’t avoid this then we simply can’t have a discussion.
We weren’t, but if we can’t agree on what the meaning is of the words we use, then we can’t have a conversation.
It helps because the point isn’t really about what YOU think about what you wear (and “you” is being used here generally, not specifically toward you, Estheir)
…it’s about understanding that as Christians we have a responsibility and obligation to ensure that others are not stumbling in their faith because of us.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Being wrong is one thing. Being treated like someone who knows nothing about Christianity is another. It’s about respect.
I’ve given it to you.
Guess you’re not a Creation Theologist.
One basic point is that God wants to redeem all of creation, and that would include the seemingly non religious jobs. Christians tend to rate ministry work as somehow more important than working for a law firm, but God, the theology claims, wants all of it redeemed.
So now it’s also sinful just to appreciate physical beauty?
Not at all the same. David could have had a Solomon if only he’d been a good father, but he was a horrible one. One daughter was raped by her brother, and the other was rising up against him.
David had another way out. The Jews did not.
Esther didn’t chose to be the King’s wife, but she was fully willing to seduce him at her uncle’s request. There was no other recourse provided to her or the Jews. What she did was righteous, not sinful.
What David did was completely sinful.
No, it’s semantics again. What word would you use if you’ve judged a woman (positively of course) with a high IQ? Praise is merely a positive judgment.
I praise God, because he is worthy of praise. I’ve judged him worthy.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
You seem to be assuming that appreciating another person’s body in any manner is wrong. That is an incorrect assumption.
However, the relevant part of Paul’s text about not offending are the words “my brother”. It is a guarantee that everything you do will offend some other person and give them a rationale to reject God. What Paul was very clearly saying is he would not do something that he knew would cause offense to someone he also knew.
I think of beauty contests the same way I feel of art exhibits or writing contests. They are all just ways of putting our God-given talents and God-aided determination to the test and so long as we give God the glory for the outcome and do not put ourselves above Him, then we have not erred.
It seems to me that Miss Prejean has been just about the model Christian through this entire incident.
Jimmie Bise, Jr on May 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM
We’re not getting anywhere anyway, but my point still stands. If you have to err on the side of caution, that’s the only solution.
You don’t even argue that it isn’t true, except to claim that some might actually get into it, which I really vehemently disagree with. As has already been proven through men using them to flee a crime, you can’t even tell gender from underneath them.
I haven’t even once disagreed with this, and yet you never move forward from this argument.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Completely agree.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:59 PM
God WANTING it to be redeemed doesn’t mean that those are jobs that He WANTS us to have.
The Redemption of Creation will come when Jesus comes again.
You’re giving me whiplash from going between specific and general and back to specific.
The GENERAL point is that just because something is in the Bible that doesn’t mean it’s something that God lifts up. God often uses our sinful actions to accomplish a greater good.
Your original point was that Beauty Pageants MUST be OK since Esther was in one.
That point is not valid.
From the story of Esther, we can neither claim that these contests are OK or sinful.
We must draw upon other sources in the Bible to help us come to a conclusion.
-sigh-
Yes it is.
David sinned in taking Bathsheba as a wife.
Yet out of that sin came Solomon.
But that doesn’t mean that what David did with Bathsheba is OK.
Never said that what Esther did was sinful.
YOU brought up the story of Esther in order to defend beauty contests.
Unfortunately, that is not a tenable point.
BTW – “seducing” your husband is not a sin (in fact, I’m not even sure if the word is applicable in that situation).
No, it’s not semantics.
Judging (quantifying, comparing, rating) is one thing.
Praising is something entirely different.
I can praise someone without giving them a score and parading them around with a bunch of other people in order to determine how much (if any) praise they should be given.
In other words, I can praise my wife’s beauty without her having to enter a contest.
You’ve judged/discerned God to be worthy.
But you didn’t put him in a contest with other gods and have him dress up and dress down and grade him on how well he did.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM
You have assumed wrong.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM
No.
A burka is NOT the ONLY solution.
There are hundreds of thousands of other solutions.
Just because they may be hard to figure out doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
You haven’t overtly disagreed with this, but you continue to argue that dressing provocatively is the sole problem of the few (if any) people who may look upon that person with lust.
This, of course, misses the point entirely.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM
“brother” does not necessarily mean intimacy and knowledge.
It is simply a way of addressing a fellow believer.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM
At 1:19pm I said
We can argue all day about where people should draw the line and get nowhere. Bottom line: I know with reasonable certainty, based on my own subjective experience when I was younger and any number of scientific studies in the last thirty years, exactly how men are affected by women who look/dress a certain way and that it is the majority of men. None of that is really in doubt. The advertising industry lives off that fact. The survey I linked in the hijab post is a very practical example of it. But that is not really the indicator of where I, as a Christian, should proscribe my freedom to dress as I please.
Armed with that knowledge, I considered my wardrobe and took a hard look at my reasons for making those choices. My motives – not my clothing – were frankly unworthy of someone trying to follow Christ. THAT is the indicator of where I proscribe my own freedom; should I continue to sin so that grace may abound? Certainly not. Consequently I made the decision to dress more modestly.
