No PR for a killer
CBC News has decided not to broadcast pictures, video or audio from the package which the Virginia Tech killer sent to NBC:
"At the CBC, we debated the issue throughout the evening and made the decision that we would not broadcast any video or audio of this bizarre collection.
On CBC Television, Radio and CBC.ca, we would report the essence of what the killer was saying, but not do what he so clearly hoped all media would do. To decide otherwise — in our view — would be to risk copycat killings.*
I had this awful and sad feeling that there were parents watching these excerpts on NBC who were unaware they will lose their children in some future copycat killing triggered by these broadcasts.
Tony Burman
Editor-in-Chief, CBC News"
The reaction to their decision has been, for the most part, positive.
Here's the comment I left (please keep in mind how sleep deprived I am as you read it):
"I'm very pleased with the CBC's decision. I only wish that the NBC had reacted the same way rather then sensationalizing something so despicable.
Also, I don't believe that this is a very strong case of 'censorship.' People toss that word around a lot, but the reality is that CBC does not have the ability to broadcast every single thing that occurs in the whole wide world. It has to make decisions every day on what it will and will not cover. The decision to only broadcast what it considers to be worthy news is not censorship, its just the reality of running a media corporation. And after all, we all still possess the freedom to look elsewhere for a fuller picture, if we so choose."
________________________________
* Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner told ABC News the airing of the tape was a "social catastrophe." "This is a PR tape of him trying to turn himself into a Quentin Tarantino character," Welner told Good Morning America on Thursday. "There's nothing to learn from this except giving it validation."
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2007
Absolutely loathing Grindhouse
I made the mistake of going to see Grindhouse last night with Colin. I'd only seen one preview for it and had had a favorable recommendation from a friend (whose name I shall not mention). The preview had certainly made it look trashy. But I couldn't remember any of the details and so I just thought it would be a Gone In Sixty Seconds kind of a movie except a lot cheesier. Of course, I should have realized that it was actually going to be more of a Sin City/Kill Bill kind of a movie.
And it was - to an extent. Only a lot worse. In fact, it was the worst movie I've ever seen. And by that I mean it was disgusting, it was horrific, it was pointless, it was misogynistic, it was lacking any sort of believable or interesting plot; in short, it was utter trash. It was everything that a real grind house movie would have been. Too bad I didn't know the meaning of the term 'grind house' before I saw the movie...
I began to long to leave the theatre part way through the first half of the first movie (Grindhouse is actually 2 movies - both terrible - shown together) when I realized my eyes were closed more then they were open. But Colin had been nice enough to pay for my ticket and he was enjoying it (he's an avid video game/anime fan with a high tolerance for extreme violence) so I felt bad for disrupting him. Plus I felt like I needed to sit there a while longer to figure out why it was that I wanted to leave so badly (yes, really).
I've walked out of a few movies. And I've sat through one or two movies that I wish I'd walked out of. My sister and I walked out of Blade II because of its stupid plot, terrible dialogue, and over-the-top violence. I walked out of Sleepy Hollow when I was still a JW because I was getting scared out of my wits.
I guess what perplexed me as I watched Grindhouse was the fact that I'd watched Kill Bill 1 & 2 and liked them. And I'd also watched Sin City in its entirety (although I seem to recall wanting to walk out but not following through on the urge). All of those movies are full of bloodshed and gore. So what made me stay for them but leave Grindhouse? The only reason I could come up with was that, in contrast to Grindhouse's gore-fest, the violence in Kill Bill and Sin City is extremely stylized. If you've seen the Kill Bill movies you'll know what I mean.* The violence is shocking at first (at least to me it was - am I just that easily shocked?), even revolting, but it soon becomes tolerable because they make it seem so damn cool and fashionable. Plus they've got this awesome music playing over the killing sprees turning it all into one big, beautiful death dance.
I'd also argue that Kill Bill and Sin City at least had semblances of a plot. Maybe not very good plots, but still - the plots were there and they were intriguing enough that you wanted to keep watching and just keep your eyes closed for the gory parts. Ultimately you left the movie theater feeling slightly stunned and nauseous but not quite to the point where you wanted to demand your money and your wasted time back.
Grindhouse, on the other hand, has NO PLOT (or if you're going to insist that it has one, then it is an awful plot). The first segment of Grindhouse - called Planet Terror - can be summed up in a few sentences: a virus is released into a dark, misty rural countryside. All but a few of the local citizens become infected. Most of the uninfected are soon killed in grisly, horrific ways. In the end, those that have survived the gauntlet of infected zombies escape by helicopter. So, as you may have already surmised, to create a movie like Planet Terror you'll need the following: take the plot of any Resident Evil movie or game, then dumb it down as much as you can (I know, its hard to believe that's possible), add 10x the blood, gore, and random nudity, insert as many disgusting ways of dying as possible (no matter whether you're dealing with men, women or small children), toss in some extreme misogynistic violence,* a cameo appearance by Quentin Tarantino [gag], and there you have it.
The second segment is called "Death Proof" and as soon as the violence in this one started up - a man offers a girl a ride home in his stunt car which has no seat belt on the passenger side and is boxed off by glass from the drivers side... can you see where this is going? - I walked out and sat in the lobby for the next hour reading Great Expectations. (Unfortunately, I was at the part where Pip arrives in London; Dickens' descriptions of dirty London and its filthy inhabitants were not the best thing to be reading in a queasy state. It just felt like grime on top of grime. Ugh.)
But back to the point. The point being, why do we watch these movies in the first place? Whether its The Matrix or Seven Samurai or A Clockwork Orange - most of us are susceptible to the lure of stylized violence.
There is actually a very well written Wikipedia article on the topic of aestheticized violence. According to the article, film critics have generally fallen into two categories: One side "sees depictions of violence in films as superficial and exploitative" and "argue that it leads audience members to become desensitized to brutality, thereby increasing aggressivity." The other side includes "critics who view violence as a type of content, or as a theme, claim it serves a 'cathartic or dissipating effect..., providing acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses.' They argue that '...screen violence is not real violence, and should never be confused with it. Movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it's dramatic metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it's generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses.'"
I'd love to say that I fall unconditionally into the first category of critics and abhor all glorified violence and avoid it completely. But evidently I don't since I can tolerate violence in certain movies, in certain contexts, and up to a certain level.
I think most of us are like this. When violence serves to propel the plot we often have a higher tolerance for it.
But when the violence is the plot?
That's when I walk out.
P.S. I have so much more I could say on this topic but I'll leave it for another time.
P.P.S. Colin redeemed himself by buying me chocolate donuts on the way home. However, when I got out of the car I dropped them on the ground. I considered picking them up and eating them anyways (you know, the 3 second rule) but I could see the gravel. Yuck!
_________________________________
* Xavier Morales writes of Kill Bill in his review Beauty and Violence: "Tarantino manages to do precisely what Alex de Large was trying to do in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange: he presents violence as a form of expressive art. We watch in wonder and awe, not horror. Intellectually, we should be horrified by what we see. But the violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have. Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty. Moreover, like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value."
*And the few instances of what one reviewer has called Grindhouse's "sexy girl power" in no way redeem the movie from its overall portrayal of women as sex objects and victims. Letting the girls "win" in the end doesn't make up for all of the horrible abuses that are enacted on them throughout the majority of the movie.
I made the mistake of going to see Grindhouse last night with Colin. I'd only seen one preview for it and had had a favorable recommendation from a friend (whose name I shall not mention). The preview had certainly made it look trashy. But I couldn't remember any of the details and so I just thought it would be a Gone In Sixty Seconds kind of a movie except a lot cheesier. Of course, I should have realized that it was actually going to be more of a Sin City/Kill Bill kind of a movie.
