Category: Social Analysis

I Prefer Chocolate… I Think

Tim Jones, here.

"We live in a land where you
can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in
my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should
be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but
that's how I was raised." (FOX News)

This is the tepid and tentative endorsement of traditional marriage that, on the one hand, cost Carrie Prejean (Miss California USA and Miss USA finalist) the Miss USA
crown, and that on the other hand has caused her to be lionized in the
conservative press… neither of which makes any sense, based on what
she actually said. Presidential candidate Barack Obama said essentially
the same thing months ago.

This throws some light on the whole gay agenda and on politics in general here in the U.S..

Carrie
Prejean will be known henceforth in the public mind as "the girl who
would have been Miss USA", but for the presence of a flaming gay
activist judge, and the girl who actually won the competition (does
anyone know her name?) will be forever known as "the girl who beat
Carrie Prejean".

The gay judge, Perez Hilton, got his thong in a
twist because he wanted to hear Miss Prejean say, "Golly, I think
chocolate and vanilla are both just swell…" and she had the audacity
to say "I think… I prefer chocolate. No offense to vanilla people.".

As
Mark Shea has observed time and again, where the gay agenda is
concerned "Tolerance Is Not Enough! You Must Approve!". The message
(and this episode is only its latest incarnation) is very clear: "You
want to make it in the entertainment business? Then…" – I was going
to say, "learn to keep your mouth shut", but the real lesson is –
"learn to parrot the opinions we give you – with enthusiasm – or else".

That's
nothing new, it's just acquired the brashness that is the hallmak of a
bully who has grown accustomed to success. Their fear campaign has
worked, in large measure. "Agree with us, publicly, if you want to
work. Disagree and you will be passed over". It used to be that
aspiring entertainers were passed over in private meetings… now they
are passed over publicly, clapped in irons and pelted with fruit.
Pelted by fruits, you might say. What's troubling is that the same
thing is happening in corporate offices and boardrooms. Learn to say
the right thing, if you value your job.

But then, in the
hinterlands of the right, you have Fox News throwing Miss Prejean a
virtual ticker tape parade, treating her as if she had said, "Mr. Perez
Hilton, tear down this wall!!!", ignoring the fact that her answer was
in fact very meekly pro-marriage, and lacked any moral conviction, that
she took pains to emphasize that this was just her opinion… that she
is, in regard to gay marriage, "personally opposed, but…"

I
know she's young, and that she's no philosopher, and that she was on
the spot and under a great deal of pressure, and I suppose I should be
happy she was able to stammer her way through any kind of half-hearted
endorsement of real marriage at all… but it's not as if she didn't
know the question might come up. The contestants do see them in advance
(though they don't know which one they may be asked).

I'm appalled that she was set up,
basically, by a gossip Queen who (wrapping himself in the PFLAG) was
determined to deny the Miss USA title to anyone not solidly toeing the
line of the gay agenda, but I'm also appalled at the reaction to her
speech at both ends of the political spectrum.

(visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

“Christian-ese” Redux

(Attention: this piece has been Cross-Posted (at Old World Swine) to double your reading pleasure!

Reader Louise has asked in relation to this previous post;

"But what about the Christian pop music, and the hat with IHS on it? Are
these things bad now? So that we have to beg God's forgiveness for this
"rot"?"

A fair question, and one difficult – or rather impossible – to answer directly. I'm certainly not interested in even beginning to say "Well, you shouldn't listen to this, but I think it's okay to listen to that…"
or "wearing Christian symbols on clothing is a compromise with the
consumer culture, and is therefore bad". Everything depends on the
individual's determination (or lack of same) to live a life radically
committed to the Gospel.

It comes down to a matter of
perspective. Is our faith just "part of a well-rounded life", or is it
the organizing principle that gives meaning to everything else? The
question might be framed this way; if not for the ICTHUS emblem on the
car, or the IHS hat, or the bible verse t-shirt, how would your
neighbors, your friends, your community recognize your lifestyle as
especially Christian? If these things didn't exist, what is it about you that would make people know you were a committed follower of Christ?

