http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/interface/feed.png http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php Copyright 2008, Joplin Globe webadmin@joplinglobe.com (Joplin Globe) en-US SPHPBLOG 0.4.5 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php?entry=entry070813-184844
Anyway, sorry for the really stupid error. I wonder what a tenant of the faith would be?]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/?entry=entry070813-184844 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:48:44 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/comments.php?y=07&m=08&entry=entry070813-184844 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php?entry=entry070813-153201
Ray Cathode writes "I still think you are making too many assumptions. By your own reckoning, it's not so much the medium of TV, as it is how its used. If you're engaged by quality content on the television -- such as a televised play, which by your estimation is superior to television -- then it's good, which pretty much negates your original post that television -- the medium -- is bad. Plus, if its the level of engagement that determines if a medium is bad -- and the more you're engaged the better -- then what of video games and the Internet? I think you're real criticism should probably be pointed at what America tends to consume -- be it books, movies, TV shows -- not the medium through which it is delivered. Plus, bashing TV is a bit dated. Society -- the younger generation especially -- has moved on."

I give up on trying to get Ray to understand my point about TV being a more passive medium than books, live plays, or radio. He keeps using the words inferior or superior. Of course a good TV show is superior to a bad book, artistically, morally, intellectually, or however. My point was that viewing TV is a more intellectually passive experience than reading a book, or watching a live play. He is free to disagree, but I hope at least understands what I'm saying. I think also that TV is more damaging intellectually and morally than bad literature or plays because a good deal of TV programming is garbage, and millions more people watch TV than read bad books or watch bad plays.

Ray is certainly right that criticizing TV is dated. Almost everything I think and believe is dated. I think our culture is going bad, as other cultures, such as the Roman Empire, have. The marvelous Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, says that people say you can't turn back the clock. He points out that if the clock is set wrong, the most sensible thing we can do is reset it. Also, if you are doing a long row of addition, and found out you made a mistake way back, it would be stupid to keep on adding. You have to go back and correct the mistake. I would never claim that an idea is good just because it is old. There was as much wickedness in past history as there is now. But there are also many centuries of accumulated wisdom and goodness from the past that current Americans either are totally ignorant of, or want to destroy or ignore. We have become a rootless, shallow culture (especially the younger generation) where knowledge consists of knowing who the latest celebrities are, wearing the coolest clothes and being up on the latest fads in speech, technology, and sex. The Christian faith, as originally set forth by the Apostles, is dated, according to many who claim to be Christians. I am not bothered by being called dated.


Ray also makes the following comment:
"Okay, so this makes more sense. Your objection to TV is that it shows people acting promiscuously and has gay characters who are likable. This is much different from saying that all television is vapid and has little value. There are numerous shows that are admirable from an artistic standpoint that would likely offend you. You say sexuality is a way for government to control or to encroach on people's live, but I think enforcing moral strictures and expecting mass media to conform to one narrow view of morality is a much more insidious and, frankly, more likely way for government, society to control lives. And that line "about love the sinner but hate the sin" is a lovely, easy platitude that's hardly applicable in real life, considering that's like saying "love the person but hate who they are" or "love the person inside but hate the skin color." And don't chalk your hatred of homosexuality to the fact that you're Christian. Have the guts to say its a personal decision spurred by whatever denomination you're affiliated with. There are numerous Christians who see homosexuality differently and would take offense to being lumped into your denomination's interpretation. And what should television show? Stories about gays who join a church and aided by a stern and disapproving (but loving!) congregation learn to hate their innate desire for the same sex and lead an awkward life of platonic spooning with a handsome new wife? I think most television shows present gay characters as, yes, normal people leading normal lives, which is exactly what gay people do."

