28 July 2007
Genocide Jesus
The latest from Max Blumenthal, invading the Christians United for Israel conference (which has nothing to do with eschatology or the mass destruction of humanity or anything like that, no sir.)
24 July 2007
They hate Harry
The seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series was released amid great pomp and crushing fanfare last weekend. Being the horrible delinquent reader that I am, I haven't read any of them, but I can't help but be tangentially affected by the cultural phenomenon, not least because they have been the target of many fundamentalist Christians over the years, and thus give us an interesting perspective of the fundie mindset.
Blogging at NPR, Tom Regan asks the essential question:
This twisted polarization comes, I think, from a logical extension of the Calvinist idea of total depravity, or even the wider notion of "salvation by works," an important cog in the Protestant Reformation. This is the notion that, no matter how much good a person does, it will never be good enough to earn a passage into Heaven; that can only be achieved by acceding to the will of God (which Calvinists will argue up and down does not somehow qualify as a willed action, which I don't find compelling but that's a long subject for another day.)
But the good Calvinists are being deliciously betrayed here by their more zealous brethren, who have gone to the natural conclusion of asserting that therefore any good deed attempted under the auspice of another belief system is hollow and worthless and likely a trick of the Devil.
There is another reason why the fundamentalists have so much antipathy toward Potter, brought up in Orcinus comments by Dread Scott.
Indeed, if one has much cohabitation with the fundies, their complaints generally will progress along these lines. Fundamentalism is commonly characterized by an absence of real faith, and the adults deeply realize that they are beholden to beliefs that seem fantastical and incredulous. It greatly concerns them, then, that their less well-adapted children will see a competing fantastical, incredulous belief system, even in a book that obviously fiction. And indeed, fundamentalists doubt the very existence of fiction, since they deeply suspect they are following fiction themselves.
Blogging at NPR, Tom Regan asks the essential question:
So now I've read all the books and seen all the films made so far. And the best things about these books are what they teach children -- and, it must be said, adults -- about what's important in life: family, loyalty, friendship and love. (This is why I think it's a mistake to ban Potter books for their "magic.") But most of all, it may be about the choices that we make, and how they determine who we really are, despite what we say or think.I've written before that I believe it is a mistake to characterize the fundamentalist world view as a strict dichotomy between Good and Evil. Regan makes a similar mistake is assuming that, in the fundamentalist mind, the moral worth of someone's actions have anything to do with the actual content of the action. It is not Good vs. Evil, it is Us vs. Them. Fruits such as those Regan lists can only be legitimately achieved by first swearing allegiance to their particular brand of Christianity; any other method must be shady and somehow deceptive. This is most explicitly stated in this clip from Jesus Camp, posted by Orcinus.
This twisted polarization comes, I think, from a logical extension of the Calvinist idea of total depravity, or even the wider notion of "salvation by works," an important cog in the Protestant Reformation. This is the notion that, no matter how much good a person does, it will never be good enough to earn a passage into Heaven; that can only be achieved by acceding to the will of God (which Calvinists will argue up and down does not somehow qualify as a willed action, which I don't find compelling but that's a long subject for another day.)
But the good Calvinists are being deliciously betrayed here by their more zealous brethren, who have gone to the natural conclusion of asserting that therefore any good deed attempted under the auspice of another belief system is hollow and worthless and likely a trick of the Devil.
There is another reason why the fundamentalists have so much antipathy toward Potter, brought up in Orcinus comments by Dread Scott.
Most people have a functioning ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and see the Potter series as good entertainment. When people are raised to reject rational inquiry as immoral and instead devote themselves to superstition and mythology, works of fiction can be perceived in a way as competing faiths. While most adult fundies aren't going to be waving wands and trying to ride broomsticks, they see the Potter series as a threat to the proper indoctrination of children who might get confused about which fantasies to believe, especially if another is more appealing. Or, at least that seems to be what they fear.
Indeed, if one has much cohabitation with the fundies, their complaints generally will progress along these lines. Fundamentalism is commonly characterized by an absence of real faith, and the adults deeply realize that they are beholden to beliefs that seem fantastical and incredulous. It greatly concerns them, then, that their less well-adapted children will see a competing fantastical, incredulous belief system, even in a book that obviously fiction. And indeed, fundamentalists doubt the very existence of fiction, since they deeply suspect they are following fiction themselves.
