So why can't Jack Black?
Isabel sent me a link to a video called Proposition 8: The Musical featuring Jack Black as a very un-funny Antichrist...er...I mean Jesus Christ.
The argument of the star-strewn video (there weren't really enough stars that I recognized for it to be studded) is essentially that the Proposition 8 campaigners lied and that Jesus personally condemns those who supported Proposition 8 as being self-contradictory, cafeteria Bible readers.
It isn't entirely clear to me what the Prop 8 gang was supposed to have lied about, although it seems that their deceit resided in claims that schools would start teaching kids to sodomize.
And here, I thought schools were already pretty much teaching that...
Anyway, the part of the song that really saddened me was when Jack Black's Christological parody tries to point out Bible passages in defense of gay marriage.
Sort of.
The example he uses is shrimp cocktail.
Apparently, we are supposed to assume that ancient Hebraic dietary laws are somehow equivalent to contemporary, secular marital laws. We are also supposed to assume that anyone who accepts the Bible must read every single passage as equally literal. Jack Black missed the Sunday school lesson on St. Augustine and the fundamentals of exegesis...
JB as JC argues that the religious right must be hypocritical because they ignore Biblical injunctions against eating invertebrates (the Prop 8 figures lick their chops salaciously at the shrimp cocktail), but uphold laws against homosexual unions. He perhaps also missed the Sunday school lesson on Acts 10 abolishing dietary laws.
Next, he says that Jewish law permits the sale of daughters into slavery. I'm assuming he is referring to the following passage from Exodus 21:
When
a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.
Sounds pretty harsh, no? So, as Black argues, how can Christians be opposed to slavery which is permitted in the Bible, but against homosexuality (which is not permitted).
I'm not sure that is necessarily a logical contradiction. Even if God says it is morally okay to do something, that doesn't mean it is the best way to run a society in practice. For that matter, even if God prohibits an action it is not therefore absolutely necessary to pass laws against it. How would you enforce a law against looking lustfully at other people?
Nevertheless, the passage from Exodus goes on...
- But if her master, who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her.
- If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter.
- If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
- If he does not grant her these three things, she shall be given her freedom absolutely, without cost to her.
The point here is that slavery under Hebrew law is not really what Jack Back is probably thinking of. To the modern American audience, a slave is someone who is bought and sold and has no rights. Hebrew slave girls had very clear, and significant rights as slaves...(and it should probably be kept in mind that our word "slave" doesn't quite have a direct parallel in classical languages anyway since the word actually derives from the term for a person of Slavic descent). I don't any ancient readers of the Bible would have been shocked by the idea of selling daughters--but the idea that their daughters still retained certain rights even as slaves could have been radical (especially that their daughters could demand conjugal rights from master-husbands who had grown disinterested).
Ultimately, Jack Black proves that he doesn't understand the Bible or Christianity. Furthermore, he doesn't understand what Proposition 8 is all about. He doesn't consider that people might be against Prop 8 who are not fundamentalists or even religious. (I realize I'm laying all of the blame on Jack Black when I'm sure there was a whole creative team behind the video...but he took the role of Christ, so he gets the lion's share of my wrath.)
To play devil's advocate, however, there are indeed plenty of wild-eyed, hate-filled, pseudo-Christian whackos out there to provide inspiration for the gay rights movement...and it's all the more reason why we need to be careful how we present our arguments so as not to cause occasion for scandal.
For my part, I don't think gay marriage should be illegal because it is immoral (although I do think it's immoral).
I just think it's a really silly idea.
Comments