I started watching Glee last spring and enjoyed catching up on season 1 by watching reruns this summer. There were some elements that I didn't like but overall I wasn't offended by the show. I love the music! I've always been a girl who can enjoy a good musical. I loved watching The Sound of Music and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers growing up. So I've been looking forward to Season 2 and all the new music. My ipod has been working overtime as I enjoy the music of season 1.
Season 2 ... what a dissappointment!!
Musically: I always loved the ballads and songs about falling in love or out of love or having a broken heart that we heard a lot of last season. We were really able to enjoy Rachel's voice. I admit I do have a special place in my heart for Britney Spears since I grew up in the 90s but a whole gimmic episode is too much. I just don't think the musical selections have been as good this season.
Plot: So far there's no story. I don't care about any of the characters. Last year I wanted to see Rachel and Finn get together. And I looked forward to finding out how everything worked out with Quinn and her baby.
Morality: Not looking good. Cheesus Christ... As a christian I'm offended. I expect teasing. I expect them not to get it right. But this crossed a line. I felt mocked. Promoting homosexuality... I believe it's a choice and a wrong one. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. I just don't agree with their choices. And I don't have to watch a show that strongly promotes something I don't condone. Sexual promiscuity... It's shown as being ok and even expected and welcomed in high schoolers.
After last week I decided to give Glee one more week to win me back. Didn't happen. I'm offended and disappointed by their message. Perhaps I'll still listen to their musical numbers on itunes but I won't be watching every Tuesday night.
note: I wrote this post earlier than I posted it. Sorry if it sounds funny because I'm talking about the past in the present tense.
I recently read this interesting article from BreakPoint Commentaries.
Degrading Lyrics, Degraded Behavior
By Chuck Colson, 4/7/2009
Music and Kids
Young men, dressed as animals, follow several attractive women down the street. As they close in, the men shoot darts into women’s bodies—as if the women were animals and the men big game hunters. Moments later, all the women are lying on the ground. This scene is from a music video by a band called the Bloodhound Gang. The lyrics include such gems as: “You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals. Let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.” That’s about as explicit as I’m allowed to get—or want to get. The song, like many others, not only contains offensive language; it also describes men treating women in degrading ways. And now there’s evidence that listening to this music leads teens to engage in the same kind of behavior the songs describe. According to published reports, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh evaluated the sexual aggressiveness of popular song lyrics from least degrading to most degrading. And then they asked 771 teenagers about both their taste in music and their sexual behavior. It turned out that 44.6 percent of the teens who listened to the most degrading music had engaged in sex. But of those who had not listened to sexually-degrading music, only 20.6 percent had sex. There’s more bad news, according to Brian Primack, the study’s lead author. He said the lyrics, which “frequently portray aggressive males subduing submissive females . . . may lead adolescents to incorporate this ‘script’ for” sex “into their worldview.” They may make both male and female adolescents “feel compelled to play out” the roles the lyrics assign to them, Primack added. No wonder three-quarters of a million American teenagers get pregnant each year; or that nearly a fourth of all teenage girls contract a sexually-transmitted disease, or that so many women are sexually abused by men. What can parents do about this on their own? Not much, I’m afraid. Sure, you can snap those nasty CDs in two if you catch your kids with them. But as Helen Ward, president of the Kids First Parents Association of Canada told the French news service, modern technology means it’s almost impossible for parents to monitor what their kids are listening to. “Government,” she says, “needs to help parents regulate the industry.” Well, she’s right, and we ought to join with other parents to find ways to do that. It won’t be easy. There are some people who, no matter how much evidence you give them, simply refuse to accept the truth—magical thinking, I believe it’s called. They like degrading music, they don’t think it harms anyone, and therefore—in their minds, it doesn’t harm anyone. Until the day—if it ever comes—degrading music is banished from public life, we need to gently explain to our kids how music can affect them—just as violent video games and television do. We are obliquely warned of this possible damage in Philippians 4:8: We are told to dwell on whatever is true, right, pure, lovely, excellent, and worthy of praise. Once again, modern science is proving the truth of Bible teachings. That Pittsburgh study reveals that if we choose instead to dwell on what is evil, false, and degrading, we end up harming, not only ourselves, but our society as a whole. And that’s not something to sing about.
For Further Reading and Information
"Explicit Lyrics Linked To Sex Among Teens: Scientists," Breitbart.com, 4 March 2009.
"The Kids Are Alright," BreakPoint Commentary, 8 December 2008.
