Michael Jackson and Hollywood "Spirituality"
Traditional religion calls the faithful to lead a righteous life. However, Hollywood's celebrity culture has spawned a new kind of "spirituality" devoid of moral obligation. Michael Jackson epitomizes this fashionable marriage of faith and vice.
According to Jesse Jackson -- the "spiritual advisor" for the Pied Piper of Neverland Ranch -- Wacko Jacko is a man of faith. Michael is "really a very tough and smart guy," says the Reverend. Indeed.
Jesse comforts Michael with prayer and "biblical examples" despite the fact that Michael's career is built on immoral themes that have made him nearly half a billion dollars.
Jackson is not alone. Popular celebrities such as Madonna and Mariah Carey have built a veritable wall of separation between religion and morality. Madonna just invested $4 million for a Kabbalah Center in London. Mariah Carey recently claimed the Pentecostal Christian faith saved her from deep depression. Tom Cruise's new date, Sofia Vergara, along with "virgin" Katie Holmes, is about to join Cruise's highly controversial Church of Scientology.
What does religious faith mean to these entertainers? They seem to deconstruct the very purpose of religion. Muslims murder in the name of Islam. Carey sings top-selling sex come-ons in the name of Christian Pentecostalism. Madonna is "like" a virgin in the name of Jewish esotericism. Cruise, Vergara and Holmes pursue self-validation through dianetics.
Despite their pretensions to faith, the only sin these leftwing celebrities seem to recognize is not giving aid to Africa. U2's Bono heroically calls for aid, yet declines to pay taxes himself. For these vapid ideologues, religion means "whatever gets you through the night."


2 Comments:
Jesse Jackson and Michael Jackson go together. Fake degenerate reverend for a degenerate little scum. They represent Afro-American morals too well!
Why do you suppose this is, both the matter of the the social condition, and the high profile people that represent it?
In my library are some 19th century commentary which attests to your same assessment. But the question is, Why?
Why even the image, the stereotype?
Post a Comment
<< Home