Revamp
You will probably notice that there are a number of posts that don't exist anymore. A lot of them date from my night-shift days, when I wasn't exactly thinking straight all the time anyway due to a screwed-up schedule, and the rest were instances of me treating this more like a place to post whatever was on my mind rather than a public place that anybody could end up seeing. There are plenty of things that are fine for people I know personally to know about, but aren't so good for the general public.
Anyway, that said, here's some tidbits from other people and other blogs that I find refreshing in the midst of this toxic media culture:
On Sex:
The divinely intended purposes of sexual intimacy are of course very sacred and deeply satisfying in the context of committed relationships. And the degradation and commodification of sexuality in the media, for purposes of advertising, and in exploitative or manipulative relationships is indeed sin, because it can be so abusive and destructive to the human spirit.The real question is whether sexuality should be regarded as basically covenantal or just recreational.Sexuality is meant to be enormously enjoyable and fulfilling, but the context of the relationship and the commitment or lack of commitment it contains is of obvious religious importance. And that religious importance is because of how fragmenting or integrating sexual intimacy can be for human beings - dependent on the context of the relationship.Are Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives our reigning cultural paradigms now when it comes to sexuality? Or is the reconnection of sexual intimacy with commitment a future worth fighting for? That’s the question I hear most often from a new generation of young people. Perhaps surprisingly, many are moving back (or forward) to committed intimacy rather than serial sexual dating.The quality of the relationship is indeed the critical factor that distinguishes whether sexuality is sacred or profane. And covenantal vs. recreational may be the clearest and more understandable way to ask the right questions.
- Jim Wallis
On the Intent of America’s Founders:
Not surprisingly, modern culture warriors have painted Washington as one of their own. To conservatives, he’s a veritable Disciple in a powdered wig. According to conservative minister D. James Kennedy, Washington had a "fervent evangelical faith." Secularists, on the other hand, prefer to think of Washington as the first member of the ACLU and a Deist at best. "Religion seems to have played a remarkably small role in his own life," writes Brooke Allen.
[snip]
While at church, Washington was "always serious and attentive," reported William White, the minister at Christ Church in Philadelphia during and after the revolution – but he never kneeled. More significant, Washington did not generally take communion, perhaps the most deeply spiritual act in the Anglican Church.
[snip]
Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ or Christianity in his writings. He often spoke of God, Providence, the Great Architect and other formulations for the deity but only referred to Christ in a handful of instances, which have been widely quoted.
[snip]
He issued many orders calling for days of prayer, was heard to pronounce or call for prayers at meals and most important seemed to believe that God could be influenced by the prayers and behavior of men. These comments would seem to indicate that although Mason Weems concocted the Valley Forge scene, Washington did pray, and did believe that God was present and aware enough to hear and react. Moreover, he believed that religion was essential for the well-being of democracy and the future of the United States. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports," he said in his farewell address. "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
What then to make of Washington’s faith? By the definition of Christianity offered by modern-day liberal Christians, Washington would pass muster. He believed in God, attended church, endorsed the golden rule, and valued the behavioral benefits of religion. But for those who define being a Christian as requiring the acceptance of Christ as personal savior and the Bible as God's revelation, Washington, based on what we know, probably was not “Christian.”
- Steven Waldman
On Neo-Conservatism:
When Bush 41 said "The American way of life is not up for negotiation," he was expressing what I think many conservatives (and liberals too) believe: that we Americans are not under anyone's judgment. From a Christian point of view, that's dangerous and wrong. We are under judgment. Humanity is. There is always reason to repent. That doesn't mean that we should become masochistic, blame-America-first self-loathers; that would be pathological. But it's also true that as we fight justly to defend ourselves, that we consider the things we oughtn't to have done that we have done, and the things we ought to have done that we've left undone, and get about the business of repentance, both personal and corporate.
- Rod Dreher
On Girls Wrestling:
Well, yeah. As Roger Shaw, who heads a women's wrestling program, told the Times: “A boy who goes out on the mat against a girl doesn’t win. If he beats her, he was supposed to, and if he doesn’t, he’s dead meat.” Poor Rich Wood, humiliated like that in front of other boys. How damaging that could be to his psyche. But if he had beaten her, that would be damaging in its own way. For one thing, there's no honor in beating a girl at wrestling. For another, in order to muster the psychological wherewithal to compete on equal footing with a female wrestler, Rich Wood has to overcome deep cultural conditioning that will have taught him to think of women as persons men should exert physical labor to protect, not to conquer. The powerful and invaluable taboo that says men must never hit women will need to be eroded somewhat so Rich Wood can compete. Ten, twenty years from now, when Rich Wood is having a terrible argument with his wife or girlfriend, one wonders if it will be that much easier for him to give in to the temptation to strike her.