22 July 2007
Go directly to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200
Small Town Gay Bar is a documentary which proves the simplicity of a title is sometimes its best value. Not many succinctly-stated titles can stand as so intriguing on their own, and I suspect the road from pitch to title for Malcolm Ingram's film might have been short indeed.
Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much to do for me in the way of plot description, though Ingram mainly uses the establishment in question--located in Shannon, MS, near Tupelo--as a avenue to discuss the trials of being gay in the Bible Belt. That's easy pickings, but the movie reminds us that not everyone wants to leave, and not everyone who wants to leave, can.
It's all tidy and uplifting, until Ingram brings forth the rotting body of the Rev. Fred Phelps, a man whose skin seems to be plastic-wrapped onto his skeleton, which is all covered perpetually by a Kansas State jacket, giving the university publicity they might rather have done without (but then, they did hire Bob Huggins). I'm generally skeptical of anyone who wheels out Phelps as any kind of serious antithesis, but I came out pleasantly surprised--if that's not too obscene--to discover Phelps has a kind of psychopathic clarity.
"It's pure, absolute asinine balderdash to question that God hates people," Phelps says. "He doesn't send their sins to Hell, he sends them to Hell. The judge doesn't send the crime to jail, he sends the criminal."
Phelps' idea of Hell if, of course, one among many, and quite fringe, but I don't think it can be dismissed entirely. If you're going to have a God sending people to Hell, then you have to come up with some justification. A common slogan which has emerged in some conservative church areas in an attempt to seem more humane is "love the sinner, hate the sin." There are situations where this would seem acceptable, correctional rehabilitation for instance, but it is almost universally quoted to pass as a "softer" stance on homosexuality. If you deny the "sin" in your essential nature, are you still the same "sinner?" There seems to be little difference.
Hell exists, we're told, because it must serve as a kind of cosmic justice system. Without it, people would be able to plot uninhibited whatever wickedness they pleased. (It isn't surprising, then, that most of them are the same people who tirelessly dissect the letter of the law, both human and theistic, to see how far they can push the envelope.) But Phelps' analogy comes up short because it isn't severe enough. Hell is immeasurably more corrupt than almost any human legal system, being a gross overreaction to often frivolous "crimes," which can only be bypassed by satisfactorily kissing the judge's ass.
This is, I think, understood by a good number of believers, but they are held firm by the thought of self-preservation. If the great cosmic wizard can send them to Hell, then, by God, they're going to do what they have to do, sense and humanity be damned. Speaking for the rest of us is Huck Finn:
Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much to do for me in the way of plot description, though Ingram mainly uses the establishment in question--located in Shannon, MS, near Tupelo--as a avenue to discuss the trials of being gay in the Bible Belt. That's easy pickings, but the movie reminds us that not everyone wants to leave, and not everyone who wants to leave, can.
It's all tidy and uplifting, until Ingram brings forth the rotting body of the Rev. Fred Phelps, a man whose skin seems to be plastic-wrapped onto his skeleton, which is all covered perpetually by a Kansas State jacket, giving the university publicity they might rather have done without (but then, they did hire Bob Huggins). I'm generally skeptical of anyone who wheels out Phelps as any kind of serious antithesis, but I came out pleasantly surprised--if that's not too obscene--to discover Phelps has a kind of psychopathic clarity.
"It's pure, absolute asinine balderdash to question that God hates people," Phelps says. "He doesn't send their sins to Hell, he sends them to Hell. The judge doesn't send the crime to jail, he sends the criminal."
Phelps' idea of Hell if, of course, one among many, and quite fringe, but I don't think it can be dismissed entirely. If you're going to have a God sending people to Hell, then you have to come up with some justification. A common slogan which has emerged in some conservative church areas in an attempt to seem more humane is "love the sinner, hate the sin." There are situations where this would seem acceptable, correctional rehabilitation for instance, but it is almost universally quoted to pass as a "softer" stance on homosexuality. If you deny the "sin" in your essential nature, are you still the same "sinner?" There seems to be little difference.
