Posted on 12/05/2008 7:33:52 AM PST by dbz77
This week, the creative minds behind “Hairspray,” composer Marc Shaiman and director Adam Shankman, opened their “Prop 8: The Musical” with an all-star studded cast that includes Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris and John C. Reilly at Sacramento Community College.
You can watch it here.
The point of the production is to shame the voting public for passing Proposition 8 a month ago, which simply defined marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The musical is clearly intended to spark more “public outrage.” No doubt, more protests, more storming of Mormon temples and Catholic churches and more vandalism against churches will follow. Beyond that, it is likely that more church services will be crashed by same-sex activists—all in the name of “tolerance,” “love,” and “mutual understanding.”
The strategy behind this shaming-of-the-public production is simple: lampoon the supporters of the constitutional amendment into embarrassment so that the next time same-sex marriage shows up on the ballot, they’ll do the “loving thing,” and support it rather than reject it, which is the only one true path to social penance, cultural redemption and liberal forgiveness—at least in the mind of the same-sex marriage crowd.
What’s new about all this is their overt play, albeit erroneously, of the Jesus card. Yes, even the “No on 8” crowd can “get religion.”
At the pivotal moment of the musical, Jesus (played by Jack Black) confronts the “Yes on 8” supporters for their belief that homosexuality is an “abomination,” and lifts a shrimp cocktail to them and says that Leviticus also says eating shellfish likewise is an “abomination.”
He then goes on to say the Bible also teaches that you can “stone your wife,” or “sell your daughter into slavery,” as evidence that you really can’t trust everything the Bible teaches. Or, as in the language of that oft-repeated favorite locution from our skeptical friends, “you can’t take the Bible literally.”
So much for the doctrine of inerrancy. I guess the Word made flesh really didn’t mean everything He said in the Word. Maybe we should put our trust in a non-believer to divine the “good” words from the “bad” words, huh?
Before leaving, Jesus even goes on to affirm, of all things, the “separation of church and state.”
Now these are delightful challenges! As a teacher, I wish more students had the courage to ask them.
Here are a few answers:
The whole point of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was to teach Israel how to separate and become distinct from all they had learned while in Egyptian captivity. They are books of contrast and separation, distinctions and differences. For example, Egypt worshipped death, Israel was called to worship life. The Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 are instructions of how to become different. Holy items shall be “sanctified”—literally, “set apart”—that is, distinct from non-holy items. Jews themselves, and later Christians, are likewise to be “set apart” for God.
Men and women were created different and distinct, therefore their roles, behavior and even dress should not be confused as the Egyptians did (and many pagan cultures still do).
For example, Deuteronomy 22:11 says, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” The whole reason being “don’t confuse plant and animal products, they’re different categories, remember that.” There’s painful detail throughout the Bible pounding this meta-theme home.
God created different “kinds” of things, and we must honor His distinctions and not confuse them, for it is an “abomination,” exactly the very thing advocates for same-sex marriage are guilty of.
What about the shellfish? If you read the context of Leviticus 11:9-12, it too is talking about honoring distinctions. God is simply saying, in my paraphrase, “Eat fish, don’t eat bugs. Fish have fins and swim, bugs have legs and crawl. Even if you find things in the water that aren’t crawling, if they have legs, they can crawl—so they’re bugs, don’t eat them. Fish, good; sea-bugs, bad. Honor the distinction.”
The Bible’s statements prohibiting homosexual behavior are rooted in this need to recognize and honor the distinctions—here between men and women.
As far as the eating of shrimp, Jesus permits the eating of shellfish under what he says in Matthew 15:11: “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” And Paul emphasized in Romans 14:14 that it’s all about personal conscience anyway.
As far as the “stoning your wife” and “selling your daughter into slavery” claims go, they too have a simple answer. In 1400 B.C., before the law was given to Moses by the hand of God at Mt. Sinai, no nation had any moral code that prohibited a man from killing his wife, wives, or children for any reason. Pagans sacrificed their children to Baal and Moloch, Israel would not. Pagans could kill their families, Israel would not. So, the Old Testament improved the extant moral order by requiring men to go before the elders before any child was to be stoned (Deuteronomy 21:19). And, in all of the rabbinic writings to my knowledge there’s not one instance of the elders ever approving of a single stoning of a child.
Lastly, when you read the full context of Exodus 21:7-11, the “selling your daughter into slavery” slur, it too was an improvement over the ancient moral order. My paraphrase again, “If you sell your daughter off to a man and he becomes unhappy with her, he must give you a chance to redeem her and buy her back, he may not sell her off to foreigners. And if the man bought her for his son, she must not be treated as a slave, but as a daughter.” Like all the other teachings in the Old Testament, this was a big improvement over what was going on among the peoples around Israel.
