The Horrible Logic of Both Sides of "Religious Freedom"

The "Religious Freedom" act has me baffled by the lack of human logic in this matter, and here's why:

THE BAD LOGIC OF THOSE WHO ARE FOR THIS BILL
1)  it is bad logic to say that providing services to a gay person goes against your beliefs because it is a sin.

To ever claim that providing services (food, flowers, photographs, etc) to someone whose religious beliefs or lifestyles or ways of eating their dinner differs from yours has never been forbidden by the Bible. If you subscribe to the notion, for example, that it is a sin to be gay, then one should not have sex with persons of the same gender. Taking the photos of a gay couple at the wedding of a gay couple is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does it ever say that we should not do things for people who are gay. We do not sin by selling them flowers. It is NOT against anyone's Christian beliefs to provide services to gay people. It might rub them the wrong way, but it is NOT a sin. As a matter of fact, Jesus went out of his way to do things for "sinners" all the time. He obviously did not commit sin himself by doing so.

2) It is bad logic to say that providing services to a gay person goes against your beliefs because you do not want to support or condone their "sinful" lifestyle.

If the logic of Point #1 doesn't sway you, then think of this: to claim that you don't want to provide services to gay persons because their lifestyle is against your religious beliefs means that you MUST also be compelled to screen every person you sell a cake to, feed, or provide services to in order to ensure that their lifestyle does not disagree with your religious beliefs. If you TRULY BELIEVE this claim, that you should not have to serve those who are such sinners, then you also should not provide services to those who are heterosexual and live together, to those who have children outside of wedlock, to those who take the name of the Lord in vain, to those who drink to excess, to those who lie, to those who covet...shall I go on? To pick ONE SIN that you don't like and ignore the others is both hypocritical and bigoted. And illogical to boot. So if this bill does pass and you choose not to serve gays, you also must not serve anyone who falls under these other categories as well--and should be forced by law to stay true to this.

3) It is bad logic to pass this bill because it opens up the law for people to use it against Christians.

If you really think this is a good idea, you may very quickly find yourself discriminated against for your own beliefs. It works both ways. The law does not single out one sin, the one claim of homosexuality, and say if you don't like gays you don't have to serve them. It says you don't have to provide services if it goes against your beliefs. You do realize, of course, that there are people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours, that are not Christian, and they can discriminate against you if they choose. For some, the Christian lifestyle is an abomination--and they have just as much right under this law to refuse services to you. These Christians are relying on the notion that what they practice is "good" and no one would condemn it, but they are incorrect.

THE BAD LOGIC OF THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THIS BILL
1) I say let the bill pass--then we will know whose businesses NOT to support. It is poor logic to support these people who claim religious beliefs for not serving gays by using their services.

If people are so determined not to serve gay people and don't want to provide them services, then why on earth do we want to support their business? I say let the bill pass, but add that they must publicize their hate by putting up a sign, then everyone who sees this will refuse to use their services and they will go bankrupt and lose their business. I have no desire to force these people to serve gays or whomever it is they don't like. Instead, I would hope that everyone who has these "beliefs" is open about it; in turn, I hope that everyone who is gay or supports gay rights would then refuse to support the businesses who refuse to serve gays. Hit them where it counts: in their pocketbooks. If we can't change their minds, at least we can change their income.

Christianity isn't a Hobby.

Many conservatives and Christians are celebrating the Supreme Court's latest decision to exempt Hobby Lobby (HL) from having to pay for some forms of birth control because the folks who own HL claim it goes against their Christian beliefs. Hooray! A win for Christians everywhere and pro-life advocates, right?

No. It isn't. If you're a pro-lifer, a Christian, a conservative, you probably have your guard up, ready to argue against whatever I say (and may not even read on), but I beg you to open your mind up a bit and think this through. This is not about abortion; it's about treating faith like a hobby and making money from it. (well, paying less money--same thing).

This decision is problematic in several ways (opening up the courts to be bombarded with requests for exemptions for "religious" reasons, which is already happening), but here's the one I find most problematic: Christianity is NOT a hobby. It isn't something you do when you have some spare time or are in the mood. It isn't something to while away the hours with or do while you watch TV. But HL treats their beliefs this way, and I don't believe they should be able to have this exemption.