This is not a process anyone can do for anyone else; the absolute most you can do is invite them to consider the idea that their wardrobe choices are one outward sign of the condition of their heart; where that is thoughtlessness of how they affect others all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum to the legalism of the burka.
My opinion of Prejean’s modesty or lack of, in relation to her faith, isn’t relevant – her own is. But we can’t know her motives or anyone else’s. I DO think that R_Z is right in that we generally need to be paying more attention to ensure we’re not being stumbling blocks to other people; what better illustrates self-sacrificing love for our brethren? But I think translating that from the general to the specific is oftentimes more divisive than the original complaint.
Finally, I’d like to just point out that we surely can all agree that the media sucks, which was the point of the original post.
Laura on May 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM
No offense intended, but this just shows that you don’t know what the theology is about. It argues the opposite, that it’s our job to redeem the right here and right now rather than waiting.
Obviously I disagree.
But Esther didn’t sin. So, big difference.
I wasn’t claiming Esther sinned. I’m only pointing out that it has been biblical for a woman to use her looks to her advantage.
Not all judging involves a contest. I don’t even understand why you would claim it does. That sounds like a complete non sequitor to me.
So what is it then? I told you where my line is, but you have done no such thing. You keep saying we need to err on the side of caution, but nothing aside from a potato sack will be enough on the side of caution to make sure you aren’t revealing your body in such a way that some man might go home and think of you when he’s alone.
So say you, but then you’re using the word provocatively, something I already agreed was incorrect.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Look, let me try to simplify this again.
It is clear from Jesus’ teaching that looking upon someone other than your spouse with lust is a sin.
It is also clear that we are not willingly and knowingly cause someone to stumble (sin).
Thus it is clear that we should not dress in a manner in which we know will cause people to lust after us.
Clearly there will always be a subset of people who will lust no matter what we wear.
But the point is whether we are dressing in a way that we know (or suspect) will ENCOURAGE others to look at us lustfully.
This is why the word “provocative” is so necessary in this conversation. It is a word that denotes a willing action to create a feeling and reaction in others.
I’ve already admitted that there are some grey areas here (i.e. when does flattering become provocative?)…
…but it is hardly a completely unclear situation where the only alternative is a burka (my wife likes to wear sweats and a loose sweatshirt which are hardly “provocative”).
I would also put out there for consideration the point that we will all have to stand before God on Judgment day and answer for our actions and inactions.
And I don’t think God is going to be swayed by the argument that it’s the OTHER person’s fault for looking at us lustfully.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Very much, and I’m sorry that we went so far off topic. We should have followed Religious_Zealot’s first point and left this discussion for another time.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM
And I disagree, both on what constitutes lust and what constitutes provocative.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM
No, the point is that I’m not a believer in that type of theology.
The comparison isn’t valid because I’m not positing David as Esther.
I’m positing King Ahasuerus as David.
Esther is Bathsheba and the salvation of the Jews is Solomon.
Remember, I didn’t bring up the book of Esther, you did when you wanted to defend beauty contests.
So, for me, the whole discussion her about the Book of Esther is not about Esther, but about beauty contests.
I would posit that there is a order of magnitude difference between the general statement of using one’s beauty to one’s advantage and being a beauty pageant contestant.
Hookers and strippers use their beauty to their advantage, but I’m sure we both agree that using it in that way is a sin.
So the point isn’t whether or not you use your beauty, but HOW you use it.
YOU were the one that started with “judging” as in a beauty contest (judging a woman by her IQ) then went to “judging” as in discerning.
1) It’s not MY line – it’s God’s. Thus it’s not up to me to define it or defend it.
2) It’s not about ensuring that no one will sin, it’s about ensuring that you are not ENCOURAGING someone to sin. For those who would think lustful thoughts if you wore a trash bag or potato sack, then wearing jeans and a t-shirt isn’t ENCOURAGING them.
3) In the end, it’s really about common sense, prayerful consideration and thinking about others before we think about ourselves.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Well, you need to take that up with the guy upstairs since He seems to have a different opinion on the matter than you do.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM
No, they use sex to their advantage. Even ugly people can be hookers and strippers.
That wasn’t the only way I meant it.
And where did God put it?
Neither are beauty pageants. Heck, the had a gay man judging.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM
God didn’t define lust or provocative in the Bible, and you won’t either, so maybe he doesn’t.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM
True, but the good looking hookers and strippers make more money.
Ask Him – He’s waiting to give you an answer.
Are you sincerely and genuinely positing that beauty pageants never, ever cause people to view the woman in a lustful manner?
That seems a pretty outrageous statement to make.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Yet I think God has a pretty good idea of what He thinks those terms mean.
Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Yes, you claim you don’t, so how do you know that my idea is incorrect?
And how do you even know I don’t talk to God about this?
No, but then I’ve been arguing that only a burka never, ever causes people to view women in a lustful manner.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 5:54 PM