Dear Friend, In today's edition of InfoQuest*, we'll look at some very interesting news and history that I know you haven't heard in the mass media! CONTENTS: (1) The Origin of Monster Movies (2) Boy Scout Column by New IQ* Member (3) "Bowling for Columbine" Movie (4) Related Article URLs (Bowling for Columbine) Nine Myths of Gun Control http://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyths.htm The Bible and self-defense http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442 The Reserve (Citizen) Militia of The United States of America http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Civil_Defense.htm The Moral Case for Self Defense and Firearms http://www.shopnetdaily.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=373 ==================== ==================== (1) The Origin of Monster Movies Avenging Monsters BreakPoint with Charles Colson October 31, 2002 The Origins of Horror Fiction http://www.breakpoint.org/ Nobody who watched the film Alien will ever forget the scene that takes place when the astronauts are having dinner: A lizard-like creature comes bursting through a crewman's torso and scurries away. Talk about heartburn! It's one of the scariest films ever made. But the story behind the horror genre is even scarier. In his newly re-issued book Horror: A Biography, E. Michael Jones advances a fascinating thesis. Horror fiction, he argues, grew out of the sexual decadence of the Enlightenment. Few people embraced the sexual decadence more eagerly than the English poet Percy Shelley. Shelley's first wife killed herself after he abandoned her to live with Mary Godwin. Shelley then victimized his new wife, Mary, even encouraging her to sleep with his friends. As tragedy followed tragedy, a remorseful Mary became disillusioned with radical ideals. But she could not relieve her conscience, Jones writes, because she didn't understand repentance. "Literary catharsis seemed the only way" to purge her soul. So Mary began writing Frankenstein. According to Jones, Mary's experience explains the genesis of horror films. We recognize, as she did, that the moral order is true, but if we suppress that, it comes back in our imagination as an avenging monster. This was evident in the story of Frankenstein. Dr. Frankenstein wants to play God, to create life on his own terms, just as Percy Shelley had created an Enlightenment sexual ethic. But instead of designing a superb new species, Frankenstein gives life to a murderous monster. The avenging monster from the id, as Jones calls it, took new form during the second phase of the Enlightenment; a time when syphilis had contaminated European blood. Tragically, adulterous husbands often infected their innocent wives. Dracula, a novel about a vampire who infects the blood of innocent girls, symbolizes this deadly plague. Dracula's author, Bram Stoker, had syphilis himself. As with Frankenstein, the true story of horror in the author's life, that is, sexuality divorced from the moral law, "is repressed and replaced by a monster who points to the [truth]." A century later, another vengeful monster emerged in the wake of the modern sexual revolution: that is, the creature in the 1979 film Alien. The man chosen to create the monster, H. R. Giger, claims he never procured an abortion for his mistress. And yet, Jones notes, "his art is full of images of abortion and dead babies." In any event, Jones writes, Giger's thwarting of child-bearing, through either contraception or abortion, "is so morally significant that it embeds itself onto his consciousness." And Giger's conscience sought relief by creating a fetus-monster for Alien. At the film's end, a female astronaut kills the monster in a manner that strikingly resembles a suction abortion. The warning of these films is that "sex disconnected from the moral order is horrifying," Jones writes. This Halloween, when your kids want to rent a horror film, don't let them. Instead, sit down with them, and with the neighbor's kids, as well, and explain where horror films really come from and why they are perverse. It's a great way to expose the cultural lies that are at the root of our society's celebration of horror. --- For further reading: E. Michael Jones Horror: A Biography (Spence, 2002). This was published in hardcover under the title Monsters from the Id. E. Michael Jones was recently interviewed on the Mars Hill Audio Journal. Robert K. Johnston Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue (Baker Book House, 2000). ==================== ==================== (2) Boy Scout Column by New IQ* Member +++ IQ* Note: Hans Zeiger is the latest member of our InfoQuest* Family! I learned about Hans and contacted him via The Concerned Women for America e-newsletter. Like Hans, I too am an Eagle Scout. Thank you, Hans, for joining InfoQuest* ! +++ Guest columnist Boy Scouts has the right to set its own standards By Hans Zeiger Special to The Times Wednesday, November 06, 2002 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134569938_scouts06.h tml A scout is reverent. If not, he doesn't belong in the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Boy Scout Handbook, "A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others." That is a simple statement, but it says a lot. It is precisely why I respect the beliefs, or lack thereof, of Darrell Lambert, the 19-year-old assistant Scoutmaster ousted from the ranks of scouting for professing his atheism ("Atheist Scout fights decision to boot him" Seattle Times, page one, Oct. 29). I respect Darrell as a human being, though I happen to disagree with his atheist worldview. That said, Darrell has no right to be a Boy Scout. The Boy Scouts is a private organization, and it has the right to set its own membership standards. As an atheist, Darrell's most essential views are counterproductive to the