Your Family and Media’s Sexual Terrorism

The recent shooting massacres in Colorado and Wisconsin have again focused attention on the hundreds of thousands of studies on the links between violence in the media to acts of violence in society. The results have overwhelmingly showed that violence in media does influence people’s attitudes and behavior, even more so if it’s children and adolescents exposed to heavy violence in media.

Even so, this posits another question: Can the same thing be said for sexuality in movies?

Sexuality outside of marriage is not only common in America, but is celebrated and encouraged among society’s youth. This has caused increases in pornography, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and high divorce rates that are actively hurting families. Is this a result of media indoctrination? Does the sexuality in movies really have that much to do with the increase in sexual behavior in adolescents?

Some studies in the past have strongly suggested that, yes, sexuality in the media does shape hearts, minds and behaviors. Dartmouth College recently conducted a large survey to examine the influence of movie sexual exposure, or MSE, on youths before the age of 16 and how it affects them in adulthood. The college started by researching the amount of sexuality that popular movies contain. The study revealed that 84 percent of movies released between 1950 and 2006 had some form of sexual content.

“A content analysis revealed that 70% of the sexual acts depicted in movies released from 1983 to 2003 occurred between newly acquainted partners, 98% included no reference to contraception and 89% resulted in no consequences,” the study said (Gunasekera, Chapman, & Campbell, 2005).

The study continued, “Adolescents who watch popular movies, therefore, are exposed to a great deal of sex, most of which is portrayed in an unrealistic and/or risk-promoting manner.”

Armed with this information, the Dartmouth researchers surveyed more than 6,000 adolescents from 2007 to 2012. The research team asked youth between the ages of 10 and 14 which movies from a random list of 50 they had seen. Approximately five to seven years later, the same individuals were asked at what age they became sexually active and how many partners they had. After calculating the amount of sexual content in the top 684 movies, they had some results.

The survey results, as predicted, showed that higher MSE before the age of 16 resulted in a “higher number of lifetime sexual partners and more casual sex” (e.g., Brown et al., 2006). Evidence also suggests that sexual behavior among adolescents is influenced more by movies over other forms of media (television, music videos, etc.). The study also revealed that males with MSE are more susceptible than females to risky sexual behavior. Many participants even admitted to copying love scenes depicted in movies in real life (The Telegraph, July 8, 2012).

All of this stems from a Hollywood view of love and sex that is both unrealistic and unbiblical. The risky sexual behavior in movies is mostly shown without consequences, but in reality, sexual irresponsibility leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Most adolescents don’t consider the real consequences because they only see what movies tell them.

So what do researchers suggest as a solution? In their conclusion, they said, “Our results suggest that restricting adolescents’ MSE would delay their sexual debut and also reduce their engagement in risky sexual behaviors later in life. This strategy could attenuate the direct influence of media on adolescents’ sexual behavior by limiting the acquisition of risky sexual scripts and/or reducing their likelihood activation” (Wright, 2011).

The study’s conclusion continues:

“One promising approach would involve incorporating media literacy training into sexual education. A recent intervention showed that a peer-led sexual-media-literacy curriculum increased ninth-grade students’ self-efficacy in resisting peer pressure with regard to sexual behavior, reduced their perception of normative prevalence of sexual activity during adolescence, and improved their attitudes toward abstinence” (Pinkleton, Austin, Cohen, Chen, & Fitzgerald, 2008).

These two steps are what Movieguide has been promoting for years.

The first step is teaching media literacy and media wisdom to children. Having media literacy and media wisdom means that we analyze, interpret, build discernment and create. Analysis is understanding and comprehending the medium of film making and storytelling. If we understand how Hollywood communicates its message, it will help us interpret what that message is. Interpreting is many times the hardest part because it requires that we understand the definitions of a biblical worldview versus a non-biblical or humanist worldview, and then discover what is the movie or television program’s attitude toward those worldviews. Finally, media wisdom requires teaching children how to discern good from evil. If children aren’t taught from a young age how to discern between good and evil by their parents and other role models, they will likely learn and repeat the lies from the media and the world around them.

The second step is to teach children to create. Being made in God’s image, we are called to create things that reflect all glory to God. Now, not everyone is called to be a filmmaker or a writer, but everyone uses his or her creative imagination to some degree. Creativity helps children analyze and interpret the media because it helps them understand communication through art. These tools will not only help children discern the media but also discern the world around them. For more information on media literacy and media wisdom, you can read Movieguide founder and publisher Dr. Ted Baehr’s and legendary entertainer Pat Boone’s book, “The Culture-Wise Family,” and Dr. Baehr’s book, “The Media-Wise Family.”

The third and final step to protecting your family from the influence of the media is avoiding movies that have explicit violent or sexual content. We see enough sin and immorality in the world, so there’s absolutely no need for it to be brought into the family living room. Movies should be wholesome and uplifting, but many times they are filled with sexuality, violence, offensive language and anti-Christian values.