[snip]
Boys at that age are in the grip of something natural that's more powerful than they can understand, and they live in a culture that gives them virtually no help in restraining and channeling those impulses into something constructive. Strenuous athletic endeavor is one traditional way of working out those tensions, of sublimating them. And now feminist egalitarians are putting males in the position of being aggressive and physically intimate with their female peers, in a situation of dominance ... or, in Rich Wood's case, humiliation.
- Rod Dreher
On Partisan Politics:
The American electorate is still more or less socially conservative, meaning that on the issues that matter most to social conservatives -- e.g., abortion, gay marriage, racial quotas -- they agree with us more than with the Democrats. [N.B., on abortion, obviously most Americans don't want it outlawed, but most Americans do favor some form of restriction on the practice, which the Democratic Party does not]. But because organized social conservatism is so closely tied to the GOP and, in turn, to the war, our fortunes in the political arena are going to continue to decline. What to do? It seems to me that social-conservative leaders have got to start doing some thinking and strategizing independent of the GOP. The environmentalist movement has been in such a ditch for such a long time because it became so closely allied with the Democratic Party. Even though environmentalism is broadly popular with the American people, it's anathema to the GOP. Had environmentalist leaders not put all their eggs in the Democratic basket, and demonized Republicans, they would have learned how to talk to Republicans and conservatives about green issues in conservative terms, and would have diversified their portfolio, so to speak. In the next political order, social conservatives are likely to find themselves in the same position as environmentalists were in the order now passing away: leading a movement whose principles have a lot more public support than its leaders do among the political elite.
[snip]
Bishops, priests and clergy of all faiths could and should play a constructive role in the wrenching and divisive public debate over immigration. We need the prophetic voice of the church to help all of us – immigrants and citizens – navigate between the demands of justice and the call to mercy. But those bishops and other church folk whose idea of moral leadership is to write off immigration skeptics as nothing more than nasty nativists who make the baby Jesus cry aren't helping.
[snip]
On abortion, the Supreme Court may or may not overturn Roe -- I devoutly hope it does -- but if it were to do so, that would not outlaw abortion, only return the issue to the states ... where abortion would be legalized in most places, quickly. That would still be progress from a pro-life point of view, but given the minimal actual changes in abortion practice that would follow from that SCOTUS action, abortion isn't as important an issue relative to others in the present moment. Besides, as Bottum points out, under the Bush administration and the GOP Congress, "we haven’t yet established any permanent advances on the life issues." In fact, they collapsed on the stem-cell debate. Again, I ask: if we could not do that with an openly pro-life president and a Republican Congress, what is the value of dedicating social-conservative votes wholly to the GOP? As a pro-life Catholic friend puts it, he doesn't feel obliged to consider a presidential candidate's stance on abortion and stem cells, because he's morally certain that they're not going to do a thing to stop it anyway.
[snip]
Two areas that social conservatives' views dovetail with the conventional Democratic views (and against Republican policies) are on job security and globalization, as well as universal health insurance. As well it should: little puts as much stress on families and communities as the prospect of seeing one's job shipped overseas, or falling into bankruptcy after catastrophic illness. But because social conservative leaders have defined our issues so narrowly, the better to make us a good fit within the Republican coalition, we have forfeited good opportunities to make common cause with Democrats around shared values.
- Rod Dreher
On Where Power Really Lies:
While conservatives have won many political victories since the election of Ronald Reagan, the Left has continued to win the culture war. Unfortunately, culture is more powerful than politics. Conservatives have thus won tactically while losing strategically, with the consequence that American society has continued to decline into the abyss that opened before it in the 1960s.
[snip]
This recovery should not be, indeed cannot be, imposed through political power. This is the second action the next conservatism must take: putting power in its place. Tolkien’s ring of power is power itself, which in the long run cannot be used for good. The rejection of the counterculture that has become the mainstream culture must proceed bottom-up, person by person and family by family, on a voluntary basis.
- Paul Weyrich & William Lind
The Dobsons and Falwells and Robertsons do not have the power they once did and with every day their power decreases as donations to their organizations dry up. To spend time, energy, and your principles to try and win them over is akin to trying to lobby a defeated Member of Congress. Their time is past and new Christian leaders like Rick Warren and Rob Bell and Joel Osteen and lesser known lights like Jeff Perry and Richard Ellis are ascendant...and they don't care much about spending their time in politics.
