Being ‘hung up’ about sex isn’t so horrible

I like this article...

I agree that the Church down the ages has sometimes done a poor job teaching about sex and sexuality. Many young people were taught nothing at all about sex, except that it was wicked. That was to their detriment and the shame of their parents and clergy. Odd teaching, since the Bible is full of sex, and not just warnings about it.

But far worse, the world at large was, and is, mindless about sex. If the church is too careful, it is only because sex is too important to be handled poorly. Sex not only produces us, as it were. It connects us. It not only connects us, it chemically addicts us to one another for good reasons.

There's more, and it's all good...

Threads...

A snippet of a facebook conversation that took place yesterday...

FBF: I often wonder, from my own perspective, if the ideal of the "arch conservative" that I think exists out there and that I fear is really just a construction of my own making.

Me: You had a lot - a LOT - of help in that construction. I suspect that the bad guy in real life is much less likely to be the conservative-white-male-christian-business-executive-motivated-by-a-desire-to-rob-from-the-poor-and-subjugate-them than in movies and TV...

FBF: business-executive-motivated-by-a-desire-to-rob-from-the-poor-and-subjugate-them IS a great storyline though.

Me: May have been once, but isn't any more - ubiquity has ruined it. That's frequently the default villain, and more often than not it's obvious from the start.

Last night, I watched an episode of the television show "Leverage." In it, the victim was a poor farmer/crop-scientist who had developed a "super tuber," a super-nutritious potato that she was going to share with the world for free. The villain was the massive agri-business, personified by the rich, white CEO and the rich, white female attorney, that beat up her dad and stole the potato. You know, just as so often happens in the real world.

And then this morning, I clicked on a link that led me to this - Politics Really is Downstream from Culture

Regardless of one’s ideological, moral, ethical, or religious leanings, every person should be aware of the messaging of every piece of popular culture. The thesis here at BH is that the vast majority of those with the power of content creation are Liberals. If you accept that thesis, then realize that Liberals control story. Given the breadth and depth of popular culture in our daily lives, it follows that Liberal messaging is what is primarily being imparted on the masses.

I have no solutions. But awareness of what's being done is probably step one...

'The Gods of the Copybook Headings'

Commentary on a couple of different current events from Rudyard Kipling.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
...
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Yes, it dates to 1919, but that actually makes it more relevant than otherwise. Universal truths, and the costs of losing sight of them, or misunderstanding them, or failing to acknowledge them, are as relevant today as ever. (And yes, there are many more stanzas, but these two seemed remarkably on point today...)




(Wikipedia: "The "copybook headings" to which the title refers were proverbs or maxims, extolling virtues such as honesty or fair dealing that were printed at the top of the pages of 19th-century British students' special notebook pages, called copybooks. The school-children had to write them by hand repeatedly down the page.")

Lying with facts - Taunton school edition

Here is a followup to Tuesday's story, about the boy from Taunton who drew the crucifix, that demonstrates how easy it is to lie without actually giving any false facts.

Although reporters regionally and nationally jumped on a story about a 9-year-old boy supposedly suspended for drawing a stick-figure Jesus on the cross, it now appears the tale was overblown.

Contrary to news reports -- including a story on ParentDish -- the boy was never suspended. He and his classmates at Maxham Elementary School in Taunton, Mass. (40 miles south of Boston), were never given an assignment to draw pictures that reminded them of Christmas.

Lie number 1: "The boy was never suspended." According to the boy's father, and, as far as I know, neither addressed nor contradicted by anyone in the school department, he was told that he could not return to school until he had gone through a psychological evaluation. Was he removed from class before the school day was over? Were his parents called to come get him? Were they told that they couldn't come back until he'd been evaluated?

After being removed from the school on Wednesday, he finished that evaluation on Monday, and returned to school either that afternoon or the following morning. Assuming that this is true, he may not have received a nominal suspension, but he certainly received a de facto suspension.


