Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

James Dobson wants folks fired because of Bono

Recommended Posts

Family Activist Group Calls for FCC Overhaul

Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs Christian values group run by radio commentator James Dobson, has called on Congress to replace the current members of the FCC for failing to act following a recent live broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards, in which The Simple Life co-star Nicole Richie used the f-word on stage. (Her remarks were bleeped in the time-zone delayed West Coast broadcast.) The group had earlier denounced an FCC decision that held that singer Bono had not violated the commission's indecency standards when he used the words "f*****g brilliant" during the Golden Globe Awards. "We feared that ruling would open the floodgates to a further coarsening and degradation of the nation's airwaves, and what happened Wednesday confirms those fears," said Tom Minnery, a Focus on the Family executive, adding: "Congress needs to clean house at the FCC and remove those responsible immediately."


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of an anecdote about Babe Ruth: he was doing a live radio show where he was supposed to plug a certain brand of cookies. But it seems the Babe had trouble with the proper pronunciation of "cookies"; during a rehearsal, he kept saying "kookies," i.e., using the "long U" vowel sound. This, understandably, was something the sponsor wanted to avoid, so the Babe was coached until he appeared to have it right. During the broadcast, however, Ruth forgot and said "kookies," which he followed with: "I'm a son of a bitch if I didn't say 'kookies' again." Reportedly, though, such was Ruth's charm that the radio station received no complaints. It would seem that Bono possesses the same charm.

That being said, when did it become acceptable to say "ass" on the air to refer to one's posterior? TV shows seem to glory in this recently bestowed freedom -- even "Everybody Loves Raymond," which is otherwise almost completely lacking in offensiveness.

I wonder whether it isn't more fruitful in the long run for conservatives to disengage from pop culture, instead of complaining every time it runs afoul of their standards. I.e., instead of subscribing to the service that bleeps your TV programs for you, throw out the TV and spend the time reading Plato and the Church Fathers. That's the way to raise an intellectually superior master race of squeaky-clean homeschooled kids who'll eventually take over the country. I know I'm indebted to my parents for raising me without television.

Finally, what the f*** is James Dobson doing watching the f***ing Billboard Music Awards? No wonder people say "f***" on the award show -- don't half the f***ing awards go to artists whose songs are full of f***ing curse words?


Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, what the f*** is James Dobson doing watching the f***ing Billboard Music Awards? No wonder people say "f***" on the award show -- don't half the f***ing awards go to artists whose songs are full of f***ing curse words?

Oh, spare me. You KNOW these folks live for the press accounts the next day. Either that or a Designated Corrupted Staffer. Still, it's not as if the "F" word isn't a valid target. OTOH, network TV is casting about for something to use in combat against cable networks. That said, nice of 'em to bleap for the virgin west coast ear!


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing that people are still debating the appropriateness of this word on network TV so many years after Gilda Radner used it on Saturday Night Live way back in, like, 1979 or 1980 or so (in a sketch in which she played Patti Smith singing a song dedicated to Mick Jagger which included the lyrics "Are you woman, are you man / I'm your biggest fucked-up fan").


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a use of the F-word on "SNL" by Charles Rocket -- which got him promptly kicked off the show -- but that, I believe, was the only instance. As I recall, what Radner actually said was "Are you woman, are you man / I'm your biggest funked-up fan," and despite everyone over the age of 10 knowing what she actually meant by that, it was not a use of the F-word, per se.

Dale


Metalfoot on Emmanuel Shall Come to Thee's Noel: "...this album is...monotony...bland, tripy fare..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the FCC (if it actually does anything other than make media corporations happy) differentiate between what would be considered somewhat spontaneous (even if it is a planned spontaneity) use of profanity (e.g., unscripted utterances at awards show, or what can obviously be read in athletes lips) and scripted profanity? Certainly, those of us who watch sports have seen countless examples of such language, even if it is not audible. If Dobson tries to get baseball off TV....


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M. Dale Prins wrote:

: As I recall, what Radner actually said was "Are you woman, are you man

: / I'm your biggest funked-up fan," and despite everyone over the age of

: 10 knowing what she actually meant by that, it was not a use of the

: F-word, per se.