Come to think of it, it still is—we still have “honor killings” of wayward daughters and wives today throughout the Muslim world.
Like Michelle Malkin, I too am waiting for the “other” Prop 8 musical to come out, as she says, “the one with angry activists storming restaurants and Mormon temples, hectoring elderly people over their signs, and hounding donors large and small until they pay off their tormentors in the name of tolerance. Anyone?”
I’ll bet the “Hairspray” boys won’t be doing that one any time soon.
I hope there are Sacramentoans who will get out and picket, yes picket in front of this play. Its time we stood up and fought back for what is RIGHT!
My wife swears that he’s queer even though he appears with women. Maybe he’s bi.
He sure acts gay.
I think he is married with a couple of kids.
Will someone ask the homosexual activists about Islam’s treatment of homosexuals?
As much as I like Jack, I can’t support him after this.
No, he is just friends with gays apparently.
What’s their point wrt The Bible?
And since they are targeting Christians, did they read the New Testament which clarifies many of the gastronomical edicts in the Old Testament?
Perhaps we shouldn’t be so strict on that “Thou Shalt Not Murder Part” either?
"Remove Jesus or I'll shoot!"
What’s their point wrt The Bible? And since they are targeting Christians, did they read the New Testament which clarifies many of the gastronomical edicts in the Old Testament? Perhaps we shouldn’t be so strict on that “Thou Shalt Not Murder Part” either?I wonder why they have no criticism of the Holy Quran or Islam. I suspect that a higher proportion of Muslims voted for Prop. 8 than Christians.
I would like to know what the gay activists think about Islam’s treatment of homosexuals too.
Everyday life for homosexuals has never been better than it is now, in the year 2008, in the western world. Yet their anger has boiled over because they can’t call themselves married. And their anger is esp. great at a liberal state of California, which has given them virtually all marriage rights under its domestic partnership law. 40 states don’t even have any legal recognition of homosexual couples at all. Yet their anger is directed at the state which has been a leader in their issues.
So the issue du jour is that gays are pissed off that they can’t use the title marriage. They talk so much about hospital visits and property ownership, and they have all those rights in Calif. and a few other states now. Is their goal to have those rights, or is their goal that they have to be able to use the word “marriage”? I saw a lesbian female activist on TV complain that they spent $40 million opposing Prop. 8, and that there are so many other things they could have spent $40 million on. It was a waste for the gay community, in that, they already have those rights in Calif, just not the title.
Oh well. The Calif. Supreme Court might reinstate homosexual marriage. Then the 15% of the homosexual couples who actually want the title marriage will get married. The other 85% will just go about their lives, and their lives will be unchanged whether society calls homosexual couples married or not.
The more people complain about this video, the more people will seek it out & watch it. Don’t give them any more undeserved publicity.
I remember when Doogie got you-know-what from Wanda. Who knew he was “gay” back then.
Jack Black and his wife just had child number 2, you don’t have to be gay, to be a big, gay supporting, christian bashing a-hole.
Bookmark.
Jack Black
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee! I am really sorry about his participation. I have enjoyed Jack Black movies. Now, whenever I see his name I will associate him with virulent anti-Christianity.
I’m surprised Jack got involved in this.
On the other hand, the message about the Bible was exactly the same message Sorkin sent through his West Wing show.
They had religious conservatives pushing for the government to show consideration for their views (of course, they made the religious conservative far-right wackos who were requesting over-the-top stuff).
In the middle of it all, the President walks in, and asks the one woman religious nut about several parts of the old testament, shellfish and stuff.
It seems the shellfish canard is taught to all liberals.
There are mysteries in the Bible, but the food code isn’t. I don’t think it’s as esoteric as this article makes it out to be. The things that were prohibited were foods that could often be poisonous or infected with bacteria. It made sense in a time before modern methods of preserving and cleansing that you avoid them.
It also did allow the Jewish nation to be set apart — they had some rules that made it clear they were different, like some of the Catholic dietary rules set aside days and time periods.
UNfortunatately for the homosexual community, the prohibition of gay sex acts was not just a law for the jewish state, nor did Jesus ever mitigate the prohibition — in fact he clearly spoke of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Whenever a liberal or gay decides to argue on RELIGIOUS grounds, I ask them this simple question — if God really intended for gays to be a part of his church and to be accepted, why did God not put a single word about gay marriage being OK anywhere in the bible? Why did he not have ANYthing good to say about gay sex acts?
That usually gets them back to saying the bible isn’t the word of God, so at least they stop pretending their religion is on their side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.