I'm decidedly against abortion, to clarify.
However, I don't think our government should be legislating morality. It doesn't work. I've reached a point where I'm pro-life, but not anti Roe vs Wade.
Does that make sense?
The fight to stop abortion cannot be won on a legal level. The main problem with abortion is decidedly an ethical decision, and ethical decisions are based on worldview questions, which the government should remain silent on.
When we, as the church, try to fight abortion on a legal level, we too often give up on the personal level. People can make ethical decisions, people can choose to abide by morality, a government cannnot.
And that is where I think it is flawed to try to overturn Roe vs Wade. The consequences would be radically different than most evangelical churches would like to admit - it wouldnt end abortion, just put it in the states hands. As evidenced by the massive amount of people who flocked to California for a legal gay marriage, people would still just go where abortions would be legal - in the majority of more liberal states.
And that's only the people who would attempt to abide by the law; that doesnt include those who would simply have illegal abortions.
So... I think it would be unwise to overturn Roe vs Wade. I would argue that you shouldn't allow it to be expanded - Partial Birth abortions should be outlawed.
My basic understanding is that overturning the law would not fix the problem. It would compound it. The solution is not the law - the solution is the effect that the church has in people's lives. If the church has so little effect on their members lives that they cannot stop their members from having sex willy nilly and abortions to cover it up, then how can we think the government can stop it?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Rambo Review
Rambo is unapologetically a man's movie. At one point, Rambo singlehandedly destroys an army. How do you top that?
Stallone is back as John Rambo, the haunted vietnam vet. He is living just south of Burma, selling snakes to make a living. When some missionaries want to go into the warzone that is Burma, he reluctantly takes them. When their mission goes awry, he leads a band of mercenaries to rescue them. The plot is that simple.
Stallone does a great job of acting; Rambo is clearly weary of the world. He is waiting to die. When he finally has something to live for, it's a sight to behold.
The film is outright brutal - from its cringe inducing first scene. People are killed onscreen in crazy ways, and Rambo just ups the violence to ultra realistic levels.
So what do I think? I think Rambo is an interesting movie. It shows the horror that is war as realistically as Saving Private Ryan did. Unfortunately, the other theme that comes across is the futility of hope. It is implied that hope could never save Burma - only a man willing to kill hundreds of people in a bloodbath could stop killing. And that's the problem - killing leads to more killing, which in turn leads to more. If Rambo didn't have a missionary killing someone in the end to save himself, I could have recommended it as a man's movie. Now it's a man's movie that tries to show a worldview that only ends in death.
Stallone is back as John Rambo, the haunted vietnam vet. He is living just south of Burma, selling snakes to make a living. When some missionaries want to go into the warzone that is Burma, he reluctantly takes them. When their mission goes awry, he leads a band of mercenaries to rescue them. The plot is that simple.
Stallone does a great job of acting; Rambo is clearly weary of the world. He is waiting to die. When he finally has something to live for, it's a sight to behold.
The film is outright brutal - from its cringe inducing first scene. People are killed onscreen in crazy ways, and Rambo just ups the violence to ultra realistic levels.
So what do I think? I think Rambo is an interesting movie. It shows the horror that is war as realistically as Saving Private Ryan did. Unfortunately, the other theme that comes across is the futility of hope. It is implied that hope could never save Burma - only a man willing to kill hundreds of people in a bloodbath could stop killing. And that's the problem - killing leads to more killing, which in turn leads to more. If Rambo didn't have a missionary killing someone in the end to save himself, I could have recommended it as a man's movie. Now it's a man's movie that tries to show a worldview that only ends in death.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Cloverfield Review
Cloverfield. I can't really say it's a great movie. In my mind, a great movie is one I buy on DVD the day it comes out, and I watch it frequently. I'm talking about watching it beyond the two week excitement period, where you watch the same movie four or five times. Jaws, for example, is a great movie. Cloverfield... I can't imagine Cloverfield will work on DVD. So it's not a great movie.
But it's an awesome movie.
I will sit here and tell you it ranks as one of my top five theater experiences of my life. One of the best times I've had in a movie theater ever.
In case you don't know anything about it, it's premise is pretty simple. Rob likes Beth. Rob sleeps with Beth, never calls her back. Beth comes to Rob's party, leaves early. Rob pines for Beth. Giant monster attacks New York. And so on.
It's told in that hand held camera style, originally used in The Blair Witch Project. There is no music, no explanation, no panning camera shots. It is just the footage that these people shot.
And that makes it a very exciting movie experience. Some movies, you might talk at the screen. Tell a character that they are obviously about to make a big mistake. This movie, I was screaming at the screen, because I was so involved. At one point, I involuntarily yelled "Whoa!"
This is a brave movie. JJ Abrams and Matt Reeves do things here that are amazing. You never get an explanation for the monster - you just follow this group of friends as they try to survive and rescue a friend. It is exactly what you would say or do in this situation.
Like I said before, it probably won't stack up on DVD. But if you see movies in the theater at all, see Cloverfield.
But it's an awesome movie.
I will sit here and tell you it ranks as one of my top five theater experiences of my life. One of the best times I've had in a movie theater ever.
In case you don't know anything about it, it's premise is pretty simple. Rob likes Beth. Rob sleeps with Beth, never calls her back. Beth comes to Rob's party, leaves early. Rob pines for Beth. Giant monster attacks New York. And so on.
It's told in that hand held camera style, originally used in The Blair Witch Project. There is no music, no explanation, no panning camera shots. It is just the footage that these people shot.
And that makes it a very exciting movie experience. Some movies, you might talk at the screen. Tell a character that they are obviously about to make a big mistake. This movie, I was screaming at the screen, because I was so involved. At one point, I involuntarily yelled "Whoa!"
This is a brave movie. JJ Abrams and Matt Reeves do things here that are amazing. You never get an explanation for the monster - you just follow this group of friends as they try to survive and rescue a friend. It is exactly what you would say or do in this situation.
Like I said before, it probably won't stack up on DVD. But if you see movies in the theater at all, see Cloverfield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)