Moral Standards- Hollywood’s Sexual Harassment Brought to Light

Moral Standards- Hollywood’s Sexual Harassment Brought to Light: Today, Dr. Everett Piper is joining us to discuss how the left is really bringing to light the sexual harassment going on in Hollywood right now, but the question is, why is the left not talking about sexual morality in all of this? And what can we do to bring real lasting change in the culture? Tune in now to learn more!

Air Date: 12/05/2017


Guests: Dr. Everett Piper, David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton


Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast.  However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Rick:

You’ve found your way to the intersection of faith and the culture.  Thanks for joining us today here at WallBuilders Live! Where we’re talking about today’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture, always from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective.

We’re here with David and Tim Barton. David is America’s premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. Also, Tim Barton, national speaker and pastor, and the president of WallBuilders. And my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

You can check us out and the program at WallBuildersLive.com. Get some of the archives of the program, also a list of all of our stations and just some of the news on some of the things going on this week.

And then WallBuilders.com – that’s our main website and we really encourage you to visit there.  download some of the articles, might be some topics you’re interested in. You can search on there dealing with the Founding Fathers or other areas of the Constitution or the Declaration.  Whatever it might be.

Also, check out some of those incredible books and DVDs and things.  Especially Christmas time, great opportunity to give your family the gift of freedom. Get them some of those materials and get them educated and inspired to be good citizens.

The Left Actually Talking About Sexual Harassment

Rick:

David, Tim, we’ve later in the program got our good friend Dr. Everett Piper joining us.  We’re at a really kind of weird place in the culture where now, all of a sudden, you have the left actually talking about the sexual harassment and talking about how men shouldn’t be doing this. And the question today is going to really revolve around the idea of well, you know, maybe the left shouldn’t have pushed so hard for removing any concept of morality or sexual limits.

Tim:

Yeah, it seems ironic that they could say that there is bad behavior when they’ve already said that everybody gets to determine for themselves what is right and wrong behavior – what is good and bad behavior. And so there is definitely an inconsistent standard and so it does seem ironic that when you’ve said that every individual can determine right and wrong for themselves.  Now we’re saying they can’t.

It definitely doesn’t seem to work in reality which tends to be a lot of these ideas. But when it comes to moral structure, what we see in society are there are a few basic ways you can come up with these ideas either for morality.  There are no rules and everybody determines for themselves.  Or, you have some kind of man-made contrivance where man makes them up. But then you have to ask a question.  If man is the one making up all these rules, why should I have to follow a rule that some man has just made up if I disagree with those man’s rules?

Or the only other option, which is a third option, is there has to be an objective reality which is beyond yourself. And this is even what gives us this notion of conscience or conviction.  That what someone described as an “inner oughtness” is something that motivates us to want to do what is right because it’s something beyond us.

This is where, if you look at the practical realities of those in culture, we are now teaching in education starting from kindergarten all the way up through higher education in college that students.  Well, in a subjective reality where you determine truth for yourself you determine right and wrong for yourself.

Certainly, that’s where we have this downfall now of what we are seeing the contradictory statements from the left. But then on top of it we also have another thought that we need a collective subjective where it’s not just subjective.  It’s not up to every individual, it needs to be a collection of subjective thought and so society needs to determine right and wrong.

When Society Determines Right and Wrong For Themselves

Tim:

Which is also kind of a scary place to be because if every society gets to determine right and wrong for themselves, well there’s a lot of historical examples you can point to.  Probably the most obvious one is Hitler’s Germany where they said, “Hey, this is what a person is.  This is what a person isn’t.  And this is who has the rights of citizenship.  This is whose rights are to be taken away.”

So when society is the one to determine on a subjective level right and wrong you have these issues. Well, this is where the only other option is that there has to be an objective standard beyond ourselves. And this is why the left has been so confused for so long is they’ve been trying to make it all subjective or collective and rejected any kind of absolute or any kind of objective reality which is given by a creator. Which what the Founding Fathers pointed out is that there is a Creator, He has given rights to man and government’s job is to protect those rights.