overall mission of scouting. Scouting professes that it is impossible to be physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight, without striving to fulfill a duty to a power that is higher than mere self-interest. The Boy Scouts recognizes that every world religion has a god of some type. Since spirituality is defined as a personal relationship of a believer to God, the god recognized in the Scout oath does not reference a particular religious denomination. Scouting embraces spirituality on a personal level. There can be no mistaking the religious equality in scouting. The Boy Scouts of America encourages youth from all faiths to be active participants. Among the national committees sponsored by scouting is the BSA Religious Relationships Committee. This committee oversees the granting of religious patches to Scouts who demonstrate exemplary service to their religious group. >From the point of view of the organization, a Scout must be reverent in "his religious duties." Without religion, he will have no basis for a guiding moral code. Specific religious direction is not the job of the organization, it is the lifestyle of the Scout. Without this recognition of God, it becomes impossible to obey the rest of the Scout law. A person who has no god can have no lasting character because his faith is in himself or in some other fallible substance. The Boy Scouts of America adopted the current Declaration of Religious Principle in 1970. The declaration is as follows: "[Scouts] ... cannot grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgement of his favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship." Those who oppose scouting for its shutout of atheists define citizenship differently. I recently corresponded by e-mail with an activist who gave his name as Matt. He is a member of a radical group called the Non-Believer Anti-Discrimination Project (NAP). Not only is NAP dedicated to ending support for the Boy Scouts, it is dedicated to the end of theistic membership oaths and contracts in other important civic organizations. "I am fighting for an end to government sponsorship and funding of those BSA programs and activities that discriminate against atheists," he told me. "I consider my involvement in this issue to be good citizenship." Good citizenship? Matt openly admitted to me his view that hijacking a nonprofit organization is a part of good citizenship. Yet, I have no terrible objections with Lambert joining an atheist youth club or forming his own. This is not just about the First Amendment rights of the Boy Scouts. This is about the rights of every church and synagogue, every club and fraternal organization, every herd and pack of people there is to be found in our free country. My support for freedom of association works for everyone so long as they don't hurt anyone else. My greatest fear from Lambert's unreasonable complaint against the Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts is that the freedom of association will be damaged if the Boy Scouts is forced by a court or a legislature into changing its membership standards. For 20 years, gays and atheists have waged unrelenting warfare against this great organization. In Seattle, as in numerous other hamlets around the country, the Scout Council has had its bouts with the Safe Schools Coalition and United Way about allowing homosexuals to become members and adult leaders. If folks like Darrell would rather challenge a great organization like scouting than start up a new group, there must be a larger agenda. And whether it is intended or not, that agenda will have the effect of destroying freedom for everyone. Hans Zeiger, 17, is the national director and spokesman for the Scouting Defense Coalition, a network of pro-family supporters of Boy Scout values. An Eagle Scout, he is state chairman of Young Americans for Freedom and a senior at Puyallup High School. ==================== ==================== (3) "Bowling for Columbine" Movie +++ IQ* Note: I first heard about this twisted movie by listening to Michael Medved's AM Talk Show. My wife heard that it was going to be discussed on the Oprah TV show, so she watched the show. Oprah interviewed Michael Moore, creator of the film, and angled her show to promote the idea that USA citizens should not have the right to bear arms (Rosie O'Donnel clone!). A guest who Oprah invited to speak on behalf of 2nd Amendment supporters was rather uneducated and poor at communicating; go figure. A couple of short interview clips of a pro-2nd Amendment mother and a U.S. Constitutional Militia member were good; these people were calm, collected, and to-the-point. Please forward this edition of IQ* to like-minded friends, family, and peers. +++ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29329 'Bowling For Columbine' throws a gutter ball By Michael Medved Posted: October 18, 2002 WorldNetDaily.com As a work of cinematic entertainment and political provocation, Michael Moore's widely acclaimed new documentary "Bowling for Columbine" qualifies as a substantial success. Despite its outrageously incoherent, even contradictory, ideological agenda, the movie offers an engaging surface that displays frisky originality, frequent wit, skillful editing, wildly ambitious scope and often impassioned advocacy. Moore goes beyond the role of mischievous, irreverent blue collar fatso that he popularized in his previous films (most notably "Roger & Me") and his short-lived television show ("TVNation"). This time, Moore promises nothing less than a penetrating exploration of "the fearful heart and soul of the United States," and in the course of guiding us on that journey he comes across as irresponsible, demagogic, shamelessly manipulative and, in the end, unspeakably cruel. The title refers to reports that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attended