If we believe in something so strongly that it pervades every aspect of life, creates hardship and sacrifice, and then a law is passed that means we have to go against our beliefs, we should not have to follow that law. That is right from the Bible. Jesus says to follow the law as long as it doesn't break God's law. So for Christians, as long as the law doesn't go against God's law, we are told to follow it. If it does violate God's law, we don't. And I believe that Christians should have the right to do just that. That is why Christians are celebrating this HL decision. But wait--there's a problem here.

What if the person who claims to want exemption from this law is only a Christian when it is easy, when there is no sacrifice? What if this person only acts like a Christian when it is for her benefit? Do we still let her off the hook? Uh, no--not on my watch. If people want to claim that a law they are supposed to follow violates their Christian beliefs, I believe they must be practicing their Christian beliefs.

But we're not even talking about the people in this case; we're talking about the business. Chances are that the Green family DOES practice their beliefs, and not like a hobby. But the BUSINESS has to "practice Christianity" because it's money from the business that pays for health benefits. The money for health care does not come directly from the Greens' pockets but from the business.

And for those who practice Christianity as a hobby, those places like Hobby Lobby that buy products from China and have investments in birth control as part of their 401K portfolios, they do not earn the right to claim exemptions for religious reasons.

If a business wants exemption, that business needs to "practice Christianity" as a deep-seated belief, not as a hobby. Anyone who has any strong religious beliefs knows that this is hard work and requires sacrifices, which in this case would mean AT MINIMUM not buying from China and being absolutely certain that their investments were not supporting the causes they claim to be against.

Jesus despised the hypocrites, the Pharisees who stood on the corner and prayed aloud to get the praise of those around but had no love in their hearts. Faith was a hobby to the Pharisees--and it's clearly a hobby to Hobby Lobby. This Supreme Court decision should infuriate Christians who make difficult choices and make sacrifices every day for what they believe. This case has already spurred a barrage of businesses looking for this same exemption, businesses with the same hobby as Hobby Lobby. But if Christianity is only your hobby, you make a mockery of those whose hearts really are in it, come what may.

Closed-Ear Syndrome or How To Always Be Right

We all love to get a pat on the back, to feel understood and corroborated. It feels good to be right, to win, to have compatriots in the fight, whatever that fight might be. I love a good confirmation as much as the next guy. Who doesn’t? As a result, though, we’ve become a nation filled with citizens who, every single day, wall themselves into our own little fortress, brick on brick of nods and yeses till we’ve built such a formidable barricade that no new idea could ever get through, happy in our self-congratulatory bliss.

And it’s killing us as a nation. We fight like old married people where words volley back and forth but have simply quit listening to one another years ago. We don’t listen anymore. We don’t care about understanding one another anymore. We believe we’re right and they’re wrong and that wall is there to protect us from the nonsense and horrific bad taste and immorality of “the other guys” on the other side.

 It’s disgusting, frankly, that we have stooped to such disrespect. And no, I don’t mean mouthy teenager disrespect. I’m talking about the lady next door who badmouths teenagers for walking across her lawn but rakes all her leaves onto my lawn because they came from my tree. I’m talking about the uncle who thinks black people are the cause of all our problems but has never actually known a black man. I’m talking about the atheist who hates Christians because the only ones he’s ever heard about are from Westboro Baptist Church. I’m talking about guy I went to high school with who posts anti-Muslim sentiments every day because the Boston bomber was Muslim. This kind of deaf world reeks with disrespect.

I teach college writing, and I tell my students that their arguments are weak, flimsy puffs of wasted air if they haven’t investigated all facets of an issue. I had a student research euthanasia, for example, and all his sources were from Catholic-affiliated publications. He even quoted the Pope. This would be fine, of course, if he had also read several non-religious publications and then made his argument, but he purposely found only those sources that supported his opinion. He felt he’d found excellent reasons against euthanasia, cited all his sources, and made some good points. I listened to him and his ideas. But he hadn’t listened to anyone else’s.