This system of government was resting upon the foundation of a God, of a Creator, of a lawgiver but also of His moral standards. And whenever you remove objective reality, objective morality, you’re always going to struggle.  There’s always going to be contradictions, and it’s never going to work.

Which is why now it’s so ironic the left is saying, “Oh there’s bad behavior,” when before they said, “No, there’s no such thing as bad behavior. You Christians you can’t say homosexuality is bad behavior because they think it’s right.”

Well, if it’s up to the individual to decide right and wrong then you can never say anything is wrong.  But this is again why there are contradictions among the “logic of the left.”

Contradictory Polarized Positions

David:

And this is why you get such contradictory polarized positions on so many things, because if there is no ultimate standard of what’s right and wrong, then you’re back into what the book of Judges describes twice as saying, “In that day Israel had no King– or no authority, no standard– so everyone did that which was right in their own eyes.”

So, if there is no outside standard, which is where we’re headed to very rapidly.  At least, that’s what’s been advocated is there’s no outside standard or if there is, a subjective collective. Then what you’re saying is, let the elections determine what’s right and wrong.

And so if there is no Constitution, if there is no moral law, if there is no natural law, no rights and wrongs, no laws of nature and nature’s God, then when Democrats get control, what we’re going to see is absolutely no religious conscience because that is discrimination.  We will control guns because that is what kills people.  We are going to have abortion through not only all nine months, but we have a number of Democrat leading activists that say, “You know, once a baby is born they don’t have any sense of consciousness. When a baby horse is born it knows where it is, it knows to go to its mama, it gets up and moves around, so really in the first year after a baby is born they’re really not humans yet because they have no self-awareness.”

So let Democrats decide what’s right and wrong.  And then let’s have an election. Republicans decide, “Oh no we’re going to have religious expression.  We’re going to put prayer back in schools, we’re going to ban abortions, we’re going to make sure everybody’s got a gun in their home.”

This is where polarization comes from. You no longer have any concept of what’s right and wrong except what I decide and what my group decides and I’m a Republican, I’m a Democrat I’m a libertarian I’m a *Green or whatever I am. And that’s the group — that’s a tough way to run a nation which is where we’ve been pushing the nation for the past 20 to 30 years.

Rick:

It has had a very real impact on the culture and we’re seeing it played out right now. We’re going to take a quick break though. We’ll be right back. Stay with us.  You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Moment From American History

This is TimBarton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. In the early seventeen hundreds, the Reverend John Wise preached that all men were created equal, that taxation without representation was tyranny, and that God’s preferred form of government was the consent of the governed.

All of which is language recognizable in the Declaration of Independence. Why? Because in 1772 the Sons of Liberty led by Founders Sam Adams and John Hancock reprinted and distributed the Reverend Wise’s sermons.

Four years later, much of the Declaration reflected the language of those sermons by John Wise.  In 1926 on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge affirmed, “The thoughts in the Declaration can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was saying.”

Few today know that the Declaration was so strongly influenced by the Rev. John Wise. For more information on this and other stories go to WallBuilders.com.

I Want to Decide For Myself

Rick:

Welcome back.  Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live.

Later in the program again Dr Everett Piper will be with us to address this very subject. But, guys, we’re at a place where those decisions in terms of what the culture would say was right and wrong are having an effect that I think the people that champion that, maybe didn’t realize that. A lot of people thought, “Well, yeah, I don’t want anybody telling me right from wrong.   I want to decide for myself.”  And didn’t — you know, they didn’t think through where this thing would go.

David:

Well, even when they do, if they dislike the results, they go in a different direction. Take what Tim was talking about with the collective subjective. We now want to, as a society, decide where our rights and wrongs are. No we don’t because 31 states decided that marriage between a man and woman was right and the opposite was wrong.  But then the courts came in and five justices said, “Well, we think you’re all wrong so we’re going to change this.”

Now you’ve got to remember that the primary author of that decision and the key deciding vote was Justice Anthony Kennedy.   And Justice Kennedy is the one who came through and said, “You know all these 31 states that have done this, their motivation was hatred.  It was motivated by animus.  That’s why they did this.”