Hmmm, I've seen the clip in question on the Gilda Radner best-of-SNL video, and it sounded close enough to me. FWIW, from the chronology at the back of James Monaco's How to Read a Film (rev. 1981):

1979. . . . February 17. On
Saturday Night Live
(NBC) Gilda Radner performs a parody of singer Patti Smith. The song she sings is dedicated to Mick Jagger, and includes the refrain: "Are you woman, are you man / I'm your biggest fucked-up fan." The lyrics are garbled but the refrain is clear. According to the
New York Times
two days later, NBC received 160 calls during and right after the show. "75 found Miss Radner's language 'disgusting;' but 85, the network said, thought she was 'a fabulous and very laented lady.'"

And shortly before this, on October 4, 1978, "In a live network broadcast of a television match on CBS Jimmy Connors uses the expletive 'bullshit.' No complaints are received," and on October 5, "In an episode of Taxi the word 'bastard' is used."


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth (and, of course, no one should doubt the accuracy of the combined Internet) a Google search for "biggest fucked-up fan" gave back two pages -- one of you posting in a different forum; one from the chronology you mention -- while "biggest funked-up fan" brings up six unique pages, all referring to Radner's song. But whatever.

Dale


Metalfoot on Emmanuel Shall Come to Thee's Noel: "...this album is...monotony...bland, tripy fare..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this performance and have never been able to catch it on Comedy Central since then, for what that's worth. I also remember having an awful hard time discerning any of the lyrics during performance (never having heard Smith's version. Great Patti Smith homage, I thought at the time. At this moment, I am not sure that the comparison is valid in that the Radner performance did everything it could to disguise or muddle the word, whereas both Richie and Bono used variations as stand alone epithets in clear conversation. I can't judge pre-meditation, but as one who has not shrunk from such vocabulary himself, I am disappointed that its use was less than judicious in these cases.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, spare me. You KNOW these folks live for the press accounts the next day.

By that, do you mean the folks who use the word on live TV or the folks like Dobson who pounce on it?

Still, it's not as if the "F" word isn't a valid target. OTOH, network TV is casting about for something to use in combat against cable networks.

Ay, there's the rub -- the truck-sized loophole that exists between broadcast and cable. You just know the distinction will eventually evaporate. I just don't think it does any good to sit on the sidelines and whine -- either get yourself involved in producing quality content or turn off the box and go read a book.


Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestion. Though it sounds like a broken record coming from such a quarter, it is worth saying that such language should be kept from public view in live situations. I've always thought that bleeping showed up the person needing the editting. As to the "spare me" comment, I wonder how much that crowd follows the award show circuit.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating Google work, M. Dale Prins. I shall have to rent this video again some day.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one who used to support Dobson's work financially until a couple of years ago, I've been thinking about this thread for a while. I've also been trying to figure why I've been so bothered by Focus on the Family's steady devolution from an endeavor to educate Christian families into a Republican pressure group. I think I've found a partial answer in my recent study of the Gospel of Mark and of the opening chapters of Bosch's 'Transforming Mission.'

In these studies, I've been reminded of the dramatic contrast that Jesus established between the Pharasaic and Herodian way and the way of the new kingdom. Whereas the 'old wineskins' or 'yeast of the Pharisees and Herod' involved legalism and political coercion, Christ's new kingdom involved a radical concern for society's downtrodden - especially seen in Luke's gospel but present in all four of them in substantial measure.

Anyway, to me it seems that Dobson, Colson, and company fit more into the old paradigm, attempting to use their allegedly sanctified political muscle to coerce a change in society, focusing their energies on a whitewash of unregenerate America.

Dobson's latest pronouncement appears to be only one in a recent string of events where he is attempting societal coercion in unseemly or dubious ways. Last September, he vehemently protested against a Colorado university permitting a Palestinian Christian to speak on campus, because the speaker would buck Dobson's staunch pro-Israel mentality. I believe it was also last year that he successfully pushed for an ouster of the new head of the national association of religious broadcasters, because the poor chap held unsatisfactory views on the politicization of evangelical/fundamentalist airwaves.


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've modified my thread from yesterday. In retrospect, it was probably a tad too particular for anyone who's not currently studying the Gospel of Mark.

(M): you referred to this thread as 'pretty creepy' in another thread on this board. Could you elaborate, please?


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, to me it seems that Dobson, Colson, and company fit more into the old paradigm, attempting to use their allegedly sanctified political muscle to coerce a change in society, focusing their energies on a whitewash of unregenerate America.