The abortion issue depicts the extreme of this closed ear syndrome we’ve taken on. Just the terms used to label the “sides” of the issue—pro-life and pro-choice—make it clear. Has anyone who has a stake in this issue ever taken the time to realize that “pro-life” advocates are not (necessarily) “anti-choice” or that “pro-choice” advocates are not “anti-life”? If the terms were simply “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” it would make us a little less divided, but even then we insist that this issue is two sided, there is no middle ground, and we must fight, fight, fight.

Last year in Texas we all witnessed the epitome of this deafness when the Texas court tried to tighten laws for abortion clinics. Such a hoopla! But if you watched even five minutes of the day’s proceedings, you witnessed lots and lots of talking but not a single person listening. No one listened to anyone else. At all. Lots of loud, angry, words on both sides fell on nothing but deaf ears. Watch any MSNBC or FOXNews program where they invite someone from the "other side" and listen to how little actual listening is going on. 

If we could learn to listen, open our ears and minds and practice some empathy, realize we can be too biased, and stop painting issues—and people—as them and us, right and wrong, then we may move toward a kinder, gentler society, one that strives to care for one another rather than strives to tear one another apart.

 

But we’re afraid. It’s hard to be open to new perspectives and admit we’re biased. It’s distasteful to watch MSNBC when we’re used to the 700 Club, and when we do, we have our dukes up, feathers ruffled, ready to defend ourselves and our rightness. If we always need to be right, we can simply never listen to anyone who thinks differently, who has differing opinions, and stay tightly tucked in our thick brick walls.

After all, we’re not all extremists like Al Qaeda or the Ku Klux Klan, so we feel we’re good people as long as we don’t get silly. We don’t fly planes into towers. We don’t lynch people. We’re good people with good hearts. We just want what’s right. What we don’t realize is that the “other guys” are mostly good people who want what’s right as well. We’re on the same side.

On election day of 2012, as the results were coming in, I was watching CBS news for the election coverage, and one of the reporters asked both Mitt Romney and President Obama the same question, how they felt about the divisiveness in our nation. Frankly, I don’t remember Romney’s answer (apparently it was unimpressive). But our President’s answer was poignant: he said that we really weren’t as divided as we might think, that we all cared about having good schools and safe streets and a peaceful world. We just had different ideas about how to accomplish these things, and that’s okay. It helps us make better decisions.

Our country is built on the idea that no one ideology is automatically right, that everyone needs a say, and that we as a people determine the rules. But this can’t work if no one is listening, if we live our lives ear-muffed and walled in.  We can only make good decisions if we listen to one another, if we consider all the possibilities with genuine interest before deciding a course of action—and even then admit we might be wrong. Only then will our nation be the United States of America. 

An inflammatory list was posted on Facebook. I'm so tired of these divisive posts! The posted list is in black. The truth is in red text after each list item.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

The truth:
No one likes senseless murder.
If you're a conservative, you think more guns will help solve the problem.
If you're a liberal, you think fewer guns will solve the problem.

If a conservative is a
vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

The truth:
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. 

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him..

The truth:
Some people, both conservatives and liberals, find themselves down-and-out at times. Unfortunately there are those who abuse the system and reap what they are unwilling to sow.
If you're a conservative, you don't want to help those who deserve it because of those who don't deserve it.
If you're a liberal, you want to help those who deserve it despite those who don't deserve it. 

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

The truth:
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he posts a link to it on Facebook and finds fault with all liberals.
If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he posts a link to it on Facebook and finds fault with all conservatives.
On this point, we are no different. We all hate a disrespectful talk show host. 

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

The truth:
If a conservative is a believer, he wants the government to legislate his beliefs.
If a liberal is a believer, he doesn't want the government to legislate his beliefs. 

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

The truth:
Everyone needs health care.
A conservative believes health care should be privately provided and state controlled.
A liberal believes health care should be available and affordable for everyone.
These are not opposites, by the way. They are different approaches to the same problem.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's
"offended."