Movieguide is here to help you and your family make good decisions about movies, television and multimedia. For the latest movie reviews, and to separate the wheat from the chaff, please consult our website.

Movieguide is the best tool families have in protecting themselves from the media terrorism of graphic content running rampant in the entertainment industry.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

– Romans 12:2

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on August 12, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Dr. Ted Baehr Responds to the DARK KNIGHT Massacre

In a statement today, Christian media scholar and family values advocate Dr. Ted Baehr responded to the news of the shooting massacre of at least a dozen people early this morning in Aurora, Colo. at a midnight showing of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES:

“The shooting at the midnight showing of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will be blamed on many things.

“One reporter who called me this morning blamed it on violence in movies. Certainly, violence in movies, television, and video games has had a tremendous impact on society. Over 500,000 studies, capped by the latest Dartmouth University study, show that violence in the media influences susceptible youths to commit violence. That said, most people are not susceptible. Most are just desensitized or scared.

“Another reporter blamed it specifically on the Batman movies. Yet, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is nowhere near as violent as the last Batman movie, and Batman himself tells Catwoman not to shoot to kill in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. The message of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is justice and self-sacrifice. The villains and the killers in the movie are the ‘socialist left-wing Occupy Wall Street power to the people’ villain Bane and his compatriots, who are clearly shown to be wrong, evil and bad, and who get their comeuppance. Also, it would have been almost impossible for this killer in Colorado to have even seen the new Batman movie before the 12:30 screening.

“Some people will blame it on guns, although countries that have tried hard to crack down on guns, like England, are now finding that knives and head butting are out of control. Thus, it isn’t the head-butting or the knives, but the fact that people are stewing in the juice of their own wickedness, because, as the Bible says, they don’t know the loving God who gave us a way of salvation through Jesus Christ from the wickedness of the human heart.

“Some people will blame poverty, or a lack of education. But, James Holmes, the alleged killer, was getting his doctorate in neuroscience and came from an upper middle class family!

“People will look at every possible reason – maybe some will ponder the fact that Holmes was a Democrat and hated the anti-socialist message of the movie.

“Actually, none of these reasons answer the question ‘Why.’ The fact is that this is an evil act committed by an evil person, who did not know the truth of Jesus Christ that would set him free from such wickedness. The answer is not more laws, the answer is not to banish movies, nor neuroscience programs, nor weapons that can be used to protect, but rather to get the Word of God out. Because ‘faith comes through hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ (Romans 10:17).’

“I used to be on the radical left, but Jesus Christ got hold of me, and I’ve tried to live my life every day by enjoying Him, using the power of God’s Holy Spirit. As the Word of God says in Galatians 5:22-23, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.’

“If you ban the fruit of the Spirit of Jesus Christ from society, including the education system, you’re not banning God; you’re banning goodness, justice, truth, peace, kindness, joy, gentleness, self-control, and love.”

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published on MovieGuide on July 20, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Nobody Has the Authority to License Homosexual Marriage

“Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.”

 The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.

The political battle over homosexual marriage heated up in May of 2012 when President Obama told telling ABC, “I think that same-sex couples should be able to get married” immediately after North Carolina became the 32nd state on Tuesday to vote against same-sex marriage. The public has been given a voice 32 times, and voted it down every time.

MSNBC and the other undereducated, misinformed and politicized news media praised the President and condemned the voters of North Carolina and by inference the majority of voters in 32 states. Of course, this is the same group of fellow travelers and useful idiots who mis-apply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution to the respective States, “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to deny Christians and soon Jews the freedom of worship, when the clause plainly recognizes the inalienable freedom of worship.

Either of these distortions of real Truth is more of the same Marxist double speak. Neither the President, the Congress, the State governments, nor the voters have the authority to legalize homosexual marriage, whether they are conscious of the Marxist thrust of their illegal actions or just useful idiots in the advance of Marx’s goal to destroy the family.

Pages could be, have been and should be written about the progressive Marxist destruction of the American Constitutional Republic; and, pages could be, have been and should be written about the destructive nature of the homosexualization of the culture. With regard to the President, it is more important to understand clearly that the civil government has no authority in area of the free exercise of religion such as marriage. If it has no authority and tries to exercise power not vested to it, then the government is acting illegally.

So that you don’t buy the lie! This article focuses on the fact that intentionally or not, too many in the press, the mass media, the government, and the education establishment have confused the citizens of America about the institution of marriage.

First of all, as many of our readers already know, there are many forms of government. In our western democracy, there are at least four spheres of government: individual government, family government, ecclesiastical government, and civil government. In the United States of America, the civil government owes its existence to the consent of the governed, not the other way around, in the tradition of the Magna Carte. Furthermore, since the Rev. Samuel Rutherford wrote LEX, REX, which clarified the rule of law posited by the Magna Carte, all of these forms of government have been under God’s Law in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. When king or ruler is above the law, he often acts in imperious and dictatorial ways, for the very nature of power is to corrupt the powerful, unless it is restrained by God’s Law. In essence, God’s Law says to love your neighbor as yourself, and the civil government is subject to that divine law.

