Anne Rice: Christian Relativist?

Following up on the last post, there’s been some news recently concerning the world-famous novelist Anne Rice, regarded by many as the godmother of the modern vampire genre. In her own words, via Facebook:

“I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

And later, a second message:

“My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

To begin, it is of the utmost importance to acknowledge the immorality of casting judgement upon Ms. Rice as a fellow believer. Being that Catholicism is properly understood as a lifelong experience of gradual conversion, God knows it's hard enough just to focus on our own spiritual health. But since Ms. Rice has apparently taken it upon herself to cast that very judgement upon the whole of Christianity, well... it demands some friendly criticism.

What’s fascinating about this revelation by Ms. Rice, held up not long ago as a model convert who broke free of atheism to return to her Christian roots, is that this could just as easily have escaped the mouth of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or any number of other supposed “Christians” who reject the words of Christ himself. Now, to be fair, does it say anywhere in the Bible that “Thou shalt not support progressive statists”? No. For that matter, neither does it say “Thou shalt be anti-science, anti-life, anti-Democrat… etc.”, although this would apparently come as a surprise to the former vampire novelist, whose allegations against her fellow Christians seem little more than gross generalizations and malicious stereotyping.

For all her preaching, there can be little doubt that Ms. Rice, despite her supposedly Christian convictions, has never taken the time to study the basic tenets of her faith. Hers is a devotion born of sheer emotion, and we all know where that leads (See 'There Will Be Blood').

Sadly, Anne Rice seems to have become just another example of the phenomenon that has come to be known as “Christian Relativism”, meaning “Jesus represents whatever you personally believe to be good, because there is no ultimate truth, only people’s individual truths.” To believe this is to reduce Christ to a mere human idea, and in this way it is nothing more than atheism with a religious spin. The truth is true not because we believe it so, but because it IS so. Good and evil are separated by a line drawn by our Creator, with Nature herself standing as the ultimate icon of His will.

To quote Winston Churchill, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” Such is the Catholic view on the Natural Law, against which mankind’s struggles are ultimately futile.

While it would no doubt be intriguing to probe this issue further, it should suffice to revisit Ms. Rice’s original message- with a few links added for educational purposes, of course.

“I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

Amen indeed, sister, whatever you say...

Oliver Stone's Joe Biden Moment

Taking questions about his upcoming Showtime series, “The Secret History of the United States” (aka “One more attempt to propagandize US and world history in order to further a leftist agenda”), Oliver Stone dropped this little bombshell : He wants to portray Hitler and Stalin (yeah, THAT Hitler and Stalin) “in context.” Coincidentally, historians have been trying to do just that for the last half-century. But more particularly, Mr. Stone criticizes “the Jewish domination of the media” for preventing such a fair portrayal.

*Aims-gun-at-foot-and-pulls-trigger* BANG!!

Essentially immortalized- at least among male college students- after writing the screenplay for Brian de Palma’s ‘Scarface’ in 1983, William Oliver Stone went on to direct the left-leaning war film, ‘Platoon’, in 1986, among many other allegedly “classic” movies, proving himself to be a versatile filmmaker by tackling numerous genres. Personally, I liked his politically-neutral screenplay for 1982’s ‘Conan The Barbarian’ *wink*. Since then, liberal cinema has been his life’s greatest commitment, though he did pause briefly to direct 2006’s ‘World Trade Center.’ Considering these and the rest of the twenty-three films he’s directed since entering the scene in the early 1970s, one might anticipate that his relationship with liberal Hollywood should thrive for as long as he’s willing to direct, right? Well, maybe not.

As Michael Moriarty points out in his excellent blog on Big Hollywood, if there’s one historical group that Hollywood absolutely will not tolerate, it’s Hitler and the Nazis, and on this most of America agrees with Hollywood, since it IS pretty difficult to belittle the extermination of 6 million innocent people. Of course, Stone did just that, arguing: "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."

*Reloads-gun-aims-at-other-foot-pulls-trigger* BANG!! BANG!!

So why hasn’t Stone received the kind of criticism from the mainstream media that was directed almost immediately towards Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic rant? Well, there are at least three reasons, the first being that Mel Gibson directed ‘The Passion of the Christ’. ‘Nuff said.

