Once again, this year’s Golden Globes saw Hollywood’s elite hypocritically lecturing the wider public on what we should think. And this, despite the acerbic remarks of the host Ricky Gervais, who said in his opening monologue:
Don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
But that didn’t prevent the expected anti-trump and climate alarmist rhetoric from trickling down the Hollywood tree of pious progressivism. However, what many found even more troubling was the speech by the visibly pregnant Michelle Williams in favour of abortion.
While some lauded her speech as ‘powerful’ and ‘brave’, there are four major lies underpinning her argument.
First, the lie of feminist presentism
Williams believes that women today know better than, especially, the men of the past:
I’m also grateful to have lived in a moment in our society where choice exists.
… So, women 18 to 118, when it is time to vote please do so in your self-interest. It’s what men have been doing for years, which is why the world looks so much like them but don’t forget we are the largest voting body in this country. Let’s make it look more like us.
Now, as the Daily Wire has pointed out, both men and women have always voted out of self-interest. Why should now be any different? No one votes for values and governments they don’t want to see in power.
But this views history through the lens of western and patriarchal oppression, and that all things revolve around such actions. Which is why Williams believes that “the world looks like them (men)”, because women haven’t had the chance to say what they truly believe, until now.
What’s more, this lie assumes that all women would vote for abortion if it weren’t for the oppression of a western patriarchy. But not only does this overlook the fact that twelve men originally enacted the decision of Roe v. Wade, but also that a large proportion of women are themselves pro-life.
This is a 1972 photo of the United States Supreme court who decided on Roe V. Wade. From left, front row : Associate Justice Potter Stewart; William O. Douglas;Chief Justice Warren Berger, Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr.; and Byron A. White. Back row: Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.; Thurgood Marshall; Harry A. Blackmun; and William H. Rehnquist. (AP)
Second, the lie of preventing success
As if this were not serious enough, Williams then double-downs in justifying her pursuit of professional success:
I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose.
But having a child doesn’t necessarily prevent a woman from receiving an acting award or succeeding in their chosen career. Acting might be a demanding job, but many elite sportswomen have juggled both children and the demands of their sporting careers.
In the end, personal choice has never deprived of a woman of having a child, unless they become pregnant through non-consensual sex. Michelle Williams has always had a choice, especially regarding her fertility through the use of contraception.
Williams knows that there will be many who question the ethics of what she has done. And in an attempt to deflect any criticism she states:
Now I know my choices might look different than yours but thank God or whoever you pray to that we live in a country founded on the principles that I am free to live by my faith and you are free to live by yours.
This is Hollywood’s most destructive lie, embedded in values of pluralism and erotic liberty, based on a morality of merely what ‘feels right to me’. However, the postmodern lie of a pluralist society that there is no absolute truth is an extremely dangerous—and contradictory—line of thought. The shifting sands of human opinion have destroyed our understanding of there being any moral absolutes. But if I believed flying a plane into a building was a good thing, would that be OK? Well according to the ‘no single truth’ principle, no one is fully right or wrong.
Fourth, the lie of personal hedonism
As Austin O’Malley rightly observes:
Gold is so heavy it settles down upon the lowest souls.
At the heart of Williams’ argument is the tragic reality that she sacrificed her unborn child for an award in acting. Although covered in 24 karat gold, and consisting of zinc, brass and bronze, she has valued these common minerals over the life of her baby to further her career. This has striking parallels with the actions of the Canaanites. As Jack Posobiec tweeted:
Biblically, the Canaanites sacrificed their children to the fertility god Moloch, in order to try and produce greater wealth and prosperity. Likewise, Williams has sacrificed her baby for a golden statue.
All of which is to say, all that glitters are not gold. Indeed, there are a number of lies which Hollywood keeps wanting to reinforce while continuing to excuse the behaviour of people such as Harvey Weinstein. And tragically, those who promulgate these errors are not even aware that they are doing so. As O’Malley states:
We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.
Fake news and big-tech censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate today.
Activists within the pro-LGBT Methodist Church claimed Edwards’ words “distressed” co-workers. They accused the father of five of engaging in behaviour that “was extremely damaging”, arguing that he was also potentially hurting the organisation’s “business plan”.
This is not a tit-for-tat war, in which one side’s casualties justify or validate an equal number of deaths on the other side. On Israel’s side, this is a war for security and survival, while for Hamas, it is a war to eliminate Israel.
Israel can commit particular acts that are immoral, without becoming morally equivalent to Hamas, in the same way that Western Allies could commit morally problematic acts (e.g. Dresden), without becoming morally equivalent to the Nazis.