Thus, the Declaration of Independence made it clear that King George III acted illegally when he oppressed the American colonies, because he was under the Law of God. Countries that allowed men to rule above the law have produced tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse Tung. Current examples include Mugabwe, Castro and the military junta in Burma, among many others.

It must be emphasized that marriage between one man and one woman is a God ordained, God defined, biblical act. For 1800 years in western countries, marriage was a unique institution, initiated by God when he created the male and female, presided over by Jesus Christ when he blessed the act of marriage and stated that a man and a woman would leave their parents and join together to become one flesh, and sustained by the Holy Spirit who not only holds the marriage together but also produces the offspring that God creates.

The norm in most other religions is not monogamy, although many have borrowed the form of a Christian wedding. Moreover, the state’s involvement in Christian marriage is relatively recent.

In 1837, the Rev. Henry Morris complained that the state had usurped the authority of God in marriage. Norris railed against the passage of a law on marriage by providing a detailed look at the institution of marriage. He painstakingly exegeted the scriptures in establishing his point that marriage is most importantly a religious institution, and therefore it should not be relegated to a strictly civil character:

“They took from the Clergy ‘the solemnizing of Matrimony, and put it into the hands of Justices of the Peace. . . .’ In the former instance of this desecration being ordained, the power to legislate had been seized by those who would be restrained in nothing that they imagined to do; and, in a day specified in their ordinance, ‘no other marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth,’ but such as should be contracted. . . before a Justice of the Peace, ‘should be held or accounted a marriage according to the law of England.’ But the national principle is not yet sufficiently prostrated to make us again ripe for so arbitrary and irreligious an imposition, and therefore, by the law just come in force, you are left to form your own judgments, whether marriage is a mere civil contract, or a Divine institution ‘whether it shall be celebrated with or without any offices of religion’ whether the Church, the Conventicle, or the Register-office, shall be the place of celebration and whether the Clergyman of the Parish, the Dissenting Teacher, or the superintendent Registrar, shall officiate on the occasion.”

The Rev. Norris adds that the biblical position is that only God ordains marriage. So, in the light of history and God’s Word written, the judges in Massachusetts, California or any other state or federal court have nothing to say about Christian marriage and have no authority to define, ordain or desecrate it.

The Rev. Norris brilliantly continues in his sermon:

“by the “state of matrimony the spiritual marriage that is betwixt Christ and His Church is signified and represented. . . .”

“But that ‘the fruitful vine’. . . is not procurable by a civil contract, it cometh only of the Lord.”

His reasoning is impeccable, but many have forgotten that marriage belongs to the church. In fact, a few are very uncomfortable with that concept because of the abuse of power by some ecclesiastical authorities. Two wrongs don’t make a right, however. And they certainly don’t make a civil right to same-sex “marriage.”

With regard to the abuse of power, it must be noted that civil government is good, although there can be bad presidents, governors, judges, and other authorities. Family government is good, although there can be bad fathers and mothers. Ecclesiastical government is good, though there can be bad clergymen. The rules and the laws of the exception do not make the rule. In other words, a bad father does not give us the license to call for the abolishment of fatherhood, etc. What it does do is to give us the opportunity for checks and balances, which until recently were most perfectly expressed in our constitutional government.

The church has to reclaim marriage as its unique institution. Whatever anyone wants to do outside of the church may be their business, but it is not sanctioned by God’s Law. The state has the right to regulate only what the Constitution allows it to regulate, because there is no liberty for license. But, the state does not have the right to tell the biblical, believing, Trinitarian, Christian church that any couple outside of the faith is married.

We need to stand for God’s Law in the face of the power grab by those in civil authority, who know no restraints.

The increasingly socialized Federal Government does not have the right nor the authority to violate God’s Law, they have also violated their own constitution and the will of the governed. When they do that, they are just like King George. They have abdicated their moral and legal authority and are subject to indictment, trial and just punishment.

Now, all those who freely exercise their inalienable right to religious faith, must stop acting like useful idiots and fellow travelers by going along to get along, and instead stand for your God-given rights by proclaiming loud and clear that these government servants have crossed the line into illegal activity that as no authority and makes them criminals.

Often, the people of faith and values do not stand up because they have been slowly boiled in the brine of socialism and so give the states powers they have no authority to use. Often the state or federal government creates the problem by violating our individual right to property, estates, income, etc through the Marxist device of illicit taxation, and then argues from the problem the state created that the state needs to govern marriage to alleviate the tax burdens the state created so that the state can encourage marriage. Such circular and dishonest reasoning has almost deceived the very electorate.

