Most Popular International Googles

The following were the #1 Google searches in other countries last month (October):

  • UNITED KINGDOM: Halloween
  • CANADA: Halloween
  • GERMANY: Telefonbuch
  • SPAIN: Marca
  • FRANCE: France
  • ITALY: Grande fratello
  • THE NETHERLANDS: Britney Spears
  • AUSTRALIA: Australian Idol
  • JAPAN: Rakuten
  • KOREA: Pop singer Lee Hyori
  • CHINA: Cartoon download site
  • RUSSIA: Pet therapy
  • FINLAND: Irc-galleria
  • NORWAY: Nissan skyline
  • SWEDEN: Halloween
  • BRAZIL: Halloween
  • DENMARK: Pokemon

In other Google search news, dragons were less popular than dogs but more popular than cats, puppies, and horses.

SOURCE.

The Daily Planet reports that pet sellers expect a boom in dragon sales this Christmas. It also reports that the increase in pet therapy Googles in Russia was due to increased dragon sales there last Christmas, which led to many dogs, cats, puppies, and horses being in need of physical therapy due to dragon-related injuries.

Networks refuse to air offensive ad

SDG here with a story about an outrageously offensive TV spot produced by the United Church of Christ — and how CBS and NBC made the right decision in refusing to air it.

First, a word of clarification. The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a liberal-mainline denomination, not to be confused with a number of similar-sounding groups, including the Fundamentalist sect known as the Boston Movement Church of Christ, perhaps best known for their insistence that Christians outside their own fold cannot be saved.

The liberal-mainline UCC certainly doesn’t teach anything like that — in fact, they pride themselves on their non-exclusiveness, openness, and acceptance. For example, if you administer abortions for a living, or are in a committed same-sex relationship, the UCC wants you to know that you are welcomed and accepted, not judged, at their church.

In fact, the UCC takes such pride in their non-exclusiveness and acceptance that they recently produced a satiric 30-second TV spot lampooning other Christian churches that don’t share their openness, specifically on homosexuality.

That’s right: They’re so open and accepting, they want to go on national television and ridicule other believers and church communities who disagree with their beliefs.

You can view the ad in RealPlayer at the UCC website here. For those who can’t view it, here’s a description:

The 30-second spot opens with a shot of people converging on a gothic stone church as church bells peal. Among them we see a pair of stylish, urban-looking young men who are holding hands, making it clear that they are a gay couple. Then comes the kicker: They’re stopped at the door of the church by a pair of intimidating-looking bouncers with shaved heads and black T-shirts. “No. Step aside please,” one of the bouncers says commandingly, holding up an outstretched hand to stop the young men.

That’s  when we see that the entrance to the church is roped off, like the entrance to an exclusive club, and the bouncers open the rope for those they deem acceptable. These include a pair of conservative-looking women in pastel colors and skirts and a man in a suit accompanied by a woman one would assume is his wife. Others are also stopped, including a young Latino man (“No way. Not you”) and a very young black girl (“I don’t think so”), as the bouncers snap the rope back into place with a resounding click and the camera focuses on the hard face of the near bouncer.

Fade to black. “Jesus didn’t turn people away,” a title announces as inspirational music rises in the background. “Neither do we.” Cut to a shot of a happy group of people standing together. “The United Church of Christ,” says an announcer, as quick close-up cuts emphasize the diversity and acceptance of the UCC. “No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey… you’re welcome here.”

The last of these close-ups is a shot of two women, one with her arm around the other, hand draped across her shoulder, as if in counterpoint to the hand-holding gay males stopped at the door of that Other Church.

The not-so-subtle message: “Churches that don’t accept homosexuality are unfriendly, exclusive clubs that are only for the few — and that goes against Jesus.”

What is so incredibly offensive and appalling about this ad is that it doesn’t just emphasize the UCC’s own “welcoming” stance toward same-sex couples, it actually directly ridicules churches that teach differently — like a political campaign ad lampooning the competition.

Had the UCC ad merely showed hand-holding, neck-embracing same-sex couples being welcomed and accepted at the UCC church, that in itself would be harmful enough, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as over-the-top offensive as the ad actually is. We expect satiric ads lampooning the competition from political candidates and burger chains, not from Christian communions.

Can you imagine an ad from, say, the Southern Baptists, ridiculing other churches and believers for taking positions contrary to those of the Southern Baptists? I’m not talking about positively emphasizing their own position, but specifically showing other churches that take a different view and making them look ridiculous or unattractive?

If the Southern Baptists produced a positive ad emphasizing, say, their pro-life values, I would support that. But what about a satiric commercial lampooning other churches that are pro-abortion?

Let’s imagine such an ad. Let’s say the Baptists produced an ad depicting a troubled young woman going to her pastor and his wife and intimating that she was pregnant out of wedlock. And let’s say (since the UCC ad satirizes coercive use of force) that, to her shock and increasing alarm, the pastor and his wife begin pressuring her to “do something about it,” eventually dragging her from the room.

Or suppose it wasn’t even that over the top. Suppose they only took a laughingly lackadaisical tone: “Hey girlfriend, do what makes you feel good! After all, that’s how you got here! Kill the kid, don’t kill the kid, it’s your choice!” (“Jesus didn’t excuse sin. Neither do we. The Southern Baptists.”)

Would that be an appropriate message for a TV spot? Absolutely not. To bring the smear-and-satirize tactics of mudslinging TV politics to the vital work of evangelization, apologetics, and religious argument is degrading and offensive — no matter what the issue is. That the UCC is in fact wrong in its stance on the particular subject at hand only compounds the problem.