And it was - to an extent. Only a lot worse. In fact, it was the worst movie I've ever seen. And by that I mean it was disgusting, it was horrific, it was pointless, it was misogynistic, it was lacking any sort of believable or interesting plot; in short, it was utter trash. It was everything that a real grind house movie would have been. Too bad I didn't know the meaning of the term 'grind house' before I saw the movie...
I began to long to leave the theatre part way through the first half of the first movie (Grindhouse is actually 2 movies - both terrible - shown together) when I realized my eyes were closed more then they were open. But Colin had been nice enough to pay for my ticket and he was enjoying it (he's an avid video game/anime fan with a high tolerance for extreme violence) so I felt bad for disrupting him. Plus I felt like I needed to sit there a while longer to figure out why it was that I wanted to leave so badly (yes, really).
I've walked out of a few movies. And I've sat through one or two movies that I wish I'd walked out of. My sister and I walked out of Blade II because of its stupid plot, terrible dialogue, and over-the-top violence. I walked out of Sleepy Hollow when I was still a JW because I was getting scared out of my wits.
I guess what perplexed me as I watched Grindhouse was the fact that I'd watched Kill Bill 1 & 2 and liked them. And I'd also watched Sin City in its entirety (although I seem to recall wanting to walk out but not following through on the urge). All of those movies are full of bloodshed and gore. So what made me stay for them but leave Grindhouse? The only reason I could come up with was that, in contrast to Grindhouse's gore-fest, the violence in Kill Bill and Sin City is extremely stylized. If you've seen the Kill Bill movies you'll know what I mean.* The violence is shocking at first (at least to me it was - am I just that easily shocked?), even revolting, but it soon becomes tolerable because they make it seem so damn cool and fashionable. Plus they've got this awesome music playing over the killing sprees turning it all into one big, beautiful death dance.
I'd also argue that Kill Bill and Sin City at least had semblances of a plot. Maybe not very good plots, but still - the plots were there and they were intriguing enough that you wanted to keep watching and just keep your eyes closed for the gory parts. Ultimately you left the movie theater feeling slightly stunned and nauseous but not quite to the point where you wanted to demand your money and your wasted time back.
Grindhouse, on the other hand, has NO PLOT (or if you're going to insist that it has one, then it is an awful plot). The first segment of Grindhouse - called Planet Terror - can be summed up in a few sentences: a virus is released into a dark, misty rural countryside. All but a few of the local citizens become infected. Most of the uninfected are soon killed in grisly, horrific ways. In the end, those that have survived the gauntlet of infected zombies escape by helicopter. So, as you may have already surmised, to create a movie like Planet Terror you'll need the following: take the plot of any Resident Evil movie or game, then dumb it down as much as you can (I know, its hard to believe that's possible), add 10x the blood, gore, and random nudity, insert as many disgusting ways of dying as possible (no matter whether you're dealing with men, women or small children), toss in some extreme misogynistic violence,* a cameo appearance by Quentin Tarantino [gag], and there you have it.
The second segment is called "Death Proof" and as soon as the violence in this one started up - a man offers a girl a ride home in his stunt car which has no seat belt on the passenger side and is boxed off by glass from the drivers side... can you see where this is going? - I walked out and sat in the lobby for the next hour reading Great Expectations. (Unfortunately, I was at the part where Pip arrives in London; Dickens' descriptions of dirty London and its filthy inhabitants were not the best thing to be reading in a queasy state. It just felt like grime on top of grime. Ugh.)
But back to the point. The point being, why do we watch these movies in the first place? Whether its The Matrix or Seven Samurai or A Clockwork Orange - most of us are susceptible to the lure of stylized violence.
There is actually a very well written Wikipedia article on the topic of aestheticized violence. According to the article, film critics have generally fallen into two categories: One side "sees depictions of violence in films as superficial and exploitative" and "argue that it leads audience members to become desensitized to brutality, thereby increasing aggressivity." The other side includes "critics who view violence as a type of content, or as a theme, claim it serves a 'cathartic or dissipating effect..., providing acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses.' They argue that '...screen violence is not real violence, and should never be confused with it. Movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it's dramatic metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it's generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses.'"
I'd love to say that I fall unconditionally into the first category of critics and abhor all glorified violence and avoid it completely. But evidently I don't since I can tolerate violence in certain movies, in certain contexts, and up to a certain level.
I think most of us are like this. When violence serves to propel the plot we often have a higher tolerance for it.
But when the violence is the plot?
That's when I walk out.
P.S. I have so much more I could say on this topic but I'll leave it for another time.
P.P.S. Colin redeemed himself by buying me chocolate donuts on the way home. However, when I got out of the car I dropped them on the ground. I considered picking them up and eating them anyways (you know, the 3 second rule) but I could see the gravel. Yuck!
_________________________________
* Xavier Morales writes of Kill Bill in his review Beauty and Violence: "Tarantino manages to do precisely what Alex de Large was trying to do in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange: he presents violence as a form of expressive art. We watch in wonder and awe, not horror. Intellectually, we should be horrified by what we see. But the violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have. Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty. Moreover, like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value."
*And the few instances of what one reviewer has called Grindhouse's "sexy girl power" in no way redeem the movie from its overall portrayal of women as sex objects and victims. Letting the girls "win" in the end doesn't make up for all of the horrible abuses that are enacted on them throughout the majority of the movie.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
God-awful cats & Britain's 'Gay lit' experiment
"On the tallest mountain above the town lived a queen, the young crown prince and the crown kitty. The queen had ruled for many long years and she was tired of it. She made up her mind that the prince would marry and become king before the end of the summer."
Wilson turned to her daughter, "that's how stories go isn't it." With an "uh huh" from Ruth they continued reading aloud about the travails of the young prince, faced with introduction after introduction to princesses. The trouble is he doesn't much care for girls. Finally, there's a breakthrough.
"Presenting Princess Madeleine and her brother Prince Lee. At last the prince felt a stir at his heart. Look it was love at first sight! What a wonderful prince!"
Ruth echoed, "what a wonderful prince!"
The two princes marry and live happily ever after, of course.
I asked Ruth if she liked the book.
"Yes."
Why?
"Because it's nice."
Certain schools in Britain are introducing children's books that feature gay families and the result has been... ta da da da... controversy! (Really, what were they thinking?)
Of course, I think this is a great thing and that its about time.*
However, surprisingly not everyone feels this way.
In fact, some are in a right tizzy.
Take for instance the articulate (and ever-so-composed) comment made by Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice:
"They're trying to say to children that homosexuality is fine, so it's blatant propaganda … I just don't reckon school is the place for that. I just don't want children to be mentally interfered with in this way."
He just had to put the word "reckon" in there. Such a darn (or should I say 'dang'?) giveaway!
Steven, anytime we teach a child anything, it could be said that we are "interfering mentally." Teaching a child almost inevitably involves passing on to them our own personal biases and beliefs.
However, don't worry - just because a child reads a book about gay people doesn't mean they're going to become gay.* Because if that was actually the case we wouldn't have any gay people now, would we?
Anyways, I really think that the best part about this article has been the way most readers have responded to it with such incredible acceptance and humour. (It actually makes me feel slightly... dare I say it?... proud to be Canadian. Wow.)
My favorite comment is from Nathan in Moncton who says:
"If my kid can read Alice in Wonderland then why in God's name can't they read about gay parents. At least there won't be any of those God-awful cats in that."
If you want to read more comments go here.
_______________________
* Yes, I'm serious. This really is a worry of many - Steven Green for one. But please, don't go to Steven's website. I promise you won't like it. His website header scrolls "The enemies of God are all having their say!" I should send it to my parents...
* It just shows how far we've come when the article mentions that "twenty years ago, gay themes were introduced in British schools and quickly thrown out."