Keep
in mind that in saying "God forgive us" for these kinds of things, I am
praying mostly for myself, having been in a position to contribute to
the mess by designing Christian t-shirts and other knick-knacks for
several years. The horror, for me, would be that anyone could truly
say, "You can always tell a Christian because they have little bible
verses on their knick-knacks".

Yes, I do think we need to ask
God's forgiveness for the extent of the compromises we have made with
the prevailing consumer culture (mostly without even thinking), and we
need to look hard at our relationship to the wider culture, but much of
the responsibility lies with Christian artisans of every stripe to dig
deeper, reach higher and not settle for mediocrity by merely putting a
Christian spin on a material culture. This might mean having to work a
lot harder, it might mean walking away from a job opportunity. It might
mean lots of things.

Catholic artisans in particular have a rich and ancient tradition of excellence to build on… we should ask ourselves, where is today's Pieta? Chartres Cathedral? Mass in C minor? Crucifixion of St. Peter? If we don't create the masterpieces of our age, who will? (…and again, I'm mainly talking to myself, here)

I
don't want to be guilty of making the perfect the enemy of the good,
but from my perspective it looks much more likely in our culture that
the good has been seriously undermined by the "good enough". Am I being
a little hard-nosed about it? Yeah, maybe.

I was once much more
involved in Christian Retail, which meant getting a good look behind
the scenes at how Christian products are developed for the mass market
(a process which, like the making of laws and sausages, one might not
really want to see). Part of this involved attending a massive
Christian products convention in Dallas one year. I have to say, the
reality of the sheer amount of money flying around, the slick
marketing, the celebrity culture, opportunism, etc… I found
disturbing. I heard a reliable report that one Captain of Christian
Industry took some visiting manufacturers (atheist foreigners, which is
not their fault) out to a strip club. Why? Because they would like him,
they would feel like they were buddies, they would be impressed, they
would be easier to work with.

But for every lap dance proffered
at such a gathering , there are a hundred very expensive steak dinners,
rental limos, pricey gift bags and the like. It is (I believe)
fundamentally a culture of materialism, with a Christian gloss. This is
not to say it is this way in every single case, only to say that I
found a disturbing materialist atmosphere prevalent in that Christian
marketplace. Were there good points, as well? Sure, and I could name
some for which I was grateful. But the overall tenor of the thing
was… creepy.

I tried to imagine Jesus walking the aisles of the
cavernous convention floor, and decided pretty quickly that had he been
there in person, he would have slipped out quietly and would likely as
not have been talking to the homeless guy at the roadside who we passed
on the way in. I, myself, couldn't leave without breaking a lot of
commitments. I consider that I "left" that place over the next several
years.

On Speaking Christian-ese

The Aesthetic Elevator
discusses the problem of a ghetto-ized Christianity that cloaks its
message in jargon and nomenclature, and inspires some thoughts.

The job of the Christian in most cases, it seems to me, is to live a counter-cultural life in the midst of
the prevailing culture. That's what "counter-cultural" means. If we
live off to ourselves in some forgotten corner of the world, we may
live any way we like, but we can't really live counter-culturally
without some culture around us to be counter to.

One can't "swim against the current" in a stock pond.

Some – a few – are
called to withdraw somewhat from the surrounding culture, the better to
cultivate holiness, contemplative prayer and study, but most of us are
not. We are called to live a Christian life (which will always be
counter-cultural, if we're doing it right) as a sign and a light to
those who know us. The problem is, like so many missionaries of times
past, the Church in America has long ago "gone native". We are
influenced by the modern materialist, consumer culture far more than we influence it.

We need to admit that.

The
solution isn't as simple as living like a monk among more jaded and
cosmopolitan peers (though one could do worse, for a start). If we are
to communicate with the culture, we do need to understand the culture
and speak the language, to some extent. I think the Protestant
evangelical churches in America got into in deep trouble when they
failed for a long time to notice that they were trying to express
Norman Rockwell sentiments in King James English to a jaded, post-modern
world that wasn't listening.