No, I can tell you I’ve voted for those marriage amendments.  I helped advocate for them.  It was not done by hatred.  It was done by a like that I have for traditional marriage as a man and a woman, and it was done by the like that I have for the benefits statistically that came to cultures that chose that.  And it was done by the dislike I have for what happens in cultures that went in an opposite direction. So it was no animus on my part, but he said it was.

Whatever is Consensual is Constitutional.

David:

And you have to remember that what set Justice Kennedy up to make that decision had been decided a few years earlier in a decision that he wrote called Lawrence vs. Texas. And in Lawrence vs. Texas, he rejected the moral standard that had been established by law in the state of Texas.  

By the way, it was a moral standard that was established long before Texas was established fifty five hundred years earlier in the Bible – going back to the beginning of man.  And it was a moral standard that was established by the laws of nature and nature’s God to quote the Founding Fathers. I mean, what he struck down was something that had been there for thousands of years and in that decision where he struck down that Texas statute he came up with this logic saying “Well, whatever is consensual is Constitutional.”

Now on that basis, that’s why same sex marriage became legal a few years later because he had laid the groundwork that if it’s consensual, it’s Constitutional. Now think about how ridiculous that is on so many levels. If a thirteen — and this was advocated by the way — if a 13 year old girl says, “I want to have sex with an 85 year old guy who’s a pervert,” well, it’s consensual. She said “yes,” so it can’t be unconstitutional.

Tim:

Well, then this is certainly where the debate comes in with even human sexuality of what is the age of consent. And that’s where in some states it’s 18, and some it’s 17, in some, it’s 16. But ultimately, why stop at 16? Because what’s the difference between a 16-year-old and a 15?

David:

Well, let me jump in on that since the court says that a 13-year-old is mature enough to make decisions about her own body when it comes to abortion.  If a 13-year-old can decide for an abortion, why can you decide for an abortion which is a product of sexuality?  And then say, “Well, she can’t make sexual decisions about who she has sex with until she’s 17 or 18 or thereabouts.” – That’s crazy.

Even The Supreme Court Uses a Double Standard

David:

So even the Supreme Court uses a double standard when it comes to sexuality of young people. What’s the age of consent? Well, it’s real low when it comes to abortion which is a product of sexuality.  But it’s much higher when it comes to sexual relations. Really? How can you justify that? There’s no * except on that collective consensus again.

Rick:

Well, one of the best guys — and we talk about where this stuff comes from.  Most of the time it’s college campuses are encouraging this idea of you decide on your own and there shouldn’t be an objective standard, but usually, it’s the college campuses. But, one particular campus, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is really fighting this and trying to counter that.  

And well-spoken on these issues, have had him on many times, Dr. Everett Piper. I don’t know who else we could get that’d be better on this idea of – should we return moral absolutes?

David:

Yeah, and he’s so good because he has a good balance of understanding what history says, what societal indicators show us, what statistical results indicate. He’s got a good balance of the perspective of a lot of things that just people often don’t consider today.

Tim:

And, guys, he’s also an academic elite which is also rather interesting at that level. The fact he’s got a Ph.D., he’s a university president.  It’s not like he’s an outsider who’s just, you know, some conservative weirdo and they don’t have any credentials.  No, he’s credentialed.  

And yet in the midst of his credentials, he knows the Bible.  He studies history, he’s got the right kind of worldview. And so this is where he’s so good on these issues because it dispels some of the notions that is oftentimes used to malign other conservatives that they don’t have the same credentials as some of these academic elites. No, he has the credentials and he’s saying the exact same thing and actually says it on a pretty detailed level.

Rick:

Dr Everett Piper our special guest today. Stay with us.  We’ll be right back on WallBuilders Live.