"On the tallest mountain above the town lived a queen, the young crown prince and the crown kitty. The queen had ruled for many long years and she was tired of it. She made up her mind that the prince would marry and become king before the end of the summer."
Wilson turned to her daughter, "that's how stories go isn't it." With an "uh huh" from Ruth they continued reading aloud about the travails of the young prince, faced with introduction after introduction to princesses. The trouble is he doesn't much care for girls. Finally, there's a breakthrough.
"Presenting Princess Madeleine and her brother Prince Lee. At last the prince felt a stir at his heart. Look it was love at first sight! What a wonderful prince!"
Ruth echoed, "what a wonderful prince!"
The two princes marry and live happily ever after, of course.
I asked Ruth if she liked the book.
"Yes."
Why?
"Because it's nice."
Certain schools in Britain are introducing children's books that feature gay families and the result has been... ta da da da... controversy! (Really, what were they thinking?)
Of course, I think this is a great thing and that its about time.*
However, surprisingly not everyone feels this way.
In fact, some are in a right tizzy.
Take for instance the articulate (and ever-so-composed) comment made by Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice:
"They're trying to say to children that homosexuality is fine, so it's blatant propaganda … I just don't reckon school is the place for that. I just don't want children to be mentally interfered with in this way."
He just had to put the word "reckon" in there. Such a darn (or should I say 'dang'?) giveaway!
Steven, anytime we teach a child anything, it could be said that we are "interfering mentally." Teaching a child almost inevitably involves passing on to them our own personal biases and beliefs.
However, don't worry - just because a child reads a book about gay people doesn't mean they're going to become gay.* Because if that was actually the case we wouldn't have any gay people now, would we?
Anyways, I really think that the best part about this article has been the way most readers have responded to it with such incredible acceptance and humour. (It actually makes me feel slightly... dare I say it?... proud to be Canadian. Wow.)
My favorite comment is from Nathan in Moncton who says:
"If my kid can read Alice in Wonderland then why in God's name can't they read about gay parents. At least there won't be any of those God-awful cats in that."
ROFL!!!
If you want to read more comments go here.
_______________________
* Yes, I'm serious. This really is a worry of many - Steven Green for one. But please, don't go to Steven's website. I promise you won't like it. His website header scrolls "The enemies of God are all having their say!" I should send it to my parents...
* It just shows how far we've come when the article mentions that "twenty years ago, gay themes were introduced in British schools and quickly thrown out."
Friday, March 02, 2007
Leave it to speculation
I'm likely coming from a very different place then he is when I agree with Stephen Burnett's recent post on "Avoiding 'spray-paint' for speculative-stories" (linked to recently by the Claw) but I still feel like I couldn't agree more.
As I look back on my own upbringing, I am just now starting to realize (admit to myself?) that I was raised with Christianity forced down my throat from the womb onwards. And this meant having to look for the Christian (oh, alright the JW) meaning in absolutely everything. Some may feel that that is a wonderful way of being reared and in some ways it did have a few - what I hold to be - benefits that have stuck with me even now.* But it certainly has its drawbacks. One of those is a growing resentment, defiance even, towards the beliefs one is being forced to accept.
And so my experience taught me that even with the best intentions you can certainly go overboard in your zeal for instilling your faith/beliefs in your children. I think in some ways it backfired on my sister and I. We were taught to question "worldly beliefs" and ended up rebelliously questioning those we had been raised with.
Anyhow, I'm going on a tangent. My point was originally going to be that I think it is a lot more pleasant to come into a belief on one's own by being struck by it of one's own accord either by encountering certain facts or even by being led towards it in a more subtle, gentle, meandering way, then it is to have a 'message' force-fed to one through constant propaganda.
Which brings us back to Burnett's point.
When I was nine-years old and began to read the Narnia books I had no idea that there was a "Christian message" embedded within them.* They were the most fantastic books I had ever read (surpassing even Little Women which I'd read the year before) and that was all I knew.
Fast-forward: Now that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe movie has come out and now that I know (through having Christian friends (yes, really)) that the Narnia books have been adopted/labeled by many as 'Christian fiction,' I am so, so glad that I read them as a child and was able to draw my own meaning and interpretation from them.*
As Burnett says:
In my case, years later the imagery of the Narnia books did sink in. I finally 'got' the meaning of the conclusion to The Last Battle and the train accident, etc. But no one had given me the Christian Oprah's Book Club version of the series and made me go through a checklist after each book to make sure that every bit of symbolism had thoroughly sunk in. Oh, and I hadn't had to (as JWs are wont to do) been forced to look up all of the scriptures that corresponded with every part of the story either.
What's the end result? I'm not a Christian today. But I'm still drawn to Christianity as something that at its very heart is extremely mysterious and beautiful (I know that's an overly brief and very inadequate way of putting it but...).* And I think that Lewis stayed true to 'real Christianity' when he wrote the Narnia books.*
Burnett goes on to say:
Or, to put it even another way: Please try to resist the desire to add to what is already perfect.*
__________________________________
* A sense of wonderment and amazement with the world; a sense of appreciation.
* In fact, I actually had to hide their subject matter from my parents because we weren't allowed to read books with magic in them.
* Which at the time was admittedly limited...
* Pure, unadulterated, uncorporatized heart.
* Although he sure did do his own fair share of overt evangelizing in many of his other writings (i.e. God in the Docks, etc.)
* Once again I'm reminded of Dorothea: "Please not to call it by any name," said Dorothea, putting out her hands entreatingly. "You will say it is Persian, or something else geographical. It is my life. I have found it out, and cannot part with it." From George Eliot's Middlemarch. The full quote is here.
I'm likely coming from a very different place then he is when I agree with Stephen Burnett's recent post on "Avoiding 'spray-paint' for speculative-stories" (linked to recently by the Claw) but I still feel like I couldn't agree more.
As I look back on my own upbringing, I am just now starting to realize (admit to myself?) that I was raised with Christianity forced down my throat from the womb onwards. And this meant having to look for the Christian (oh, alright the JW) meaning in absolutely everything. Some may feel that that is a wonderful way of being reared and in some ways it did have a few - what I hold to be - benefits that have stuck with me even now.* But it certainly has its drawbacks. One of those is a growing resentment, defiance even, towards the beliefs one is being forced to accept.
And so my experience taught me that even with the best intentions you can certainly go overboard in your zeal for instilling your faith/beliefs in your children. I think in some ways it backfired on my sister and I. We were taught to question "worldly beliefs" and ended up rebelliously questioning those we had been raised with.
Anyhow, I'm going on a tangent. My point was originally going to be that I think it is a lot more pleasant to come into a belief on one's own by being struck by it of one's own accord either by encountering certain facts or even by being led towards it in a more subtle, gentle, meandering way, then it is to have a 'message' force-fed to one through constant propaganda.
Which brings us back to Burnett's point.
When I was nine-years old and began to read the Narnia books I had no idea that there was a "Christian message" embedded within them.* They were the most fantastic books I had ever read (surpassing even Little Women which I'd read the year before) and that was all I knew.
Fast-forward: Now that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe movie has come out and now that I know (through having Christian friends (yes, really)) that the Narnia books have been adopted/labeled by many as 'Christian fiction,' I am so, so glad that I read them as a child and was able to draw my own meaning and interpretation from them.*
As Burnett says:
"The antique Wardrobe in the story and its beautiful carvings (at least as portrayed in the film version) can tell its own story, with inherent, transcendent value. It doesn’t need Christians to come along and add to the imagery with churchy-sounding propaganda."Hear, hear!