an early morning bowling class on the same day in 1999 that they killed 15 people at Columbine High School. Moore therefore insists that it makes as much sense to blame bowling for their murderous rampage as to consider the gory computer games or violent videos or satanic music they enthusiastically enjoyed. In fact, in his coverage of the Columbine massacre, Moore totally ignores the killers' fascination with Nazism (they chose to attack their classmates on Hitler's birthday) and instead tries to blame Lockheed-Marietta, the prominent defense contractor. It turns out that Lockheed operates a missile plant in Littleton, Colo., not far from Columbine High, so Moore makes a feeble effort to connect this endeavor with the maniacal slaughter by two teenagers. Speaking to a corporate flack, Moore tries to suggest that the "weapons of death" produced by the company somehow contributed to the culture of death that motivated Klebold and Harris. When the cheerful, bespectacled PR spokesperson politely observes "I don't really see the connection," Moore attempts to undermine him by offering a menacing shot of a huge ballistic missile. This form of non-argument permeates the film. Much later, when Moore returns to his blighted hometown of Flint, Mich., to focus on a 6-year-old who brought a gun to school and accidentally killed one of his classmates, he tries to associate the crime with Dick Clark. The mother of the child, working hard to escape welfare, toiled part-time at a shopping mall diner that peddles nostalgia under the Dick Clark name - part of a growing national chain of such establishments. Moore therefore tracked down Mr. Clark and attempted to interview him about why he pays "his" employees so poorly. When Clark sensibly ignores him, gets into a waiting van and orders the driver to speed away, Moore turns indignantly to the camera as if to suggest that Clark's refusal to talk with him represented some shameful cover-up. Other interviews prove more successful, and Moore occasionally lets his targets talk, usually to their own detriment. Coming across as particularly demented (and apparently dangerous) is James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City co-conspirator Terry Nichols, who speaks with twitchy and wild-eyed pride about the arsenal of weapons and bomb-making material he maintains in his remote tofu farm (yes, he grows politically correct soy beans) in Michigan. Shock-rocker Marilyn Manson gets far more sympathetic treatment, offering an articulate backstage defense of his music, and Matt Stone, Littleton native and co-creator of the scatological "South Park" cartoon series, receives the indulgent handling due a saint or prophet for his dismissive condemnation of suburbia. Moore even borrows Stone's distinctive cartoon style for the movie's most outrageous and audacious sequence - a brief cartoon history of the United States in which nervous Americans, from the founding fathers to modern businessmen, display the murderous tendencies produced by intense fear, as they recoil in horror from the King, Native Americans, African slaves, working men and all foreigners, establishing, according to Moore, a tradition of distinctively Yankee violence. Another purportedly historical interlude features a parade of alleged outrages in U.S. foreign policy, including the normal lefty litany about "progressive regimes" (Mossadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua) undermined by the big, bad Central Intelligence Agency. This sequence concludes with footage of the plane striking the second World Trade Center tower while a caption proclaims: "Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to kill 3,000 Americans." Of course, this image goes by too quickly for the average viewer to remind himself that the CIA - which never directly "trained" bin Laden at all - most certainly never encouraged him or anyone else to smash hijacked airplanes into skyscrapers. Terrorism remains only a passing concern to Mr. Moore, who announces early in his rambling, shambling, arbitrarily assembled film that his real focus involves an explanation for the staggering murder rate in the United States. Meanwhile, he shamefully exaggerates America's position as "the world leader in murders" by listing only firearms killings - ignoring the fact that in many nations (particularly in the Third World) the heavy majority of all victims die through stabbings, clubbings, stranglings, stoning and other means. Mr. Moore also only mentions the absolute numbers of murder victims in each country he assesses - so naturally a huge nation like the U.S. (population 280 million) will look vastly worse than Canada (population 29 million). As a matter of fact, in terms of murder rate (the number of killings per 100,000 population) the U.S. ranks no higher than ninth in the world, and fares only slightly worse than such "enlightened" and prosperous societies as Finland, Australia and, yes, Canada. Unlike more simple-minded gun-control advocates, Moore (who boasts in the film of his long-time membership in the NRA) never suggests that the reason for the lower crime rate north of the border concerns the availability of guns. He makes a point of demonstrating on camera how easy it is to buy weapons and ammunition in Ontario, and accurately observes that the rate of gun ownership in Canada (a nation of hunters) comes close to that in the United States. How, then, does Moore explain his portrayal of America as a blood-soaked, paranoid, deeply demented, incurably violent and sick society, while our neighbors to the north come across in his account as the privileged citizens of a friendly, peaceable paradise? In part, the movie credits Canada's more "advanced" social-welfare system (read socialism) with special emphasis on its "free" medical care. He also praises Canadians for