Avalon Project

Tim:

Hey, guys, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders. I know you hear my dad and Rick talk a lot about our Founding Fathers about the original intent of our nation, a constitutional heritage that we have. And really we’ve seen how far we slipped away from that. And I know a lot of us as we hear my dad and Rick talk think, “I wish there was a place that I could go where I could see these documents and I could read and learn about the Founding Fathers firsthand.  See the things they did.”  

I want to give you some websites today that can help you accomplish that very thing. If you get online you can go to places like Library of Congress and you can look under their century of lawmaking or historical documents. You can go to the Avalon Project, to the Founders Constitution, Google Books, or even the internet archives.  

Or you can just go to WallBuilders.com. We have a section for our WallBuilders Library. And under that section, we have different subgroups for historical documents, historical writings, even a place where you can get helpful links to find out more information about other websites.  Where you can do research for yourself and find the truth for yourself. Friends, this is the time that we need to know who we are and where we came from. WallBuilders.com is a great place to go.

Rick:

Welcome back.  Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live. Dr. Everett Piper. Back with us from Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Good to have you, sir.

Dr. Everett Piper:

Rick, thanks for having me on. I Appreciate it.

If It’s All About Consent Then There’s No Right and Wrong.

Rick:

Hey, once again, a great article.  It’s called – A Nation of Moral Geldings and it’s in the Washington Times.  We’ll have a link today for folks to go check it out.

But Dr. Piper, you nail the real reason behind all of this sexual harassment. All these things that are coming out of Washington, D.C., Hollywood, the whole nine yards.  You bring it back right back to this, you know, it’s no self-evident truths – anything goes. If it’s all about consent then there’s no right and wrong.

Dr. Everett Piper:

Yeah, I’m using Al Franken as an example and all these other cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. And the question is this, if the woman in the photo of Al Franken who is asleep while he’s groping her, had she given him consent or given consent for him to do that.  In other words, if he could prove that she gave him a letter of consent, would it make his behavior right?

And by our moral judgment or by our moral standards today the answer would have to be “yes.” So, what was wrong before she gave consent, becomes right simply because consent.  And basically, that exonerates men of any moral judgment.  It puts all the responsibility on the female for deciding what’s right and wrong.  And men can just go about it acting like * if they can just find some accomplice that’s willing to accommodate their * appetites.

Rick:

So how do you — where do you draw the line then who decides what’s right and wrong?

Dr Everett Piper:

Well, perfect question. There’s no measuring rod outside of those being measured any longer. The Bible doesn’t serve as the standard for moral judgment.  A woman’s consent becomes the only standard for what’s right or wrong sexually.  And therefore, the man has no reason in our current culture to behave like a gentleman.

Rick:

Yeah.

Dr Everett Piper:

It becomes what I call a moral gelding. It’s like C.S. Lewis told us.  “You castrate the gelding and then bid him be fruitful.” That makes no sense.  When you sever the organ, you can’t demand the function.

When we laugh at the honor we can’t then expect anything but traitors in our midst. Again to quote C.S. Lewis, “We have a nation of moral geldings rather than a nation of gentlemen.”

Rick:

You hit another great point right there.  We laugh at honor.  That’s what people did with Mike Pence with his you know the way he set his office up in his system saying, “Hey, I’m not going to be alone with the woman.  I’m not going to go to lunch with a woman that’s not my wife to avoid any of those possible situations.”

And everybody laughed and poked fun and even said it was bad for women because they couldn’t get ahead in his office by not being able to go and meet with him and all those things. Now it’s looking like his decision to take some very strong moral stances is actually the right way to go.

The Mike Pence Standard

Dr Everett Piper:

Well, you think? This standard, the Mike Pence standard, which before that was known as the Billy Graham standard because Billy Graham has had the same rule his entire career.  That you actually hold yourself personally responsible and culpable to be a gentleman and not put yourself in a situation where you could even be questioned.  In other words, you’re above reproach.

And if you, as a man, put yourself in situations where you’re above reproach, then you’re not going to be accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment because you’re not allowing yourself to be tempted by it.  And you’re not allowing other people to even question your behavior.