There’s no getting around the fact that some people hold views that are offensive to other people. Our views offend them, and their views offend us. That’s a fact of life. But because it’s a fact of life, it’s also a fact of life that we observe certain rules in how we express and articulate those differences, so as not to give unnecessary offense.

The Mormons have been advertising on TV for years, and AFAIK they’ve always been careful to do it in a way that is positive and doesn’t come off like a swipe at anybody else. I’ve also seen Catholic poster ads in the NYC subway system that have likewise been positive and not satirized the defects of other churches as a way of enhancing the Church’s claims, because this kind of attack on the competition in media advertising is not the way to carry out dialogue about why we believe our own church is better than other churches.

Now for the good news. CBS and NBC executives recognized that these ads were far too inflammatory and refused to run them, citing the ongoing political discussion about same-sex unions as grounds for regarding the topic as too hot to approach in this manner.

Predictably, the UCC is shocked — shocked!  (Here’s their side of the story.)

If you’d like to let the networks know you appreciate their prudential judgment in this matter, here’s where to write:

CBS (click on “Feedback” link at the bottom)

NBC – Contact Us (under “Select Show,” choose “Other”)

If you’d like to let the UCC know why their spot is problematic, contact Barb Powell, press contact (216-736-2175).

Those Swingin' Catholics!

Back a little piece I blogged about the fact that Catholics are now a swing vote.

Not everybody buys this. Some pundits have argued that there simply "is no" Catholic vote (prescinding from the fact that some Catholics obviously do vote).

Ramesh Ponnuru provides some analysis supporting my contention: There is indeed a Catholic vote, and it swings.

In fact, Ponnuru provides data to suggest, it tends to determine the winner of the presidential election and leads rather than follows social trends.

Now we just gotta get it trained even better on the five non-negotiables.

GET THE STORY.

Those Swingin’ Catholics!

Back a little piece I blogged about the fact that Catholics are now a swing vote.

Not everybody buys this. Some pundits have argued that there simply "is no" Catholic vote (prescinding from the fact that some Catholics obviously do vote).

Ramesh Ponnuru provides some analysis supporting my contention: There is indeed a Catholic vote, and it swings.

In fact, Ponnuru provides data to suggest, it tends to determine the winner of the presidential election and leads rather than follows social trends.

Now we just gotta get it trained even better on the five non-negotiables.

GET THE STORY.

Thursday Photo Caption

Angel_ukraine

[SOURCE.]

Starting captions:

1) "Archangel Gabriel Returns To Settle Disputed Ukraine Election . . . And Is He Ticked!!!"

2) "To Chagrin of Democrats, Gabriel Appears at Rally for Faith-Friendly Party"

3) "Damned by Hollywood: Last Generation Complains Apocalypse Can’t Compete with Summer Blockbuster Eye-Candy"

4) "Pyrotechnics Manufacturers Cash-In With Angel’s Appearance."

Red + Blue = Purple?

HERE’S AN ARTICLE BY HARVARD LAW PROFESSION WILLIAM J. STUNTZ.

He’s an Evangelical. And a professor at a way left school.

Favorite quotes from Stuntz:

A lot of my church friends think universities represent the
forces of darkness. Law schools — my corner of the academic world —
are particularly suspect. A fellow singer in a church choir once asked
me what I did for a living. When I told her, she said, "A Christian
lawyer? Isn’t that sort of like being a Christian prostitute? I mean,
you can’t really do that, right?" She wasn’t kidding. And if I had said
no, you don’t understand; I’m a law professor, not a lawyer, I’m pretty
sure that would not have helped matters. ("Oh, so you train people to
be prostitutes…")

You hear the same kinds of comments running in the other direction.
Some years ago a faculty colleague and I were talking about religion
and politics, and this colleague said "You know, I think you’re the
first Christian I’ve ever met who isn’t stupid." My professor friend
wasn’t kidding either. I’ve had other conversations like these —
albeit usually a little more tactful — on both sides, a dozen times
over the years. Maybe two dozen. People in each of these two worlds
find the other frightening, and appalling.

I’m an academic-type and a committed Christian as well, and I have some
of the same perceptions about how the two world talk past each other,
often in counter-productive ways. But some of what Stuntz suggests
strikes me as simply naive, particularly when it comes to the political
arena.

He suggests that redstaters and bluestaters can find common cause on a variety of issues, including principally helping the poor, which is a concern for both.

True.

But I find his "purple state" advocacy a little premature. For the foreseeable future, results will be very limited in making common cause between secular liberals and committed Christians for a whole host of reasons. Among them are these:

  1. However pressing the need for relieving poverty may be, committed Christians cannot ignore the blood of countless babies being shed in our land each day. The abortion issue superdominates the political map. Until that is settled on the pro-life side (such a settlement being a long, long way off), Christians cannot allow themselves to be distracted by lesser issues.
  2. There is frequently a fundamental disagreement about the best way to address the problem of poverty. Stuntz alludes to this, but I don’t think he’s got a practical solution. Just as you can’t wean committed Christians off abortion any time soon, I don’t think you can wean bluestaters off the idea of ending poverty via government handouts any time soon.
  3. The bluestaters have a worldview that is fundamentally hostile to Christianity. Until militant secularists stop trying to push religion out of public life and stop insulting the intelligence of Christians, not much reconciliation is possible.

This isn’t to say that Stuntz’s ideas aren’t worth considering (they are) or that there ain’t any common cause to be made (there is), I just think the amount for the foreseeable future is quite limited.

I understand that someone who works at such a bluestate institution as Harvard University and who attends such a redstate institution as an Evangelical church might want to get the two groups working together, but until points (1) and (3) above are addressed, it isn’t going to be possible to make much common cause on point (2).