Opinion

5 male celebrities I support, and why

Recently I wrote about five male celebrities I boycott for their pro-abortion views. Today, I’ll tell you about five famous men whose careers I can feel good about supporting, because they believe in and profess the sanctity of life.

Keep in mind I may disagree with them on other issues. But because I believe abortion is the ultimate moral litmus test, if they recognize the evil of abortion, I know their moral compass is pointed in the right direction.

Mel Gibson

5. Mel Gibson

Let’s kick things off with controversy! I want to be clear: there are things about Mel Gibson I do not like. He has made racist comments, and pleaded “no contest” to a domestic abuse charge. But he has also been dragged through the mud in the press, and not always fairly. The validity of the famous taped conversation with his girlfriend has been questioned by forensic experts, and his wife of 26 years claims she never experienced abuse. He has said his “no contest” plea was a way of ending the legal matter before it did more harm to his family, and he has maintained that he never harmed his girlfriend.

Still, Gibson himself admits he is a flawed man, and that’s one of the reasons why I support him. Because despite being a troubled, broken human being with a failed marriage, a failing career, and an ongoing legal battle with the girlfriend who bore his child, Gibson has never wavered on the issue of life.

In a Barbara Walters interview in 1990, at the height of his fame, Gibson said:

One can’t decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn’t. That decision doesn’t belong to us.

Later, he vocally spoke out against life destroying embryonic stem cell research. He said this on a television commercial:

…[I]n 23 years embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single human cure. All it has yielded is tumors, rejection, and mutations. See bad science doesn’t attract venture capital. So why should the taxpayers be bled dry? This is Mel Gibson and I’m voting NO on Prop 71. Creating life simply to destroy it is wrong.

In 2010, cast and crew members of the film The Hangover II objected to Gibson’s involvement in the film, so the producers rescinded his offer. The same cast and crew did not object — at least not loudly enough to make a difference — to the involvement of Mike Tyson in the film’s prequel. Mel Gibson has used strong, offensive words and pleaded “no contest” to threatening his girlfriend. Mike Tyson was convicted of and served time in prison for rape. It’s obvious the problem wasn’t that Gibson did something wrong, but the political and religious flavor of his opinions and offenses. Apparently, according to the Hollywood elite, it is more morally offensive to call someone non-politically-correct names than to rape a woman.

I support Mel Gibson not because I agree with everything he’s ever done, but because on the most important issue there is — whether or not it should be legal to kill innocent human beings, namely unborn babies — he has it figured out. That lets me know there is a good heart inside him. Maybe flawed, but good. And it lets me know that there is hope for him. So I choose to support him and his career. Because of the voice he has provided for the voiceless, I think he deserves it.

Jack Nicholson

4. Jack Nicholson

Here’s another guy with whom I probably don’t agree on every issue. A living legend in the cinema, Nicholson’s politics are full of contradictions. He called Sean Penn “the greatest living American,” but he refused to criticize President Bush, saying, “I support every president.” He calls himself a “lifelong Irish Democrat” and once spoke fondly of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Nicholson’s opinions on abortion were formed by personal experience. He was a grown man when he discovered the woman he thought was his sister was actually his mother, and the woman he knew as his mother was his grandmother. His mother became pregnant as a teenager and was encouraged to have an abortion, even back in 1937, but she chose life for her son. The revelation that his sister was his mom was understandably difficult for Nicholson, and had a profound affect on him. For one, it made him pro-life:

I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life.

This short statement is full of humility, wisdom, and courage. Note that he says, “I don’t have the right to any other view.” He has understood, thanks to the knowledge that his own life almost never happened, that life is a gift for which we should all feel gratitude. His willingness to vocally oppose abortion in the face of Hollywood and his own political party is inspiring and should be encouraged.

