I like people, most of the time. I really do. But I'm one for whom first impressions mean a lot. Not that I do a good job always presenting my own best first impression (see: sloppy dresser), yet I quickly judge people based on a few things they do or say. It's not always fair, but my respect for people quickly jump up or down based on certain things. Based on certain things, my respect for somebody will instantly go up or down based on little things I sense. Here's a short list, and none of these are mutually exclusive. In other words, multiple transgressions/goodnesses add up to give somebody a respect-ability quotient in my eyes.
Thinking you can't have fun without alcohol: decrease of respect 9%
Being a farmer: increase 16%
Being a part-time farmer, doing it while working another job to support the farm: increase 23%
Wearing a 'tapout' t-shirt: decrease 7%
Smoking: decrease 14%
Morbid obesity: decrease 6%
Non-visible tattoos: decrease 2%
Visible tattoos: decrease 12%
Neck tattoos: decrease 28%
Beginning a sentence with "I saw on Fox News that ...": decrease 13%
Beginning a sentence with "I heard Rush Limbaugh say ...": decrease 42%
Beginning a sentence with "I read in the Economist that ...": increase 11%
Being a vegetarian: increase 4%
Being passionate about bacon: increase 10%
Being at a sports event and screaming at the officials: decrease 7%
Swearing at the TV because your team is getting beat: decrease 4%
Going nuts about a college sports team when you did not attend that college: decrease 11%
A woman who wears too much makeup: decrease 2%, feeling sorry for, increase of 15%
Having a ringtone of a Toby Keith song on your phone: decrease 3%
Knowing the difference between its and it's: increase 8%
Making less than $10/hour but still loving what you do: increase 13%
Bow-hunting or fly-fishing: increase 14%
Doing mission work for the Lord in a foreign country: increase 50%
Being from a non-Bible belt area but choosing to do ministerial work in the Bible belt: decrease 10%
Living your entire life no more than 10 miles from where you grew up: decrease 3%
Moving away for a few years to experience a new way of life: increase 5%
Moving back to within 10 miles from where you grew up after being away for a few years: increase 5%
Making your own clothes: increase 11%
Having no clothing that does not contain corporate logos: decrease 8%
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
Persecution, freedom, and the dangerous loss of communication skills
The first non-self-referential definition of persecution on dictionary.com is this: "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs"
So...is Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty's supposed homophobic gay-basher) being persecuted? Earlier this morning I wrote a quick post about whether or not he is persecuted, and I waffled. "On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution."
Whether or not we can say he is persecuted depends on how you define the term. Some think persecution has to be this big, systematic death-machine in which people are killed or tortured or wiped out. The other extreme is that it is a lot milder, in that you might suffer even the slightest of consequences for an opinion or an action. In reality, there's a lot of both these definitions that apply here. Phil Robertson is dealing with consequences for his words, but is it more than that? It's not just that A&E network is suspending him; there really does seem to be almost a systematic witch hunt going on to root out anybody who thinks homosexuality is a sin and then chastise (bully?) them until they skulk away. The vitriol by some on this issue is so uniform so as to seem to be part of a plan.
The reality is that everybody suffers consequences for what they do and think. Just the other day a Methodist minister was defrocked for performing the wedding of his gay son. Was that fair? Many of the same people who are outraged might well be Christians who think it right that a pastor be fired for his beliefs and his actions. By this definition that some have set for what is happening to Phil Robertson, is this pastor being persecuted for his belief by Christians?
Or think about what would happen if some Fox Advocacy Channel talking head suddenly changed his or her views. Imagine if Megyn Kelly suddenly changed her worldview and started espousing the same worldviews as Rachel Maddow, or Bill O'Reilly started sounding a lot more like Chris Matthews? How much longer would they be employed by FAC? Could we call this persecution, if somebody loses their job for a accepting and espousing a political ideology different from the tribe?
Again, the reality is this: we only want to hear what we want to hear, and increasingly we find many in this country on both the left and the right who refuse to listen to anything different than what their worldview tells them must be true. We have become so isolated in our thinking that anything else we might hear seems to us to be so scary as to be intolerable and worthy not just of mocking but legal action, deprivation of livelihood, state sanction, or even violence. Isolated and narrow thinking means that when the Phil Robertsons or the Michael Moores of the world pop up and say something we don't like our only reaction cannot be reason or spirited debate but the demonization of such a person by any means possible.
