Hermenuetics

Comments

Oh please--will this woman please go away? This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is not a Christian persecution issue. This is not a gay-bashing issue. I agree she can state her opinion all that she wants, but when she gives an incoherent, rambling, answer that contradicted itself and produced terms no one has heard before ("opposite marriage"??) and uses as its main point "that's the way I was raised," she shouldn't be surprised that she gets marked down and doesn't win. Yes, Perez Hilton's question was loaded, but isn't part of the non-beauty portion of the competition to see how well-spoken the contestants are and if they can think on their feet and come across as intelligent, knowledgeable and compassionate, even (especially) on controversial issues? She failed all around!

For Christian leaders (read Dobson) to give her a platform and to hold her up as someone who did something so "courageous" is offensive, ill-informed and just plain wrong.

And now to whine about being "punished" because she didn't have freedom of speech?!? Unbelievable.

She's an embarrassment to the Christian community.

Posted By: graceygracey | May 12, 2009 3:36 PM

Since I'm a man, I guess I'm not supposed to be here on this site. The only reason I'm here is that I recently wrote an article about the treatment accorded attractive and outspoken Christian women, "Why do they hate Carrie Prejean?", and I was surfing the net to try to gauge Christian reaction to Donald Trump's decision today.

I don't believe the response to this controversy by the evangelical community has been its finest hour -- and I'm not talking about Dobson or the gospel music industry. Carrie Prejean is a sister who took a public and costly stand for her faith, yet some segments of the Christian community can find nothing but fault with her because of some photos that can barely be considered risque. One evangelical critic informed his readers that the photos were too explicit to post on his website, yet they have been shown on network television during family viewing time. None of them showed any more skin than Prejean and other contestants showed while parading across the stage on national television (again in family viewing time) in their swimsuits.

It's interesting that you bring up Susan Boyle. This is a woman who has, at least in the past, suffered from discrimination because of her looks. But you -- and those who have commented on your articles -- don't seem to get it that to persecute a woman because she is attractive is just as wrong as persecuting a woman because she is unattractive. Cattiness has no place on a Christian website, even if it's a website for women.

Posted By: Phil | May 12, 2009 4:11 PM

Thanks for your comments, Phil. The blog is written by women, but you are more than welcome to join the conversation!

Posted By: Sarah Pulliam | May 12, 2009 4:13 PM

Phil -
You're right that "persecuting" a woman for being beautiful is just as wrong as doing the same because she isn't beautiful. However, I would disagree with you on two points.

One: "persecuting" is the wrong word. Ms. Perjean has certainly been criticized, but she has in no way been prevented from speaking her opinion, and has suffered nothing more than publicity for her "platform" for her beliefs.

Two: I don't dislike her. She has a right to say what she wants, and strut around in spikey heels on public television if she wants. However, I *will* call her a hypocrite when she defends "traditional" marriage (read: heterosexual purity) while participating in an event designed around lust and exploitation (read: heterosexual sin). To call her a hero, while ignoring the fact that she's a hypocrite, is a great mistake. Calling someone out as being wrong and persecution are ENTIRELY different things. The first thing I will do, the second I will not.

Posted By: Melissa | May 12, 2009 4:41 PM

Melissa,

I'm sorry, I don't see what's hypocritical about anything Prejean has done. She's a model. It's the job of a model to look sexually attractive. Pictures of models posing in lingerie are found mostly in magazines and catalogs published for women, and their purpose is to sell merchandise.

I also disagree that the event (the Miss USA pageant) is designed around lust and exploitation. That would be true if the audience consisted mostly of men, but it doesn't. I don't watch beauty pageants, nor does any other man I know. I only saw the YouTube clips afterward. My impression of the audience is that it consists mostly of women and gay men.

I think a lot of women have a distorted view of what men find attractive in a woman (which is why women buy all those products advertised by scantily-clad models). Sure, I find Carrie Prejean to be very attractive. But what I find most attractive about her is her courage and her willingness stand up for her beliefs. If she had given a "safe" answer like most other beauty contestants, I would be indifferent.