Now, the people of have and values must throw off the stupor of Marxist double speak and return to the basic principles that made them free to live at peace in the American Republic that recognizes “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do not let it destroy godly marriage and families!

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

By What Authority?

Years ago, one basic rule in the lawyer’s toolkit was to ask the question, “By what authority?” If there were not a constitutional, legal or legislative authority, then the courts would strike down the executive action.

Recently, the price and wage czar for President Obama told the president of Bank of America that he had to return close to $2 million of his salary. The loony newspapers thought this was a good thing. The question they should have asked, however, was, “By what authority?”

Of course, the czar doesn’t have such authority. The government doesn’t have the authority to fix wages and prices. This is a bold, outright communist power grab by another refugee from the Dark Ages of the 1960s.

Acclaimed anti-communist author and Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn told an audience at Harvard in 1979 that, if the Russian people had opposed the Soviet Communists, the Soviets would not have been able to devastate the country and send tens of millions of people to their untimely deaths.

It is time for us to stand up. This czar has no authority to do this. The government has no authority. We need to hold their feet to the fire of the Constitution and restore the United States to a country where the law reigns over the government rather than the government making its own laws for its avaricious, psychopathic power grab. If we sit back and do nothing, we will find ourselves in the gulag.

Of course, the ultimate law is the Law of God found in the Old Testament and New Testament documents. We need wise conservatives who will abide by that Divine Law.

The United States will have either biblical laws or anti-biblical laws – and we will either have constitutional laws or unconstitutional laws. There is no in-between.

Furthermore, the liberal, leftist, libertarian, atheist and secular activists and leaders who cry “separation of church and state” or “separation of religion and state” are actually hypocritically violating their own standard because their vocal opposition to God’s Law is itself a commingling of church and state or religion and state, according to their own definitions. They are like the Muslim who wants to replace the traditional Judeo-Christian laws of the United States and Great Britain with some weird kind of Middle Eastern Islamic law, or “Shariah.”

That’s because you can’t very well support a moral/religious law that attacks other people for supporting their own moral/religious law. That is contradictory, hypocritical and illogical.

Someone’s moral/legal theology, or doctrine of God’s Law, has to win in the end. Either the Christian’s, the atheist’s, the Muslim’s, the Talmudic scholar’s, the libertarian ideologue’s, etc.

If we want to live in a civilized society, then the biblical doctrine of law and morality should prevail.

Be that as it may, it is clear that the wage and price czar’s interference is not only anti-biblical, but also unconstitutional. Neither the Bible nor the U.S. Constitution gives government the right to determine the salaries of private citizens in private companies.

Note: Tom Snyder, editor of Movieguide®, contributed to this article.

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published at wnd.com on November 3, 2009.. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Media-Wise Investing in Hollywood

This Sunday, millions of Americans will watch the entertaining and glamorous Oscars ceremony. Increasingly, however, it seems Americans are more interested in what the stars are wearing rather than who the Academy crowns “the best.” Hollywood is largely disconnected from the average moviegoer as evidenced by the fact that only one of the Best Picture nominees – “The Help” – made it into the Top 25 Box Office Movies of the Year. Even more telling–not counting the animated movies–only one of the nominated movies, “Hugo,” was a family movie full of faith and values.

Year in and year out, for the past 20 years, Movieguide®’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry has shown that family movies with Christian, traditional, and conservative faith and values and little foul language, sex, or nudity make the most money. In fact, our Annual Report always has shown that the most family-friendly movies make much more money than the least family-friendly movies with lots of foul language, sexual content, or explicit nudity. Additionally, a glance at the past 15 years shows that movies with very strong Christian, redemptive, moral, conservative worldviews like “The Help,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” “Captain America,” Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” the “Lord of the Rings” movies, “Passion of the Christ,” the Narnia movies, “Soul Surfer,” Fireproof,” “Spider-Man 3,” and “Amazing Grace” average about three times as much money (or more) as movies with very strong non-Christian, anti-Christian, anti-American, leftist, or mixed worldviews and values, such as “Avatar,” the “Hangover” movies, “Happy Feet Two,” the early “Harry Potter” movies, “The Sixth Sense,” “Austin Powers in Goldmember,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Albert Nobbs,” Michael Moore’s movies, “Brokeback Mountain,” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”

In picking its Best Picture nominations, the Academy seems to be getting at least some of this message. Only one of its nominees, “The Descendents,” was rated R, and that was mostly for foul language, including some sexual references.

However, Hollywood keeps making many R-rated movies, which also average about three to four times less money as family-friendly movies with very strong Christian, redemptive, conservative worldviews and G or PG ratings. Also, it keeps putting objectionable content in some of its movies aimed at families.

For the latter case, all you have to do is examine last year’s “Happy Feet 2,” an animated movie clearly geared toward children and families.