One thing I learned from all the
time I spent in school is that a great instructor is one who
understands his subject so thoroughly that he can explain it to almost
anyone, using language that they can understand. Those with a
shallower knowledge of their field, or who just don't care enough to
meet people where they are (by re-casting the fundamentals in common
language) may be competent enough to get by, but they will never be
great teachers.

Of course, sometimes, the cure is worse
than the disease. When the Catholic Church tried to make some
adjustments to contemporary Western culture by making Latin optional
and opening up the liturgy a bit, all post-modern hell broke loose. As
a result, the liturgy in many instances wasn't reformed, but deformed
and made alternately insipid, silly or shocking (or shockingly silly,
etc…). Many Catholic priests, religious, musicians, lay teachers and
others fell all over themselves trying to demonstrate how hip and
current they were, which ironically had the effect of making them
appear desperate and pathetically out of touch, like a middle-aged
chaperone trying to crunk with the kids at the prom.

They might
have done well to remember (if based only on their own experience of
life) that one of the Cardinal Sins of human relationships (whether
wooing a lover or easing into a friendship) is trying too hard.

So
there is a fine line we have to walk. Speaking as an artist who has
(formerly) designed my share of consumer junk for the "Christian
Market", doing the same things the world does and sticking a Bible
verse at the bottom isn't going to cut it. Christian music that is
indistinguishable from pop music (only not quite as interesting and
with tweaked lyrics) isn't the answer.

We need to speak to the culture in precisely the places where the culture fails (which entails not just knowledge of the culture, but understanding of the culture… seeing its strengths and weaknesses). A dull culture needs the bracing blast of real beauty (like the spray
of an ocean wave), not more dullness with an ICTHUS stamped on it. God
forgive his people for peddling such rot in the name of His Son.

A shallow culture longs for depth.
In a consumer culture, people need us to demonstrate the beauty of
living simply. In a frantic and media distracted culture, the world
needs us to model the peace of Christ. An ambitious culture needs
to see what it's like to live in joyful humility. A world of weakened, shallow and
broken relationships needs us to be walking examples of love and
concern for everyone we meet.

All this means making ourselves
vulnerable, and allowing ourselves – setting ourselves up – to be
inconvenienced. It also means not being afraid to be thought a
little… odd (call it eccentric if it makes you feel better). There is
in this kind of life no guarantee of success in an earthly sense. Don't
hold your breath waiting for respect and approval from the broader
culture. As our Lord made clear to those first disciples whom he called
away from their nets, He has bigger fish for us to fry.

(visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

UPDATED — Holiday Gift Card “Selection” at Amazon

UPDATE: See below.

It’s Christmas Eve, and Amazon.com’s homepage promises the last-minute holiday shopper that, with Amazon’s Gift Cards, you can “Give them exactly what they want — guaranteed.”

“What they want” on Christmas, of course, is Christmas presents. Not everyone celebrates Christmas — about 5 percent of Americans don’t, and we shouldn’t forget them. But that still leaves 95 percent of Americans who do — many of whom object to generic “Happy holidays” greetings (source).

Certainly of people buying gift cards on Amazon.com on Christmas Eve — surely one of Amazon’s busiest days — the percentage who celebrate Christmas is probably something approaching 100 percent. People who celebrate Christmas who give presents to other people who celebrate Christmas want to give Christmas presents.

You’ll be pleased to know that Amazon offers a wide variety of Gift Card designs. The “Winter Holiday” category alone includes no fewer than seven (7) different design options to choose from. Your choice!

Yes, you, the customer, are free to select — based on your deeply held personal beliefs and the traditions of the specific person you are shopping for — from among the following:


Seriously? Out of seven “Winter Holiday” designs, not even the option of a “Merry Christmas”? Not a Christmas tree or a Santa, let alone a Nativity scene?