Secondly, Oliver Stone is not a Republican. Hurling the word “Nazi” at Republicans is a favorite pastime for the average progressive, and had a well-known conservative filmmaker made a similar statement, he’d be on the first flight out of California. Of course, being that there AREN’T any well-known conservative filmmakers in Hollywood, such an event is unlikely to transpire.

But the third reason is that, in reality, not a lot of people really care what Oliver Stone has to say about… well, anything, anymore. His earlier films were clearly propaganda, but what WELL-DIRECTED propaganda! Even the most hard-core conservative has to admit to the artful directing of ‘Platoon’ and ‘JFK.’ But thanks to poor productions like 2008’s ‘W.’ and the recently-released ‘South of the Border’(a gushing love-fest for Venezuela’s communist dictator, Hugo Chavez), Mr. Stone has been accelerating rather rapidly towards a very Michael Moore-ish state of irrelevancy.

When and if the media chooses to challenge Mr. Stone’s borderline anti-Semitic statements, he’ll likely answer that he’s just trying to see both sides of the story.

But as a man once said, the middle of a two-way street can be a dangerous place to drive.

Stand up for Molly Norris, Freedom of Speech

When Molly Norris announced the first annual celebration of ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’, she knew that her activism wouldn’t come risk-free. Following the self-censorship by Comedy Central of a now-famous South Park episode detailing the controversy surrounding the representation of the “prophet” in question, everyone from the entertaiment blogosphere to Fox's Bill O'Reilly took notice. Of course, the fact that a mainstream television station had censored itself following threats from radical Muslim factions was, regrettably, not all that surprising.

But the station whose creative teams have made a fortune lampooning religions and ideologies of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds? The same Comedy Central whose next project is an irreverent cartoon concerning the life of Christ and his relationship with his "oppressive father"? The plot thickens…

In any case, Norris and other artists disgusted by this self-censorship took their outrage and channeled it creatively, hence the birth of ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’, which Wikipedia describes as “an annual protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of the prophet Muhammad.” Those interested in participating should mark May 20 on their 2011 calendar, but keep in mind the phrase “No guts, no glory,” because if the followers of American-born radical Islamic terrorist (yes, it DOES happen) Anwar al-Awlaki has his way, it’ll be the last doodle you ever… doodled?

Thanks to al-Awlaki- who is said to have had a hand in the near-miss attack on Times Square, as well as the shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas (read more HERE: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/11/2010-07-11_cleric_anwar_alawlaki_puts_everybody_draw_mohammed_cartoonist_molly_norris_on_ex.html) - Molly Norris has good reason to fear for her life. At this point, Norris has publicly apologized for her project, stating in an interview that “I regret that I made my cartoon the way I did.” In an ideal United States, no artist- activist or otherwise- would ever have to make such an apology.

The point here is this: Artists ought not to be commended for mocking any religion, but nor should they be prohibited from doing so. Comedy Central has become synonymous over the years with irreverence, mostly to followers of the Christian faith. But last I checked, Christian factions aren't gathering in angry mobs demanding punishment for misguided entertainers. For whatever reason, practitioners of the Muslim faith today are much more likely than their Judeo-Christian brothers and sisters to take serious offense at whatever rhetoric they view as blasphemous .

Returning to the case of Molly Norris, al-Awlaki had this to say about her in a recent web document: "A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful towards its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air." In other words, those who offend God ought to be killed by the faithful.

As Fr. Robert Barron of Word On Fire Catholic Ministries put it in a recent video commentary on blasphemy, God cannot be harmed by a verbal attack by a mere mortal. While we who worship and love God understand that blaspheming is harmful to the blasphemer, it helps NO ONE if the supposed “faithful” in the community respond with acts of violence, or even the threat of such action. If God is Love, and therefore we who live are created, sustained, and intended for that Love, then to respond to blasphemers with anything but compassionate and firm disagreement is utterly counterproductive.

Nothing is gained by cowering in the presence of bigots, especially when said bigot is out to eliminate our freedom of speech.

PS For more information on the Catholic view of blasphemy, look no further than Fr. Robert Barron.

Wonder Woman Goes Urban: DC's Biggest Mistake Ever?