But that measuring rod, that standard, is foreign to our culture right now because of this whole idea of consent being the only moral standard that’s acceptable in our culture – it’s a false standard. It makes no sense, it puts all the responsibility on the woman.  It’s misogynistic in effect because it essentially says, “As soon as I can find a willing accomplice, I can run about and do anything that I want with her because she consented.”   It never even dawns on us that we never should have asked her to consent to that thing in the first place.

Rick:

You know, we often quote Wilberforce saying that “We need to make being good fashionable again.” But you point out in the article that being good is now — there’s no objective standard for that.  So anything goes based on agreement with others. So, how do we restore not only being good, but defining it, and bringing back an objective standard of being good?

A Worldview For Liberty

Dr. Everett Piper:

Again, I think the Biblical worldview is a winning worldview because it’s a worldview for liberty.  It’s a worldview for dignity, it’s a worldview that honors the women, it’s a pro-women worldview rather than a misogynistic worldview. It’s the Christian who can say, “I’m pro-women because, first of all, I believe they exist.  They’re not the fabrication or fantasy of a delusional dysphoric male once raised that he’s a man and now claim he’s a woman.”

But, then we can also say we actually honor the dignity of the woman because we’re not going to use her as an object of sport.  We’re going to treat her like a human being and we’re going to be gentlemen rather than run about and just try to find people that will satiate our appetite.

Rick:

So good, so good. Last question – Dr. Piper how do you see this kind of playing out in shifts in belief systems and moral standards in America? Is this going to be for good? I mean, what you do think, do you think all this coming out will make the nation want better standards? How do you think we’re going to respond to this?

Dr Everett Piper:

Well, I’m going to be an optimist. I think this is a wonderful time to be alive because we can shine a light on the power of a Biblical worldview as the answer to this nonsense. Mike Pence’s philosophy and strategy is the answer.  It’s not the problem.  And we can shine a light on that in the midst of this debate.

Rick:

So good, so good. Dr Everett Piper, Oklahoma Wesleyan University President. Thank you so much, sir, appreciate you coming back.

Dr Everett Piper:

Blessings, and Merry Christmas to you.

Rick:

Stay with us folks.  We’ll be right back with David and Tim Barton.

Biographical Sketches

Hi friends! This is Tim Barton of WallBuilders.This is a time when most Americans don’t know much about American history or even heroes of the faith. I know, oftentimes as parents, we’re trying to find good content for our kids to read.

If you remember back in the Bible, the Book of Hebrews it has the Faith Hall of Fame, where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well, this is something that as Americans we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity and our faith as well.

I wanted to let you know about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called, “The Courageous Leaders Collection” and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers.

There’s a second collection called, “Heroes of History” in this collection you read about people like Benjamin Franklin, Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, the list goes on and on.

This is a great collection for your young person to have and read. And it’s a providential view of American and Christian history. This is available at WallBuilders.com.

Moment From American History

This is David Barton with another moment from America’s history. Revisionists today often assert that our Founding Fathers were atheists, or agnostic, or deists. This charge is not new. In fact, Patrick Henry was even called a deist in his lifetime.

Clearly, no one could question his patriotism. But Henry was hurt that they would question his Christianity. Against the charges he was a deist, Patrick Henry thundered,
“Deism with me is but another name for bias and depravity. I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number. And indeed, there are some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than being called a traitor. Being a Christian is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.”

Patrick Henry was quick to refute the charge of deism and to declare his open belief as a Christian. For more information on God’s hand in American history, contact WallBuilders at 1-800-8- REBUILD.

The Importance of Objective Truth For the Culture

Rick:

Thanks for being with us here on WallBuilders Live. Thanks to Dr. Piper for joining us once again. Again, Oklahoma Wesleyan University.  We’ll have links today at our website WallBuildersLive.com and also a link to the article he’s specifically addressing this.

We’re back with David and Tim as well.  David, Tim, you know we’ve said on the program for years how important it is to have objective truth for the culture.  But sometimes it was, I guess, almost a theoretical argument for an issue like this where people weren’t facing the negative outcome of losing standards.