The truth:
No matter who reads this, they will be more likely to  feel divided from those "across the aisle." 

Is American an English-speaking Christian Country?

This rant was sent to me as an email. It was (allegedly) written (or spoken) by the Prime Minister of Australia.

'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT... Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

NOTE: IF we circulate this amongst ourselves in Canada & USA , WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

MY COMMENTS ON THIS RANT
At first I just deleted it. But then I couldn't stop thinking about it and decided I needed to respond.

First, please note that this was written about IMMIGRANTS. For those of you who would like to extrapolate this to include all people of the US who don't speak English or are not Christian, the rest of this commentary is for you. The fact is, THE TWO MAIN POINTS ABOVE DO NO APPLY TO PEOPLE  IN THE U.S WHO ARE CITIZENS.

POINT 1: 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!'

FACT: While the majority of Americans speak English, we have no national language. It isn't "the language of the people". If we were to speak the native language of this nation, we would all have to learn one of the 56 indigenous languages of this land like Algic, Iroquoian, Salishan, or Uto-Aztecan. English was spoken by one small group of settlers that came over here 500 years ago and started spreading themselves across a land that was not theirs. To say that English is our native language both dishonors those who first lived here and gives a sort of secondary honor to those against whom we fought for our independence. English was the language of our oppressors. It is NOT our national language. The number of people that speak English in the US has nothing to do with being American.

The majority of people in England speak English, the majority of the people in Spain speak Spanish, and the majority of the people in Italy speak Italian. Good. But the US isn't a country like one of these smaller countries with its own language and culture. To say that everyone in the US should speak English is like saying everyone in Africa should speak African (not that such a language exists). For one, this nation of ours is HUGE. We have room for many pockets of various cultures. Also no one is actually really from here. Except, of course, the Native Americans.

Many people who live in this country have generations upon generations who have lived in this nation longer than many English-speaking people. So to say that English is the language of our forefathers is only true for a handful of us. My forefathers, for example, spoke German and Scottish. My family has only been here in the US for 150 years or so. Guess what? It is NOT just immigrants who have maintained their lingual diversity. Just because Hispanics, for example, choose to teach their children the language of their family and my German parents did not does NOT mean that they have done something un-American. These people are just as much American (perhaps even more so) than I am. There is no such thing as a language called American. Yes, English has an American dialect. But it's still English.

Should everyone in the US learn English? Honestly I think they should just for their own benefit, but ultimately it's up to them. If they feel like they cannot succeed or get along or travel well in the US because they don't speak English, then they probably should learn. But they don't have to if they don't want to. If they prefer to maintain their cultural heritage, who are we to tell them that they can't? And for the sake of all that is good and right in this world, we ABSOLUTELY should not discourage them from maintaining their own language. No one language is superior to another (frankly English is pretty ridiculous if you've ever studied it) and the nuances that are inherent to every language allow for a much wider array of communication possibilities. Language diversity is a POSITIVE thing. 

POINT 2:  'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 

FACT: Just because the majority of the US population (76% as of 2008 census) declares a Christian faith does not mean that the government needs to, can, or should make any decisions or laws based SOLELY on Christian principles (which I'm not sure is possible anyway). While it is true that the "founding fathers" were (mostly) Christian, Christianity has nothing to do with our Constitution. While some of the principles of the Constitution are clearly parallel to Christian beliefs, these same principles parallel the principles of other faiths as well. Christianity does not have a monopoly on moral rightness. The fact that our Constitution specifically states that there shall be no establishment of religion precludes any kind of connection to any kind of faith-based belief system. This doesn't mean we should just ignore such principles, but we CANNOT as a nation force Christianity on anyone. God is part of EVERY culture in various ways and forms. And yes, we should live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment and accept the beliefs of others. But to accept their beliefs also means to accept the fact that it doesn't matter if the majority of US citizens are Christian--the majority doesn't have the right to use their beliefs to guide any kind of laws or rules that govern everyone. Laws and rules need to be founded on moral principles OUTSIDE of religious beliefs, so it is not acceptable to use the Bible as a reason for anything within the boundaries of government. Moral grounds must be found outside of any religious tenets. 