“Diana is far too undervalued by this world. This must change.”

So states an unnamed character within the pages of “Wonder Woman” No. 600, reflecting the new direction that DC’s artists are hoping to take the third member (along with fellow Justice Leaguers Superman and Batman) of DC Comics’ so-called “Holy Trinity”, named so for the three characters’ enduring popularity amongst comic fans and the general public. The problem is that, despite her regular association with characters like the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel, Wonder Woman- aka Princess Diana of Themyscira- just doesn’t earn nearly as much at the comic book stand as her muscle-bound brethren.

Considering the character’s lack of development outside the realms of comics and animation, the fact that Wonder Woman has proven less profitable than her Trinity counterparts shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Unlike Batman and Superman, who have both added multiple film franchises to their names over the decades (with sequels and reboots aplenty forthcoming), Wonder Woman has never been afforded the opportunity to try her luck on the silver screen. Besides the famous role of Lynda Carter in the live-action TV show of the 1970s, the Amazon Princess has thus far been unable to procure the runway, a la cinema, on which she might strut her stuff- and kick some serious supervillain tail, of course. With Batman as popular as he’s ever been, and a revival of Superman just around the corner (thank you very much, Christopher Nolan), who wouldn’t want to see that golden lasso in live action and, who knows, maybe some gimmicky “eye-popping 3D”?

The trouble is, DC Comics has made a creative decision that may well spell doom- at least in the short term- for the unheralded Amazon beauty. Stripping her of her iconic armored one-piece and red heels, artists have redressed her thusly:

At first glance, the costume looks great. The character looks beautiful, stylish, and tough, especially with those nifty whatchamacallits armoring her knuckles. Most of her skin is covered, so it’s clearly an advantage if she’s trying to maintain a low(er) profile, and in general, it seems a heck of a lot more practical.

But there’s just one problem: This is NOT Wonder Woman’s outfit.

"What woman only wears one outfit for 70 years?" Asks DC artist J. Michael Straczynski. "What woman doesn't accessorize? And more to the point, as many women have lamented over the years . . . how does she fight in that thing?"

If comic fans were that concerned with the tactical maneuverability of superhero costumes, they’d just watch The Incredibles (which, by the way, is one of the best movies of the last decade). Hasn’t this “artist” ever heard the phrase “Don’t tug on Superman’s cape”? If women have such issues with Wonder Woman’s costume, why has it gone unchanged for the past 70 years (which is about the same amount of time that both Superman and Batman have gone almost totally unchanged)?

For an answer, let’s briefly examine the definition of the word “iconic”: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an icon; Art executed according to a convention or tradition. The new costume is not at all characteristic of Wonder Woman, nor has it been designed in accordance with her traditional image, and therefore the artist has reduced an iconic character to a pop-culture fashion statement. Once again, while we all surely respect the sensibilities of Edna Mode, this development is nothing less than tragic. Does DC not understand that sacrificing Wonder Woman on the altar of ever-changing fashion trends could irrevocably hasten the demise of what ought to be the universally recognizable symbol of fiction’s greatest female warrior?

But there’s one more factor at play here that no one is talking about: The classic Wonder Woman costume is, if nothing else, one of the most patriotic superhero outfits ever designed. While progressives have often tried to use her as a symbol of radical feminism and advance the culture of death yet further, it’s hard to deny the overwhelming appeal of a supermodel armored by the stars and stripes beating the tar out of Stalin-esque villains to readers of a conservative, death-to-all-evil disposition (For more on how feminism tends to ruin Wonder Woman, check out this superb analysis by BigHollywood’s James Hudnall: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2010/07/02/wonder-woman-reboot-strident-feminism-is-the-problem-not-the-costume/). The new costume exhibits no such patriotism. As others have observed, the new Wonder Woman fails to stand out much at all, let alone in a manner indicative of her American origins as a character.

This new “global” mindset is one force that has done more damage to the superhero genre than any other. Superheroes are a uniquely American invention, and for good reason: Here we believe(d) in individual exceptionalism. Here we believe(d) in fighting against tyranny for the sake of individual liberty. Here we raise(d) our flags with pride when confronted by the forces of evil.

Raise the flag. Keep on believing.