Now, all of a sudden, we have an opportunity in the culture to say this is why there needs to be an objective standard.  This is what you don’t want more of. And Dr. Piper sounds pretty optimistic we could — it could have a positive impact that this is all coming out.

David:

Well, it’s going to have a backlash. I mean, we’ve already seen that with what’s going on with Hollywood. And so Hollywood is really pulling itself in now.  I’s been open advocating all sorts of open sexuality of any way, shape, fashion, and form, for so long until it happens to hit with the producer who’s done so many movies.  Now suddenly it’s not in vogue anymore.

But because of the contradictory signals we send, I thought his question was really good.  He said, “What reason does a man have to behave like a gentleman in this current culture?” And that’s exactly right.

It was only a week or so ago that I ran into a lady.  It really offended to open the door for her because that was a sexist thing for me to open the door for her. No, that was behaving like a gentleman.  But there are all sorts of pressure not to do that.  Then, when you don’t behave like a gentleman sexually, suddenly they get bent out of shape over that? What’s the deal there?

A Winnable Argument

Tim:

I think this is one of the reasons this is such a winnable position where we are where one of the things about the pendulum swinging, as it swings back and forth.  Snd really one of the things the left has done is try to push the pendulum so far left that it’s gone to an untenable position.  Alright, this cannot be defended.  It can’t be sustained because it’s so ludicrous when it comes to reality.

And this is why I think we can be optimistic and hopeful that this just, it will not work. On the flip side, I would be very disappointed and frustrated if it stuck for very long because it does seem so untenable. But, I think this is why this is such a winnable argument.  I love what he pointed out as he says, “Look, we are the ones who actually believe in the objective reality of women,” right? The other side, well, women is a construct of the mind.  You know, we need to value women, but then anybody can choose to be a woman. Now wait a second–

Rick:

Right.

Tim:

There seems to be some impassable kind of positions that we are taking where you can’t value a woman and then cheapen it to the extent that anybody can be a woman. In fact, just a year or two ago we gave woman of the year to a biological male, Bruce Jenner, who was identifying as Caitlyn Jenner.  We’ve come to this place that it just doesn’t work.

In reality, when it comes to the sense that we are offended by the treatment of women, well, we are devaluing a woman. And dad, as you mentioned, where somebody gets offended that you would open a door, well, I don’t just open doors for women.  I open for people that I want to show respect to, right? So if it’s an elderly person, if it’s someone–

David:

That’s right, that’s right.

Tim:

You go down the list of people I want to show respect to.  Me showing respect to you is not based on any kind of sexism whatsoever. But this is what we’ve done in culture is we’ve kind of devalued the way we treat women and then we get offended when we treat women less than how they want to be treated.

This is why this is a winnable argument. And again, as Dr. Piper pointed out, this is something that because of the inconsistencies of the left, it gives our side such a great platform to stand on that we really should have boldness in confronting this issue.

It’s A Biblical Standard

David:

And by the way, we talked in here about the Billy Graham standard, the Mike Pence standard, and that Mike Pence’s standard has become the answer rather than the problem. I’ll go back and say that that standard was really created out of the Bible.  1 Thessalonians 5:22 which says, “You avoid the very appearance of wrong.”

Moral Standards:  The Mike Pence and Billy Graham Standard

And so what Billy Graham did and what Mike Pence did, these are safeguards and they have produced really good results for those guys.  There is no moral blemish on either of them. Mike Pence has no moral blemish or Billy Graham over all the years because they adopted that standard and that’s still a good Biblical standard to adopt today.  And that’s avoid every appearance of wrongdoing including sexually.

Rick:

Special thanks to, Dr. Everett Piper for being our special guest today. We appreciate you listening as well. Thanks for listening to WallBuilders Live.

2017-12-06T23:33:38+00:00 December 5th, 2017|Popular & Christian Culture|1 Comment

One Comment

  1. Dan J December 5, 2017 at 11:27 pm - Reply

    Its unfortunate, but for a long time now I have been careful what I say to females, and as a result my gentlemanly nature has suffered.

Leave A Comment