As one who has never really cottoned to Dobson and is a bit more sympathetic to Colson (much I don't like, but I think his efforts are much more sophisticated, intellectually; therefore he is a better read and I don't feel so put upon as well), I think this analysis is a bit forced. Wm. F. Buckley described conservatism in the inaugural National Review editorial as standing athwart history yelling, "Stop!". Much of the Religious Right can be so described, I believe, rather than a "coercion of change" so to speak. There will always be two minds as to political involvement on the part of religious leaders. The trouble I have with pasting the Religious Right ( a movement I do not consider myself a part of, and barely accept them as "fellow travelers") with political involvement is that Jim Wallis, Tony Compolo, Daniel Berrigan, Thomas Gumbleton and nominal "ministers" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not get the same criticism. Either ministers, priests, and rabbis can comment on political issues and marshal their followers accordingly, or they can't.

Dobson's latest pronouncement appears to be only one in a recent string of events where he is attempting societal coercion in unseemly or dubious ways. Last September, he vehemently protested against a Colorado university permitting a Palestinian Christian to speak on campus, because the speaker would buck Dobson's staunch pro-Israel mentality. I believe it was also last year that he successfully pushed for an ouster of the new head of the national association of religious broadcasters, because the poor chap held unsatisfactory views on the politicization of evangelical/fundamentalist airwaves.

As to the first incident above, while I happen to agree with Dobson politically on this one, fair is fair. Pro-Isreali speekers are shunned, disinvited, and hooted down all the time in academic and high cultural settings. It is an ordinary "dog bites man" story these days. Nobody complains too loudly when Jackson and Sharpton use their muscle in much more despicable ways. Nobody but Bill O'Reilly, sorry.

As to the latter, as one sympathetic to evangelical POV's, I was embarrased by that display, but if I recall, Dobson was one of many who engineered that powerplay. I liked the original guy, from what I read of him, but I'm not a member of that organisation.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Rich. I'm quite happy to have my points of view challenged (indeed, I need such challenges for continued growth). You're right, too, that my analysis may be flawed or strained - this is something I've been trying to work out recently. (It's not always easy applying a 2000 year old document to contemporary situations, ya know smile.gif )

A couple of preliminary thoughts, in response:

- By no means do I give the likes of Sharpton and Jackson a 'free ride.' Limited by my POV as a white suburbanite, my impression is that they've exploited their constituency and often worsened their lot, for the sake of building up their personal power.

- I'm all for free discourse, and more power to Buckley and company in their attempts to apply reason to contemporary crises. I'm utterly opposed to hecklers and those who would suppress free speech on either side of the aisle. Therefore, I find it despicable that Dobson would attempt to do this under the umbrella of a Christian organization in the case of the pro-Palestine speaker.

- Granted, all politicos must deal with the temptation of the lure of power, whether social justice folks or more conservative types. I do see a difference though in Dobson and company's will to impose an idiosyncratic moral agenda on a pluralistic society versus the intentions of Wallis and company in attempting to advocate for 'the least of these.' Ideally speaking, the former appear more Pharasaic while the latter seem to follow more of a kingdom model.

Thanks again for your unfailing graciousness in your replies, Rich. I attempt to do the same.


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I'm all for free discourse, and more power to Buckley and company in their attempts to apply reason to contemporary crises. I'm utterly opposed to hecklers and those who would suppress free speech on either side of the aisle. Therefore, I find it despicable that Dobson would attempt to do this under the umbrella of a Christian organization in the case of the pro-Palestine speaker.

My point about Buckley was that such views are not coercion of extrordinary, or eccentric POV's and I am not convinced that the christian right, Dobson included, theonomists not included, do that. Heckling and the exclusion of opposed POV's is now and has been for a long time, a fact of life on campuses. I guess I see Dobson's behavior here as a matter of pluck, particularly when one considers the dastardly way that the Palistinians have been treated, no exploited, by surrounding Arab regimes and also the Palistinian Authority for decades now. I will bet any stake that you name that the person Dobson opposed had no intention of saying anything about THAT. The silence on this issue outside pro-Isreali left (if there is any) and right is absolutely deafening.

- Granted, all politicos must deal with the temptation of the lure of power, whether social justice folks or more conservative types. I do see a difference though in Dobson and company's will to impose an idiosyncratic moral agenda on a pluralistic society versus the intentions of Wallis and company in attempting to advocate for 'the least of these.' Ideally speaking, the former appear more Pharasaic while the latter seem to follow more of a kingdom model.

