culture war

The Power of a Word

Frank

You might think all the hullabaloo about the ‘War on Christmas’ is limited to the United States but you’d be wrong. It’s been reported that a principal in Australia was forced to apologize to atheist parents of a child for saying “Christmas” too many times in a school newsletter. Disclaimer: I heard this on the radio but have not seen any credible source online, even while googling the parties involved directly. While this is being widely reported across the blogosphere, the best news link I could find was from 2005. So I have a hunch this is a spam email going around. Even if this is four-year-old news, it still illustrates how sensitive we can be to a single word. The so-called War on Christmas isn’t about singing carols, putting up lights, or buying presents for your children. It is about the word Christmas implying the birth of Christ and therefore endorsing or even proselytizing the Christian faith.

Let’s pretend that the secularists have their way and the word Christmas is abolished because of its religious roots. What other offensive words should we eliminate from our vernacular?

Don’t use ‘Hail Mary’ when describing the last play of a football game. (Luke 1:28)

Don’t use ‘prayer’ when describing a last minute or clutch shot in any sport.

Speaking of sports, I noticed there’s no real “David versus Goliath” match up in any of the BCS bowls this year. (1 Samuel 17)

Don’t use ‘the writing on the wall’ to describe something ominous. (Daniel 5) Or “signs of the times” either. (Luke 12:56)

Don’t use the word excruciating to describe pain. That word was invented to describe the unique pain suffered from crucifixion and if a secularized/commercialized word like Christmas instantly implies Jesus, then any reference to crucifixion should as well.

Don’t say “inspired” or “enthused” which mean spirit-filled and god-filled respectively.

Don’t say ‘baptism by fire’ to describe going through trials. (Matthew 3:11) Actually, better not say ‘baptism’ at all since it’s a specific religious term that’s not derived from any translation (transliteration).

Don’t say ‘holy —‘ as a cuss word or otherwise.

Don’t say ‘damn’ as a curse or otherwise.

And you better not say “Jesus Christ” even if you’re using his name in vain.

I’m sure there are others you could think of, but you get the point. Most of these examples are common phrases used independent from religion but that doesn’t change their meaning or implication. Just like Christmas has become far removed from religion, that does not change its obviously offensive meaning.

The Power of a Word

Frank

You might think all the hullabaloo about the ‘War on Christmas’ is limited to the United States but you’d be wrong. It’s been reported that a principal in Australia was forced to apologize to atheist parents of a child for saying “Christmas” too many times in a school newsletter. Disclaimer: I heard this on the radio but have not seen any credible source online, even while googling the parties involved directly. While this is being widely reported across the blogosphere, the best news link I could find was from 2005. So I have a hunch this is a spam email going around. Even if this is four-year-old news, it still illustrates how sensitive we can be to a single word. The so-called War on Christmas isn’t about singing carols, putting up lights, or buying presents for your children. It is about the word Christmas implying the birth of Christ and therefore endorsing or even proselytizing the Christian faith.

Let’s pretend that the secularists have their way and the word Christmas is abolished because of its religious roots. What other offensive words should we eliminate from our vernacular?

Don’t use ‘Hail Mary’ when describing the last play of a football game. (Luke 1:28)

Don’t use ‘prayer’ when describing a last minute or clutch shot in any sport.

Speaking of sports, I noticed there’s no real “David versus Goliath” match up in any of the BCS bowls this year. (1 Samuel 17)

Don’t use ‘the writing on the wall’ to describe something ominous. (Daniel 5) Or “signs of the times” either. (Luke 12:56)

Don’t use the word excruciating to describe pain. That word was invented to describe the unique pain suffered from crucifixion and if a secularized/commercialized word like Christmas instantly implies Jesus, then any reference to crucifixion should as well.

Don’t say “inspired” or “enthused” which mean spirit-filled and god-filled respectively.

Don’t say ‘baptism by fire’ to describe going through trials. (Matthew 3:11) Actually, better not say ‘baptism’ at all since it’s a specific religious term that’s not derived from any translation (transliteration).

Don’t say ‘holy —‘ as a cuss word or otherwise.

Don’t say ‘damn’ as a curse or otherwise.

And you better not say “Jesus Christ” even if you’re using his name in vain.

I’m sure there are others you could think of, but you get the point. Most of these examples are common phrases used independent from religion but that doesn’t change their meaning or implication. Just like Christmas has become far removed from religion, that does not change its obviously offensive meaning.