I wonder if Ray really read my column. I looked at it again to be sure, and cannot for the life of me figure out where I said that I hated homosexuals. I said that I regarded homosexual behavior as a sin, as I do many other behaviors. Every human in the world except One commits sins (I mentioned several others, such as lying, adultery, selfishness, etc.). Does Ray think that I hate everyone in the world? He thinks "hate the sin but love the sinner is a platitude, not applicable to real life, and that many Christians don't believe homosexuality is a sin." Let me explain what I think. True, many that use the name Christian don't believe homosexual behavior is a sin. First, I have to define what I mean by the word "Christian." By that word, I mean the faith as handed down to us by the primitive church, the faith as preached by those who knew Jesus personally, the Apostles. The irreducible tenants of that faith were summarized in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds in the 4th century. The absolutely minimum facts a Christian had to believe were the Incarnation (God made man), the crucifixion, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the three equal persons of one God, and baptism for the remission of sins, and our own eventual resurrection and eternal life. Many who use the name Christian do not believe Jesus was God and do not believe in His physical resurrection. They use a cafeteria approach to Christianity, picking the sayings of Jesus that they approve of and ignoring the others. If they do not believe the basic tenets of the orthodox faith, why bother to say they are Christians? Why not join the Red Cross, or the Sierra Club, or some other organization that they believe does good things? Anyway, it is usually these Christians who have decided that homosexual behavior is fine. I know these "open minded and tolerant" Christians think the original "faith of our fathers" is dated, as Ray probably does. The church needs to change with the times, they say. Well, something is either true or not. Truth doesn't change. No one has to believe the Christian faith, but if one claims to, he can't just change the rules to suit himself.. If you decide to play a game, you can't just change the rules you don't like. You either have to abide by the rules or don't play.
As to Ray's assertion that "hate the sin but love the sinner" is a useless platitude, I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Sins are behaviors, whether of thought, word or deed. Skin color is not a behavior. To give an example of hating the sin but loving the sinner: I have done and thought many things that I knew were sins. I have been appalled and disgusted with these things, and hated them. I have not quit loving myself--I can't seem to help loving myself. My children (I have six) committed numerous sins when I was raising them, as every person does. I hated the bad behavior, and sometimes had to punish it, but I did not and have not ceased to love my children. We are to love others as ourselves. If I can hate my own sin and still love myself, why can't I hate another's sin and still love the person? One problem people have with accepting orthodox Christianity is that many people now don't believe in sin or personal responsibility at all. Everything is society's fault, or our parents' fault, or corporations' fault or Bush's fault. The person that drives like he is in a Nascar race on the interstate is not at fault if he crashes. General Motors is to blame because the vehicle didn't have air bags.

Ray also seemed to miss my statement that I do not want to see any external entity "enforcing moral strictures or expecting mass media to conform to one narrow view of morality" (Ray's words). I stated plainly that I "am advocating thought and responsibility on the part of the producers and consumers of mass media." (my words.) I certainly don't expect it, but it would be nice if the producers would make good stuff and if they don't, people would just turn the crap off.

Now to Pete Kirkman's comment:

"Enemy" is your characterization, not mine. You seem to regard opposing views as hostile. And you assign emotions to text without evidence. Do I have to hate you in order to insult you? I often insult friends and family as a greeting--as do many people. I'm not saying my earlier comment about your "female brain" was friendly, but neither was it hostile. It was intended to provoke a response, and make a point about assumptions and demeaning characterizations such as "childish" applied to liberals, etc. You seem to have taken it in stride, which speaks well of you, but only if you can continue to take it as well as dish it out.
The answer to why TV continues to assail us with sexual images is that we continue to absorb and demand it. Paris Hilton sells magazines and fills hours of air time. God knows why anyone cares, but it is clear they do.
Congratulations for being disgusted with the current batch of Republicans. I am beyond disgusted with both parties. So maybe we have common ground after all,"

I appreciate the sporting tone Pete uses in this comment, and, though he may cringe to think of it, think we may get to be friends eventually. I'll admit the idea of insulting people in a serious way as a gesture of friendliness is a new concept to me--but then, as Ray knows, I am hopelessly outdated in my outlook. Amen to the statement that TV bombards us with sex because we demand it. And ONLY God knows why anyone cares what Paris Hilton does. I am also beyond disgusted with both parties, but probably for totally different reasons that Pete is. And I had better be able to take it as well as dish it out. Anyone bold (or dumb) enough to put up her opinions on controversial subjects for anyone to see and expect everyone to love and agree with her would be nuts. Especially when one's opinions are as politically incorrect and "dated" as mine are.