Yet, what did the filmmakers behind “Happy Feet 2” put into their “family” movie? A strong left-wing environmentalist theme based on the discredited theory of massive “global warming” and a message supporting the same-sex marriage ideology of the radical left, which is trying to destroy traditional notions of family and other pro-American, Christian, Jewish, and traditional, conservative values.

The result? “Happy Feet 2” made only $63.7 million in the United States and Canada. That’s only 8 million tickets out of more than 345 million people!

Movieguide®’s Annual Report shows similar statistics regarding the overseas box office and earnings on home video sales. All these statistics are not Christian or conservative statistics. They are factual economic truths that can be proven by anyone willing to do the work.

Before investing any money in Hollywood filmmakers and their projects, Wall Street investors and film financiers should watch out for the anti-Christian, anti-American left-wing ideology of the elite decision makers or knee-jerk Obama supporters that may be contacting them.

Media-wise investing in movies and television dictates that we should choose the good and reject the bad. The average entertainment consumer wants good to conquer evil, justice to overcome injustice, liberty to conquer tyranny, and truth to wipe out falsehood. They and their family members want to watch well-made, inspiring, family-friendly entertainment products that build up, encourage, and uplift, rather than obscene products that tear down, discourage, depress, and attack their values.

Hollywood needs to understand that even if they would rather continue producing envelope-pushing fare that attracts the praise of the elite, what makes money is more uplifting material. Even in Hollywood, it’s the economy, stupid.

Note: This column was co-authored by Tom Snyder.

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published at townhall.com on February 25, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Hollywood gives ‘Iron Lady’ a rusty mind

Thousands of studies have shown that the media, including movies and television programs, can shape the thoughts and behavior of people. Politicians, advertisers and educators depend on this being true.

People’s view of history also can be shaped by movies and television programs. For instance, in 1915, the popularity of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” led to an increase in the Ku Klux Klan’s membership, and, in the 1930s, Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister, Goebbels, took command of the German movie industry to solidify Hitler’s power across Germany.

Thus, people of truth and values understandably view the release of “The Iron Lady,” a new biopic about former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher starring Meryl Streep, with trepidation.

First, the good news. “The Iron Lady” doesn’t completely bash Margaret Thatcher and her conservative politics. In fact, it has several scenes showing Mrs. Thatcher ably defending her conservative, capitalist, democratic ideals of limited government and free markets.

The bad news? “The Iron Lady” fails to capture the regal strength, wit, faith and intelligence of Margaret Thatcher, even in her aging years. Half of the movie is a stagey presentation of an aging Thatcher reminiscing about her life while she interacts with a hallucination of her late husband, Denis. The movie also spends too much time concentrating on the outcry and street protests among the radical left against some of her policies.

The movie starts off by showing Margaret Thatcher in the twilight of her years. Her daughter and staff have given her the task of throwing out her late husband’s things. Facing this sad prospect, Mrs. Thatcher procrastinates and envisions herself talking with her beloved husband, Denis. As they converse, Mrs. Thatcher recalls her political career, beginning with her memories of her conservative, politically oriented father. As the timeline goes back and forth, Mrs. Thatcher recalls the beginning of her political career in the House of Commons, her marriage to Denis, her takeover of the Tory Party, her election as Prime Minister, her tussle with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, her renovation of Britain’s economy and, finally, her resignation.

Supporters and opponents of Margaret Thatcher can agree on at least one point. She was, without a doubt, one of the most influential and results-driven political leaders of the 20th Century. She was the first woman to lead a major political party in the United Kingdom and, after leading her party to victory in the 1979 general election, became the U.K.’s first and only female prime minister. Thatcher was re-elected to an unprecedented three terms and voluntarily resigned in 1990 after Michael Heseltine’s challenge to her leadership of the Conservative Party.

In over three decades as prime minister, she successfully reversed a precipitous national decline and, as the movie eloquently states, “left the country in a better state than [she] had found it.”

In recognition to her service to her country, she holds a life peerage as Baroness Thatcher (only mildly referenced in the movie when she is once addressed as “Lady” Thatcher), and is entitled to sit in the House of Lords.

One thing and one thing alone stands out in the 2011 movie, which fictionalizes the life of Lady Thatcher: Meryl Streep’s enchanting, masterful performance. In fact, at times, viewers will have to pinch themselves in order to remember that they are watching a work of fiction. Even so, Meryl fails to capture the regal dignity of Thatcher, and therein lies one of the movie’s major problems.

Fiction is, precisely, the greatest failing of the movie, marketed as a biopic about the former “Iron Lady.” The movie deceptively downplays the former prime minister’s successes by drawing the viewer’s attention to the weakness and sickness that allegedly dominate her later life. In the real world, however, Thatcher leads an extremely private life in London, and such allegations are purely speculative.

At the end of the day, audiences are misled (intentionally or not) by director Phyllida Lloyd, a distinguished professor of Theatre at Oxford, who was also named one of the 101 most influential gay and lesbian people in Britain by the Independent.