In my case, years later the imagery of the Narnia books did sink in. I finally 'got' the meaning of the conclusion to The Last Battle and the train accident, etc. But no one had given me the Christian Oprah's Book Club version of the series and made me go through a checklist after each book to make sure that every bit of symbolism had thoroughly sunk in. Oh, and I hadn't had to (as JWs are wont to do) been forced to look up all of the scriptures that corresponded with every part of the story either.
What's the end result? I'm not a Christian today. But I'm still drawn to Christianity as something that at its very heart is extremely mysterious and beautiful (I know that's an overly brief and very inadequate way of putting it but...).* And I think that Lewis stayed true to 'real Christianity' when he wrote the Narnia books.*
Burnett goes on to say:
In his [Lewis'] approach, story comes first, and Deep Meaning is secondary — for the author, that is. He himself explained why he wrote the books, not to propagandize, but to tell stories:Let each reader take what they will from Narnia. Don't try to force a meaning upon it that isn't there for all of us.
Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I’d write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out ‘allegories’ to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn’t write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn’t even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord.
C.S. Lewis, “Of This and Other Worlds”
Or, to put it even another way: Please try to resist the desire to add to what is already perfect.*
__________________________________
* A sense of wonderment and amazement with the world; a sense of appreciation.
* In fact, I actually had to hide their subject matter from my parents because we weren't allowed to read books with magic in them.
* Which at the time was admittedly limited...
* Pure, unadulterated, uncorporatized heart.
* Although he sure did do his own fair share of overt evangelizing in many of his other writings (i.e. God in the Docks, etc.)
* Once again I'm reminded of Dorothea: "Please not to call it by any name," said Dorothea, putting out her hands entreatingly. "You will say it is Persian, or something else geographical. It is my life. I have found it out, and cannot part with it." From George Eliot's Middlemarch. The full quote is here.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Against my better judgement...
I'm going to post about a subject I find extremely upsetting: blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses.*
I'd like to draw your attention to some recent happenings in Vancouver, British Columbia which revolve around sextuplets born to parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Two of the babies died soon after birth. Three of the four remaining babies were subsequently seized by the BC child welfare director so that they could be given blood transfusions against their parents wishes. The parents are now taking the province to court saying that their religious rights have been violated.
You see, JWs believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and they consider the taking of blood into one's body to be a violation of Acts 15: 19, 20 and Leviticus 17: 10-14. Acceptance of a blood transfusion is one of the most serious breaches of God's law-according-to-the-JWs that a JW could ever commit.*
Oh, but they're okay with accepting organ transplants, blood products, and blood components - like albumen and hemoglobin. They can basically accept any part of the blood - just not whole blood in the form of a transfusion (or any whole blood product used in food).
I know. That really doesn't make sense to me either.
There was a case similar to this a few years ago that became a real tragedy. Only it involved a fifteen year old girl named Bethany. She refused to accept blood (although eventually it was forced upon her) and fought for the right to be considered a mature minor by the Canada court system. In the process her family was torn apart as her father - completely grief-stricken at the thought of losing his daughter - reevaluated his belief system, came to the conclusion that the JWs did not have "The Truth" after all, and that this particular religious belief was definitely not worth losing his daughter over. He began to insist that Bethany be given blood, going against the rest of the family, and in the process he was disfellowshipped and shunned by his wife and daughters - including Bethany.
The ending?
"Bethany eventually received 38 transfusions, but by the time they were administered, it was too late. She died in 2002... She was only 17-years-old."
Here's my opinion on the current BC situation, very briefly: The babies should be given blood transfusions against the parents wishes for as long as need be because they are too young to communicate their own will. Their lives should be preserved until such time that they come of legal age and are able to decide upon the matter for themselves.
P.S. Here's a fantastic article - pretty well done for a news story but not exactly unbiased imo - in which one medical ethicist says that the BC court may in fact have saved the JW parents from an agonizing, "impossible social situation."
_____________________________
* I may be 'picking on' them a lot over the course of this blog; I used to be one and have a lot to say as a result.
* Elliot the Claw has recently written an excellent post about the JW's very unusual interpretation of the scriptures which they claim support their anti-transfusion stance.
I'm going to post about a subject I find extremely upsetting: blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses.*
I'd like to draw your attention to some recent happenings in Vancouver, British Columbia which revolve around sextuplets born to parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Two of the babies died soon after birth. Three of the four remaining babies were subsequently seized by the BC child welfare director so that they could be given blood transfusions against their parents wishes. The parents are now taking the province to court saying that their religious rights have been violated.
You see, JWs believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and they consider the taking of blood into one's body to be a violation of Acts 15: 19, 20 and Leviticus 17: 10-14. Acceptance of a blood transfusion is one of the most serious breaches of God's law-according-to-the-JWs that a JW could ever commit.*
Oh, but they're okay with accepting organ transplants, blood products, and blood components - like albumen and hemoglobin. They can basically accept any part of the blood - just not whole blood in the form of a transfusion (or any whole blood product used in food).
I know. That really doesn't make sense to me either.
There was a case similar to this a few years ago that became a real tragedy. Only it involved a fifteen year old girl named Bethany. She refused to accept blood (although eventually it was forced upon her) and fought for the right to be considered a mature minor by the Canada court system. In the process her family was torn apart as her father - completely grief-stricken at the thought of losing his daughter - reevaluated his belief system, came to the conclusion that the JWs did not have "The Truth" after all, and that this particular religious belief was definitely not worth losing his daughter over. He began to insist that Bethany be given blood, going against the rest of the family, and in the process he was disfellowshipped and shunned by his wife and daughters - including Bethany.
The ending?
"Bethany eventually received 38 transfusions, but by the time they were administered, it was too late. She died in 2002... She was only 17-years-old."
Here's my opinion on the current BC situation, very briefly: The babies should be given blood transfusions against the parents wishes for as long as need be because they are too young to communicate their own will. Their lives should be preserved until such time that they come of legal age and are able to decide upon the matter for themselves.
P.S. Here's a fantastic article - pretty well done for a news story but not exactly unbiased imo - in which one medical ethicist says that the BC court may in fact have saved the JW parents from an agonizing, "impossible social situation."
_____________________________
* I may be 'picking on' them a lot over the course of this blog; I used to be one and have a lot to say as a result.
* Elliot the Claw has recently written an excellent post about the JW's very unusual interpretation of the scriptures which they claim support their anti-transfusion stance.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
FINAL FANTASY XII As I play FFXII (12), I'm reminded a lot of Guy Gavriel Kay - especially his style in A Song for Arbonne and The Lions of al-Rassan. The essential components seem to be: an intricate plot revolving around political intrigue, fighting between multiple factions, a lush Mediterranean-esque setting, with high romance and adventure carried out by intensely passionate and beautiful people (all of the FF characters are stunningly perfect physically - just like those in a GGK book *sigh*) who dash from one kingdom to another on their quest to save the realm of [insert name of the main character's homeland].
Reasons I'm in love with FFXII:
1 - The graphics: I'm spoiled. You know those diehard fans of FF who started playing at FFI and think that it was just grand? Well, I'm not one of you. I get no pleasure out of playing a game - a game that involves hours and hours of sitting and staring at a screen - that is not enjoyable to look at. The graphics in FFXII are colorful, rich, and full of detail. The designers traveled to the Middle East and the Mediterranean in their search for inspiration and it certainly tells.
2 - A major leap in dialogue quality. FFXII seems to be trying for a semi-Victorian formality in its language. I don't care if its a historical rip-off - its still extremely refreshing to hear the characters speak using a creative vocabulary.
3 - Ivalice is 'a fully realized world': For the first time, I feel like I am playing in a book. A very good book.