Posted By: Phil | May 12, 2009 5:16 PM

So... it's the job of a model to look sexually attractive, yet somehow "sexually attractive for money" and "lust" aren't related? I'm not sure I can buy that.

I guess if it's not hypocritical to stand up naked for a camera, and then stand up (almost naked) for traditional marriage, then I don't have a point. I just view her wordless, clothing-less "stands" to carry just as much weight as her verbal stands.

My only further commentary is that, although she is a model and taking off clothing is her job, she is being praised by the likes of Dobson, who hardly would share her views on clothing-optional photo shoots. His stance on pornography should inform his actions, even if that stance on public display of sexuality is not shared by Ms. Perjean.

Posted By: Melissa | May 12, 2009 5:30 PM

Melissa,

Carrie Prejean never stood up "naked" for the camera. As for "pornography", I'll remind you again that the risque pictures were shown on network television during family viewing time. If you want to debate, please at least stick to the facts. Last time I checked, bearing false witness was still a sin.
Now that I think about it, persecuting a woman for being attractive may be worse than persecuting her because she is unattractive, because envy is added to the mix.

Posted By: Phil | May 12, 2009 5:53 PM

I just don't see her as being a great spokesperson. Not that she didn't defend her position (weakly) and not that she didn't take a position that is somewhat against the grain. But I don't get the big deal on either side. The pictures aren't that bad (as far as I can tell there is one topless photo-back to the camera and arm covering her breast). But certainly Dobson and others are using her for their purposes not really defending her "rights to free speech".

Posted By: Adam S | May 12, 2009 7:30 PM

Phil, I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you've seen all the picture - just the ones decent enough to be shown on network television. Those weren't that bad - the other ones are, yes, pretty, and nothing that you wouldn't see in an R-rated movie, but clearly nothing that can be shown on television. Do a little more research and then respond again. I'm interested in seeing what you think after you've seen more of the pictures. Let's just say she was wearing a tiny little vest that the wind accidently blew open.

Posted By: alison | May 12, 2009 8:24 PM

Alison,

I've seen them all, including the ones that were released this morning. And I'm satisfied with her explanation for them. The only one in which it looks like her nipple would have been completely visible clearly wasn't posed.

Besides, what difference does it make? The pictures were part of a photo shoot, in which many pictures are taken, and she had already stipulated that in the picture that was to be published she must be covered up (and she was). I don't blame Carrie for the pictures. I blame the photographer who released the pictures without her authorization (and he's going to probably end up paying Prejean a lot more in damages than he received for the photos).

Actually, I have seen more revealing stuff on television. Ever watch the Oscars and see some of the actresses in their see-through gowns?

Posted By: Phil | May 12, 2009 9:18 PM

OK Phil, I haven't seen worse on TV, but maybe you have. I guess my standards of decency are a little different than yours. I do think you're a little naive if you think those pictures weren't posed. Whether she intended for them to be released is not the point. The point is that she posed for them. Let's just leave it at that, OK?

Posted By: alison | May 12, 2009 9:47 PM

Or maybe I'm just jealous because my "naughty parts" don't look like that.

Posted By: alison | May 12, 2009 9:48 PM

The debate on the photos is interesting. They clearly weren't something most women would feel good having their husbands pour over, or letting their little boys see. And Dobson is being hypocritical for ignoring that fact.

But I find it more interesting that Prejean gave an answer in the majority with the rest of the country. She even fell back on "that's how I was raised" to somewhat pacify her response. I'm not at all comfortable with "beauty" pageants but they tend to be entered by girls who took cheerleading one step further in their pursuit of a college scholarship and career. They haven't been considered counter-culture. The difficulty is that the judge asking the question is a practicing homosexual. And she had to tell him she disagreed with him. One judge. Who might vote against her. And this was brave?

Not exactly a modern day David and Goliath story. And while I'm not one to jump on the anti-Dobson crowd, this one was truly disappointing.