Lloyd re-envisions Thatcher’s political successes in light of her later frailty: “I will not die washing a teacup,” the young Margaret Roberts proclaims when Denis proposes to her; and yet, at the end of the movie, that is precisely what she does. The movie’s iconography, though perhaps subtle, is dangerous because it leads viewers to believe, at the end of the day, that Mrs. Thatcher’s life, no matter how grand and how accomplished, is reduced to that very moment, when finding herself alone after saying goodbye to her dead husband, she cleans up a teacup.

Although one might argue that this constitutes a portrayal of the eventual state of all human beings reaching a certain elderly age, it’s a dangerous, misleading view of Thatcher and her impact on history. One cannot help but wonder how much stronger Streep’s portrayal could have been if the movie had closed on the extraordinarily powerful eulogy Thatcher delivered via video for President Ronald Reagan’s funeral in 2008.

Overall, therefore, Mrs. Thatcher ultimately comes off as weak, befuddled, and sometimes strident, not regal, tough, smart, and faith-filled. Only a few scenes point to her underlying personal strength.

A watery script further weakens “The Iron Lady.” The script skims the surface and jumps from postcard to postcard images and recollections of Margaret Thatcher’s life, interspersed with scenes from her now allegedly precarious mental state. These scenes of an elderly Thatcher take up too much time. They could have been made better if Thatcher didn’t look so befuddled so much of the time and if the movie made the scenes seem more like just imaginary conversations with a dead loved one rather than hallucinations. For contrast, see the dignified, touching scenes in “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,” where a middle-aged John Wayne talks to his clearly beloved dead wife at her grave.

Another failing of the movie is its focus on Thatcher as a grocer’s daughter. Although Lloyd does include two references to Thatcher attending Oxford University (one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world), it fails to note she was a successful chemist and lawyer. When she first took office in Parliament, it was based on those talents and abilities, and her clear conservative philosophy, not on her popularity as a commoner’s daughter.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the movie is the director’s choice not to emphasize Thatcher’s relationship with Ronald Reagan and Pope John II. Together with Mrs. Thatcher, these Western leaders helped defeat the Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 1980s while forcing the Russians to tear down the Berlin Wall. Only about 30 seconds in the movie makes note of this remarkable and enduring achievement.

In contrast to this, the movie spends a lot of time focusing on some of the riots and political unrest that greeted her election as prime minister and led to her resignation. Very little of the movie focuses on how her conservative policies led to a huge reinvigoration of the British economy.

As a result of all of these problems, one cannot help but wonder, What is the agenda of the filmmakers? Apparently, Meryl Streep’s agenda was to offer the most heart-wrenching, memorable performance she could, and for this, she should be commended. However, it seems that the filmmakers didn’t achieve such a noble end. Without Streep’s performance, in fact, Thatcher would lose any resemblance to the regal, strong and wise woman who helped change the course of Great Britain and the world. As Norman Tebbit points out in a recent interview with the Telegraph, that is how we ought to remember her – instead of as the elderly, weakened, slightly befuddled retiree the scriptwriter and the director decided to bring to the forefront.

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published at wnd.com on December 23, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

It’s Time for Christians to ‘Occupy’

From New York to Atlanta, London and Hobart, Australia (near where I am now lecturing), Marxists are engaged in a coordinated “Occupy” movement. They’re seeking the support of the liberal media in promoting class warfare. Their mantra is that the cause of the current economic crisis is the rich oppressing the poor.

Many Christians watch these protests on the nightly news with either disgust or amusement. They should see them as a call to action.

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus tells a parable, “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But, his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.'”

We who are His servants are called to occupy in His name until he returns. We are to proclaim the gospel and win the lost in preparation for his return. We are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We are to take a stand more boldly than any Marxist. We will be held accountable when He returns for how well we “occupy.”

I was not brought up in a Christian home. My father and mother were movie stars. My father would frequently work on Broadway. I was deep into Marxist thinking myself. A friend of my father gave me a Bible and challenged me to read it. I began to read it expecting to be able to give my father’s friend my brilliant reasons for rejecting it.

I didn’t reject it. It changed my life. Not just a little – radically.

For me, repentance included turning away from producing vile movies and helping get “The Chronicles of Narnia” on television. It included going to a seminary. It included starting the Christian Film & Television Commission to bring Christian advocacy back to Hollywood.

The people camping out in cities passionately calling for a war on the wealthy need the gospel. They need what I was given. Not everyone given a Bible or everyone with whom you share the gospel will be transformed. But some will.

Those who are “occupying” cities around the world are not timid in the profession of their beliefs. They want to change the world. They want a revolution.

I want to change the world. I want a revolution. Here in Australia, I’m visiting my grandchildren. I want to leave them a more civil, more Christian culture. I want to see more children grow up with a father and mother who love God, love them and each other. I want there to be less vulgarity and more courtesy. I want to see people experience more of God’s peace, joy and love and less of Satan’s lust, greed, pride, selfishness, anger and sexual immorality.