4 - The characters are unique and intriguing. You wonder about their relationships with each other and want to learn more about them. They're not caricatures; they possess little quirks and mannerisms that endear them to you. I'm particularly curious about Balthier (that's him to the left). He's a "rakish sky pirate" with a sarcastic wit whose partner in crime (no pun there) is Fran, a lovely Viera. The Viera are (from what I can tell, and this is going to sound a bit funny but strangely it works quite well graphically) a half-woman/half-rabbit race that - like Tolkiens' elves - have an amazingly long life span and are bound to the Woods they live in. Fran is a Viera-exception since she left the Woods to travel with Balthier and in doing so broke her ties with the Wood's Voice and thus is shunned by her sister-Viera. Fran and Balthier's relationship with each other is hard to decipher - they're extremely close and he's very protective of her but are they together romantically or just close friends? Fran is hundreds of years old, while Balthier is only twenty-two so it would be quite an odd romantic relationship I suppose...
Anyhow, I'll leave off in my silly speculations and instead direct you to a fantastically written review of the game which probably describes things much better then I ever could (although I disagree with the writer's description of Fran's voice acting - I think she is supposed to sound subdued considering her age and background).
Thursday, November 02, 2006
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
JOHN MCRAE
Its simple but powerful. Isn't it?
I'm debating wearing the poppy this year. Its the meaning behind it I always feel confusion over. By wearing the poppy am I simply saying "I remember" all of the soliders (and civillians?) who've fallen in times of war? Or by wearing it am I silently giving my agreement and approval of warfare and saying that I believe that patriotism is a cause worth dying for?
I've never worn one before and I'm not sure I should start now. Supposedly there are white poppies you can get but I'm not sure where to find them...
I guess my fear is that by not wearing a poppy I'm being... disrespectful, unappreciative. I hate the idea of the older generation thinking the younger generation really has forgotten - because by no means have I.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Who knew?
Evolution isn't incompatible with faith; human goodness is a result of natural selection; atheists are drastically outnumbered. All this and more in...
The New Naysayers
But its actually one of the responses to the article above that I find more interesting (or at least arguable) then the article itself....
Wordverter airs his grievances on atheist thinkers - here
(And, to make much sense of anything further past this point you'll probably want to go and read what he has to say first.)
Now, how to word this...
Let's just say I find it... funny when Christians (usually of the more liberal/moderate/academic sort [is that too wide a generalization?]) grow annoyed at the idea of anyone taking what the Bible has to say - heaven forbid - literally.
Its true that some books, not just the Bible, can be read on many levels and literalism is not the only way to interpret a text.
However, when most of us first pick up a text, the first time we read it we usually assume we should be reading it literally. Reading for symbolism or figurative meaning, etc - that comes later, usually after at least one read in which you (correctly or incorrectly) assume literalism.
And so when Wordverter says that choosing to take the Bible in a literal way "doesn't speak well" for Harris - he seems to be implying that no educated/informed(?) individual would read the Bible and do so. I'm not sure what that goes to say about a great many Christians who do accept the Bible's literalism, but I've grown to wonder why a book like the Bible is thought of by so many to require the assistance of numerous manuals just to be understood.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a... I'll just go with the word "mysterious"... a mysterious book that can be (mis)understood on any number of figurative or literal levels.
Because divine inspiration or not, its just not the most easily comprehensible book in the world.
Which is why so many different Christian denominations exist.
Which is why so many Christian academics exist - all with their different interpretations and translations.
Back to the point.
The point was - can you really pick on an atheist for taking the Bible... literally?
Moving right along...
Wordverter comments:
Well, actually that wasn't the question. What Harris asked was: "How can anyone believe in a benevolent and omnipotent God who permits a tsunami to swallow 180,000 innocent people in a few hours?" (pg. 1, par. 4)
I personally think it's a reasonable question and I would think even the most stalwart believer must wonder about it at some point in their lives - particularly in the face of mass tragedy.
For Christians are told that "God is love" and takes no delight in evil and injustice. And yet still they exist all around us. Many (or most, should I say?) Christians take comfort in Christ and a Biblical promise that suffering and injustice are temporary.
But is it so impossible to accept that not everyone can find such comfort in the Christian ideal of Christ dying for our sins and redeeming us? Some cannot reconcile the idea of a loving god with ongoing human misery. Perhaps its just a trait of we imperfect humans to want instant solutions (and really this debate goes back as far as the Garden of Eden, doesn't it?), but just as Harris said - the idea of a loving, all-powerful god (which Wordverter himself may not believe in but which many, many do) allowing humanity to suffer for whatever reason is abhorrent and unbelievable to some.
Wordverter goes on to give an illustration of a human parent, who possesses greater wisdom and foresight then their child and then says:
But speaking of presupposing, this confidence in god's greater wisdom, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, etc. - all of these are suppositions based on faith.
Faith in a god that agnostics and atheists don't believe in. Faith grounded in a book that they see no reason to put any trust in. And so you can use the illustration of a wise parent all you like - its not going to sink in as anything more then a trite analogy that just doesn't make sense to some who are looking for a more satisfying answer then "Father knows best."
With that in mind should it really come as any surprise that Harris can acknowledge religious faith and belief but cannot understand it?
And here is where I start to wonder whether there is any point in addressing any of Wordverters' remarks because he, we, and the atheists are all coming from such different places. *
And as the wise Conciliator recently commented:
Both sides refuse to accept what the other holds as unassailable fact - and so how can there be understanding?
(No, really, I want to know. I'm taking Conflict Resolution this year and any attempts at an answer would be interesting. [smile])
As for the rest of Wordverter's post - I'm not going to bother with most of it as (I think) it really comes down to a matter of personal opinion (e.g. "What I find most striking about the so-called debate is how much religious thinkers have developed over the years, and how little the atheists have come along.")
However, I do want to respond to this one last comment:
The point is, there exist individuals who have indeed read the "Good Book" cover to cover* and while they may have been intrigued and impressed by it as a marvelous work of some historicity and not a little literary worth, have not been moved to the point of faith or conversion.
I sure would be curious as to how many of those who identify themselves as Christians have read the Bible in full.
Because just going on what I remember from my earnest preaching days, I could make the (equally unfounded?) statement that what most Christians know of the Bible is acquired solely from sermon.
However, I won't make that statement because while it might be quite accurate, I can still hold out hope that it is not.
In summation, I agree with Wordverter (*gasp*) that there were some highly annoying parts to that MSNBC article.*
Including...
________________________________________
* Even for my personal satisfaction, I mean. Ha.
* Of which I am proudly one.
* Which, in typical media fashion, ultimately takes no position whatsover but instead plays each side off the other, eschewing any attempt at harmonious relations, and instead glorifying happily in "highly inflammatory material."
Evolution isn't incompatible with faith; human goodness is a result of natural selection; atheists are drastically outnumbered. All this and more in...
The New Naysayers
Atheists "are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," according to a study by Penny Edgell, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota. In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, Americans said they believed in God by a margin of 92 to 6—only 2 percent answered "don't know"—and only 37 percent said they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president. (That's down from 49 percent in a 1999 Gallup poll—which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.) It is funny how atheists can cause such a fuss and yet be such a minority.
But its actually one of the responses to the article above that I find more interesting (or at least arguable) then the article itself....
Wordverter airs his grievances on atheist thinkers - here
(And, to make much sense of anything further past this point you'll probably want to go and read what he has to say first.)
Now, how to word this...
Let's just say I find it... funny when Christians (usually of the more liberal/moderate/academic sort [is that too wide a generalization?]) grow annoyed at the idea of anyone taking what the Bible has to say - heaven forbid - literally.
Its true that some books, not just the Bible, can be read on many levels and literalism is not the only way to interpret a text.
However, when most of us first pick up a text, the first time we read it we usually assume we should be reading it literally. Reading for symbolism or figurative meaning, etc - that comes later, usually after at least one read in which you (correctly or incorrectly) assume literalism.