Last, but not least, here is Theresia's comment:

"Anyone considering Rush's humor delightful, makes one wonder to say the least and what really disturbs me how a convinced true Christian can show such reverence for a despicable human being in every way such as Rush Limbaugh. This man is everything Christ loathed. Are you that clouded that you can't figure out this exploitative person? Retoric such as putting your life in the hands of the Lord and finding salvation in Christ are only words that in themselves mean nothing except creating an arrogance needed by some due to lack of self and independant thinking.

I gather Theresia doesn't like Rush. America is a wonderful country--we can listen to someone if we want to or turn them off if we want to. I don't have the least bit of "reverence" for Rush. I have a lot of admiration for his knowledge and sense of humor and even his obnoxious, tongue in cheek bombast. I would be interested to hear from Theresia of examples from listening to Rush (as opposed to hearing what others say about him) as to why he is "everything Christ loathed". (though as far as I know, Christ didn't loathe anyone--he said from the torture of the cross "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" about his tormentors.) It is sad that Theresia feels ( I won't say thinks) that "putting your life in the hands of the Lord and finding salvation in Christ" are only meaningless words, but I won't argue with her. The only way to know a person is to go meet Him, not try to present rational arguments that He exists. By the way, does "independant" thinking preclude looking up proper spelling in the dictionary? I know it's mean "retoric" to ask this. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Theresia.

]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/?entry=entry070813-153201 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:32:01 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/comments.php?y=07&m=08&entry=entry070813-153201 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php?entry=entry070713-223627
Television affects many aspects of morality, but because it would take forever to discuss them all, I want to concentrate on the perverted sexual morality forced on us by television, as well as other forms of popular culture such as movies, music, and some radio. America's babysitter is a lecher and a sex addict. (Of course, I am talking about the majority of average fare such as sitcoms, crime shows, soap operas, etc., not the few good programs that are on.) And it seems to me that the main goal of the writers, producers, and sponsors of TV programs is to keep Americans in a state of perpetual adolescence, at least mentally and emotionally. One of the main characteristics of adolescence is preoccupation with sex. Raging hormones often overrule serious intellectual or moral approaches to relationships. I want to laugh when I see disclaimers saying a show has mature or adult language. Obsession with sex and obscene words is much more characteristic of junior high aged kids trying to make themselves sound grown up. As I have said before, TV and movies in general seems to be aimed at a junior high mentality. What's mature about people that use the F word every other sentence? The disclaimers should read "Warning: contains junior high language and attitudes". To watch much of TV or movies (many of the remarks I make about TV apply as well to movies), you would think that all people think or talk about or do is sex. Ads claim that their cars are sexy; I heard a commentator on a serious news discussion show say that some topic (I forget if it was the war or immigration) wasn't sexy. The discussions, actions, innuendos and jokes about sex almost always portray sex as a casual matter, related to enjoyment and personal choice, but not morality. Everyone has a right to it, whenever or however they want it, just like they have a right to eat. Almost never have I seen people on TV talk or act as if the sex act should express serious love and intimacy in a single, committed relationship (unless the show is promoting gay relationships or marriage, which are always loving and committed). I'm sure my critic Pete would like some specific examples. I have pretty much given up watching TV, because of the things I have been talking about, so I'm remembering shows that I have watched in the past, though I can't remember the names of most of them. "Seinfeld" and "Friends" are a couple I do remember that I think exemplify the casual attitude toward sex. I watched part of a sitcom not long ago (I can't remember what it was) in which a young woman was modeling a dress for a male friend and asked "Do you think this dress will make him (some new boyfriend) want to do it?" Ha, ha. Even ads and shows aimed at young children show kids jiggling around as suggestively as rock stars to rock music. My husband and I do like to watch football and basketball. Even during games, we are besieged with young women with perfect bodies often provocatively dressed (or not dressed) in the ads and cheerleaders. One gets the idea that the only desirable qualities in a woman are a good body and "sex appeal". Intelligence, kindness, sense of humor, fidelity, responsibility and other qualities that make for a good lasting relationship don't get much play. And the poor men are expected to remain high school studs into their 80s, to judge by the phenomenal Viagra sales and all the ads. Popular media give the impression that everyone else is having fantastic sex almost all the time, and there is something wrong with you if you aren't, or if you have other serious interests, or if you believe that sex should be limited to marriage.