- David Kuo
Anyway, that said, here's some tidbits from other people and other blogs that I find refreshing in the midst of this toxic media culture:
On Sex:
The divinely intended purposes of sexual intimacy are of course very sacred and deeply satisfying in the context of committed relationships. And the degradation and commodification of sexuality in the media, for purposes of advertising, and in exploitative or manipulative relationships is indeed sin, because it can be so abusive and destructive to the human spirit.The real question is whether sexuality should be regarded as basically covenantal or just recreational.Sexuality is meant to be enormously enjoyable and fulfilling, but the context of the relationship and the commitment or lack of commitment it contains is of obvious religious importance. And that religious importance is because of how fragmenting or integrating sexual intimacy can be for human beings - dependent on the context of the relationship.Are Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives our reigning cultural paradigms now when it comes to sexuality? Or is the reconnection of sexual intimacy with commitment a future worth fighting for? That’s the question I hear most often from a new generation of young people. Perhaps surprisingly, many are moving back (or forward) to committed intimacy rather than serial sexual dating.The quality of the relationship is indeed the critical factor that distinguishes whether sexuality is sacred or profane. And covenantal vs. recreational may be the clearest and more understandable way to ask the right questions.
- Jim Wallis
On the Intent of America’s Founders:
Not surprisingly, modern culture warriors have painted Washington as one of their own. To conservatives, he’s a veritable Disciple in a powdered wig. According to conservative minister D. James Kennedy, Washington had a "fervent evangelical faith." Secularists, on the other hand, prefer to think of Washington as the first member of the ACLU and a Deist at best. "Religion seems to have played a remarkably small role in his own life," writes Brooke Allen.
[snip]
While at church, Washington was "always serious and attentive," reported William White, the minister at Christ Church in Philadelphia during and after the revolution – but he never kneeled. More significant, Washington did not generally take communion, perhaps the most deeply spiritual act in the Anglican Church.
[snip]
Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ or Christianity in his writings. He often spoke of God, Providence, the Great Architect and other formulations for the deity but only referred to Christ in a handful of instances, which have been widely quoted.
[snip]
He issued many orders calling for days of prayer, was heard to pronounce or call for prayers at meals and most important seemed to believe that God could be influenced by the prayers and behavior of men. These comments would seem to indicate that although Mason Weems concocted the Valley Forge scene, Washington did pray, and did believe that God was present and aware enough to hear and react. Moreover, he believed that religion was essential for the well-being of democracy and the future of the United States. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports," he said in his farewell address. "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
What then to make of Washington’s faith? By the definition of Christianity offered by modern-day liberal Christians, Washington would pass muster. He believed in God, attended church, endorsed the golden rule, and valued the behavioral benefits of religion. But for those who define being a Christian as requiring the acceptance of Christ as personal savior and the Bible as God's revelation, Washington, based on what we know, probably was not “Christian.”
- Steven Waldman
On Neo-Conservatism:
When Bush 41 said "The American way of life is not up for negotiation," he was expressing what I think many conservatives (and liberals too) believe: that we Americans are not under anyone's judgment. From a Christian point of view, that's dangerous and wrong. We are under judgment. Humanity is. There is always reason to repent. That doesn't mean that we should become masochistic, blame-America-first self-loathers; that would be pathological. But it's also true that as we fight justly to defend ourselves, that we consider the things we oughtn't to have done that we have done, and the things we ought to have done that we've left undone, and get about the business of repentance, both personal and corporate.
- Rod Dreher
On Girls Wrestling:
Well, yeah. As Roger Shaw, who heads a women's wrestling program, told the Times: “A boy who goes out on the mat against a girl doesn’t win. If he beats her, he was supposed to, and if he doesn’t, he’s dead meat.” Poor Rich Wood, humiliated like that in front of other boys. How damaging that could be to his psyche. But if he had beaten her, that would be damaging in its own way. For one thing, there's no honor in beating a girl at wrestling. For another, in order to muster the psychological wherewithal to compete on equal footing with a female wrestler, Rich Wood has to overcome deep cultural conditioning that will have taught him to think of women as persons men should exert physical labor to protect, not to conquer. The powerful and invaluable taboo that says men must never hit women will need to be eroded somewhat so Rich Wood can compete. Ten, twenty years from now, when Rich Wood is having a terrible argument with his wife or girlfriend, one wonders if it will be that much easier for him to give in to the temptation to strike her.