Ben Stein

3. Ben Stein

You may not recognize the name right away, but you’d know the voice. The familiar drone of “Bueller…. Bueller…” introduced him to Generation X, but before that he was a speechwriter for Nixon and Ford, Columbia honors graduate, and valedictorian of Yale Law School. Later he went on to have his own show on Comedy Central, “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” and to teach law, appear in films, and speak and write on various issues, including the sanctity of life. Here he is in 2009:

 Every baby that is conceived has the right to be; that is a basic. And I will tell you something that I never felt before in my heart until this year: I feel strongly that the tide is turning in our favor… one of the best, most important ways to give your life meaning and to live a decent life is to value life when it’s old, when it’s infirm, when it’s a different skin color, when it’s a different race, when it’s a different sex, when it’s a different religion, whether it’s born or unborn – and if you value life when it’s unborn, you set a standard for valuing life and for giving dignity to life that will stick with you and the society forever.

In 2008, Stein was involved in a controversial documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that accused members of the U.S. scientific and academic elite of blind allegiance to Darwinism and unscientific rejection of theories of Intelligent Design which have been put forward by respected scientists such as those at the Discovery Institute.

The documentary sought to show how a materialistic view of the world — in the philosophical sense — leads to treating human beings as expendable. Denying the innate worth of human life led to Nazi eugenics and concentration camps. According to Stein, only in recognizing the God-given worth of every human being, born and pre-born, can we guarantee each other liberty and be truly free.

Ben Stein is a remarkable and gifted man and an unapologetic warrior for life. I’m proud to support him however I can.

James Caviezel

2. James Caviezel

Caviezel became the favorite actor of just about every Christian in the world in 2006 when he played Jesus of Nazareth in Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ. Like Gibson a Traditionalist Catholic, Caviezel told Catholic Digest he was challenged by a pro-choice colleague to act with the courage of his pro-life convictions and adopt a child with special needs. So in 2009, Caviezel and his wife adopted their second child, a five-year-old Chinese girl with a brain tumor. Caviezel said it didn’t change the colleague’s mind, but it did strengthen his own convictions that every life is precious.

I was listening to Johnny Mathis the other day and I said, “What an amazing voice.” I have yet to hear another person sound like Johnny Mathis… Look, I am for helping women. I just don’t see abortion as helping women. And I don’t love my career that much to say, “I’m going to remain silent on this.” I’m defending every single baby who has never been born. And every voice that would have been unique like Johnny Mathis’. How do we know that we didn’t kill the very child who could have created a particular type of medicine that saves other lives?

According to LifeSite News, he has “compared the injustice of abortion to the mistreatment of women in some Arab countries.” One of his recent films, The Stoning of Soraya M., is based on the true story of an Iranian woman stoned to death for adultery.

For living his convictions, in his art and his life, I proudly see every movie featuring James Caviezel, even if I don’t particularly want to see the movie.

Eduardo Verastegui

1. Eduardo Verastegui

You may not have heard of him yet, but give him a break; he’s had to go it alone. This Mexican actor refused to accept roles that conflicted with his strong Christian, pro-life beliefs. He was told he would never work, so he decided to create his own work. Along with Alejandro Monteverde and others, he founded the production company Metanoia, and their first film, Bella, took the world by storm in 2006.

Winning the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival in 2007, Bella was a beautiful film with a pro-life message of subtlety and spirit that surprised the world with its success. With a budget of only $3 million, it made about $40 million worldwide and put Metanoia on the map.

In January of this year, Verastegui pledged to build the largest pro-life women’s clinic in the U.S. His organization, Mantle of Guadalupe, raises funds for a pro-life pregnancy resource center of the same name in east Los Angeles, just miles from ten abortion clinics. A devout Catholic, he also promised, “I will not use my talents except to elevate my Christian, pro-life and Hispanic values.”

This year, Verastegui launched a website, IAmViable.com, which celebrates the lives and unique abilities of people born disabled. His production company Metanoia is currently working on several important projects with uplifting messages that affirm the dignity of all human life.

It may be safe to say that even in the few short years of his career, no actor has done more to promote the cause of the unborn than Eduardo Verastegui and his Metanoia Films. I will make it a point to support their work.