I cannot accept these distinctions at all. Well, maybe Wallis because of some aspects of the historic Sojourners ministry, but it is compromised to a great extent by his lobbying on behalf of the usual laundry list of leftist causes that masquarade as advocation for "the least of these", but in fact serve mainly to bloat bureaucracy and make fellow supporters feel like something is being done for those leasts. One does not hand a cup of water to a thirsty man through a third party indirectly by way of the tax code. One hands a cup of water to a thirsty man. I refuse to accept the proposition that political "social justice" through the alphabet soup of federal agancies and Health and Human Services is any more in keeping with the letter or spirit of the Sermon On the Mount than opposing them. Those teachings were, 1) for you and me, and 2) not intended as "statist" solutions. I would be much more in agreement with many "progressive christians" if their views were not so dependant on the coercive power of the government. Oh, and if so many of them were not so condescending (present company excepted) of those who disagree. Rather than leave that statement to stand alone, I hasten to add that condescension is a human characteristic and not exclusive to "progressives".

Can we demonstrate that Dobson teaches against helping the poor and needy? I know that he has always been, among protestants, in the forefront early on of the abortion issue (another, reasonable dff. of "the least of these") and has also advocated doing whatever it takes to help and support prospective mothers to come full term with their pregnancies as well as help them get on their feet as single moms. Whether he teaches at all about the poor and needy, or not, I would submit that he is in keeping with "the least of these" passages on Crisis Pregnancy grounds alone.

Thanks again for your unfailing graciousness in your replies, Rich. I attempt to do the same.

Aw shucks. :oops: I've tried hostile. I doesn't "win friends and influence people" (yes, I'm a grad). It's also just about the only way that I can attempt to be Christlike in daily life and actually chip away at it.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(M): you referred to this thread as 'pretty creepy' in another thread on this board. Could you elaborate, please?

Sure, not a problem. What is "creepy" has more to do with Dobson and Focus... as a whole and not really with this criticism of Bono. Rich's post was spot on, so I will piggyback on what he was saying there. What is creepy is the increasing politicization of media outlets such as Focus on the Family. The "religious right" (for lack of a better term) prides itself on being conservative both socially and theologically in an age of increasing liberal skepticism.

There are only two problems with this:

1. Is this really an age of increasing liberal skepticism?

2. Is the religious right really as conservative as it thinks?

Question 1 is really open to debate. Question 2 is really easy to answer.

You say:

"Anyway, to me it seems that Dobson, Colson, and company fit more into the old paradigm, attempting to use their allegedly sanctified political muscle to coerce a change in society, focusing their energies on a whitewash of unregenerate America."

This is so spot on. This is perfect. My current signature is from Hauerwas who (along with Yoder) is the best person to read on this issue. The politicization of Focus on the Family is indicative of the unspoken presupposition of the "religious right" that the Church's job is to in some way influence or change society through responsible social action. We are supposed to be "salt" and "light" aren't we?

Absolutely. But what Dobson doesn't recognize is that all he is doing is using a model of the relationship between church and culture that is ripped right from the epic liberal pages of Niebuhr. So he may be conservative theologically in content, but his view of church and society is a classic liberal position. That is creepy, especially when his view is used in secular media as the archetypal evangelical position.

I would really recommend Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" and Hauerwas' "Resident Aliens" on this issue. Those two really work towards a model of church and culture that is biblically conservative in structure and allows the church to work out the ethics of Jesus socially and politically in a way that is faithful to your (Andrew's) reading of Mark. Really revolutionary stuff.


"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is creepy is the increasing politicization of media outlets such as Focus on the Family. The "religious right" (for lack of a better term) prides itself on being conservative both socially and theologically in an age of increasing liberal skepticism.

This has been going on for some time and I think that many of the religious right (RR), particularly those coming out of the mainlines (I believe Dobson was Presbyterian way back when), seeing the politicization of church organisations from the NCC, WCC, and even the National Conference of Bishops recently, starting in the sixties took a page from those they opposed starting with Moral Majority. Retiring and quiet fundies are a thing of the past. The line, "Everything is political" from Fiddler On The Roof(1972) is as descriptive of the last 40 years as anything. Urbana '70 was my first. It was by far the most politically infused of all I attended. I remember being very uncomfortable about that aspect of it.