I’m passionate. I’m not camped in a tent looking for news cameras so I can act out, but I do travel the world sharing what I’ve learned about raising healthy children in a world flooded by ungodly messages in the media.

Will the world listen to the Marxists and surrender their liberty in exchange for “enlightened” bureaucrats making all their choices for them? Will they establish new gulags in which to punish the rich and those who decide, too late, that they shouldn’t have sided with the Marxists. Hopefully not.

Will the world listen to those Jesus told to “occupy” until He returns? Will those Jesus called to “occupy” be as bold and as passionate as those zealous about their Marxism?

The world’s great economic crisis is not the result of the rich oppressing the poor. A much better case can be made that it’s the result of the world turning its back on God. The cure for the world’s woes is not government handouts, bailouts and entitlements. It should be obvious the world’s governments are too bankrupt to expand or even continue this destructive behavior. You cannot collect enough wealth from the rich to provide middle-class luxuries to everyone on earth – especially when the media is encouraging greater and greater immorality.

The path to sanity and prosperity is paved with righteousness. It’s paved with workers and employers who put God first and have a servant’s heart. It’s paved by giving up the “modern family” and reestablishing the family as God intended it to be. It’s paved with real compassion and generosity – not forced redistribution of wealth. It’s paved with redemption of the media. When more people around the world see “Courageous” than “Hangover,” we’re moving in the right direction.

I don’t work alone. I have a passionate staff and passionate supporters. Together we are “occupying.” There are many other Christians “occupying” as well, but there are many content to be spectators.

Now is not the time to be a spectator. The economic crisis could go much deeper. Europe is teetering on the economic abyss, and America in not far behind. The case presented by the Marxists could look very enticing if governments are forced to reduce entitlements even as more and more people demand them. We’re at the point where more people look to the government for economic salvation than look to Jesus Christ. If you’re content to just watch as see who wins, you may find that you lose everything. The poor in America would are considered rich in many parts of the world. If you incite the world to punish all “rich” Americans, the carnage will not stop with multi-millionaires.

The engine of world prosperity is capitalism, and that engine can provide the entire world with prosperity if it is fueled by the love of God.

Capitalism can be as cruel and ugly as communism if it is fueled by greed, envy and selfishness. If it’s fueled by God, the rich have a servant’s heart and the poor have a golden opportunity to rise from poverty. The economic pie grows exponentially. Class warfare stops the growth of the pie. Unelected bureaucrats try to divide it as they think wise. They tend to divide the pie in whatever way will keep them in authority. They traditionally begin by exterminating pie eaters who they deem unworthy or rebellious.

Don’t be content to simply watch history repeat itself. History has both tremendous and frightening stories. Choose the story you want for yourself, your children and grandchildren and “occupy.” The Bible has stories of Israel being carted off into slavery. It also has stories of leaders calling Israel to repentance. Israel, as well as its property, was reestablished. Spectators willing to watch moral decay are among those carted off to slavery.

If you want something better for yourself, your children and your grandchildren occupy in the name of Jesus Christ with His love and sacrifice to live out the kingdom of peace throughout the world.

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published at WND.com on November 11, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

New York has no authority to license ‘gay’ marriage

Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital. – The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels

On July 25, 2011, MSNBC and the other undereducated, misinformed and politicized news media proclaimed, “N.Y. becomes sixth and largest state to legalize gay marriage.” Of course, this is the same group of fellow travelers and useful idiots who misapply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the respective states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” to deny Christians and soon Jews the freedom of worship, when the clause plainly recognizes the inalienable freedom of worship.

Either of these distortions of real truth is more of the same Marxist double speak. The New York state government has no authority to legalize homosexual marriage, whether the government was conscious of the Marxist thrust of its illegal actions or just being a useful idiot in the advance of Marx’s goal to destroy the family.

Pages could be, have been and should be written about the progressive Marxist destruction of the American constitutional republic. And pages could be, have been and should be written about the destructive nature of the homosexualization of the culture. With regard to the illegal action of the New York state government, it is more important to understand clearly that the civil government has no authority in area of the free exercise of religion such as marriage. If it has no authority and tries to exercise power not vested to it, then the state is acting illegally.

So that you don’t buy the lie, this commentary focuses on the fact that, intentionally or not, too many in the press, the mass media, the government and the education establishment have confused the citizens of America about the institution of marriage.

First of all, as many of our readers already know, there are many forms of government. In our western democracy, there are at least four spheres of government: individual government, family government, ecclesiastical government and civil government. In the United States of America, the civil government owes its existence to the consent of the governed, not the other way around, in the tradition of the Magna Carta. Furthermore, since the Rev. Samuel Rutherford wrote “Lex, Rex,” which clarified the rule of law posited by the Magna Carta, all of these forms of government have been under God’s law in the United Kingdom and the United States. When king or ruler is above the law, he often acts in imperious and dictatorial ways, for the very nature of power is to corrupt the powerful, unless it is restrained by God’s law. In essence, God’s law says to love your neighbor as yourself, and the civil government is subject to that divine law.