 

We shouldn’t let the trends or prejudices of celebrity affect our lives. None of us should make any decisions based on what the Kardashians do. But every time we turn on the TV or go see a movie we choose to support the actors and artists who created it. What we spend money on makes a powerful statement. I make sure to further, in any way I can, the careers of these men, because I want them to keep working and keep speaking out for life.

Who do you choose to support, and why?

Live Action on Facebook
  • Jledesma

    Great article, CONGRATULATIONS!!! I totally agreed on your choices

  • Tpolak2002

    This only shows that, in our benighted times, an honest person can only support CAUSES and not particular parties, organizations or even people. In other words, we should not support, for example, Jack Nicholson as a man (who is obviously fallible) but only his views on abortion. 

  • Ann Lewis

    Neal McDonough. He is a practicing Catholic, refuses to do sex scenes or scenes that require little clothing. You  might want to research his pro-life stance, but considering how he feels about everything else (about remaining true to his faith) – I’d say he’s pretty solid.

  • Fritzi

    Thank you for this information. Very glad, grateful, to read about these men.  Jack Nicholson was a real surprise, but after reading his story….there’s a man speaking from reality!

  • RCinAL

    Chuck Norris as well I know is staunchly pro-life

  • Oraduffley

    good on em:-)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YBIAGBBHGPCEARIEOJH3PIWEUU MLB

    This was such an inspiring and great article. Thank you. Especially since I love “Person of Interest.”

  • David

    Why is abortion the ultimate moral litmus test?

    • Julie

      Because it is one person deciding another person’s fate: live or die. Either you think every single person is a human that deserves respect, dignity and a right to life, or you don’t. All other issues stem from whether one human being has the ability to deprive another person of life without repercussion. 

      • Gustavo

             Respectfully, I disagree.  For one, the terminology used in this statement is too nebulous.   For another, it is incomplete; for example, Julie’s definition is actually a much broader test for morality.  Julie’s definition encompasses personhood; the article’s litmus test does not.  It implies heightened protection of unborn children, which is a stance even the Catholic Church does not take.  (The Catholic Church places the infant on the same level of the mother, and therefore allows “foreseeable death of the infant,” so long as it is not intended. Uterine cancer, ectopic pregnancies, etc.)
             I concede that abortion has significant moral implications that might lead on to other conclusions, but it is not, in of itself, conclusive as a moral litmus test.    Using abortion as a litmus test for morality one could, for example, justify death penalty statutes, a stance taken by many (ironically named) “pro-lifers.”  Contrarily, Julie’s definition does not allow for such an action.  Consequently, the litmus test of abortion must be red
             In response to the original article, I cannot agree.  Logically, if one is correct in the “ultimate moral question,” that judgment would then lead one to act correctly in other actions.  That aside, one might accept Julie’s argument as an “ultimate litmus test for morality,” (and it leads to the conclusion that abortion is wrong), but the conclusion that abortion is wrong can be reached through a multitude of pathways.  For example, the statement “I believe that abortion is wrong because the Church tells me it is wrong” is a refutation of abortion; however, it has no useful moral implications.
             I would argue that a conclusion of whether abortion is incorrect or not arises out of moral principles.  For example, Julie’s statement is a moral principle from which arises the conclusion that abortion is wrong, with the caveat that it makes some baseline assumptions.
             As such, offering support to certain individuals due to their stance a on single issue is not logically tenable.  In this case, it has led to an endorsement of an individual who is a recognized anti-Semitic and alleged domestic batterer.  Contrarily, Julie’s statement bars both abortion and Mr. Gibson’s anti-Semitic and racist beliefs.
             Please note that nothing in this response is intended to advocate abortion.  This is merely the application of principles of logic and moral philosophy a flawed argument.  David asked why abortion was an ultimate litmus test and Julie responded with a statement that encompasses much more than the question of abortion.  I believe that it is important for pro-life advocates to be logical in their advocacy; as Immanuel Kant once said, in pertinent part, “Faith without reason is blind.”
             Respectfully,
        Gustavo

        • Gustavo

          Nidhoggr seems to have eaten some parts of my reply.  Since I don’t feel like re-typing it, if there is anyone who actually cares, say something and I will clarify any points that need it.  I guess I deserve it for the wall of text, but it is a complex question and deserved more than a blurb.