their utopian lack of racism, pointing out that with a "minority population" of 13 percent they live in a "diverse" nation just as we do. Unfortunately, he never notes that Asians represent the most numerous "minority" in Canada, and that in all Western countries these immigrants assimilate (and inter-marry with whites) more quickly and frequently than blacks or Latinos. Racial issues provide the movie with a grand finale that counts as one of the most despicable (and riveting) cinematic exercises ever featured in a major release. The filmmaker and on-camera star concludes his non-linear voyage by pursuing an interview at the home of Charlton Heston, Hollywood legend and president of the NRA. The resulting confrontation is almost unbearably painful to watch, as Heston begins the interchange looking robust, masterful, confident and charming and then, under Moore's blatantly unfair and needling questioning, slowly crumbles to the sad status of a frail old man. At first, Moore demands explanations for Heston's appearance at NRA rallies in Colorado and Flint, Mich., shortly after the gun-related tragedies there. Then he moves on to try to force his prey into a corner over America's persistently high homicide rate (without acknowledging the dramatic declines of recent years). Finally, with Moore flaunting his favorite example of "safe, peaceful" Canada, and pushing relentlessly for some basis for America's more numerous murders, he forces a reluctant, uncertain suggestion from Heston. "I don't know," the great actor begins, and then tentatively mentions the greater racial diversity in the United States. Mr. Moore pounces on this statement, and virtually accuses Heston of racism - never acknowledging (or telling his audience) that the current president of the NRA enjoyed a personal friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated more prominently in the civil-rights movement and its marches than any other major Hollywood star. Unwilling (or unable) to make this point himself, Mr. Heston merely disconnects his microphone, gets up out of his chair and walks away from Moore and his camera - a wounded refugee seeking shelter in another wing of his own home. Even without Charlton Heston's courageous announcement of his own battle with Alzheimer's symptoms (an announcement which Moore, of course, never references), this appalling interview would represent a new low in a manipulative filmmaker's checkered career. While posing as a rebel, a loner and crusader for common sense, Mr. Moore remains a totally conventional and thoroughly predictable leftist, particularly in his ill-concealed distaste for America and ordinary Americans. He never bothers to challenge politically correct assumptions, and typically dispenses with any untrendy or unpopular idea - such as Heston's connection of high murder rates to the nation's racial composition - as if it remained so obviously idiotic that it required no rebuttal. As a matter of fact, the suspicion voiced by Mr. Heston that our homicide rate relates directly to our unusually diverse racial makeup proves more right than wrong. The most recent Department Of Justice statistics indicate that African-Americans commit murder at a rate more than eight times higher than white people, and now represent the majority of U.S. homicide arrests (while only 12 percent of the total population). In other words, if you isolate the murder rate among white people only, on both sides of the border, the difference between the U.S. and Canada almost entirely disappears. That fact may produce discomfort, and certainly demands serious explanation (with reference, in part, to this nation's persistent history of racism) but it deserves acknowledgment before Moore's movie succeeds in trashing the exalted reputation of one of the most decent and respected actors and activists in Hollywood history. Charlton Heston has enjoyed nearly 60 years of stable, loving marriage (a rarity anywhere, but especially in Tinseltown) and earned the respect and affection even of colleagues who disagree with him on every political proposition. The French may embrace Michael Moore's America bashing screed (they unanimously awarded it the "55th Anniversary Prize" at the Cannes Film Festival), but citizens of this country will remember Heston's work in movies and in politics long after this sly but ultimately nasty little film has been forgotten. In the end, the wandering, discursive and intermittently brilliant "Bowling for Columbine" amounts to a cinematic gutter ball. Rated R for harsh language, and for scenes of chilling violence - including chilling surveillance camera video of the actual Columbine massacre. ==================== ==================== (4) Related Article URLs Nine Myths of Gun Control Second Amendment Sisters http://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyths.htm The Bible and self-defense by Joseph Farah http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442 The Reserve (Citizen) Militia of The United States of America http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Civil_Defense.htm The Moral Case for Self Defense and Firearms http://www.shopnetdaily.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=373 Are you interested in the scriptural case for self-defense? Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews were shattering under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air. An automatic rifle was being fired and ripping worshippers to pieces. Most people in America don't think of carrying a gun to church. Fortunately, South African Charl van Wyck did in 1993. He was there during the St. James Massacre -- when terrorists stormed his church. Instinctively, he knelt down behind a bench and pulled out his .38 -- taking down some attackers and sending them fleeing before they could kill and maim even more.