What I find the most surprising about this article is how I was able to agree with a few aspects of the author's opinion. He manages to draw even the most atheistic reader in by starting off slow when it comes to making his Christian beliefs blatantly obvious. There is a progression of what I can only refer to as "insanity" that occurs in this article. The author begins by appealing to the reader by portraying MTV and bands like ICP in a negative light. This is something that almost anyone over the age of 18 who has watched MTV or heard ICP's music can get behind. Ask the most average college student if they still think that MTV stands for "music television" and you'll likely receive the same answer: NO. What this author has done is brilliant. He keeps the non-Christian reader from dismissing the article immediately by appealing to their cynicism regarding pop culture.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
Interesting, insightful and well-reasoned. Thanks for a great read here!
ReplyDelete