          • Ninek

            No, it’s very simple.  Killing humans is a great litmus test: if you support it, you’re not pro-life.   Using lots of words and rationalizations doesn’t make the plastic bags of bloody body parts disappear from the abortionists’ dumpsters.

          • Gustavo

            Respectfully, you seem to have missed my point.  Killing humans is the litmus test; restricting humans to those in utero is needless specificity.

          • Jenny

            The killing of humans is not the litmus test.  The killing of INNOCENT humans is the litmus test, and the primary reason why the killing of humans in utero is so heinous, because they are also the most defenseless.  While I am not advocating the killing of other, more mature humans (including those who have committed heinous crimes that merit the death penalty), the Church has always recognized the moral difference between taking innocent human life and taking a life under other circumstances.

            I tend to agree that abortion can be the moral litmus test for this reason.  If one is willing to kill a defenseless person (in utero or not, but with 4,400 being killed each day in the U.S., it is the most common form), then I have no confidence that when “push comes to shove” that they will respect anyone else’s rights except their own.

          • Gustavo

            Unfortunately, utilizing abortion as a litmus test also leads to endorsements of, say, Mel Gibson, who has a record of anti-semitism and racism.
            If classical Christian theology is the paradigm, it is clear that no one is innocent. (Original Sin, sins of the father, etc.)
            To be precise, as far as I recall the Church does not distinguish between the taking of innocent and guilty life; rather, the distinction lies in circumstance (self-defense, just war, etc.)
            While I did mention killing humans as a litmus test, that was only for the sake of brevity and contrast.  I did not think a more measured response was appropriate considering the remark to which I was replying.  Refer to my first post for clarification.

            To be more precise, the statement “abortion is immoral” fails as a litmus test for morality more generally because it fails to address the morality of actions up to that line.  Instead, (while I hesitate to make a bald pronouncement) something in the vein of Julie’s “respect, dignity, and a right to life” comes much closer.  Such a statement inherently rebuts “lesser” immoral actions like theft, deception etc.  

            Ultimately, the reason I posted is that I was frankly astonished that an individual’s stance on a single issue could define him to the extent that it allowed a general endorsement of that person, despite serious questions about that person’s character.

          • Cheryl

            Yes, the Catholic Church does distinguish between the taking of innocent life and ‘guilty’ life.  The Church includes abortion as one of the five “NON-negotiables.”  Meaning that there is NEVER a circumstance that justifies abortion, while a particular circumstance may justify (i.e.) the death penalty, war etc. As Catholics we may never support anyone who is pro-abortion, but we can agree to disagree on the death penalty, just war etc.

          • Ninek

            And besides, convicted killers get a more decent burial; no one throws them in the prison dumpster.  But I am against the death penalty as well: it solves nothing.

        • Jblitz001

          The church actually does take a heightened stance on the protection of unborn children, Gustavo. This is why killing a man can be taken care of in confession, whereas killing an unborn baby results in instant excommunication. 

          • Gustavo

            Good point.  However, a fair point in response would be that is a question of punishment, not protection.  I will concede this, however.  I think I may have overstated this point, though ultimately it was more of a throwaway comment.

        • Jblitz001

          I’m not following your logic here: “Using abortion as a litmus test for morality one could, for example,
          justify death penalty statutes…”

          Could you clarify?

          • Gustavo

            In that abortion as a moral litmus test does not prohibit the death penalty in of itself.

