Hollywood Liberalism knows no boundries.. Exhibit 1… the movie “DOUBT”
Posted by kayms99 on March 14, 2010
Yep… liberalism certainly gives me a lot to gripe about. Right now, I’m going to gripe about the capital of progressive liberalism… Hollywood.
I’ve watched the movie “Doubt”, with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman, several times and I now know that my first impression was correct. This movie promotes Hollywood’s ultra liberalistic movement to stifle (or completely wipe out ) Christian values. And it’s frustrating because of the great amount of influence Hollywood has. I believe, unfortunately, they will ultimately win and their views will reign in main stream society, if they don’t already.
The reason I say that I “now know” that my first impression of the movie is correct is because, on the surface, the movie seems to be very ambiguous. Even to the end, we can’t truly be sure who the protagonist is and who is the antagonist. But really, one could know this just by learning of the major components…. a staunch, hard lined, by the “Book” Catholic (CHRISTIAN) Nun, a Priest who wants to “modernize” or “LIBERALIZE” the church, and Hollywood. And to be more descriptive… a Nun who holds on to traditional Christian values and a Priest who believes that “love” is the most important thing above all, but… oh yeah, this kind of “love” just happens to express itself sometimes through sexual contact with a 12 year old boy.
Gee… Hmmm…. I wonder who the antagonist will be??? HMMMM.
Because of the movies ambiguity, you never get to know for sure if the priest actually did anything wrong with the 12 year old boy. Father Flynn claims thru out the movie that he did nothing wrong and that it is him who truly cares about the isolated boy not Sister Aloysius. Yet, the nun seems to have gotten to the truth that this priest does have a “fondness” for innocent boys who naturally trust priests. She SEEMS to. She has her certainty even though he never comes out with an actual confession of past incidences. But, really, there are two scenes in the movie that do actually confirm who the “good” guy is and who the “bad” guy (woman, in this case) is.
In the last scene of the movie, as the Sister Aloysius tells another Sister of her triumph; the conversation between herself and Father Flynn containing the near confession and the subsequent resignation by the Priest, she confesses to the sister, sobbing, that she has doubts… “such doubts!” We do not get to hear any explanation or reasons for these doubts.. the movie ends. The insinuation is that she believes that she may have been wrong.
What is even more significant though is the scene a short time earlier in the movie where the nun contacts the boy’s mother and they have a meeting concerning the nun’s suspicions. Suprisingly to the nun and to the viewers, the mother not only seems unconcerned by this possible relationship, she asks that Sister Aloysius do nothing about it that might jeopardize her son’s enrollment at the school. The mother has made it clear that that is all she cares about… that her son is able to complete the year at the school which would help ensure a better future for him.
She says, in so many words, that her son’s “nature” might actually welcome the priest’s advances. That the boy’s father hates him and beats him because of his “nature” and that kids at his old school tormented him. The boy is in need of a man who “cares” about him. Yes, that is what she said. And she ends her conversation with Sister Aloysius by saying that she hopes the sister is on “her” side… which she implies is the “right” side for her son.
Viola Davis, who plays the mother, was highly aclaimed for her performance in this scene.. even nominated for an academy award. I acknowledge that her performance was a good one but I can’t help but think that the message was also being praised by Hollywood as they so often do.
And what message would that be?? That Christian values and morals are twisted and wrong. That, barring the use of force, there is no such thing as sexual sin. Christianity is stiffling and hurtful to the soul. People need to be “LIBERATED”!! Liberation is good… sexual moral restrains are BAD and in this case might even be damaging… after all, this boy needs a man who “CARES” about him!!
So, apparently the doubts that Sister Aloysius has are whether she did the right thing by the boy and the Priest. Could he have fulfilled a need in the boy? Even if that meant a sexual relationship? Did the priest truly love the boy..even if he was having sexual relations with him? ARE Christain values twisted and faulty and lacking in real “love” for others???
Geez.. WHAT A BUNCH OF LIBERAL GARBAGE!!!
This would probably be a good time to point out the fact that sexual interaction is not required in order to show caring, love and concern. And in examples like this, contrary to what liberals would have you believe, it actually CONTRADICTS those things.. Yes really!
The needs of this 12 year old boy DO NOT include sex. And what he does need cannot be found in the act of sex.
A priest can show caring, love and concern without putting his hands on the boy’s genitals. Or visa versa. Sexual gratification of the priest is not a requirement in order to show love and concern for the boy.
But that (obviously) is identified by liberals as sexual moral restraint… which is a clear liberal “no no”.
Once again it is NOT necessary for the priest to receive sexual gratification in order to show the 12 year old boy, who hasn’t even reached puberty yet, that he cares about him and loves him. If you have been duped by the corrupted liberal agenda and are not sure… just look at the parent / child relationship. But who knows… with restraints being such a bad thing it is probably only a matter of time before that act is defended also. That is if it already hasn’t been defended in Hollywood… probably has.
And THAT IS the problem with progressive liberalism… without moral restraints there WILL be consequences, but liberals stubbornly and ignorantly do not want to acknowlege that.
So, I want to summarize this by saying what I believe true liberalism is all about. And that is to eradicate “corrupt” Christian morals and values from society. To brainwash us into aligning with their twisted idea of what morality is. .. of what love is. Which as this movie shows, includes having sex with children… providing the adult truly “cares” about the child of course. And as this example shows… Hollywood is aggresively supporting and advancing this movement. Unfortunately they have the influence, the money, the ultimate access to society, and support of every actor in the business it seems.