What was Old is New Again

Frank

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

We’re at the heart of the Christmas season, which means we’re in the thick of the “War on Christmas” and are inundated by the overreaction to this “war”. For some reason we think our circumstances are unique. We look around and think our culture’s morals are worse than they have ever been. And we are hyper-sensitive to criticism or even just contrary opinions. And for some reason, the image we often portray is that of the 1950’s white picket fence America where ‘Christians were Christians, and non-Christians were too.” But not long after this utopia was the upheaval of the 1960’s. Darn hippies.

Tuesday night ABC aired A Charlie Brown Christmas, the second-longest running Christmas special on Network Television (beat out by only a year by Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer) which first aired in 1965. I’m not ashamed to admit we bought the box set of Charlie Brown holiday specials a year ago and we’ve already practically worn them out. My children are quick to run up and press play after any movie finishes, but sometime the menu screen isn’t the ‘top menu’ but is the menu for Special Features. These Charlie Brown DVDs are an example of this. So they come running in wanting me to fix it, because what 4 and 2 year old wants to watch a “making of…”?

The first time this happened I was surprised as they were talking about the negative backlash they received for having the nerve to quote scripture (Linus’ famous reading of Luke 2). Producer/director/and snoopy actor Bill Melendez tried to talk Peanuts creator Charles Schulz out of including the scripture. CBS executives were hesitant to air it. And the public response was as expected.

This was in 1965. It could be argued we have much greater freedom today when we televangelists can be found on multiple channels, political pundits on both sides of the aisle who aren’t afraid to reference their religion, and movies such as The Passion of the Christ being commercial successes. Yet we still feel this insecurity whenever anyone has a different opinion than what we consider “mainstream Christianity” which some of us believe should dominate our culture and every facet of society.

For those of you fighting in the latest go-around of the War on Christmas, hearken back to 1965 (or 1968) and remember than “nothing is new under the sun.”

What was Old is New Again

Frank

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

We’re at the heart of the Christmas season, which means we’re in the thick of the “War on Christmas” and are inundated by the overreaction to this “war”. For some reason we think our circumstances are unique. We look around and think our culture’s morals are worse than they have ever been. And we are hyper-sensitive to criticism or even just contrary opinions. And for some reason, the image we often portray is that of the 1950’s white picket fence America where ‘Christians were Christians, and non-Christians were too.” But not long after this utopia was the upheaval of the 1960’s. Darn hippies.

Tuesday night ABC aired A Charlie Brown Christmas, the second-longest running Christmas special on Network Television (beat out by only a year by Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer) which first aired in 1965. I’m not ashamed to admit we bought the box set of Charlie Brown holiday specials a year ago and we’ve already practically worn them out. My children are quick to run up and press play after any movie finishes, but sometime the menu screen isn’t the ‘top menu’ but is the menu for Special Features. These Charlie Brown DVDs are an example of this. So they come running in wanting me to fix it, because what 4 and 2 year old wants to watch a “making of…”?

The first time this happened I was surprised as they were talking about the negative backlash they received for having the nerve to quote scripture (Linus’ famous reading of Luke 2). Producer/director/and snoopy actor Bill Melendez tried to talk Peanuts creator Charles Schulz out of including the scripture. CBS executives were hesitant to air it. And the public response was as expected.

This was in 1965. It could be argued we have much greater freedom today when we televangelists can be found on multiple channels, political pundits on both sides of the aisle who aren’t afraid to reference their religion, and movies such as The Passion of the Christ being commercial successes. Yet we still feel this insecurity whenever anyone has a different opinion than what we consider “mainstream Christianity” which some of us believe should dominate our culture and every facet of society.

For those of you fighting in the latest go-around of the War on Christmas, hearken back to 1965 (or 1968) and remember than “nothing is new under the sun.”

War on Christmas

Frank

With two weeks to go before Christmas, the infamous ‘War on Christmas’ is heating up. This probably won’t be my only post on the subject, though I find following this subject in the media tiresome. I even tried to tackle this last year, but got derailed by Newsweek taking advantage of the holiday season to pontificate about gay-marriage. You can check those posts out here if you so desire.

I read this article the other day and I agree with most of it. It’s hard to argue about “keeping Christ in Christmas” when our biggest concern is having the best decorations on the block or making sure our kids have the latest-greatest toys (or is it we who want the latest-greatest gadget?). At the same time our culture does us no favors and the politics that have worked their way into this debate are frustrating.

So if you really want to keep Christ in Christmas, wear a t-shirt. That’s all it takes!

War on Christmas

Frank

With two weeks to go before Christmas, the infamous ‘War on Christmas’ is heating up. This probably won’t be my only post on the subject, though I find following this subject in the media tiresome. I even tried to tackle this last year, but got derailed by Newsweek taking advantage of the holiday season to pontificate about gay-marriage. You can check those posts out here if you so desire.