And so when Wordverter says that choosing to take the Bible in a literal way "doesn't speak well" for Harris - he seems to be implying that no educated/informed(?) individual would read the Bible and do so. I'm not sure what that goes to say about a great many Christians who do accept the Bible's literalism, but I've grown to wonder why a book like the Bible is thought of by so many to require the assistance of numerous manuals just to be understood.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a... I'll just go with the word "mysterious"... a mysterious book that can be (mis)understood on any number of figurative or literal levels.
Because divine inspiration or not, its just not the most easily comprehensible book in the world.
Which is why so many different Christian denominations exist.
Which is why so many Christian academics exist - all with their different interpretations and translations.
Back to the point.
The point was - can you really pick on an atheist for taking the Bible... literally?
Moving right along...
Wordverter comments:
The same questions are posed [by the atheists in the article]. If there's a God, how can there be evil in the world? [Italics mine] Really, this question presupposes a lot; it's a loaded question, in fact, which is why I dislike it. Presumably God would not allow disasters, either natural or man-made, because He's so gosh-darn good. But because these do occur - well, how could there be a God? So goes the reasoning.
Well, actually that wasn't the question. What Harris asked was: "How can anyone believe in a benevolent and omnipotent God who permits a tsunami to swallow 180,000 innocent people in a few hours?" (pg. 1, par. 4)
I personally think it's a reasonable question and I would think even the most stalwart believer must wonder about it at some point in their lives - particularly in the face of mass tragedy.
For Christians are told that "God is love" and takes no delight in evil and injustice. And yet still they exist all around us. Many (or most, should I say?) Christians take comfort in Christ and a Biblical promise that suffering and injustice are temporary.
But is it so impossible to accept that not everyone can find such comfort in the Christian ideal of Christ dying for our sins and redeeming us? Some cannot reconcile the idea of a loving god with ongoing human misery. Perhaps its just a trait of we imperfect humans to want instant solutions (and really this debate goes back as far as the Garden of Eden, doesn't it?), but just as Harris said - the idea of a loving, all-powerful god (which Wordverter himself may not believe in but which many, many do) allowing humanity to suffer for whatever reason is abhorrent and unbelievable to some.
Wordverter goes on to give an illustration of a human parent, who possesses greater wisdom and foresight then their child and then says:
Now, if it's so easy to understand that fact, why isn't it so easy to see it in religious thinking? Maybe God knows something we don't? - what a concept! Maybe God doesn't have to play by our rules. Indeed, why should He? I'm not saying I can sit back and cheerfully watch all the hell on earth around us today, like some Dr. Pangloss, only that the combined intellect of those atheists - the combined intellect of the human species, for that matter - is pretty paltry when held up against the wisdom of God.Of course its easy to see it in religious thinking.
But speaking of presupposing, this confidence in god's greater wisdom, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, etc. - all of these are suppositions based on faith.
Faith in a god that agnostics and atheists don't believe in. Faith grounded in a book that they see no reason to put any trust in. And so you can use the illustration of a wise parent all you like - its not going to sink in as anything more then a trite analogy that just doesn't make sense to some who are looking for a more satisfying answer then "Father knows best."
With that in mind should it really come as any surprise that Harris can acknowledge religious faith and belief but cannot understand it?
And here is where I start to wonder whether there is any point in addressing any of Wordverters' remarks because he, we, and the atheists are all coming from such different places. *
And as the wise Conciliator recently commented:
I'm not sure if ANY two people whose presuppositions differ can ever find a common reasoning ground! Isn't that one of the insights of postmodernism?Wordverter himself has caught on to almost the same idea when he says in frustration...
What we find here, then, is a position that is unassailable - unbeatable because it refuses to fight. Walled itself up in its own circle of logic, it is impenetrable. Kind of like conspiracy theories.... except that what he seems to forget is that the same can be said for both sides.
Both sides refuse to accept what the other holds as unassailable fact - and so how can there be understanding?
(No, really, I want to know. I'm taking Conflict Resolution this year and any attempts at an answer would be interesting. [smile])
As for the rest of Wordverter's post - I'm not going to bother with most of it as (I think) it really comes down to a matter of personal opinion (e.g. "What I find most striking about the so-called debate is how much religious thinkers have developed over the years, and how little the atheists have come along.")
However, I do want to respond to this one last comment:
I get the feeling that most arguments against the validity of the Bible come from people who are very uninformed about the Good Book, reading it selectively, partially, or not at all.Speaking of tiresome conclusions, this is one I'm sure growing tired of - this somewhat arrogant assumption that anyone who misunderstands or chooses not to accept the Bible has simply never read it before. Or if they have read it, there comes the more insulting insinuation that they must have misunderstood it. Or read it with severe bias. Or any other number of things.
The point is, there exist individuals who have indeed read the "Good Book" cover to cover* and while they may have been intrigued and impressed by it as a marvelous work of some historicity and not a little literary worth, have not been moved to the point of faith or conversion.
I sure would be curious as to how many of those who identify themselves as Christians have read the Bible in full.
Because just going on what I remember from my earnest preaching days, I could make the (equally unfounded?) statement that what most Christians know of the Bible is acquired solely from sermon.
However, I won't make that statement because while it might be quite accurate, I can still hold out hope that it is not.
In summation, I agree with Wordverter (*gasp*) that there were some highly annoying parts to that MSNBC article.*
Including...
- Harris' condescending statement "Tell a devout Christian... that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."
- Harris' (almost hopeful sounding) comment that "many readers will expect, or hope, to see him burning in hell." (As well as his hilarious request that "the name of his current university not be publicized" for his own protection.)
- Dawkin's belief that "the impulse for generosity must have evolved while humans lived in small bands in which almost everyone was related, so that goodness became the default human aspiration."
________________________________________
* Even for my personal satisfaction, I mean. Ha.
* Of which I am proudly one.
* Which, in typical media fashion, ultimately takes no position whatsover but instead plays each side off the other, eschewing any attempt at harmonious relations, and instead glorifying happily in "highly inflammatory material."
Monday, September 11, 2006
Just to keep track of things...
Eve has responded to my earlier post (which touched on original sin and homosexuality) on her blog - here.
As always, its an interesting read but part of it tells me we are still not on the same page (understanding-wise).
Or actually, maybe we are, because when Eve says...
However, the fact that Eve thinks that I would disagree with the logic in that statement tells me I haven't presented my thoughts as clearly as I would like.
But that's okay; this is a good challenge for me as I often spew out ideas without thinking them through clearly enough. (Zip it, Elliot!)
So, it may take me a few days but I plan on writing a post that 1) goes back to the original question I had asked on Elliot's blog * (which may seem like an annoying repetition but isn't meant to be as I really don't think its been fully answered; however, I am also willing to accept that it may never be) and 2) clarifies my position on why I am... pro-gay.
I may also delve into the question of whether or not a Christian and a non-Christian can ever truly find a common reasoning ground but that may be a topic that is over my head! :P
_______________
*Anactoria said...
Eve has responded to my earlier post (which touched on original sin and homosexuality) on her blog - here.
As always, its an interesting read but part of it tells me we are still not on the same page (understanding-wise).
Or actually, maybe we are, because when Eve says...
"In order to figure out if something is okay to do, you can't just ask whether people who seem like good upstanding citizens (according to some culture or subculture's definition of "good"!) want to do it."... I am in agreement.
However, the fact that Eve thinks that I would disagree with the logic in that statement tells me I haven't presented my thoughts as clearly as I would like.
But that's okay; this is a good challenge for me as I often spew out ideas without thinking them through clearly enough. (Zip it, Elliot!)