I suppose we should be grateful that here in the United States people are usually only fired or suspended for their words. Some places in this world people still get imprisoned, beaten, and killed for their beliefs. Now that's persecution, and we might well be heading in that direction unless people are able to state their beliefs openly, no matter how unpopular they may be, and then be peacefully willing to listen to others who disagree.
So...is Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty's supposed homophobic gay-basher) being persecuted? Earlier this morning I wrote a quick post about whether or not he is persecuted, and I waffled. "On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution."
Whether or not we can say he is persecuted depends on how you define the term. Some think persecution has to be this big, systematic death-machine in which people are killed or tortured or wiped out. The other extreme is that it is a lot milder, in that you might suffer even the slightest of consequences for an opinion or an action. In reality, there's a lot of both these definitions that apply here. Phil Robertson is dealing with consequences for his words, but is it more than that? It's not just that A&E network is suspending him; there really does seem to be almost a systematic witch hunt going on to root out anybody who thinks homosexuality is a sin and then chastise (bully?) them until they skulk away. The vitriol by some on this issue is so uniform so as to seem to be part of a plan.
The reality is that everybody suffers consequences for what they do and think. Just the other day a Methodist minister was defrocked for performing the wedding of his gay son. Was that fair? Many of the same people who are outraged might well be Christians who think it right that a pastor be fired for his beliefs and his actions. By this definition that some have set for what is happening to Phil Robertson, is this pastor being persecuted for his belief by Christians?
Or think about what would happen if some Fox Advocacy Channel talking head suddenly changed his or her views. Imagine if Megyn Kelly suddenly changed her worldview and started espousing the same worldviews as Rachel Maddow, or Bill O'Reilly started sounding a lot more like Chris Matthews? How much longer would they be employed by FAC? Could we call this persecution, if somebody loses their job for a accepting and espousing a political ideology different from the tribe?
Again, the reality is this: we only want to hear what we want to hear, and increasingly we find many in this country on both the left and the right who refuse to listen to anything different than what their worldview tells them must be true. We have become so isolated in our thinking that anything else we might hear seems to us to be so scary as to be intolerable and worthy not just of mocking but legal action, deprivation of livelihood, state sanction, or even violence. Isolated and narrow thinking means that when the Phil Robertsons or the Michael Moores of the world pop up and say something we don't like our only reaction cannot be reason or spirited debate but the demonization of such a person by any means possible.
I suppose we should be grateful that here in the United States people are usually only fired or suspended for their words. Some places in this world people still get imprisoned, beaten, and killed for their beliefs. Now that's persecution, and we might well be heading in that direction unless people are able to state their beliefs openly, no matter how unpopular they may be, and then be peacefully willing to listen to others who disagree.
Working Outline Of The Phil Robertson Rant In My Head That I Don't Care To Finish
1. I care nothing about Duck Dynasty. I've never watched it. As always, I'm always very concerned when Christians find other Christians to idolize, and the attention that has been paid to this family in recent months has been insufferable. We raise them up only to watch them fall.
2. It's A&E's network. They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby. They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it. They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show. They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family. But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision. It doesn't appear that they are going to do so. I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'? 'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing. There's none of that in this story. He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it. We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'. On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned? All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden? If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing. Not sure we live in a free country, though. Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening. Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country. Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them. Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality. Basically the problem is this: we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want. Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article? There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows. But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer. The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it. We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well. Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery. Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass. The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.
2. It's A&E's network. They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby. They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it. They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show. They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family. But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision. It doesn't appear that they are going to do so. I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'? 'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing. There's none of that in this story. He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it. We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'. On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned? All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden? If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing. Not sure we live in a free country, though. Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening. Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country. Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them. Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality. Basically the problem is this: we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want. Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article? There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows. But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer. The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it. We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well. Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery. Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass. The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The church's alcohol culture shift
Last night the wife and I went to a Michael W Smith Christmas concert. It was at an old renovated theater, and like many concerts or plays these days the management of the theater came out to do their spiel about sponsorship. Specifically, they mentioned their lead sponsors that have helped renovate the theater and support its ongoing operation: Wal-Mart, a local bank, a few others, and a liquor store. After each of the mentions, there was applause, but as you might imagine a little bit less applause when it came to the liquor store. But it was there nonetheless, as well as a few other sponsors in the program that were beer distributorships or something similar. Then, of course, there were the concessions in the lobby that included an open bar selling wine and beer.
At first my thought was, these people don't really know their audience. But on second thought, it makes me think that it wasn't that unusual. While Christians over the last century and a half have often been thought of as non-drinkers, that thought is often changing. In addition many people at this concert, located firmly outside the Bible belt in a more Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist culture, were likely of the non-evangelical variety, in which beer and wine are as firmly embedded in the culture of the church as outside of it.