        • MaryClair

          I can’t help but wonder if you regret posting on here now… I would like to put in my two cents. First off let me start out by saying that I am a simple minded individual and much of you post went a bit over my head, that being said, I very much agree with you that an individuals moral stance on one issue is not reason to whole heartedly support them but rather (as I believe you attempted to point out) it would be more prudent to examine the individuals morality as a whole. (Now don’t get me wrong I am not condoning judgement, for that belongs to the Lord alone!) We should keep in mind, however, that by supporting an individual we are inturn, whether intentionally or not, supporting that which they support, therefore we should be carefull who we jump on the band wagon to support. Though I am inclined to boycott someone who has so little respect, not only for human life, the innocent and those who have no voice, but more importantly for Holy God himself and subsequently his creation, I feel to strongly support them simply because they have this one issue right is somewhat iresponsible.

          I am sickened by abortion, but I am also sickened by the objectification of women, men and women cheating on their spouses and chalking it up to “that’s Hollywood” or “boys will be boys”, those who get married and then divorced within months or even weeks, and open unrepentant homosexuality, among many other examples of sinful behavior. To everyone, Even some of the most vile of people have one or two good beliefes. And I think we can all agree that those who are pro-death…(forgive me) “pro-choice” need our prayers! May God bless all of you!

      • guest

        I dont have a side just yet but what if a girl or woman was brutaly raped, what then?   Live with the memory for 9 months and hate whats growing inside her.  Having to explain that she she was raped by a family member, a stranger or friend and became pregnant. Not sure how to side on that.

  • joyjoy

    This is wonderful. And it provokes my heart to put my feet to my convictions.

  • joyjoy

    This is wonderful. And it provokes my heart to put my feet to my convictions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/livin4jesus0225 Autumn Kersey

    Justin Beiber is pro-life.

  • Mara

    HELLZ YEAH!!!! I like this, I like this, I like this. They bring the name “Heart-throb” new meaning. Kristin, you are kick-butt awesome.

  • Guest

    What about Chuck Norris?

    • Guest

      never mind

  • george

    There was a 60 minutes segment with Mark Wahlberg several months back.  He seems to be a pretty devoted catholic and impressed me.

  • Jus sayin’

    What about Clooney?  Sooo dreamy.

  • elleblue

    As far as Mel Gibson is concerned he had no empathy for his wife or children and the embarsement his behavior would create for them! He has brought all his problems on himself.

    • Ceitagh

      It’s pretty obvious Mel is bipolar…his erratic mood swings and past attempts to self-medicate (his alcoholism) are well documented. I say pray for him and be merciful knowing he is probably not full culpable for his actions due to his mental illness.

  • Bazgurl05

    its never too late to be a saint…just keep trying…NEVER GIVE UP!!!!

  • Birgit Jones

    Wow! I had no idea that Jack Nicholson and I had so much in common – I’m the teen mom (14), my mother is the grandmother and ‘our’ son is ‘Jack’! Read my story here: http://www.catholicsistas.com/2011/10/08/im-pro-life-except/ 

  • Jus sayin’

    George Clooney.  So dreamy.  Jus sayin.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jchathaway John C. Hathaway Ocds

    Don’t forget Dwight Schultz.  The A-Team and Star Trek star has been virtually blackballed except for roles as oddballs and nutcases because he’s pro-life.  As a recent book quoted, Bruce Paltrow (Gwyneth’s father) refused to cast him in a part on _St Elsewhere_ because “I don’t want any Reagan @#$#%@%s on my show!”

  • Anonymous

    Mel Gibson never made racist comments, and was never charged for domestic abuse.
    What a load of crap to write.
    Hwe was charged with what he had declared to the police, to have slap that golddiger on the face once to stop her form shaking the 2 months old baby like a ragdoll, causing the premature child internal brain bleeding, call baby shaking syndrom.
    In CA, and in CA only, you can be charged with misdemanour battery if you use force to protect someone elses life who is too weak to defend itself, like an older, a child, an handicaped person, or a baby.

    I found very weird and offending that a so call pro life review blog, dont even know that, and didnt even supported Mel Gibson for protecting a babie’s life.

