Posted on 11/07/2014 5:04:15 AM PST by Kaslin
While so much of reality television dwells on catty "Real Housewives" and Snooki-style party-hearty debauchery, it's interesting to note that a small fraction of this ever-expanding genre is celebrating evangelical Christianity and values like chastity.
This drives the libertines crazy. Washington Post TV critic Hank Stuever recently raged on the Internet against the Duggar family of TLC's "19 Kids & Counting" and how they are no more worthy of attention than the Kardashians. Their children are denied "freedom of choice."
"My thoughts on the Duggars are few and far between because I think the show treats its viewers like they're learning-disabled," he wrote. Then he doubled down. "The viewers, not the Duggars. Although ... "
Leftists, especially openly gay writers like Stuever, itch for the children to rebel against that old-time religion. "I guess we just sit and wait and hope that there's a contrarian in the bunch who gets the itch to write a tell-all at some point down the road. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously watches the Duggar show out of a place of envy."
It is the right of a TV critic to knock the Duggar show as too sweet and happy and prim for his snarky tastes. But how do those critics react when you knock a show they like? "If you don't like it, turn the channel!" Let's face it, the Duggar family isn't broken by divorce or addiction or other social maladies. That is why the critics are turned off.
On the other hand, the celebrity magazines have found these popular Christian reality shows to be worthy of cover stories. The latest Us Weekly forwards "Duck Dynasty" teenager Sadie Robertson's decision to forego premarital sex. A recent edition of People magazine reported on newly married Jill Duggar and the family's "Extreme Courtship Rules." Those principles are a direct challenge to today's hookup culture, and that's what makes magazine readers so curious about them.
It naturally follows that loutish "sex columnist" Dan Savage would get in his insults at these "professional virgins." The conservative blog site Twitchy took exception to his wisecracking on Twitter that the Duggar daughters should observe his mating rules, including his notion of "F--- First." Savage thinks people should be sexually compatible before marriage, so chastity is a terrible idea. In fact, he despises virginity and its advocates. His rules also include cheating, which is "inevitable" in his mind.
After Twitchy spurred the conservative Twitterati to attack him, Savage then responded with a 2,500-word attack on the Duggar worldview. Like Stuever, it begins with the notion that Christians are an organized "hate group." Their oldest son Josh now works for the Family Research Council, which validates their charge, they would tell you.
Savage argues that if the Duggars were Muslims and Josh worked for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, conservatives would never embrace them. "But the right wing doesn't have a problem with the Duggars: They're the right color, they worship the right God, and they want to impose the right brand of theocracy."
Savage, like Stuever, wishes these robot-children would grow up to reject their freakish parents: "I have hopes for all the unmarried little Duggars still being pimped on television and dragged to campaign rallies: I hope they all get out from under the thumbs of their crazy, controlling, virginity-obsessed parents."
Leftists better hope their "best wishes" for rebellion are never turned on them. Would it seem kind for conservatives to wish that Dan Savage's adopted son should write a "tell-all book" about growing up having to hear all about his "father's" extreme sex rules and obsessions? It would seem unkind, intolerant and smug --S all adjectives that apply to the Duggar bashers.
OMG!!! Thanks Newbie for your “insight” into the Duggars.
Good grief.....show me HAPPIER people!!!!
Dan Savage ONLY read in the Bible the “FRUITFUL” part!
I think you may have some envy roiling inside you about this family. Most people would LOVE having their siblings as best friends and only having to deal with like-minded people with the same values.
You obviously missed the point, I was responding to WHY they probably don’t revolt & break away from the family & beliefs! Get a grip!
I got your point.....WHY the HELL would they WANT to revolt or break away from their wonderful family??? That would make no sense.
I’m not against homeschooling, my kids are homeschooled. I’m against the sort of homeschooling that doesn’t encourage critical thinking. Quite frankly, there’s no difference between that sort of homeschooling and government schooling. Neither encourage actual thinking.
It isn’t enough to simply have “right thinking.” If someone has all the right answers but has no idea how they got there, they’re really just spewing indoctrination. They don’t really think at all, they just repeat.
You’re welcome!
The Christian Women’s Temperance Movement is a good example of what happens when we follow the social gospel. Drinking itself is not sin in scripture, yet we had a whole “Christian” movement that pushed the outlaw of alcohol. They were successful in getting their law passed. As a result they created the night club culture which is a major problem today. They also created the need for a massive Federal police force that of course didn’t go away once prohibition was repealed.
In doing all of this not a single soul was saved. The social gospel misses the main lesson of the New Testament which is the law doesn’t save. Only Christ saves. That doesn’t mean we don’t follow the law or desire its implementation. However the social gospel believes that if only all the laws were correct the people would happily serve Christ. Such is foolhardy.
I just read that there is a petition to keep this show going. Anyone know about it?
Without Christ it’s not social ministry.
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.