ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

In Response to Frank Bruni, or Should I Say "The Divine Mr. B"

Updated on October 1, 2012

As a Christian who cherishes “individualism” and capitalism, and disdains “collectivism” (which I have written extensively on Hubpages), and one who believes that everyone has the right to choose his of her lifestyle, I still must disagree with Frank Bruni’s (of The New York Times) rant and rave over Michelle Bachman’s statement regarding “sexual anarchy.” That is because “sexual anarchy” is actually something we all should be discussing in some kind of public forum, because there is something going on underneath the surface of what we characterize as "hate" that is not being addressed. To explain more succinctly what I mean, I wish to call to your attention to his article.

In response to his article called “The Divine Miss M” that appeared on July 24, 2012, it should be fairly noted that Bruni has revealed himself to be more hate-filled towards Evangelical Christians than towards Michele Bachman, whom he uses as a pawn and backdrop in this piece to arouse what appears to be anti-religious contempt to that end.

All the antagonism purportedly centers around a letter Michele Bachman and other congressional leaders on the Intelligence Committee wrote regarding a woman named Huma Abedin, currently working alongside Hillary Clinton in the Secretary of State’s office, a woman whose father had past ties to The Muslim Brotherhood, which, to be fair to the readers of The New York Times, is in itself not so far removed from the normal inquiries performed by intelligence committee officials; and certainly doesn’t rise to a level of evidence or betrayal to Muslim-Christian relations here in the United States. The reason for the inquiry centered around an investigation motivated by an intelligence report and as quoted from the letter read as follows:

"'[Muslim] Brotherhood' operatives with the U.S. government may have directly influenced the U.S. Intelligence community; assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood, as presented by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in testimony before the House Pemanent Select Committee on Intelligence on February 10, 2011."

That this is an over-the-top inquiry, you the Reader be the judge. But that Bruni takes a swipe at Evangelical Christianity, and uses Ms. Bachman's letter to do it, from all appearances is in actuality the real thrust of his article, and is conveniently written with total antagonism towards Evangelicals in general.

Similarly, Bruni’s taking out of context Bachman’s statement that gay men and lesbians are agents of “sexual anarchy” (as stated by Ms. Bachman), without fairly noting what she meant by it, does not necessarily lend itself to mean she “hates” gays or homosexuals either, since, aside from any biblical or religious perspective, sexual anarchy for both the heterosexual and homosexual is real and alive in America today and is something we all need to address.

This is a vital topic; perhaps just as important – or more important – than the economy itself. But let me just say first that I have never read an article quite like this, or one so openly and frankly hostile to Evangelicals, in that it lends credence to the idea that perhaps there is indeed some level of truth to an “anarchy” label when one reads beyond the mischaracterizations so artfully woven throughout this piece, and not one that falls solely on the shoulders of Ms. Bachman either. Perhaps the hate of women who are “conservative” is one theme. But that Bruni gratuitously supports, and not coincidentally, the parallel notion that somehow congressional leaders writing a letter wanting to know more about a Muslim woman whose father had some questionable connections to a group investigated by intelligence operatives, and then compare it to Ms. Bachman’s statement of “sexual anarchy” or as symptomatic of a pattern of thought among Evangelicals (but not all Christians he is quick to insert) is mesmerizing. Is it fair to assert that when connections are made between the two that in fact these may in fact be a symptom of anarchy? Let us examine further.

Usually when the NYT prints pieces like this, one’s suspicions are aroused that lead one to wonder if there is indeed something the liberals are hiding in a foreign policy regard, precisely because when they are hiding something they make mountains out of molehills. By misquoting Bachman and mischaracterizing situations and facts, Bruni reveals the opposite of his intentions, by going to the “emotional jugular” to arouse and legitimize intense hatred – like the kind within the soul - and thus blowing out of proportion the whole story, which, if totally false, would not and should not elicit so much contempt of Bachman in the first place (why not shake down the Director of National Intelligence instead?), or offend Ms. Abedin, the woman being investigated. Instead, given the intense hatred Bruni has for Ms. Bachman, he rather seeks to then “kill two birds with one stone” by equating Evangelicals with a hatred of homosexuals, then leaps to Ms. Bachman’s “hate of Muslims” in general, careful to leave “no stone unturned” in matters of his own heart, so his desires are fulfilled, leaving nothing therefore to be desired – in theory, that is, but not in fact. For Mr. Bruni has great desires politically, which is obvious.