[snip]
Boys at that age are in the grip of something natural that's more powerful than they can understand, and they live in a culture that gives them virtually no help in restraining and channeling those impulses into something constructive. Strenuous athletic endeavor is one traditional way of working out those tensions, of sublimating them. And now feminist egalitarians are putting males in the position of being aggressive and physically intimate with their female peers, in a situation of dominance ... or, in Rich Wood's case, humiliation.
- Rod Dreher
On Partisan Politics:
The American electorate is still more or less socially conservative, meaning that on the issues that matter most to social conservatives -- e.g., abortion, gay marriage, racial quotas -- they agree with us more than with the Democrats. [N.B., on abortion, obviously most Americans don't want it outlawed, but most Americans do favor some form of restriction on the practice, which the Democratic Party does not]. But because organized social conservatism is so closely tied to the GOP and, in turn, to the war, our fortunes in the political arena are going to continue to decline. What to do? It seems to me that social-conservative leaders have got to start doing some thinking and strategizing independent of the GOP. The environmentalist movement has been in such a ditch for such a long time because it became so closely allied with the Democratic Party. Even though environmentalism is broadly popular with the American people, it's anathema to the GOP. Had environmentalist leaders not put all their eggs in the Democratic basket, and demonized Republicans, they would have learned how to talk to Republicans and conservatives about green issues in conservative terms, and would have diversified their portfolio, so to speak. In the next political order, social conservatives are likely to find themselves in the same position as environmentalists were in the order now passing away: leading a movement whose principles have a lot more public support than its leaders do among the political elite.
[snip]
Bishops, priests and clergy of all faiths could and should play a constructive role in the wrenching and divisive public debate over immigration. We need the prophetic voice of the church to help all of us – immigrants and citizens – navigate between the demands of justice and the call to mercy. But those bishops and other church folk whose idea of moral leadership is to write off immigration skeptics as nothing more than nasty nativists who make the baby Jesus cry aren't helping.
[snip]
On abortion, the Supreme Court may or may not overturn Roe -- I devoutly hope it does -- but if it were to do so, that would not outlaw abortion, only return the issue to the states ... where abortion would be legalized in most places, quickly. That would still be progress from a pro-life point of view, but given the minimal actual changes in abortion practice that would follow from that SCOTUS action, abortion isn't as important an issue relative to others in the present moment. Besides, as Bottum points out, under the Bush administration and the GOP Congress, "we haven’t yet established any permanent advances on the life issues." In fact, they collapsed on the stem-cell debate. Again, I ask: if we could not do that with an openly pro-life president and a Republican Congress, what is the value of dedicating social-conservative votes wholly to the GOP? As a pro-life Catholic friend puts it, he doesn't feel obliged to consider a presidential candidate's stance on abortion and stem cells, because he's morally certain that they're not going to do a thing to stop it anyway.
[snip]
Two areas that social conservatives' views dovetail with the conventional Democratic views (and against Republican policies) are on job security and globalization, as well as universal health insurance. As well it should: little puts as much stress on families and communities as the prospect of seeing one's job shipped overseas, or falling into bankruptcy after catastrophic illness. But because social conservative leaders have defined our issues so narrowly, the better to make us a good fit within the Republican coalition, we have forfeited good opportunities to make common cause with Democrats around shared values.
- Rod Dreher
On Where Power Really Lies:
While conservatives have won many political victories since the election of Ronald Reagan, the Left has continued to win the culture war. Unfortunately, culture is more powerful than politics. Conservatives have thus won tactically while losing strategically, with the consequence that American society has continued to decline into the abyss that opened before it in the 1960s.
[snip]
This recovery should not be, indeed cannot be, imposed through political power. This is the second action the next conservatism must take: putting power in its place. Tolkien’s ring of power is power itself, which in the long run cannot be used for good. The rejection of the counterculture that has become the mainstream culture must proceed bottom-up, person by person and family by family, on a voluntary basis.
- Paul Weyrich & William Lind
The Dobsons and Falwells and Robertsons do not have the power they once did and with every day their power decreases as donations to their organizations dry up. To spend time, energy, and your principles to try and win them over is akin to trying to lobby a defeated Member of Congress. Their time is past and new Christian leaders like Rick Warren and Rob Bell and Joel Osteen and lesser known lights like Jeff Perry and Richard Ellis are ascendant...and they don't care much about spending their time in politics.
- David Kuo
posted by Matt at 7:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home