Another aspect of mass media and sexual morality is the unrelenting campaign to make us accept homosexuality as not only normal, but desirable or laudable. Many movies and TV shows are introducing gay or lesbian characters who are often more likeable than the straight ones, and the characters that disapprove of gay behavior are ridiculed and scorned. As a Christian, I believe homosexual behavior is a sin. I also believe adultery, stealing, lying, selfishness, pride, and many other things are sins. I do not think I am being intolerant to say so. My duty as a Christian is to love and pray for sinners, chief of whom is myself. The Christian maxim should always be to hate the sin but love the sinner. But I do not have to say that the sin is all right. I have had several homosexual friends who have many good qualities. I do not object to homosexuals wanting not to be despised or treated badly. What I object to is that we are being forced to approve their behavior or risk being called a bigot.

I realize that the people who think I'm narrow minded will also think I'm a prude. I'm not, and I don't think you have to be serious about sex all the time. Sex, like all human activity, can be funny. But I like the humor to be about situations and stories that are funny because of some element intrinsic to humor, such as surprise, exaggeration, understatement, etc., and not just giggling about body parts or the idea of the sex act itself or obscene words. I thought the movie "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum", which was pretty raunchy, was funny because of the crazy plot and characters. I don't think "Friends" is funny.

Why does our popular culture push sex on us so constantly? I think there are probably several reasons. People who are constantly inflamed by sexual stimuli are easy targets for both commercial and government interests. If we are always thinking about sex, we aren't going to think or reason about much else and we can be manipulated to buy products or be controlled by leaders. Corporations can increase profits by keeping us in an adolescent state--sex sells. Government can intrude into our lives on other fronts if the population is encouraged to forget morality and live for the pleasure of the moment. Government public schools almost invite children to early promiscuity by teaching birth control, sexual activities, and "diversity" and neglecting to emphasize tough disciplines like reading and math. One of the best ways to keep children from getting pregnant or AIDS is to encourage interests and abilities besides sex and a faith that has standards besides "if it feels good, do it."

Is the constant bombardment of sexual images on us good for us? I don't think so. Sex is such a strong and volatile drive that it should not be exploited for profit or control. The sex that is encouraged by popular media is lust, not committed love. No matter what the liberals try to tell us, the basis for a healthy civilization is a family consisting of a married man and woman at least, and usually with children. Lust encourages infidelity and adultery, sex addiction, and more violent horrors such as rape and child abuse. Lust distracts from good and productive thinking and work and wholesome recreation. It degrades both the luster and the lustee.

One note in closing: I am not advocating government censorship. I am advocating thought and responsibility on the part of the producers and consumers of mass media. It is my hope that people will have a desire to pursue more intelligent and wholesome interests and watch and listen less to stupid and degrading media. Surely we will reach sex saturation point at some time. Sex is a lovely thing when it is an expression of shared and loving intimacy between a married man and woman. If we quit listening to the purveyors of casual, superficial, silly sex maybe they will try something more interesting and worthwhile.
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/?entry=entry070713-223627 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Sat, 14 Jul 2007 03:36:27 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/comments.php?y=07&m=07&entry=entry070713-223627 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php?entry=entry070626-111054
First, thanks again to Tabitha for her kind and insightful comment on my column "The Focal Point". She says, "Jesus Christ still offends people today and for that I am thankful. The truth hurts, but only because it illuminates your sin." I think this is a very profound comment because it states an enormous truth so precisely and concisely. She is saying something that only one who has experience with the Christian faith from the inside, and knows, rather than just believes in, Jesus, could say. And she is certainly right that no one wants to hear Christians talk about their faith. I think the time is coming when we will not be allowed to talk about our faith.

My column "Some Thoughts on America's Babysitter" provoked some negative response. My beloved enemy Pete Kirkman asked if I included Fox, "24" and "The OC" in my general condemnation of TV. I have never seen either show, and don't watch the Fox news channel because we don't have cable, only rabbit ears. Since we watch very little TV at all, the rabbit ears are adequate, though sometimes my husband wishes we could get more ball games. Pete seems to think that I would automatically like anything most Republicans like. At the present time, I am almost as disgusted with the Republicans for their spinelessness as I am at the Democrats. I am only a Republican because in general they are more conservative than Democrats.