Hey, Amazon: The flipping United States Postal Service, an agency of the United States government, offers us the option of Christmas stamps — with classical Madonna and Child images, no less. Those who like them can buy them; those who aren’t interested can buy something else. It works out very nicely, and there’s no need for hard feelings or anything.

My wife Suzanne and I went to Amazon.com today for a last-minute Gift Card. We found the bogus non-selection of “Holiday” Gift Card designs frankly offensive. We spend a lot of money at Amazon, but this is one gift we’ll get somewhere else this year.

Amazon: You need to rectify this by next year. Seriously. Offer us the option of celebrating the holiday that makes you your year-end money. Give us the option of card designs that say “Merry Christmas.” Throw in a “Happy Hannukah” too. Heck, throw in a “Happy Kwanzaa” too. That’ll still leave room for four generic holiday designs.

Give us the option of unambiguous Christmas imagery. Santa and Christmas trees would be a start. Consider a Nativity scene. It’s one option among seven. Then see which designs sell.

P.S. Let Amazon know what you think! (Sign in with your account info if you want a reply, or just send a message without account info.)

UPDATE — Amazon responds

Received from Amazon in response to my email: “Please accept our apologies if you were offended by the use of the word ‘holiday’ (instead of ‘Christmas’) on our website. Our intent is to be as inclusive and respectful as possible at a time of year when people of many faiths celebrate important holidays.”

My reply:

I certainly do NOT object to “holiday” on your website — how could I? My issue has to do with available design options for Winter Holiday Gift Cards, from which customers are free to pick as appropriate for their own and their recipient’s sensibilities.

If Amazon offered the OPTION of a “Merry Christmas” Gift Card as well as “Happy Holidays” Gift Cards, those who celebrate Christmas would be free to pick the former, and those who don’t would be free to pick the latter. You might also offer a “Happy Hanukkah” Gift Card option, perhaps even a “Happy Kwanzaa.” For everyone else, there’s always “Happy Holidays.” THAT would be “inclusive and respectful.”

What is NOT “inclusive and respectful” is six different “Happy Holidays” design options, one “Winter Wish,” and not one choice of “Merry Christmas.” I don’t see why anyone needs six different “Happy Holidays” options, but certainly customers should have at least one option out of seven of a “Merry Christmas” Gift Card.

Although it is true that Christmas is not the only important holiday at this time of year, 95 percent of Americans do celebrate Christmas, including many who are NOT religious or who belong to religions other than Christianity. To EXCLUDE customers who wish to choose to send a “Merry Christmas” message, as your present design options do, is NOT “inclusive and respectful” of the 95 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas.

Realistically, you ought to have half a dozen “Merry Christmas” options and one or two “Happy Holidays.” (Then you could see which designs sell.) If the U.S. Postal Service can offer the option of Madonna and Child Christmas stamps, Amazon can offer the option of a “Merry Christmas” Gift Card.

Chesterton on Father Christmas

At the request of The Masked Chicken, I offer this recent, brief Christmas post (from my blog, Old World Swine). More on the way as Christmas approaches. – T.J.

FatherchristmasNarnia

I love this little passage on the power of myth;

Father Christmas is not an allegory of snow and holly; he is not
merely the stuff called snow afterwards artificially given a human form, like a
snow man. He is something that gives a new meaning to the white world and the
evergreens, so that the snow itself seems to be warm rather than cold.

(from Chesterton's The Everlasting Man)

The
Christ child, in a way unique among the world's religions, gives warmth
to the idea of Winter. In the bleakest, darkest time of year, His
cradle is the hearth-fire around which may gather all people of
goodwill.

The secular trappings can be fun and even spiritually
profitable for one who carries that fire in his heart, but they fail as
a substitute… like gathering around the picture of a fire. You might
find a very good picture on some wide-screen, high-definition
television… but try roasting marshmallows by it, or warming your
hands.