Sexual anarchy on the other hand has always been a worry not confined to this age, whose consequences come from not only a biblical view but rather also a scientific one as well. And the fears are not and never were confined solely to homosexuality either, but, rather, antagonism to “family” in general and the indoctrination of that antagonism in our children to value single parenting, or same sex parenting, as equivalents or even better than the traditional mother/father role model. Also, support of alternate lifestyles does indeed have the potential end result of weakening the strength and health of a country by putting asunder the scientific truth that family is at the heart of a strong nation, and has been for all countries since time in memoriam. Not only this, but let us all be honest. For it is also true that unbridled sex in general, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can cause “sexual anarchy” when it results in single parent homes (on the rise now), illegitimate children, social destruction and high costs for society and its health as a whole, and usurping the traditional mother/father presence from the lives of children. We know from scientific data what effect this has on children, not only for those directly affected by it, but for all our children destined to inherit this country. We do not have to be convinced of this for it to be true – we know it is true from scientific studies. Therefore it does not matter whether one is homosexual or heterosexual. What remains is, irrespective of how much Mr. Bruni hates Ms. Bachman or Evangelicals, is the bare-bones scientific fact that a threat to family results in a threat to country.

So back to Michele Bachman and what she believes. In the global world we live in, and given our future will be contingent on our success with leaders and peace in the Middle East, we all ought to be thinking about how we think it best our children be raised. It never was a problem in the past to admit the truth that children do well with a mother and father. Why is it now? Is Michele Bachman then correct about “sexual anarchy” in the idea that mother and father are being usurped in the traditional family, that the social consequences are costing this country billions of dollars, and is not tolerated well by both religious and irreligious alike? Yes, she is. Is she correct that “alternate lifestyles” are a potential threat to the traditional family? Yes, she is. Does this mean she hates homosexuals? No, I think not.

No matter how much Bruni hates Evangelicals, it is irrelevant as to why Michelle Bachman is calling for an investigation. It is also irrelevant to the question of “sexual anarchy” as that term is defined exclusive to either homosexuals or heterosexuals. That is because in matters of security and sexuality, the two become entwined, not only for those denominations of any Muslim family but also for all those denominations of the Christian and Jewish families, and all families of every faith, including those families whose faith is found in alternate lifestyles. Instead of being angry and contentious then, and a hater of religion, and instead of being intolerant of another’s view, let us put aside our differences and desires and think on the children now and those that are sure to come.

When our country was more focused on individualism in the past, rather than collectivism and activism, the matter of alternate lifestyles was left for exploration among individuals. Many in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s who lived alternate lifestyles didn’t need anyone’s acceptance. In fact, in the midst of neighborly antagonism or private rift between disagreeable parents and children, most from those periods later surrendered their experiment with these lifestyles only to become more conventional, while others retained their preference for an alternate lifestyle, despite convention, and were happier for it.

I say all this because, that I am a Christian and live by faith to God, does not mean – nor does it immediately follow – that I am intolerant or hate-filled of others’ lifestyles. In simply means that by the evidence presented throughout the years in my own life and the consequences of my own choices, and as an individual, I was made "free" by my faith, not bound by it. That children do thrive better and are healthier when they have both a mother and a father is only relevant to me as an individual in that I was free to explore choices in consideration of values taught me. So irrespective of belief in God or not, all of us should want the best for our children. And that I also believe in individualism and freedom, and, yes, free market capitalism, because under this system of government people are free to live their lives as they choose rather than having it dictated by others is something that I believe we ought to be giving our children – the freedom to choose what they will become as individuals.

The bashing of Michele Bachman then does not serve anything more than to heighten animosity towards Evangelical Christians or those who believe in God when the evidence before us from the early reaches of Western Civilization towards the present, has been with us as long as alternate choices or lifestyles has been with us. To usurp convention as an individual is one thing (and not even Michelle Bachman would disagree that it ought to remain a right of any individual), but for Mr. Bruni to equate sexual anarchy and the dissolution of the family as some kind of trite concern exclusive to Ms. Bachman’s or Evangelicals, when it has been and always will be a concern of the scientist as well as any government for a country’s security, and our children’s future, only brings into greater focus what is missing in “The Divine Mr. B.”


Submit a Comment

No comments yet.