What do you get when you combine the writer of Steel Magnolias with the creator of Sex and the City? The answer? Just another heartwarming television drama complete with the slamming of the Christian faith. No, your eyes and ears are not deceiving you. ABC’s newest sitcom titled GCB has managed to fly under the radar without too much uproar. The sitcom is based off a book called Good Christian B*tches written by Kim Gatlin. At first ABC intended to use this original title, but controversy caused it to change to Good Christian Belles, which was then simplified to GCB, allowing the real title to shine through without coming off as “too offensive.”
As if the title is not offensive enough, the entire show essentially centers on demeaning the Christian faith by plastering a cross and the name Christian to hypercritical women on a Hollywood television show. The show first aired March 4, 2012 and follows the events of a former high school mean queen bee as she moves back to her Texas hometown after the death of her cheating husband. As the title suggests, the characters in the show all claim to be good Christians who attend church and wear their diamond studded crosses. Outside the church it is a different story as the women are seen behaving in the most appalling ways. The show merely represents another sitcom drama revolving around sex, gossip, wealth, revenge, and the depletion of morality. This one however comes with a twist in that it cleverly incorporates Christianity and successfully makes a mockery of it.
The women of GCB also live by their own self-proclaimed 10 commandments including idolizing anything expensive, taking pride in displaying their bodies, and of course desiring the man next door, even if he’s married. Kristin Chenoweth, a supposed Christian in real life affirms, “The show isn’t offensive. The Bible tells us we’re not supposed to judge and people shouldn’t judge before seeing the show. I’m a Christian… and I would never do anything that I think crossed the line.” (Bigler, 2012). Chenoweth plays the character of Carlene Cockburn, (Coincidental name? I think not.) the shows primary protagonist who is judgmental, nasty, vengeful, and addicted to plastic surgery. These miniscule flaws can be overlooked of course because she regularly attends church on Sunday mornings.
GCB has been hailed as being the next Desperate Housewives and “funny, sassy, and heartwarming.” The wholesome values of the show manage to twist biblical scripture to conform to the show’s secular ideals. Aside from the gossiping mean girls storyline, the show also follows smaller key plots such as homosexuality and infidelity. With so much of the media pumping out shows such as this, it is no wonder we are a nation consumed with sexual acceptance, contraception demands, skyrocketing divorce rates, and the approval of living without self-control.
This show perhaps stands above others though because of its usage of the Christian name. The show single handedly displays the Christian faith as one big joke, which a majority of society already buys into. As if Hollywood and the media have not degraded God enough, they have now managed to create an entire series categorized as funny and charming to further wage their campaign against faith.
In short, GCB is just what the doctor ordered for society: Another show with the demoralization of values and self-respect.
“If you give a mouse a cookie, he is going to want a glass of milk…” If you give America free contraception, well what won’t she want? Nothing could be truer about the continuous revolving door of government handouts and the overwhelming sense of entitlement searing through the American culture. The recent contraception uproar is a blast against moral social concerns and more importantly depicts the destructive essence of the government regulating the country’s healthcare.
Kathryn Nix in an article for the Heritage Foundation could not have said it better; “The decision isn’t simply a question of providing women with ‘free’ contraception, but rather a bad experiment in government micromanagement of health care that will end in higher premiums and fewer coverage choices for all Americans.” (2011). Diverting the health care argument as an attack on women is merely a means of distraction to what is really the issue at hand. The Left have strategically and conveniently distorted the controversy of the debate to their advantage. Portraying women as the victims in this situation makes anyone opposing funds for free contraception as ignorant, insensitive, and anti-feminist. But really the question boils down to how much of our lives are we willing to let the federal government seize control over?
It should come at no surprise that federal government has been pumping funds towards the sexual demands of our society for quite some time. As of 2004 “the government devoted 12% more towards the ‘safe sex’ evolution as opposed to promoting any form of abstinence education.” (Heritage Foundation, 2004). Not only is the government intruding in our lives but also there has been a dramatic shift in society’s priorities. “Free contraception” is the equivalent of the government regulating your body, courtesy of American taxpayers of course. It will not end with the demand of free birth control because as we all know if we want one thing for free why should it not all be free? What shouldn’t I have at my disposal? It would be of no surprise if the scope of this argument shifted to the demands of free operations, free implants, or free Botox. Or how about something a little more practical such as vitamins and supplements? This is all assuming though the government sees it fit to distribute such things to you in the first place, now that they have the final say as to what they will provide for you.
Our commemorated sense of entitlement offers no solution to this problem either. For starters, there is no such concept of something with the price tag reading free. Everything in this world is purchased at a cost, something our Founding Fathers understood very well. The new norm sweeping the American culture is “I deserve what I want without the consequences.” Because of this attitude, many have looked to the federal government to somehow magically fulfill every demand which is once again done at the expense of the taxpayer. It has now become expected for government dependency to support and fund our independency. It is not in the government’s power to regulate the public’s health choices, nor is it the obligation of one individual to fund another individual’s personal choices.
Perhaps the simplicity of the mouse wanting his cookie, milk, and much more could teach us a thing or two of what is becoming of our country.