Frankly, if any person or group cannot form a sound, logical argument for their ideas or proposals without using the Bible, then their ideas are pretty weak. I know the Bible well, and every law and moral precept in there is reasonable for the time and the culture for which it was written.  So anyone who has the urge to use the Bible to make an argument should understand the logic behind the Biblical principle and can make their point using that principle without ever mentioning the Bible. 

Seriously folks. If you want to put the 10 Commandments on the walls of the schools, go for it. Just don't call them "The Ten Commandments". Instead, put a list of rules up that every faith could agree to. I don't think any Muslim or atheist or Buddhist will mind if you post something on the wall of the schools that says "Don't steal" or "don't kill"--or even the more closely Christian-related idea of honoring your father and mother. We all want the best for our children. Why do Christians feel the need to label these things as Christian? This is a Christian principle. This is a Christian song. This is a Christian ketchup packet. Kids can learn love and respect without telling them they have to love and respect others because God says so. 

SO: Sure, immigrants shouldn't enter a country and not be willing to adapt. I agree 100%. But if someone reads this and makes the assumption that every person in the US who doesn't speak English (or doesn't speak ONLY English) and isn't Christian is an IMMIGRANT, then that person is IGNORANT and needs to get out more. Meet some people that aren't white English-speaking Christians. Learn a second language or even a third. Make friends with someone who isn't just like you. You'll find that this country is richer, grander, and MUCH better off as a place of diversity and cultural difference.

And if diversity offends you, I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because diversity is part of our culture.

And just in case you're wondering, I'm white. I speak English and a little bit of French that I learned in school. I was raised as a Christian and still am one. And I teach English as a profession. 

Loving Our Bodies: Why Hal is More than Shallow

I bought myself some gadget to transfer all my old VHS movies to DVD (and by the time I'm done I'm sure they'll be obsolete, too) and came across Shallow Hal, one of my ex-husband's favorite movies (another story for another day). Now I am old enough to have a good sense of humor about my girth, to laugh when I have to start at the edge of the seat in the theater and scoot backward, to laugh even harder when I stand up without using the reverse of this tactic and my thighs pop the drink holder right off the arm of the chair. I don't cry over such silly stuff (anymore). But this movie, Shallow Hal, just seriously gets under my skin. Clearly it was written, created, directed (etc) by skinny people. Shallow Hal is a sign of the times, a sign of a culture obsessed with physical beauty even though we know that we are shallow for loving what looks good rather than what is good.  This film tries to appreciate inner beauty. But its attempts are more shallow than Hal himself.   

           

For starters, the depiction of fat people is insulting and perpetuates a stereotype with the actions only an actual hippo with nostrils the size of a large pizza and a behind big as your Chevy Suburban could manage. Gwyneth Paltrow’s character breaks chairs, tips one end of a canoe down so far that the other end—with Jack Black in it—is nearly two feet out of the water, and cannonballs into a pool resulting in a tsunami that sends some little kid from the pool right into a tree.  The hyperbolized eating habits are similarly offensive as Paltrow’s character eats gargantuan amounts of food: she gulps down a huge milkshake while Jack Black turns his head for a moment, and sucks down a whole chicken in less than a minute.  This is meant to be a parody; these are stereotypes, and everyone knows it, so it’s funny because we know it’s not true.

But it doesn't matter that obese people don’t regularly break chairs, inhale banquets, and create tidal waves.  Viewers know these are exaggerations—but not as over-the-top as you might think.  The average person watching (if they are thinking critically about this film at all...) are likely thinking something like well, maybe not that much food, not that many chairs, not all the way into a tree...but these fatties must eat a hell of a lot.  They must break some furniture. Thanks Hollywood. So now I get to go  eat in public and have people worried I might steal their food or break their chairs. Awesome.