I read this article the other day and I agree with most of it. It’s hard to argue about “keeping Christ in Christmas” when our biggest concern is having the best decorations on the block or making sure our kids have the latest-greatest toys (or is it we who want the latest-greatest gadget?). At the same time our culture does us no favors and the politics that have worked their way into this debate are frustrating.

So if you really want to keep Christ in Christmas, wear a t-shirt. That’s all it takes!

Walking in Another’s Shoes

Frank

I hate the first post after a lengthy (lazy) hiatus. There’s always so much to cover since my last post, but at the same time I want to be timely. While these articles may be dated (at least relative to the 24-hour news cycle), I believe they are too relevant to not be read.

One of my goals with this blog is to be even-handed in my analysis and commentary, though I do have obvious religious and political beliefs. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to taking a different point of view. Walking in another’s shoes, so to speak, and these two articles do just that. They both highlight how one’s worldview impacts their decisions. By reading these articles, I gained a great deal of respect for both men because they are consistent in applying their worldview, something I seldom see in the present culture-war.

The first is about Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is fighting to overturn Proposition 8 in California. His defense of gay-marriage is based on his conservative principles to keep the government out of our personal lives. You can’t argue that he’s not consistent with his conservative view of government, in contrast to a conservative view of social moors taken by many politicians and activists. Now, I’m not about to change my opinion on gay-marriage. However, given the background in this article I will concede the point of “fundamental right” though I still worry about the “slippery slope” and disapprove the means by which homosexuals are trying to gain this right. (Specifically, not responding to Prop 8 with a proposition of their own and instead throwing a legal hissy fit)

The second article is about the “abortion evangelist” (gotta love the sensationalist headlines) LeRoy Carhart. I don’t approve of his practice, but I understand his motivation for providing it. I also admire that he does stick to his guns. In one example, “Carhart asked her what she would do if she had to carry the baby to term. ‘She didn’t say she was going to kill herself,’ he says. ‘She said she would put it up [for adoption].’ He turned her away..” I do regret that he feels the way he does about his own safety. I hope he realizes that not everyone who is opposed to abortion wants him dead. But given the slant of the article, I don’t expect that perspective to be conveyed. What is also important to glean from this article is how tragic abortion really is and that criminalizing it only marginalizes those who “need” (I hesitate using that word, but I think it’s appropriate here) the service. The real war against abortion needs to be against this need (“abortion should be available, but rare”). Think simple supply-demand economics. Legal restrictions to abortion reduce the supply which only increases the cost (emotional and physical in addition to financial) to women. Instead, the demand needs to be brought down. And no, I believe showing pictures of fetuses to women entering a clinic is too late to have any measurable effect. Instead the preciousness of life (scripture) needs to be emphasized alongside the value of reserving sex for marriage. There is a moral case for family planning.

In both of these cases, it can be seen how their careers are guided by their respective worldviews. But neither worldview is Biblical. Get Religion points out that the profile of Ted Olson only mentions that Olson is “not a regular churchgoer”, and Newsweek fails to mention any religious affiliation of Carhart. Yet, while we may not agree with them, we should take the lesson that our lives should be guided by some particular worldview. As Christians, our worldview should be built on being Christ-like and “what would Jesus do?” I also think it is important to be open-minded and respectful of others’ worldviews. I linked these two articles above despite my being against both cases. It is always important to see the other side of an argument. That may sound wishy-washy, but I’m not saying “we can both be right” or “truth is relative”. Instead I’m saying that I disagree with, but respect your opinion, just as you are free to disagree with mine.

Walking in Another’s Shoes

Frank

I hate the first post after a lengthy (lazy) hiatus. There’s always so much to cover since my last post, but at the same time I want to be timely. While these articles may be dated (at least relative to the 24-hour news cycle), I believe they are too relevant to not be read.

One of my goals with this blog is to be even-handed in my analysis and commentary, though I do have obvious religious and political beliefs. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to taking a different point of view. Walking in another’s shoes, so to speak, and these two articles do just that. They both highlight how one’s worldview impacts their decisions. By reading these articles, I gained a great deal of respect for both men because they are consistent in applying their worldview, something I seldom see in the present culture-war.