This is, I think, partly what irritates some irreligious
folk about the holy days. Our claim to have a real fire, with real
warmth, and our invitation to gather around it are to them
infuriatingly condescending, so they stay rooted in front of their
picture-fire, just to show us. "Too good to stand here with me, eh?
Think my picture is no good, eh? Snobs. I'd sooner stand here in the
cold than give you the satisfaction.".

Unborn Between Barack and a Hard Place

You've likely heard already, but soon-to-be Senior Class President Obama will be wasting no time in advancing his number one priority… soda machines in the cafeteria!… I mean… keeping the world safe from the Unborn Menace! Sheila Liaugminas (a font of chewy, red-meat news bites) outlines the story at her InForum blog.

Beware
the Unborn Menace! They are coming! Coming to take our precious
disposable income and big-screen televisions, coming to rob our young
of higher education and cool clothes. In these tough economic times,
the Unborn Menace threatens to undermine the vacuous, materialistic
lifestyle Americans have fought so hard to establish over the last 50
years.

This is why we must fight them on their own ground… in the womb!… so we won't have to fight them here.

Our
Fearless Leader Elect is readying his most reliable fountain pen, and
is limbering-up his bony wrist, preparing to clear away by executive
fiat all the narrow-minded restrictions that have so unfairly hampered
progress against this most insidious of enemies. Indeed, what good will
it do if, having sealed our borders against illegal immigration, we
should be overrun with a wave of progeny! They are a drain on the
economy, they contribute to overcrowded classrooms and account for a
huge portion of health care costs. Their diapers clog the landfills.

(In fact, by exporting abortion and encouraging its use among our – er – more pigment-rich
neighbors, we can significantly reduce unwanted immigration, as well!
They can't sneak across the border if we nab them early, one at a time,
in a sterile clinical setting.)

Aren't they human beings, you may
ask? But now, I submit, is not the time for such moral fastidiousness.
As other great leaders have recently and so wisely noted, sometimes, in
order to get things done, we have to work the dark side.
If you could save New York City by allowing just one abortion, wouldn't
you do it? What if twenty ninjas were threatening to punish your
daughter with a baby? We can't afford to be squeamish.

The unborn don't play by our rules. They don't care
if you die of cancer, and would probably withhold their valuable stem
cells if we asked them for permission, all nice and proper-like. What
do these high-minded "pro-lifers" want us to do, send the unborn an
engraved invitation to invade our homes and communities? Throw them a
tea party?

Fret not. Our new Decider-In-Chief is ready to decide for all of us, so we don't have to.*

*Face
it, most of us have problems making big decisions. It's tough… unless
you are a frightened, pregnant thirteen year old… then it's best to
have as little input and advice as possible, especially from your
parents. You'll be comforted to know that in a couple of months – no
matter where you are in this great country of ours – should your
boyfriend (or your uncle, or a school teacher) leave you pregnant, your
parents need never know. Because we're looking out for you.

(Visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

P.S. – The poignancy of this post appearing right above SDG's blessed and happy news (below) has not escaped my attention. Hearty congratulations again, Steven.

“One of the Benefits of Marriage is Divorce”

Before this next post, I just want to say – in reply to some inquiries – that I believe Jimmy is just fine. He has had some projects in the works and has found blog time harder to squeeze in, but he has not dropped into a wormhole, as far as I know. It isn’t even like we talk every week, but I’m pretty sure that if he had been eaten by a rhinoceros in broad daylight, I would know by now. Everything’s cool.

And now to return to your regular programming… this from Old World Swine;

"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce"

…just as one of the perks of casual sex is that it gives you the
chance to try some of these nifty new herpes treatments (they look so
cool on the commercials – yeah, we’re livin’ the herpes lifestyle).

In addition, one of the most exciting things about driving is the
possibility that you’ll get to find out first-hand what an air-bag
deployment is really like, instead of watching it on Mythbusters. I
haven’t experienced it yet, but every day brings new possibilities.

Really… you can’t make this stuff up. The headline quote
is genuine, and reflects the extent to which the secular world is
willing to tie itself into pretzels to deny that natural law exists.

