American civilization is pursuing an autonomous sexuality and a concomitant hypocrisy about sex. Allow me to think with you about this curious development.

• First is the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the multitude of candidates running for governor of California.  His sexual escapades in the 1970s are now being discussed and women’s groups are protesting his candidacy with a growing furor.  At issue is his 1977 interview with the magazine, “Oui,” in which he talked about a veritable orgy he engaged in while in a gym where he was working out as a part of his body-building routine.  Apparently, even in the 1990s there were incidents where he groped women.  In my own opinion, his behavior was disgusting and his history of vulgarity and sexual crudeness speaks volumes about his character and his judgment.  I find nothing in Scripture that sanctions his behavior.  Yet, the blatant hypocrisy of feminists vehemently criticizing Schwarzenegger is curious, for only 3 years ago they turned a deaf ear when Bill Clinton had an adulterous affair with a 21-year old intern.  Or when he groped an unwilling Kathleen Willey.  Or when Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her.  Or when he had Paula Jones brought to him in a Little Rock hotel room.  If Schwarzenegger were a liberal Democrat, I doubt we would hear the hue and cry from the left we currently are hearing.  I find Arnold Schwarzenegger’s sexual ethic appalling, as appalling as I find our previous president’s behavior.  Character and integrity matter when it comes to leadership. Both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton fail these tests of leadership. 

See Jeff Jacoby, “Why Arnold Offends Them,” The Boston Globe (21 September 2003).

• Second, a new term is entering American culture--the term “metrosexual.”  Although the term refers to straight men who act like they are gay, it also reflects the total confusion about sexual roles in this culture.  Metrosexuality is really about narcissistic love--loving oneself.  This is demonstrated by straight men who love to shop, who preen in front of mirrors and who obsess about all aspects of personal appearance.  This type of style is promoted in the new cable network Bravo program entitled “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” a program that exults gays as the arbiters of style and coolness for American straight men.  Gene Edward Veith comments on this phenomenon: “Homosexuality has gone from the love that dare not speak its name to the arbiter of coolness.  Gays have always been overrepresented in the culture-making professions--the arts, the entertainment industry, the media--and now they are openly shaping pop culture to their image, and heterosexuals are obediently following their lead.”  You see this accommodation with the open-mouthed kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears during the recent MTV awards.  It was fashionable; it was obliging.  Furthermore, more and more teenagers are experimenting with homosexual acts and calling themselves “bisexual.”  Those who lead the homosexual movement detest such affirmations, because they argue that homosexual behavior is genetic, not learned, not cultural.  But what we are seeing in American culture today is culture shaping sexual ethics.  Homosexual acts are now ethically acceptable as fashionable, cool and mainstreamed.  As Veith argues, “In Ancient Sparta the young warriors, taken from their families as children, were given as lovers to older warriors.  Homosexuality was essentially universal among the Spartans, who believed that sexual bonds increased loyalty among soldiers.  After the Spartans left the army, they got married, had children and lived a normal heterosexual life.  The point is, a culture that not only accepts but values and encourages homosexuality will produce more of it.  And it will produce more gay wannabes.” 

See Veith’s article in World (20 September 2003).

• Finally, the US government is literally buying into this accommodating sexual ethic.  Chuck Colson reports that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding a $3.2 million study of safe work environments for prostitutes in California.  Further, the NIH is funding a $147,000 study of 180 lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual women as they watch erotic videos.  It is also funding a $26,000 study of the Kinsey Institute on sexual arousal.  In short, the US government is funding the study of human depravity.  This is outrageous and totally indefensible.  Our country is in a major war on international terrorism and dealing with major economic and social problems.  It is simply impossible to defend such studies.  Depravity is not something we need to further study.  Our emphasis should be on the solution to such depravity.   

See “Breakpoint” (24 September 2003).

Back to top

THE LIFE ETHIC IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

I believe that one of the touchstones of a civilization is how it treats its young and how it treats its elderly.  In both cases, Western Civilization is not passing the test of an ethically sound civilization.  Let’s think about this:

• First is the issue of abortion.  We have been sold the idea that RU-486 is a safe series of drugs that a woman can take to have an abortion.  In mid-September an 18-year old Californian teen, Holly Patterson, died after she took RU-486.  The medicine was given to her by the local Planned Parenthood clinic, without her parent’s knowledge.  In 2000, the FDA had previously approved this procedure as “safe and effective.”  Holly’s father said, “They told her it was safe and it killed her.  I felt so helpless. . . I didn’t have a chance to be involved.”  As Tony Perkins has argued, “Holly’s death is an unnecessary tragedy.  Was she given all the information about the danger of the drug before taking it?  Why weren’t her parents told that she was undergoing such a serious procedure?”  These two questions are central to the RU-486 procedure.  It is not “safe and effective” and it once again raises the matter of parental involvement in such situations.  The Family Research Council has some very helpful information on “Little Pills: Targeting Youth with new Abortion Drugs” at its website www.frc.org.  Our civilization needs to face the brutal fact that there are significant risks with RU-486 and the death of Holly Patterson demonstrates this. 