The first is about Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is fighting to overturn Proposition 8 in California. His defense of gay-marriage is based on his conservative principles to keep the government out of our personal lives. You can’t argue that he’s not consistent with his conservative view of government, in contrast to a conservative view of social moors taken by many politicians and activists. Now, I’m not about to change my opinion on gay-marriage. However, given the background in this article I will concede the point of “fundamental right” though I still worry about the “slippery slope” and disapprove the means by which homosexuals are trying to gain this right. (Specifically, not responding to Prop 8 with a proposition of their own and instead throwing a legal hissy fit)

The second article is about the “abortion evangelist” (gotta love the sensationalist headlines) LeRoy Carhart. I don’t approve of his practice, but I understand his motivation for providing it. I also admire that he does stick to his guns. In one example, “Carhart asked her what she would do if she had to carry the baby to term. ‘She didn’t say she was going to kill herself,’ he says. ‘She said she would put it up [for adoption].’ He turned her away..” I do regret that he feels the way he does about his own safety. I hope he realizes that not everyone who is opposed to abortion wants him dead. But given the slant of the article, I don’t expect that perspective to be conveyed. What is also important to glean from this article is how tragic abortion really is and that criminalizing it only marginalizes those who “need” (I hesitate using that word, but I think it’s appropriate here) the service. The real war against abortion needs to be against this need (“abortion should be available, but rare”). Think simple supply-demand economics. Legal restrictions to abortion reduce the supply which only increases the cost (emotional and physical in addition to financial) to women. Instead, the demand needs to be brought down. And no, I believe showing pictures of fetuses to women entering a clinic is too late to have any measurable effect. Instead the preciousness of life (scripture) needs to be emphasized alongside the value of reserving sex for marriage. There is a moral case for family planning.

In both of these cases, it can be seen how their careers are guided by their respective worldviews. But neither worldview is Biblical. Get Religion points out that the profile of Ted Olson only mentions that Olson is “not a regular churchgoer”, and Newsweek fails to mention any religious affiliation of Carhart. Yet, while we may not agree with them, we should take the lesson that our lives should be guided by some particular worldview. As Christians, our worldview should be built on being Christ-like and “what would Jesus do?” I also think it is important to be open-minded and respectful of others’ worldviews. I linked these two articles above despite my being against both cases. It is always important to see the other side of an argument. That may sound wishy-washy, but I’m not saying “we can both be right” or “truth is relative”. Instead I’m saying that I disagree with, but respect your opinion, just as you are free to disagree with mine.

When Pro-life is also Anti-life

Frank

I was going to blog on something else this afternoon, but this headline was on my homepage. I don’t know what to say other than, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Romans 12:17-19)

It breaks my heart that the issue of abortion comes down to this for many. Even his family, after suffering years of harassment, still took a hard line stance by saying the tragedy “is also a loss for… women across the country.” The president of NARAL was quoted as saying, “Dr. Tiller’s murder will send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers and other professionals who are part of reproductive-health centers that serve women across this country. We want them to know that they have our support as they move forward in providing these essential services.”

Essential? I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. Are 21 weeks not enough time for a woman to “choose” to abort her unborn child? As for “health of the mother” arguments, those cases make up less than a percent of abortions. And as for the “brave and courageous providers…” they’re not at risk of losing their jobs for doing what they do, unlike medical and pharmaceutical professionals who are no longer protected by a ‘conscience clause’.

But that doesn’t make this right. Nothing could ever justify taking another life in such a way. The sad irony that this unspeakable act took place in a church. And I hope, if we really call ourselves Christians, that instead of using this event to spotlight the issue of abortion, we instead lift up our prayers for his family and for forgiveness to the suspect.

Again I quote Romans, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil… Do not take revenge.”

When Pro-life is also Anti-life

Frank

I was going to blog on something else this afternoon, but this headline was on my homepage. I don’t know what to say other than, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Romans 12:17-19)

It breaks my heart that the issue of abortion comes down to this for many. Even his family, after suffering years of harassment, still took a hard line stance by saying the tragedy “is also a loss for… women across the country.” The president of NARAL was quoted as saying, “Dr. Tiller’s murder will send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers and other professionals who are part of reproductive-health centers that serve women across this country. We want them to know that they have our support as they move forward in providing these essential services.”

Essential? I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. Are 21 weeks not enough time for a woman to “choose” to abort her unborn child? As for “health of the mother” arguments, those cases make up less than a percent of abortions. And as for the “brave and courageous providers…” they’re not at risk of losing their jobs for doing what they do, unlike medical and pharmaceutical professionals who are no longer protected by a ‘conscience clause’.

But that doesn’t make this right. Nothing could ever justify taking another life in such a way. The sad irony that this unspeakable act took place in a church. And I hope, if we really call ourselves Christians, that instead of using this event to spotlight the issue of abortion, we instead lift up our prayers for his family and for forgiveness to the suspect.

Again I quote Romans, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil… Do not take revenge.”