Ray Cathode had some thoughtful observations. He questioned my assertion that TV was an inherently inferior medium to other forms of entertainment just because you watch it. Actually, I didn't say that TV was inherently inferior because you watch it. I said that passivity was inherent in the medium of TV, as it is in movies. I agree that there are some very good programs on television--I used to be addicted to Masterpiece Theater--and certainly some of the shows are better than many best-selling books, many of which are as low quality as most TV shows are. (I don't read many best-selling books, either.) My point was that a medium which requires little thought or imagination from the viewer encourages passivity and mental laziness. Live plays are not quite the same, even though they are watched and not read or listened to. Live theater (especially Shakespeare) still emphasizes the spoken word more than quick moving visual images and is more like watching and listening to real, live people than TV or movies are (of course, you are watching real live people even if the situation and story are fictional.) Another thing that makes television more harmful than plays or movies is that it is so pervasive in our homes today. Most people don't spend four or more hours a day going to movies or watching plays, but many spend that much time mesmerized in front of the televisions. I don't think there could be much argument that TV is addictive. Most people choose to go to a movie or play because they really want to see that movie or play. But a great number of people watch TV just because it's there and they are too lazy to do anything else. In my next column, I plan to enumerate more reasons why I think TV is bad for our society and culture.
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/?entry=entry070626-111054 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:10:54 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/comments.php?y=07&m=06&entry=entry070626-111054 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/index.php?entry=entry070531-145228
First, the comments on the article "Putting Away Childish Things". Thank you, Tabitha, for your kind words. Your response means a lot to me. Thank you, Pete Kirkman, for your emphatically negative comments and for demonstrating far better than I could that liberalism is based more on emotion than reason. Your emotions toward me and my article seem to be anger, disgust and even hatred. I guess that makes you my enemy, which puts me under obligation from Jesus to love you. Your criticism that my article contained sweeping generalizations is partly true. I did start out my commentary by saying that I was expressing some random thoughts. A short column is not the format to discuss in detail every aspect of every idea. I was laying out some broad principles which are generally true of both the conservative and liberal ideologies to let people know where I stand and to get the ball rolling. I did give a few specific examples, such as the inefficiency of the welfare system and the fact that liberals prefer government over private charity. I appreciate your concern for my reputation, but I'm not too worried about being taken seriously. You are welcome to take me however you want to--so I will feel free to quote Rush if I take a notion to do so. I feel bad for you that either you never listen to Rush and are just taking the standard liberal talking points about him, or else are unable to appreciate his sharp insights into politics and economics and his delightful humor. If there ever was informed, intelligent, and uncult-like audience of listeners, it is his. Thank you for your comments about Homeland Security, etc. They made me realize that I had not made myself clear enough about what I meant when I said liberals emphasize security. I was talking about everyday security in domestic life. Liberals believe in providing cradle-to-grave assistance to people to make sure they never suffer any hardship. Government housing, welfare, food stamps, medical care, social security, and a multitude of other often redundant programs are examples of the emphasis on security. As a conservative, I place a high value on the documents of our founding fathers, especially the Constitution. Our constitution makes no provision for taking care of and providing financial security for people's everyday lives. It does provide for taking steps to ensure our national security against a foreign enemy, which of course is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security and the NSA spying program. The founding fathers envisioned the purpose of government to be doing things for people that they could not do for themselves, as individuals or small communities. Individuals and small communities cannot defend themselves against armies or terrorists very well, but they can provide in most cases for everyday needs.
If by the women's movement you mean the rabid feminists who think that all men are chauvinist beasts whose main purpose in life is to oppress women, yes, I am against it. I like men in general and have never experienced much discrimination or oppression from them. I'm sorry that you don't think my female brain is equipped to handle politics. But I do intend to carry on, so you must either humor me (after all, you liberals don't believe in discrimination against the disabled) or don't read my column.

I seem to have run out of time and energy for this session, so I will continue next week with comments on reader responses to the article "Some Thoughts on America's Babysitter."
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/?entry=entry070531-145228 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Thu, 31 May 2007 19:52:28 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/znewsblog/bsmith/comments.php?y=07&m=05&entry=entry070531-145228