Hell exists, we're told, because it must serve as a kind of cosmic justice system. Without it, people would be able to plot uninhibited whatever wickedness they pleased. (It isn't surprising, then, that most of them are the same people who tirelessly dissect the letter of the law, both human and theistic, to see how far they can push the envelope.) But Phelps' analogy comes up short because it isn't severe enough. Hell is immeasurably more corrupt than almost any human legal system, being a gross overreaction to often frivolous "crimes," which can only be bypassed by satisfactorily kissing the judge's ass.
This is, I think, understood by a good number of believers, but they are held firm by the thought of self-preservation. If the great cosmic wizard can send them to Hell, then, by God, they're going to do what they have to do, sense and humanity be damned. Speaking for the rest of us is Huck Finn:
It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:"All right, then, I'll go to Hell" -- and tore it up.
It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. ... And for a starter I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.
19 July 2007
Quck hitters
I've obviously missed a bunch of things, but here's a brief attempt at catching up a few things.
The Wimbledon final: This was the first of the four major finals between Federer and Nadal that went the distance and really could have gone either way. It wasn't surprising, really; Nadal is capable of giving Federer trouble off clay, even though he had to play two five-setters against Soderling and Youzhny, hardly world-class players, to get there. I once heard a theory about knuckleball pitchers; that they are virtually as effective against major league hitters as minor leaguers, because hitters don't reach the majors on account of their ability to hit a knuckleball. Likewise, Federer didn't become a galactic marvel because of his play against lefties, so Nadal creates a different set of challenges for him. But he has been in two straight Wimbledon finals, so it's not entirely random. Can he keep it up to give us the rubber match in New York in two months?
David Beckham: I've always wondered what the audience is for those television-tabloid shows hosted by ex-CBS sportscaster Pat O'Brien, I suppose I'm about to find out. I suppose the theory here is that Beckham will raise the profile of US football pulling even more talent into the league, but ask the NASL how that worked out for them. Beckham's celebrity status far outstrips his playing ability at this point in his career and, while he has plenty of gas left for now to be a dominant playmaker in MLS, how much of the interest will be maintained after he inevitably hangs it up in two years? More on this later.
It's the Bible of anti-authoritarian leftists, so you'd think I would have read 1984 at least ten times by now, but I actually hadn't read it at all until last week. Of course, now I have all kinds of things I'd like to say about it, but the problem with 1984 is that there's nothing new and interesting left to say about it. Oh well.
I still want a "Junior Anti-Sex League" t-shirt, though.
The Wimbledon final: This was the first of the four major finals between Federer and Nadal that went the distance and really could have gone either way. It wasn't surprising, really; Nadal is capable of giving Federer trouble off clay, even though he had to play two five-setters against Soderling and Youzhny, hardly world-class players, to get there. I once heard a theory about knuckleball pitchers; that they are virtually as effective against major league hitters as minor leaguers, because hitters don't reach the majors on account of their ability to hit a knuckleball. Likewise, Federer didn't become a galactic marvel because of his play against lefties, so Nadal creates a different set of challenges for him. But he has been in two straight Wimbledon finals, so it's not entirely random. Can he keep it up to give us the rubber match in New York in two months?
David Beckham: I've always wondered what the audience is for those television-tabloid shows hosted by ex-CBS sportscaster Pat O'Brien, I suppose I'm about to find out. I suppose the theory here is that Beckham will raise the profile of US football pulling even more talent into the league, but ask the NASL how that worked out for them. Beckham's celebrity status far outstrips his playing ability at this point in his career and, while he has plenty of gas left for now to be a dominant playmaker in MLS, how much of the interest will be maintained after he inevitably hangs it up in two years? More on this later.
It's the Bible of anti-authoritarian leftists, so you'd think I would have read 1984 at least ten times by now, but I actually hadn't read it at all until last week. Of course, now I have all kinds of things I'd like to say about it, but the problem with 1984 is that there's nothing new and interesting left to say about it. Oh well.
I still want a "Junior Anti-Sex League" t-shirt, though.
18 July 2007
02 July 2007
Hold music
My internet is currently sporadic thanks to a huge thunderstorm that passed here last Wednesday night, so posting will continue to be abbreviated until the situation is resolved, which should be soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