            

This film also suffers from its proliferation of fat jokes  (mostly made by Jason Alexander, who is just as shallow as his buddy Jack Black). They are funny but pretty offensive to fat people, and the chances that there are fat people in the audience are pretty good, especially considering the premise of the film.  (I wonder what average weight of people who viewed this film was as opposed to other similar films that weren’t emphasizing weight...).  Anyway, you really can take a joke—several of them—too far. I have a sense of humor. I know a lot about my size is funny. But this film overdoes it to the point of a cringe.

            

Another poor choice this film made was in the actor who plays Hal—Jack Black.  Yeah, he’s funny and crude and can easily be imagined as shallow.  But Jack Black is no slim Hollywood hunk.  He’s “overweight,” and, compared to much of Hollywood’s leading men, unattractive. Why is this a problem? Because the underlying message is this: someone can learn to love a fat girl, but he’s gonna be a fat man himself.  Don't get me wrong; I actually love Jack Black. But just the fact that Hal and his sidekick—another not-so-hottie himself—believe that they are stooping to unbelievable lows by considering anyone less than perfect is another message that says women have to be beautiful, but men can be fat, bald, hairy, crude, etc, and we’re lucky to have them.  This common stereotype diminishes women. 

If you're not sure what this stereotype looks like, it takes all but a minute to come up with examples. We have the (reality?!) show Ordinary Joe where a gorgeous, slim, tall model-type woman has to choose from a bunch of ordinary guys—ordinary in that they look less like Tom Cruise and more like Jack Black. And somehow I don’t believe that “Ordinary Jane” will ever come out. The stereotype of the larger man and slim woman dominates entertainment: from fat Jackie Gleason and this tiny wife Audrey Meadows in The Honeymooners to fat Peter Griffin and skinny wife Lois in the animated series Family Guy, the large man and small woman is an acceptable pairing, and one that adds to the problems with this film. 

            

The problems with this film, however, get worse. Throughout most of the film we see Gwyneth Paltrow—the “beautiful” girl Hal sees—and not Rosemary as she really is: fat.  Only in small, supposedly hilarious shots of a thigh or an ass-cheek or a pair of “cankles” do we see the 300 pound woman that Paltrow is supposed to be until the very end of the film.  Why?  Why do we need so much Paltrow and so little reality?  Of course, we are seeing what Hal sees: Hal’s “spell” makes him physically see inner beauty, and the audience knows that, so it’s okay.  Bullshit.  The directors know that the audience needs to grow to love this girl, to feel badly for the way she’s treated, to want Hal to love her.  And it’s funny when Paltrow breaks a chair and sucks down a milkshake.  But it would just be sad if it happened to a real fat person.  Would audiences fall in love with her if they saw her as she really was?  No, not anymore than Black would.  Neither Hal nor the audience would give her a chance if she didn’t look like Paltrow.

            

 But by far the WORST flaw of this film: the idea it perpetuates that fat people are only beautiful on the inside.  Shallow Hal makes no attempt to even insinuate that fat people—or people with webbed toes, dandruff, pimples or any other physical flaw—could be beautiful.  Fat, rather, is ugly and those who can see beyond the fat find that it is possible to love someone for her/his personality, despite appearance.  Inevitably, then, the message is to look beyond surfaces--but never to love flawed surfaces.  This is not a helpful message, nor a deep one.  Every fat person watching this film knows that Tony Robinson isn’t going to put a spell on someone for them, that magic vision won’t suddenly mean that others will see them for who they “really are” and decide to give them a chance.  The movie (without intending to?) says that fat people simply will not be loved for their looks and only by taking the time to really get to know a fat person will you discover that she can indeed be lovable.  So hey, folks, give us a chance.  The possibility exists that we’re not so bad.  Just close your eyes, walk around with blinders on, and after a few months or so you might get used to the fact that we’re not skinny and we might be worth the trouble.

Loving our selves--flaws, fat, wrinkles and all--is a challenge everyone faces. A movie that pushed the message that only a magic spell will make flawed bodies lovable makes loving ourselves just that much harder. Imagine a fat kid with pimples watching this movie, knowing her "insides" are beautiful but no one will ever know it, and wishing her outsides were beautiful so someone would take the time. What a screwed up way to treat the world. 

And I wondered why that movie didn’t make me feel very good about myself.