Lie number 2: "He and his classmates...were never given an assignment to draw pictures that reminded them of Christmas." According to the father, they were given the assignment, two days after their Thanksgiving break, of drawing something that reminded them of their Thanksgiving holiday, which had just finished. And the boy had visited the La Salette shrine with his family over the holiday weekend.


In other words, this news report attempts to debunk the story without actually contradicting anything the father said. Given how careful the Superintendent is being with the words she's using, I assume that the father is right. They aren't saying that the boy wasn't given an assignment to draw a picture about their holiday, only that he wasn't given an assignment to draw something about "Christmas or any religious holiday." They aren't saying that he wasn't banned from the school until after an evaluation, only that he wasn't "suspended." Those are weasel words. Rather than debunking the story, they tend to confirm it. I believed it the other day when I posted it - the officials in the Taunton school system have, thus far, strengthed my belief.

"America Through the Reality Lens"

Excellent piece from Jonah Goldberg:

British historian Arnold Toynbee argued that civilizations thrive when the lower classes aspire to be like the upper classes, and they decay when the upper classes try to be like the lower classes. Looked at through this prism, it’s hard not to see America in a prolonged period of decay.

It’s not all bad news, to be sure. The elite minority’s general acceptance of racial and sexual equality as important values has been a moral triumph. But not without costs. As part of this transformation, society has embraced what social scientist Charles Murray calls “ecumenical niceness.” A core tenet of ecumenical niceness is that harsh judgments of the underclass — or people with underclass values — are forbidden. A corollary: People with old-fashioned notions of decency are fair game.

Long before the rise of reality shows, ecumenical niceness created a moral vacuum. Out-of-wedlock birth was once a great shame; now it’s something of a happy lifestyle choice. The cavalier use of profanity was once crude; now it’s increasingly conversational. Self-discipline was once a virtue; now self-expression is king.

Having never watched a minute of any of the "reality" shows, I may not be perfectly positioned to judge. But I agree with everything here.

The death of Britain continues apace...

The practical result of education in the spirit of The Green Book must be the destruction of the society which accepts it.

- C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Evidence of his prescience continues to mount. The only questions which remain are, is it possible to arrest the decay? Or has British society already been destroyed? These may just be the death throes of a historical remnant...

Culture and marriage

A nice article from K-Lo at NRO. Nothing new, nothing ground-breaking, but a point that cannot be made too often, and isn't made anything like often enough.

In her book The Abolition of Marriage, Maggie Gallagher, one of the most committed marriage-protection activists in the country, wrote: “Marriage, like a corporation or private property, is an institution that must be supported by law and culture if it is to exist at all. . . . To have the choice as individuals to marry we must first choose as a society to create marriage.”

I attended a wedding at St. Patrick’s Cathedral that same Labor Day weekend, the run-up to which was a more traditional kind of single boy meets single girl that didn’t make any features sections. During the sermon, the rector implored those in attendance to be a support for the couple, because they will have hardship ahead, as all couples do. (You actually can’t legislate it away.) Marriage requires work and sacrifice. Family and friends are vital supports; in fact, they can often help make or break a marriage.

But what about the culture? Will the culture make a positive contribution to the institution of marriage? Or will we forever hold our peace in the face of blatant offenses to all that we should hold dear?

Cultural Post at White House

NY Times gets (while simultaneously missing) the story...

President Barack Obama has established a staff position in the White House to oversee arts and culture in the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs...Mr. Ivey, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, said he expected that the job would mainly involve coordinating the activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services “in relation to White House objectives.” Although there have been staff members assigned to culture under past presidents, they usually served in the first lady’s office, Mr. Ivey said.

Can you say "propaganda"? I thought you could. And, of course, other than paying the mortgages for people that bought more house they could afford, and paying for illegitimate children of unemployed single mothers, nothing makes me happier than paying for propaganda from a White House with whom I agree on nothing.

Ah, hope and change...