One thing I think you will see play out in gay divorce court is that
one partner (probably the biological parent, if there is one) will
argue that gay marriage is legally invalid.

Why NOT Embryonic Research?

I heard about this new stem cell research yesterday on NPR, which broadcast a brief debate on the subject between Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research, and Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-Life
Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Basically, Dr. Doerflinger takes this advance as Great News in that soon there may be no scientific (let alone moral) justification to continue controversial research on human embryonic stem cells, whereas Dr. Tipton thinks such research should continue – just in case. He sees stem cell research as a race to the finish line (his analogy) and whatever it takes to get there is fine, even though "some people" have moral problems with it.

It wasn’t so much his point of view that puzzled me (after all, you can’t expect someone who doesn’t believe in moral absolutes to behave as if they do*) but the way he defended it; So, why should we continue with controversial research, even in the face of grave moral misgivings? Because "we live in a pluralistic society".

H’okay…

Now, I’m sure Dr. Tipton could give a better, more well-rounded defense than that, if pressed, but tho whole idea (very popular, of late) that a "pluralistic society" must allow scientists to pursue "whatever works" is just freaky.  Never mind advanced ethical philosophy, has Dr. Tipton never seen Frankenstein or Them or even The Hideous Sun Demon? Hollywood had this all sussed many decades ago… there are Some Things that Man was Not Meant to Tamper With.

And, the question must be asked; if Moral Pluralism is the standard, the foundational dogma of our modern society, then what is NOT to be allowed, and why? Aren’t all ethical frameworks equally – that is subjectively – valid? Why NOT eugenics? Why NOT a genetically modified warrior race? Why NOT chemical and biological weapons?

The natural law would proscribe all these things on the basis that they are offenses against human dignity. Pluralism might find them all wrong now (because most people find them morally repugnant, even if they can’t say why), but there can be no guarantee about the future. If most people  – or even if enough of the right people – become okay with it at some point, well, we can expect these kinds of examples of the New, Improved Dynamic Morality.

"How beautious mankind is! O brave new world: That has such people in’t!".

*This touches on a recent mammoth combox debate on morality and ethics. There is this idea that one may arrive at a workable moral framework in a number of ways and that there will be little practical difference in the end. But that is not true. Toss out moral absolutes and the divergences in ethical philosophy and practice are profound and immediate.

On The Other Hand . . .

Yesterday I linked a post from Anne Rice arguing that the Democratic Party best represents gospel values regarding feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, etc.

By coincidence, Thomas Sowell just put up a column arguing that, in fact, politicians on the left (not quite the same thing as members of the Democratic Party, but close enough to make a meaningful contrast) actually are not promoting gospel values in such regards but only giving the appearance of doing so in furthering their own ideological (or, I would add, re-election) goals.

So here’s another perspective.

GET THE STORY.

In a related note, John Stossel takes aim at the idea promoted by Michael More in his movie "Sicko" that the U.S. provides poor health care in comparison to nations with more socialistic medical systems.

GET THAT STORY, TOO.

Sowell on America

Thomas Sowell generally does a 4th of July column on America and our need to appreciate the fact that, unlike many nations–or to a greater degree than many nations–it works. (Or at least he did such a column last year, if I recall correctly.) Sure, America has got lots of problems, but every nation has lots of problems because of . . . well, you know that thing a long time ago with the apple. But despite its problems, America is a functional society, or at least is functional in important ways that are uncommon or even unique.

This year he writes:

There is nothing automatic about the way of life achieved in this country. It is very unusual among the nations of the world today and rarer than four-leaf clovers in the long view of history.

It didn’t just happen. People made it happen — and they and those who came after them paid a price in blood and treasure to create and preserve this nation that we now take for granted.

More important, this country’s survival is not automatic. What we do will determine that.

Too many Americans today are not only unconcerned about what it will take to preserve this country but are busy dismantling the things that make it America.

GET THE STORY.