“Washington Update” (22 September 2003).

• Second, on a more encouraging note, Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, announced that she is resigning, effective 30 April 2004.  She has chosen that date for it is the conclusion of her organization’s attempt to stem the tide of women becoming more pro-life through a march on Washington.  This resignation is significant because there is encouraging news that women are indeed taking a second look at abortion.  A poll released this summer indicates that a majority of women (51%) were in favor of banning abortion, or at least limiting it to cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.  Michelman told the “New York Times” pro-lifers “had been gaining ground and might win the debate.”  With developing ultrasound technology and more women speaking out about the devastating effects of abortion, this trend just might continue.

“Washington Update” (22 September 2003).

• Third is the case of France and its elderly.  Like most Western societies, France is experiencing an explosion in the number of elderly as life expectancy continues to lengthen.  Traditionally, the French relied on tight-knit families to care for the aged, and to a degree that remains true.  The government enhances that by emphasizing efforts to keep the elderly in their own home, providing money for day nurses and housekeepers to care for them, rather than committing them to retirement homes.  Hence, fewer than 15% of all French people above 80 are in some form of institution.  (In the US that figure is probably closer to 20%.)  But French families are changing.  Women are now working outside the home in ever increasing numbers.  Further, mobility has hit the French society, where families move and where children move away far more frequently.  With all of this social change in France, this past summer’s incredible heat wave claimed over 5,000 elderly deaths in France.  The police, undertakers and social service agencies found them in apartments, homes and hotels.  Their rooms were often as hot as ovens.  Why such a large number of deaths?  Apparently, French families abandoned their elderly members to go on the traditional August vacation.  (Indeed, some families postponed funerals until after the 15 August holiday weekend.)  This development has caused some analysts to conclude that the large elderly death toll evidences the breakdown of the French family, indicating how increasingly the French are turning their backs on the elderly.  One doctor commented that “there is a sort of indifference to the problem of old age.  Indifference in the face of a revolution of longevity.” 

See John Tagliabue, “The Week in Review,” New York Times (24 August 2003), p. 5.

• Finally is the Netherlands.  Over two years ago, this European country legalized homosexual marriage.  How have public perceptions changed?  A report in the “Washington Post” indicates that public perceptions of the difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples have almost vanished.  Activists in Amsterdam claim that heterosexual couples are “just like any other married couple” and that “the only thing that makes their marriage unusual” is that they are both the same sex.  However, this flies in the face of another fact.  A recently released study dealing with the Netherlands in the journal “AIDS” indicates that the average “steady homosexual male partnership” lasts only 1.5 years.  Further, those reporting “steady” relationships also reported an average of 8 “casual” sex partners each year.  Arguably, this is not the same as a heterosexual marriage.  Near the end of the article was a revealing statement that “many gay men and lesbians consider marriage to be a vestige of the past” and that such a view is “common among heterosexuals as well.”  This confirms what other studies dealing with cohabitation in Europe demonstrate--marriage as an institution in Europe is dying. 

See Tony Perkins in “Washington Update” (25 September 2003).

Back to top

SENATOR KENNEDY’S CLAIM ABOUT IRAQ

On 18 September, Senator Edward Kennedy made an extraordinary claim about President Bush and the war on Iraq: “There was no imminent threat.  This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically.  This whole thing was a fraud.”  How should we think about this?

• First, is the matter of “imminent.”  President Bush never used this term, indeed his words were not a “clear and present danger” threat from Iraq; rather Iraq represented a “grave and gathering danger.” 

• Second, the claim that it was hatched in Texas plays geographical politics, like saying it was hatched in Hyannisport.

• Most importantly is the charge that it was done for political advantage.  On the contrary, this war was an enormous political risk.  No one knew for certainty how this would end, and today’s reality is that the President has taken a significant political hit on the war.  The host of charges center on arrogance, miscalculations, disdain of allies, lack of foresight and even a violation of just war principles.  In fact, the decision could cost him reelection to the presidency.  To argue that the President conducted this war for political advantage is absurd.  As Charles Krauthammer has correctly argued, “Whatever your (and history’s) verdict on the war, it is undeniable that it was an act of singular presidential leadership. . . .He wagered his presidency on a war he thought necessary for national security--a war that obviously and very easily could be his political undoing.  And it might yet be.” 

Kennedy’s charge is highly politicized and grossly partisan.  It is also unfair.  There are many legitimate criticisms of this war, but political advantage is not one of them.  Senator Kennedy should be ashamed of himself.

See Krauthammer’s article in the Washington Post (26 September 2003).

Back to top