So, it may take me a few days but I plan on writing a post that 1) goes back to the original question I had asked on Elliot's blog * (which may seem like an annoying repetition but isn't meant to be as I really don't think its been fully answered; however, I am also willing to accept that it may never be) and 2) clarifies my position on why I am... pro-gay.
I may also delve into the question of whether or not a Christian and a non-Christian can ever truly find a common reasoning ground but that may be a topic that is over my head! :P
_______________
*Anactoria said...
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Recently Elliot made a small post in his blog regarding Eve Tushnet* which set off a string of comments between myself and a number of other readers of The Claw. Elliot's been an Eve-reader for a number of years and we've discussed her position a few times before on Eunoia.*
Eve's position has always disturbed me and so a few days ago I made the following query on Elliot's blog:
To clarify, its not the celibacy portion of Eve's position that I'm trying to pick on. Its the fact that she seems to consider her celibacy from homosexual sex a 'cross' she must bear in order to live as a faithful Catholic. That's the part that gets to me (but of course, this is Catholicism we're talking about and so there are many components of it that disturb me), the fact that Eve presents as a lesbian but that her homosexuality is not something she is proud of, rather it is something of a thorn in her flesh.*
As someone who was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses ( just like The Claw), I was taught that homosexuality was biblically condemned and punishable by 'everlasting condemnation', etc, etc. If a JW happened to be gay,* they most likely would either 1) hide the fact indefinitely and try to continue with a "normal" JW life or 2) make their 'condition' known to the appropriate authorities (i.e. congregation elders) who would then take the steps to counsel, caution, and overall reaffirm condemnation of homosexual acts. Were the individual to ever begin to act on their desires without remorse, they would be expelled from the congregation. Their parents would cease to speak to them. They would be utterly cut off from their family and friends.
I'd always believed the above was totally normal, approved by god, and all that good stuff. In fact, at that point in my life, if my best friend had suddenly confided to me that she thought she might be having 'homosexual longings' my first instinct would most likely have been to turn her in so that she might be guided and prayed with (and for) and hopefully turned away from the course that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
*sigh*
I remember the night that my view of homosexuality was altered irreversibly.
In my family, I am the eldest of two sisters and when I was still a JW I was encouraged to be a role model for my younger sister and to support her spiritually as much as possible. This I generally did with much earnestness.
One night (one of those nights Before All Hell Broke Loose as I tend to think of it), my sister and I had a passionate argument on whether homosexuality was wrong. That was the year that my sister had acquired not only a boyfriend but also a library pass and was causing no end of worry to my parents. I was worried about the very real possibility of her 'falling out of the Truth' - the JW way of saying, 'leaving the religion. ' Its not a pleasant thing to have to think about the possibility of having to shun one's own sister.
And so when she started to say she'd been thinking and didn't believe that it was right to condemn homosexuality... Well, alarm bells went off, I started to panic, and I began to argue strenuously on the JW side for all I was worth. We tossed the usual lines back and forth for a while "The Bible says in Romans..." "Its genetic not acquired..." "Its unnatural..." "Its not hurting anyone..." etc. etc.
This went on for quite a while and I was getting pretty upset. Finally my sister asked me, "Are you telling me that if you had a child and they were gay that you would shun them? Or think that they were evil for having been born with those inclinations? And try to force them to be straight?" *
I considered for a moment and forced myself to be totally, totally honest. I don't think of myself as having very maternal instincts but even so, I do believe I have an adequate capacity for imagining.
I think that was one of the starting points that resulted in my sister, her boyfriend (my best friend), and myself leaving the JWs, joining Elliot in the cruel, cruel immoral world, and subsequently being shunned by our former friends and family.
Fast forward four years later and the thought of Eve - or ANYONE! sorry, don't mean to pick solely on Eve here, she's just closest at hand - choosing to submerge and despise a part of herself so as to be a good Christian... Well, I think its awful. This is very much my emotions talking, because my head knows that its not like Eve is a rarity. There are many gay folk who choose (or are coerced) to be celibate for religious reasons. Many religious people truly believe that being gay is unnatural, disgusting, wicked, something you can change,* something that is abhorrent to god, something that is scripturally condemned, something you should hate about yourself and in others - should they display the inclination.
Now, in my mind, a lot of this goes back to the Christian notion of original sin, made most famous in the Genesis account - of which (yes, thank you, Elliot) there are many, many interpretations but of which the most common seems to be that - to put it very generally - something happened long ago (literal or figurative - you decide) that changed humankind's position from perfect to imperfect, without sin to sinful. Before that point in time, all was possible and we were approved by god. After that point in time, humans were flawed and in need of redemption and god's grace and... Christ's death.
And now to trim this whole thing down to a finishing point...
Earlier as part of this whole discussion, I made the comment on Elliot's blog:
And Eve (very kindly took the time and) responded to it. I'll just quote the part I would like to respond to. Hopefully I can be brief...
EVE SAID:
In answer to 'what would I call' the undoubtable fact that humans are capable of much evil... Well, I would call it the way things are, the way things have always been. (I'm not sure that's quite what I personally believe but it makes more sense to me then the idea of original sin.)
I don't believe that we - humanity - are naturally bad or evil. Or naturally good and innocent - so perhaps we're on the same page there. One thought on this is, perhaps we are born everything. When it comes to our actions, our inclinations, what if we are born with the potential for everything? * (Or at the very least, to determine whether the course of our life will be good or bad.)
I don't understand this drive, this need to believe that at one point we were more then this. That at one point we were some sort of ideal species/creation.
Yes, we are born 'flawed' if by flawed you mean that we become diseased and our bodies eventually run down, collapse and die.
But sinful? I will never believe that a child is born sinful.
I could never believe again that god's idea of justice was to permit sin to pass into the world as some sort of screwed up punishment for something that happened millennia ago... only to go the trouble of... well, the rest is history, isn't it?
Inherited, original sin. Where is the justice in that? Where is the comfort?
(I'm going to stop here for now. Apologies for length. Please feel free to comment. Although I'm not sure I have quite finished my thoughts.)
__________________
* Eve Tushnet is a blogger who converted from Judaism to Catholicism and has been very open in her blog about the fact that she is a celibate lesbian.
* A small MSN group of close friends.
* Eve, if you read this, please feel free to correct me on any of these points ; this is just the impression I've gotten.
* Though it wouldn't have been called 'gay' per se, it would more likely be labeled as impure desires and lustful longings - actually, Elliot, help me out here, what was the proper term? Hmm...
* After all this time, I'm actually not sure how the heck she worded it exactly. I doubt she would have used terms like 'gay' or 'straight' at that point... But anyways, essentially that was what she said.
* In fact there are even groups who advertise their ability to 'change' you into a proper straight person. Ugh!
* And THIS - to me - seems much more in line with the idea of a loving god!
Eve's position has always disturbed me and so a few days ago I made the following query on Elliot's blog:
"Does her choice of inaction mean that she believes god would condemn any action on her part towards her lesbian desires? Since her sexuality is part of her, like it or not, does that mean she abhors a part of herself? Or believes that god does?"
To clarify, its not the celibacy portion of Eve's position that I'm trying to pick on. Its the fact that she seems to consider her celibacy from homosexual sex a 'cross' she must bear in order to live as a faithful Catholic. That's the part that gets to me (but of course, this is Catholicism we're talking about and so there are many components of it that disturb me), the fact that Eve presents as a lesbian but that her homosexuality is not something she is proud of, rather it is something of a thorn in her flesh.*
As someone who was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses ( just like The Claw), I was taught that homosexuality was biblically condemned and punishable by 'everlasting condemnation', etc, etc. If a JW happened to be gay,* they most likely would either 1) hide the fact indefinitely and try to continue with a "normal" JW life or 2) make their 'condition' known to the appropriate authorities (i.e. congregation elders) who would then take the steps to counsel, caution, and overall reaffirm condemnation of homosexual acts. Were the individual to ever begin to act on their desires without remorse, they would be expelled from the congregation. Their parents would cease to speak to them. They would be utterly cut off from their family and friends.