“The Offensive Truth: Relativism and Our Kids,” BreakPoint Commentary, 20 June 2007.
"Beyond the Music (Video)," BreakPoint Commentary, 10 August 2004.
Kevin Twit, "What's In a Song," BreakPoint.org, 10 July 2006.This article brings up two points of discussion for me...
1. The obvious being how we (definitely I) don't usually pause to realize how music affects us and our thoughts. How many times have I heard or used the excuse that 'it's just a song' or 'it's just a movie'? I know it's not real and I sure wouldn't do that. But in spite of knowing that, if I'm honest, I do come out of a movie feeling affected. I do hear songs and am moved. Can I really enjoy something that is not in line with God's Word and not let it affect me in any way?
2. It’s almost impossible for parents to monitor what their kids are listening to. “Government,” she says, “needs to help parents regulate the industry.”
Really? Should we expect the government to help with this? Why? This is not a theocracy. This isn't a nation of Christians. Why should we expect the government to rule by the rules of the Bible that we follow in our own lives. Do you expect the non-Christians in your life to live by the same standards that you do? The freedom that our government gives us to worship and live however we please also gives others that same freedom. As soon as you start asking the government to make laws in following your personal beliefs and practices, you're also opening the door for others who disagree with you to do the same.
For example, there is a smoking ban in Lincoln. I really like the fact that I don't have to be exposed to cigarette smoke in local establishments. It's nice. It's comfortable - for me. But this is regulating a freedom. How do I know that the next regulation on the table might not be taking away a freedom that I enjoy? I'm just saying this type of regulation could lead down a slippery slope.
Still reading and found this article. My point exactly. Silencing Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Posted by Jim_Daly on Mar 13, 2009 4:03:24 PM
Picture this.
You operate a family-owned photography business which, among other services, creatively captures weddings on film. Further, imagine that you’re a Christian photographer and due to your religious convictions, decide to turn down certain photo shoots including “commitment ceremonies” for same-sex couples. Now, imagine your shock when a judge orders you to pay $6,637.94 to settle a lawsuit brought by an individual who complained about this alleged act of “discrimination.” That’s what happened last year to Jon and Elaine Huguenin, owners of Elaine Photography LLC when Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. Willock argued that she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation. The Huguenin’s maintain that they passed on the opportunity to photograph the ceremony because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with Willock’s request. Simply put, Jon and Elaine had no obligation or desire to surrender their religious integrity for a buck. What happened to this husband and wife duo is yet another example of what I mentioned earlier: political activists and so-called “progressives” on the left are using “discrimination” and “hate speech” laws to silence freedom of religious expression. Senior counsel Jordan Lorence, from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), is appealing the decision on behalf of the Huguenins. He believes, and I concur, that if these precedents aren’t quickly overturned, “Christians could be forced to advocate for viewpoints with which they disagree or to participate in events that violate their conscience.” There are twenty states with non-discrimination acts on the books. Left unchecked, homosexual activists could strong-arm churches into permitting civil union ceremonies in their sanctuary, force pastors to officiate such unions against their will, and fine photographers, catering services, florists, bakers, wedding planners, musicians or other businesses who, due to their religious convictions, elect not to service certain cliental. Lorence argues that “The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood. Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.” Ironically, as ADF points out, at the time of this judgment the state of New Mexico didn’t recognize either same-sex marriage or homosexual civil unions. Which begs the question: Why, then were the Huguenin’s fined? I submit that this is the tip of the iceberg. The next step by activists on the left is to shut down the exercise of religious speech starting with those who oppose same-sex marriage and the redefinition of a family. That’s what happened when Boston Catholic Charities who, on March 10, 2006, stopped serving as an adoption agency because they couldn’t comply with a Massachusetts law forbidding discrimination against placing children with same-sex couples. I could site dozens of such examples where the message is the same: change your business model, pay a fine, or close your doors. Using the courts to force private businesses into violating their own convictions is nothing short of coercion. I’d say that’s politically correctness gone wild. Such speech control minimizes the free exchange of ideas and, in turn, permits only one side of the debate a voice. If this trend continues, we, as a nation, will take a giant step toward the fascist speech and thought control prevalent in totalitarian nations. Whether in the classroom, in business, or in the public square, using “discrimination” and “hate speech” laws to ban religious thought and expression is wrong. It’s un-American. And it’s why we should stand with ADF as they fight this battle to preserve our religious freedoms.