 

Thus, the Declaration of Independence made it clear that King George III acted illegally when he oppressed the American colonies, because he was under the law of God. Countries that allowed men to rule above the law have produced tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse-tung. Current examples include Mugabe, Chavez and the military junta in Burma, among many others.

It must be emphasized that marriage between one man and one woman is a God-ordained, God-defined, biblical act. For 1,800 years in western countries, marriage was a unique institution, initiated by God when he created the male and female, presided over by Jesus Christ when he blessed the act of marriage and stated that a man and a woman would leave their parents and join together to become one flesh and sustained by the Holy Spirit, which not only holds the marriage together but also produces the offspring that God creates.

The norm in most other religions is not monogamy, although many have borrowed the form of a Christian wedding. Moreover, the state’s involvement in Christian marriage is relatively recent.

In 1837, Rev. Henry Morris complained that the state had usurped the authority of God in marriage. Morris railed against the passage of a law on marriage by providing a detailed look at the institution of marriage. He painstakingly interpreted the scriptures to establish his point that marriage is most importantly a religious institution, and therefore it should not be relegated to a strictly civil character:

They took from the Clergy “the solemnizing of Matrimony, and put it into the hands of Justices of the Peace …” In the former instance of this desecration being ordained, the power to legislate had been seized by those who would be restrained in nothing that they imagined to do; and, in a day specified in their ordinance, “no other marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth,” but such as should be contracted … before a Justice of the Peace, “should be held or accounted a marriage according to the law of England.” But the national principle is not yet sufficiently prostrated to make us again ripe for so arbitrary and irreligious an imposition, and therefore, by the law just come in force, you are left to form your own judgments, whether marriage is a mere civil contract, or a Divine institution “whether it shall be celebrated with or without any offices of religion” whether the Church, the Conventicle, or the Register-office, shall be the place of celebration and whether the Clergyman of the Parish, the Dissenting Teacher, or the superintendent Registrar, shall officiate on the occasion.

Morris adds that the biblical position is that only God ordains marriage. So, in the light of history and God’s Word written, the judges in Massachusetts, California or any other state or federal court have nothing to say about Christian marriage and have no authority to define, ordain or desecrate it.

Morris brilliantly continues in his sermon:

“… by the state of matrimony the spiritual marriage that is betwixt Christ and His Church is signified and represented … But that ‘the fruitful vine’ … is not procurable by a civil contract, it cometh only of the Lord.”

His reasoning is impeccable, but many have forgotten that marriage belongs to the church. In fact, a few are very uncomfortable with that concept because of the abuse of power by some ecclesiastical authorities. Two wrongs don’t make a right, however. And they certainly don’t make a civil right to same-sex “marriage.”

With regard to the abuse of power, it must be noted that civil government is good, although there can be bad presidents, governors, judges and other authorities. Family government is good, although there can be bad fathers and mothers. Ecclesiastical government is good, although there can be bad clergymen. The rules and the laws of the exception do not make the rule. In other words, a bad father does not give us the license to call for the abolishment of fatherhood, etc. What it does do is to give us the opportunity for checks and balances, which until recently were most perfectly expressed in our constitutional government.

The church has to reclaim marriage as its unique institution. Whatever anyone wants to do outside of the church may be their business, but it is not sanctioned by God’s law. The state has the right to regulate only what the Constitution allows it to regulate, because there is no liberty for license. But, the state does not have the right to tell the church that any couple outside of the faith is married.

We need to stand for God’s law in the face of the power grab by those in civil authority who know no restraints.

New York and the other increasingly socialized states have not only violated God’s law, they have also violated their own Constitution and the will of the governed. When they do that, they are just like King George. They have abdicated their moral and legal authority and are subject to indictment, trial and just punishment.

Now, all those who freely exercise their inalienable right to religious faith must stop acting like useful idiots and fellow travelers by going along to get along. Instead, they must stand for their God-given rights by proclaiming loud and clear that these New York government servants have crossed the line into illegal activity that has no authority and makes them criminals.

Often, people of faith and values do not stand up because they have been slowly boiled in the brine of socialism and so give the states powers they have no authority to use. Often the state or federal government creates the problem by violating our individual rights to property, estates, income, etc., through the Marxist device of illicit taxation. Then the government argues that the state needs to govern marriage to alleviate the tax burdens the state created so that it can encourage marriage. Such circular and dishonest reasoning has almost deceived the very electorate.

Now the people must throw off the stupor of Marxist doublespeak and return to the basic principles that made them free to live at peace in the American republic that recognizes “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do not let it destroy godly marriage and families!

11

Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published at WND.com on June 27, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.