I'd always believed the above was totally normal, approved by god, and all that good stuff. In fact, at that point in my life, if my best friend had suddenly confided to me that she thought she might be having 'homosexual longings' my first instinct would most likely have been to turn her in so that she might be guided and prayed with (and for) and hopefully turned away from the course that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
*sigh*
I remember the night that my view of homosexuality was altered irreversibly.
In my family, I am the eldest of two sisters and when I was still a JW I was encouraged to be a role model for my younger sister and to support her spiritually as much as possible. This I generally did with much earnestness.
One night (one of those nights Before All Hell Broke Loose as I tend to think of it), my sister and I had a passionate argument on whether homosexuality was wrong. That was the year that my sister had acquired not only a boyfriend but also a library pass and was causing no end of worry to my parents. I was worried about the very real possibility of her 'falling out of the Truth' - the JW way of saying, 'leaving the religion. ' Its not a pleasant thing to have to think about the possibility of having to shun one's own sister.
And so when she started to say she'd been thinking and didn't believe that it was right to condemn homosexuality... Well, alarm bells went off, I started to panic, and I began to argue strenuously on the JW side for all I was worth. We tossed the usual lines back and forth for a while "The Bible says in Romans..." "Its genetic not acquired..." "Its unnatural..." "Its not hurting anyone..." etc. etc.
This went on for quite a while and I was getting pretty upset. Finally my sister asked me, "Are you telling me that if you had a child and they were gay that you would shun them? Or think that they were evil for having been born with those inclinations? And try to force them to be straight?" *
I considered for a moment and forced myself to be totally, totally honest. I don't think of myself as having very maternal instincts but even so, I do believe I have an adequate capacity for imagining.
I think that was one of the starting points that resulted in my sister, her boyfriend (my best friend), and myself leaving the JWs, joining Elliot in the cruel, cruel immoral world, and subsequently being shunned by our former friends and family.
Fast forward four years later and the thought of Eve - or ANYONE! sorry, don't mean to pick solely on Eve here, she's just closest at hand - choosing to submerge and despise a part of herself so as to be a good Christian... Well, I think its awful. This is very much my emotions talking, because my head knows that its not like Eve is a rarity. There are many gay folk who choose (or are coerced) to be celibate for religious reasons. Many religious people truly believe that being gay is unnatural, disgusting, wicked, something you can change,* something that is abhorrent to god, something that is scripturally condemned, something you should hate about yourself and in others - should they display the inclination.
Now, in my mind, a lot of this goes back to the Christian notion of original sin, made most famous in the Genesis account - of which (yes, thank you, Elliot) there are many, many interpretations but of which the most common seems to be that - to put it very generally - something happened long ago (literal or figurative - you decide) that changed humankind's position from perfect to imperfect, without sin to sinful. Before that point in time, all was possible and we were approved by god. After that point in time, humans were flawed and in need of redemption and god's grace and... Christ's death.
And now to trim this whole thing down to a finishing point...
Earlier as part of this whole discussion, I made the comment on Elliot's blog:
"I suppose it would help if I believed in the whole concept of humanity being an inherently sinful and "fallen" race but I don't. The Genesis account of man's supposed fall from grace doesn't mesh with my idea of a god of love."
And Eve (very kindly took the time and) responded to it. I'll just quote the part I would like to respond to. Hopefully I can be brief...
EVE SAID:
"But what I want to know is, what does she call it? What does she call that yearning toward hate, that reverse heliotropism? What does she call the damage that all of us bear from the time of our earliest memories?"
In answer to 'what would I call' the undoubtable fact that humans are capable of much evil... Well, I would call it the way things are, the way things have always been. (I'm not sure that's quite what I personally believe but it makes more sense to me then the idea of original sin.)
"Chesterton, I think, said something about how the Fall is the only obvious Christian doctrine (?). And I agree with that so thoroughly that I'm not even sure how useful I can be in defending the idea--it's too central to my experience of the world. I mean, look: My mom works in prisoners'-rights litigation. If you want to be convinced that humans are not naturally good, I am hard pressed to think of a better school.
People want, and want very badly, a lot of really awful things. The fact that somebody really, really wants to do something, or believes it's embedded in and intrinsic to him, doesn't actually tell me very much about that thing's moral worth.
But I absolutely, 100% deny that humans are naturally bad or evil, either. If that were true, how could we ever long for or recognize beauty and truth? To be Fallen is to share both the legacy of Adam's sin, and the memory of his happiness. (See--right up there in the title, I promised you some Augustine, and there it finally is....) Something's gone wrong with us, yes, but somewhere deep down we do still remember what it was like to be able to love. And by following that submerged and occluded memory, we can learn to accept grace, and be healed, and love truly."
I don't believe that we - humanity - are naturally bad or evil. Or naturally good and innocent - so perhaps we're on the same page there. One thought on this is, perhaps we are born everything. When it comes to our actions, our inclinations, what if we are born with the potential for everything? * (Or at the very least, to determine whether the course of our life will be good or bad.)
I don't understand this drive, this need to believe that at one point we were more then this. That at one point we were some sort of ideal species/creation.
Yes, we are born 'flawed' if by flawed you mean that we become diseased and our bodies eventually run down, collapse and die.
But sinful? I will never believe that a child is born sinful.
I could never believe again that god's idea of justice was to permit sin to pass into the world as some sort of screwed up punishment for something that happened millennia ago... only to go the trouble of... well, the rest is history, isn't it?
Inherited, original sin. Where is the justice in that? Where is the comfort?
(I'm going to stop here for now. Apologies for length. Please feel free to comment. Although I'm not sure I have quite finished my thoughts.)
__________________
* Eve Tushnet is a blogger who converted from Judaism to Catholicism and has been very open in her blog about the fact that she is a celibate lesbian.
* A small MSN group of close friends.
* Eve, if you read this, please feel free to correct me on any of these points ; this is just the impression I've gotten.
* Though it wouldn't have been called 'gay' per se, it would more likely be labeled as impure desires and lustful longings - actually, Elliot, help me out here, what was the proper term? Hmm...
* After all this time, I'm actually not sure how the heck she worded it exactly. I doubt she would have used terms like 'gay' or 'straight' at that point... But anyways, essentially that was what she said.
* In fact there are even groups who advertise their ability to 'change' you into a proper straight person. Ugh!
* And THIS - to me - seems much more in line with the idea of a loving god!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Lady In The Water may be considered a "flop" by Critics but I loved it - imperfections (which there were, of course) and all.M. Night may have yet to get it perfectly down pat, but I think he is definitely getting closer to It as he goes along.
(And that's more then can be said for most movie-makers... right?)
It reminded me of a crazy day dream - and by that I mean a dream that you dream in the day, half-waking, strange and surreal.
A little like a Gene Wolfe short story or a Neil Gaiman book (a la American Gods maybe...).
I think the little tripline "A Bedtime Story" sums it up perfectly: you need to be on the brink of sleep to appreciate this one - to have it scare you and to believe in it.
Oh, and the promo poster is... totally inaccurate in what its supposed to inspire in your imagination, in my opinion. It makes me think... winter, ice, fairies, magic. Look at it - you'd think she was Queen Jadis or something!
Piff.
*yawn*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Her position has always really disturbed me.
Does her choice of inaction mean that she believes god would condemn any action on her part towards her lesbian desires? Since her sexuality is part of her, like it or not, does that mean she abhors a part of herself? Or believes that god does?