Or does it just point to how spineless our churches have really become on truth? And how few heroes of the faith we really have?

Posted By: Rachelle | May 12, 2009 11:13 PM

Alison,

There are no "naughty parts" -- only naughty thoughts, and the naughty deeds that often spring from them. Please remember that the sin here is LUST, not semi-nudity or even full nudity.

Rachelle,

This isn't about Dobson, who, we can agree, has his faults (as do we all). It's about Carrie Prejean and what she did at the Miss USA pageant. Whether she would have won the pageant if she had given a different answer is something we'll never know. But this much is certain: she knew, when she gave that answer, that she would lose the crown. The leading contestants were all extremely close in points so, yes, one judge's vote could make the difference. I'm sure you've seen how one hostile judge can deny the gold medal to Olympic gymnasts and figure skaters.

As for David and Goliath...that's not the biblical analogy I would use. I see her as a Queen Esther, another woman who found she had come to a certain position "for a time such as this".

As for the pictures and the rest, the point is, when the spotlight was on her and she was faced with the choice of doing to the expedient thing or the right thing, she chose to do the right thing, regardless of the cost. Her church and her Christian college have stood behind her through this ordeal. I find it distressing that others in the Christian community have not.

Posted By: Phil | May 13, 2009 6:33 AM

Queen Esther? Seriously? Queen Esther was part of a racial and religious minority, threatened by genocide, without a right to speak without being given permission. She was facing death if she spoke, and death of her family if she didn't.

Ms. Perjean, on the other hand, is part of the racial and religious majority, can say anything she likes without fear, and was "risking" a rhinestone tiara. I find that comparison absurd.

Cassie Bernall is a much better comparison to Queen Esther, and someone whose stand was truly inspiring. If we are searching for modern-day heroes, someone who actually died for their faith is infinitely more admirable than a stunning blond who takes her clothes off for money and says exactly what the majority of the country thinks, and then calls it religious persecution when people respectfully disagree with her.

Posted By: Melissa | May 13, 2009 10:22 AM

Melissa,

Obviously we can't have a discussion on this subject. If Carrie Prejean had said she supports same-sex marriage, she probably would have won the title, and certainly would not have been subjected to the campaign of abuse she has endured during the last three weeks. How would you like it if your private medical information was released? Or your parents divorce documents? Or photos taken in PRIVATE photo sessions that were never intended for publication?

Maybe you've led such a spotless life that you wouldn't mind having private information set out for public display. Unfortunately, the rest of us are not in that position.

As for Cassie Bernall, I don't wish to detract from her faith or her courage, but what, if anything, she said during her last moments is the subject of considerable controversy, and I find the exploitation of her death by some Christian groups to be at least as bad as, if not worse than what Dobson and NOM and GMA have done with respect to Carrie Prejean. At least we KNOW what Prejean said.

Carrie Prejean is a sister who took a public and costly stand for her faith, and Christians ought to stand with her.

I will have nothing further to say on this subject. Carrie Prejean has now moved on with her life, and so I will with mine. If you respond to this post, I won't reply.

Posted By: Phil | May 13, 2009 11:02 AM

a lot of discussions but no values ever achieved. Carrie is in the limelight & people are feasting her life. How do you carry the light that God entrusted in you? Maybe you are not in the limelight, but do you have an impact? Why not concentrate on your light & hold on to your assigned post. There are many things to be done & you so called Christians arguing. Godbless.

Posted By: andypadolina | May 19, 2009 11:36 PM

Hi there! I am sorry I just found out about this post. Thank you very much for linking to me.

I want to clarify and I hope this comes across in my full post on the subject. I understand the "virtue" of giving her a platform to respond and to talk about marriage. What I don't understand is why some of my Christian siblings feel the need to turn her into a modern day Mother Teresa because of it.

I don't begrudge her at all and am proud of her. I just don't get the folks saying this will earn her a special reward in heaven and a higher status among Christians.

Posted By: Randy | May 27, 2009 8:48 AM