  • Anonymous

    You also assume that Mel Gibson is an antisemite.
    You have proves? Where do you have it from?
    A tabloid who ade millons on this lie and who has never presented any proves.
    We have the word of opne person who turned out to be a corrupted cop looking to retaliate against his superiors by putting them in an embarassing position.

  • Anonymous

    You are pathetic.

    First stop rape, then you can stop abortions.
    What do you do to protect women from rapes?
    What do you do to stop rapists?

    Do you go around and point fingers at them and write their names in papers and wait for them outside their doors, as you do abortion clinics workers and woman who were forced to chose abortion?
    You cannot be prolife and be a soldier, you cannot believe in God and say to be christian and try to tear appart other human beings right to chose, given to them by God, over themselve.
    If you were putting as muhc effort agaisnt rape and violemce agaisnt women as you have put agaisnt abportion, there will be no more rapes in USA and across the woprl and no more violence done to women.

  • Anonymous

    You do not care about life, you look for an excuse to opress women and make it acceptable.

    If you are american and if you accept your constituton, and if you accept the freedom of choice, you also have to accept the rigth to chose abortion and the rigth to have it present in society as a choice.
    You cant both have your cake and eat it and want freedom to attack others and experess your opinion while forbiding others to express their own choice nd silencing hte voide of women.
    and you cant both pretend to be pro life and at the same time opress and refrain life like womens life and make choice for women pro format who are none of your business.

  • Anonymous

    I dont see you fighting agaisnt war and the ending of troops to war where they will be killed and wil killed others, so you are an hypocrite.
    and a lier.
    You talk from a place of ignorance. Not of knowledge.
    What about little gilrs getting pregnant form the father who abuse them sexualy?
    You are so disgusting!
    You should show repect to those women and not shame.

    What alternative do you have?
    are you pro prevention?
    are you pro helping women who are alone with a child or several?
    Do you feed childrens after they are born or do something to help a girl with a child so that she can feed the baby and get help to can finish school?
    Do you do something ofr this child after he or she is born? or do you just let it on the table to die??

  • Anonymous

    I have seen you on tv and you all looks pretty disgiusting and like animals, like savages.

    Abortion is a serious matter that one chose by being forced to it, and not for fun, while you do what you do, those ignominous tings, for the sake of fun and propaganda to diseminate an ideology, who has nothing to do with life, and everything to do with money and political influence who are the key words in all this, and in that you are all very disgusting.

    I am sure you will all go to hell for doing that as it goes agaisnt the Father’s words, and it disrespect women, and desacralise the choice they have to make as human, in their life, and as you legitimate rape and incest!.
     

  • Anonymous

    You didnt even knew that Mel Gibson was charged on misdemanour, who is the lowest battery charge that exist, and was never charged for domestic abuse.
    Thats how ignorant you are of facts, and that kind of things was and still is highly publicised and can be found anywhere in the medias and all over the itnernet, but you got it wrong.

    So how can you get anything rigth that concern the sacral and the spiritual and that concerns other peoples choice that are never published anywhere?
    Are you mind readers??

    Shame on those who shame the Lord’s words by shaming the humans who take their free will into their hands and act upon it, instead to be sheeps in the hands of the devil.

  • Michael Skaggs

    THANK YOU x 4!!  You are the first person in the media who has written about the “Hang Over” double standard of Mike Tyson and Mel Gibson. At last there are others who know! 

  • MaryClair

    thank you for posting such educational information. Wonderful info to take into consideration.

  • Johndoe010101

    Wow, as long as you are anti-choice, you can be any kind of racist douchebag and get on this list.

  • Clemencia

    I admire your views.  I wish we would all support our catholic beliefs and reject what we consider to be unchristian.  Thank you.

  • Mammy

    I agree with all…Ben Stein a favorite,you don’t have to be Catholic to value all life!

  • Laura

    I think Caviezel is awesome all around

  • Bridget

    I love you, eduardo!