There are only two problems with this:

1. Is this really an age of increasing liberal skepticism?

2. Is the religious right really as conservative as it thinks?

Shorn of the partisan labels, these propositions are the contemporary lament of all true believers, political and spiritual. Joe Conason, Eric Alterman, Micheal Moore, and Al Franken have all written recent books lementing the lack of the very liberal skepticism that moral-conservatives complain of as being all pervasive. I have theories as to why true believers always feel robbed, but those would merely be a distracting tangent here.

Absolutely. But what Dobson doesn't recognize is that all he is doing is using a model of the relationship between church and culture that is ripped right from the epic liberal pages of Niebuhr. So he may be conservative theologically in content, but his view of church and society is a classic liberal position. That is creepy, especially when his view is used in secular media as the archetypal evangelical position.

Why is this so surprising? Regardless of Niebuhr's placement on a theological continuum, isn't Christ and Culture considered more a work of Social Science? And even if it is theological, it is a survey of responses The Church (Universal) has used to proclaim the Gospel in the best ways it has seen fit? Liberals and conservatives steal from each other all the time. Seems though, that it is tactics that always are up for grabs.

I would really recommend Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" and Hauerwas' "Resident Aliens" on this issue. Those two really work towards a model of church and culture that is biblically conservative in structure and allows the church to work out the ethics of Jesus socially and politically in a way that is faithful to your (Andrew's) reading of Mark. Really revolutionary stuff.

Tell me, how much do their arguments hinge on actual doing, rather than organising the redirection of state solutions and funds? Honest question, not a rhetorical setup.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this so surprising?

It is surprising because it really points to a lack of theological depth to his approach to Church and culture. It is borderline thoughtless. I bet that if you dropped names like Tillich, Neibuhr, and Marty by Dobson he would give the typical conservative kneejerk reaction to their liberalism. (Which is appropriate.) But then if you tried to show him that his approach to being involved with society is just as liberal as Neibuhr's, he probably wouldn't get it. It is just surprising to see people operating with paradigms that they aren't even aware they are operating with.

Tell me, how much do their arguments hinge on actual doing, rather than organising the redirection of state solutions and funds? Honest question, not a rhetorical setup.

They say nothing about state solutions and funds or contemporary politics. Their work creates a model of Church and culture that really is revolutionary. (Most people these days refer to it as "radical orthodoxy") For them the church is an "alternative society." We have a structure and a system of ethics that is wholly different than what the world has to offer because it is sourced in Christology. For them the best way to influence the world is to "be" the church as biblically and faithfully as possible. We are a community that testifies to itself just by living out the life of the church in a local setting.

So my sig quote: The church's job isn't to make the world just, but to make the world the world.

Our activities aren't political, they are not activist. We will never make the world "just" or righteous and that isn't our job. We can make the world the "world" though. We can enable people to see the hollowness of culture and the selfishness behind political ideologies just by living out the life of the Church ordered by the spirit.

Hope that answers your question, it really is just a Hauerwas summary in a nutshell.


"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always count on (M)Leary for clear and concise commentary and direction. Thanks (M)!

I am currently reading a book called In Search of the Church wherein the author defines


...the kind of film criticism we do. We are talking about life, and more than that the possibility of abundant life." -M.Leary

"Dad, how does she move in mysterious ways?"" -- Jude (my 5-year-old, after listening to Mysterious Ways)

[once upon a time known here as asher]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article tells of Powell's desire to up the fines for obscenity and also says that Bono was ruled not to be obscene because it was an adjective, not a reference to a sex act. ](*,)

A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's sweet! Now how many entries should f!@# have in the next edition of The American Heritage Dictionary? I wish I could remember the comedian who had a bit back in the '70's in which he essentially used the "f" word and a few judicious adjectives for a few minutes to hilarious effect.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like starting an all-new thread on Dobson's various shows, so...

- - -

Dobson’s family squabble

It was a busy New Year’s weekend for Mark Barna, religion reporter for the Colorado Springs Gazette, who covered the growing split between James Dobson and Focus on the Family, the powerful and prominent evangelical parachurch organization he has led for decades. . . .

Friday’s story reported that Dobson is now competing with Focus for the donor dollars needed to support his new venture, which is called James Dobson on the Family. . . .

Steve Rabey, GetReligion.org, January 4


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...