It's an interesting place that Christians are often put in today...how do we react when some of the social mores are changing around us? I have to think that a few of the concertgoers last night might have been deeply offended at the reference to alcohol, but many more were not. I wasn't offended, but I was surprised. I'm still of the old, southern evangelical variety in which alcohol is usually seen as a vice. I don't necessarily see alcohol as inherently a sin, but I still think it's a bad idea for quite a few reasons. But while many Christians have 'stood firm' on some issues, this seems to be one in which the cultural landscape for the church is in the middle of a shift.
At first my thought was, these people don't really know their audience. But on second thought, it makes me think that it wasn't that unusual. While Christians over the last century and a half have often been thought of as non-drinkers, that thought is often changing. In addition many people at this concert, located firmly outside the Bible belt in a more Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist culture, were likely of the non-evangelical variety, in which beer and wine are as firmly embedded in the culture of the church as outside of it.
It's an interesting place that Christians are often put in today...how do we react when some of the social mores are changing around us? I have to think that a few of the concertgoers last night might have been deeply offended at the reference to alcohol, but many more were not. I wasn't offended, but I was surprised. I'm still of the old, southern evangelical variety in which alcohol is usually seen as a vice. I don't necessarily see alcohol as inherently a sin, but I still think it's a bad idea for quite a few reasons. But while many Christians have 'stood firm' on some issues, this seems to be one in which the cultural landscape for the church is in the middle of a shift.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Panemwear
On the way home from the city today after making some hospital visits I decided to stop by the mall to look for some Christmas presents for my lovely wife. Normally I do most of my shopping for her over the internet as I don't care for the mall crowds, but I decided to look around on a quiet Friday morning and see if anything stood out. I'm past the point where it fears weird as a forty-something guy to be walking through women's wear and having the ladies doing their own shopping think I'm some kind of pervert. I'm not...just find me what I need to get, and I'll leave.
So I walked through something like 10 stores at the mall that feature women's wear: Von Maur, Dillard's, Forever 21, so on and so forth. They have lots of clothes...and most all of them absolutely atrocious. My wife, who dresses simply but with generally good taste, would never wear most of the stuff in those stores. It's not that they are necessarily skanky (being wintertime, not a lot of very revealing stuff out there), it's just that they are overly colorful, overly decorative clothing that place so much more emphasis on some weird thought of 'style' than they do functionality. She's very practical, as am I...anything that won't really wear comfortably so that she can work, she doesn't want. She'd probably be most happy shopping at a sporting goods store to get some sweatshirt and comfy pants, but I had thought that I'll at least look in 'regular' clothes stores.
About the sixth store I was in it finally hit home where I shopping: the great mall of Panem.
So I walked through something like 10 stores at the mall that feature women's wear: Von Maur, Dillard's, Forever 21, so on and so forth. They have lots of clothes...and most all of them absolutely atrocious. My wife, who dresses simply but with generally good taste, would never wear most of the stuff in those stores. It's not that they are necessarily skanky (being wintertime, not a lot of very revealing stuff out there), it's just that they are overly colorful, overly decorative clothing that place so much more emphasis on some weird thought of 'style' than they do functionality. She's very practical, as am I...anything that won't really wear comfortably so that she can work, she doesn't want. She'd probably be most happy shopping at a sporting goods store to get some sweatshirt and comfy pants, but I had thought that I'll at least look in 'regular' clothes stores.
About the sixth store I was in it finally hit home where I shopping: the great mall of Panem.
It started to become clear that whatever store I was in had completely gone off the rails as far as fashion is concerned. Overly fashionable, utterly useless clothing for living seemed to be what I found, anywhere I went. It's not just that I thought "she'll never wear this", but rather, "why on earth would she ever wear this?" Most of the clothes in these stores would not have seemed that far out of place in Panem, and most of the fashions of Panem do not seem that radical for our modern sensibilties. Our celebrities are more like Panem than we think.
What's more, every once in awhile I would look at labels to look at price but I also noticed where they were made: Bangladesh. Vietnam. Pakistan. Could you make the case that each of these places are 'districts' that cater to the whims of the global superpower? In the Hunger Games each of the twelve districts work only to meet the needs of the bloated victors; are things much different in the real world? Yes, we say, we are helping these countries by providing a market for what they produce...but at what cost? Are they really being helped, or are we just justifying our bloated consumer economy by saying that they get to receive some of the scraps of our economic might?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)