Bingo. I Quit Reading the Gospel Coalition website about 5 years ago because I had had it with the nonsense "one up-ing". They are as bad as college professors, busting their rear ends to come up with some new thought, or turn of phrase to maintain legitimacy. I think they should all just take a vow of silence for a year. I spend nearly every Sunday wanting to lock the doors in the sanctuary and absolutely "Thunder-doming" it with my tribe. Theatric passionate prayers, overly sentimental singing of songs that say absolutely nothing...just as you say; its the "feel-goodism" that is discrediting the faith.
Agreed. The old distinction was between the psyche and the pneuma, with the psyche being emotional and the pneuma being intutiive. I also sometimes refer to them as the water and the light, respectively, sort of alluding to Jesus' midnight talk with Nicodemus: being born again of water and spirit.
CT was begun by mainstream Evangelicals back in the 1950s, and was intentionally inclusive of mainstream, conservative Protestants in that day. At the time of its founding, there was no other publication that spoke for or to them, and good Protestant thinkers were also associated with the magazine. It was a more sober journalistic endeavor than what was available for people who weren't Catholic, or members of the Protestant Mainline.
I'm not entirely clear of the distinction between Evangelical and conservative Protestant. I tend to use the terms more or less interchangeably, except that I'd tend to exclude Calvinists from the Evangelical category.
Is it that "Evangelical" implies being more emotional/hysterical, and also actively proselytising in the sense of standing on street corners?
Agreed. I am basically ignorant of Ms. Swift, but after reading the lyrics of both songs referenced in his comment, he may be spot-on. Remember, Ms. Swift is flesh and bones--and critically--an immortal soul like the rest of us. It should not surprise us that she is capable of being as lost as much of our society. Given her momentary cultural power, believers could do worse than to keep her in our prayers.
Ah, agreed. It’s not a technically good singing voice by any stretch of the imagination, but it carries the soul, which is what a voice is supposed to do.
If history is any guide, (1) the Swift-Kelce coupling will end without matrimony, (2) her pop stardom will eventually fade, and -- absent another flavor-of-the-month beau from the NFL -- (3) the Swift-NFL political meme will be more dust on the history books, to be replaced in currency by something else inane, only probably more so.
Agree the comment is very astute, but, "...her pop stardom will eventually fade..."
Likely, but whether it does or not the last pop phenom to churn out that many hits and which began to leak its mojo lost one of its two creatives to murder--and he was easily the most political of the four. Of course I don't want this to happen, and I'm not saying it will, but TayTay has been setting herself up as Mighty Prophetess, Seeress Blest of the teenyboppers for 15 years now. There was a time during her 2014 tour when she made a speech to the girls about how it's ok to screw up, and you're never damaged goods, etc., etc. Now that she's pivoting to sexual politics and politics period, she's setting herself up. It comes down to she's playing with fire.
I think the setup there is that most men are "effeminate" if Kelce is the baseline standard of "masculine". It's just a poor comparison. One could just as easily say she stopped dating creative types and went for a jock type, and basically make the same point.
I didn't get that. I get the pop guy who wore a skirt, but Tom Hiddleston is just an actor.
Somebody in these boxes yesterday said that Kelce was the first guy she "dated" (again, that always raises a smile) who changed his own oil (I assume that means on his car). Oh. OK. Your agent is a conscientious objector to the NFL. Kelce is going to be lucky if he makes it to 55 without having to wear a diaper.
I couldn't name or hum a single Swift tune -- I'm currently on a Nancy Sinatra kick -- but I have the feeling that her public romance with Kelce will eventually go the way of Monroe/DiMaggio, i.e., not well.
"These Boots Are Made For Walking" was a big hit, written by Lee Hazelwood. The cowboy psychedelia songs she did with Lee Hazlewood were interesting. "Some Velvet Morning" was very good.
Sorry, but I would take Ella Fitzgerald over any of these whiny, annoying, female pop singers, but I'm an old fuddy duddy. Ella and Frank were the best.
As I noted in yesterday's thread, it's interesting that she should be so all-in on her gay and trans fan base - yet herself be so "based," as a blonde, white, conventionally attractive cis heterosexual woman who is dating a football player. If symbols matter, this one effectively undermines any yapping she does about gay rights - yes! Go be gay and be yourself! But I'll be over here in a traditional girl-boy relationship with an athlete, the epitome of the manliness we all agree must go away!
It actually makes perfect sense to me. There's a writer somewhere (I forget who) who wrote about the idea of "luxury beliefs." Rich, upper class to upper middle class white people will talk all day about being pro trans and how polyamory is great. But what do they do? Settle into a normal male/female monogamous relationship and have a couple of kids. I have an ex who's entire friend group was like this. Some of the wives were even stay at home moms. Not a single one of them was a conservative by any stretch.
You'd think it's almost an intentional strategy to maintain their class privilege: do what works for yourself, but then propagandize everyone else to embrace self-destruction and call it liberty. I don't think they're doing it on purpose, though, at least not most of them.
That was part of the argument about why they were luxury beliefs. Someone well off could play around with these ideas and not completely self destruct (materially anyway). But when the ideas trickle down to poorer people, the results on their lives become disastrous.
Not only do upper class people hold the beliefs but often do something different than what they espouse, but holding those beliefs very often make life more difficult for lower class people. Henderson explains. I think Mary Harrington has written on that, too, but not sure where.
When was the last time you heard a significant celebrity dissent from the Zeitgrist on LGBQ? ( That "r" is a typo, but I'm not correcting it because I think it may be an unintentional neologism. )
Add the "T" to the formula, and if you dissent from what to a mind still capable of occasional sanity must see as lunatic, you're courageous, indeed. That's the one part of The Sexual Revulsion ( intentional, that one, and it ain't half bad ) which remains a matter of controversy, but The Devil has caught a great wave on it, and if you dissent, you're likely to be swept under.
I'm still wondering if the alliance between LGB and T is ever gonna just blow up, seeing as their claims are fundamentally not compatible with each other. (Is there such a thing as a sexed body or not?—they can't tell ya.)
Andrew Sullivan writes intelligently and personally (as always) about this tension. He laments the little boy who is same sex attracted today. In the past the boy would have thought (and been told) "Maybe I'm gay." Today they think "Maybe I'm really a girl in a boy's body." Horrifying. And an existential threat to "traditional", as Andrew defines it, gayness.
And how solid has the LGB alliance ever really been? Solid enough, I guess. But the now dead writer, Florence King, who described herself as bisexual, wrote that the nasty little secret about gay men and gay women was that each group hated the other.
They're not cowards. Like a majority (yes) of Americans they are tolerant and even accepting of gay people-- in many cases because they know such people personally and know they are not freaks of nature or malicious cretins. By all means bash the acronymic activists, but the rank and file gay person is no more like those ranters than the average black person is a BLM scammer or the average woman is a girl boss feminist. I can't to speak about lesbians, but among gay men there's more than a few these days who are voting for Republicans (even for Donald Trump) insofar as those Republicans are not actively anti-gay because they share much of the disdain for the crazypants Left expressed here.
Dave Chappelle speaks loud and clear on this--and bravely. And his mocking of the "Ts" is invaluable. He leads a burgeoning movement (with Joe Rogan and friends) to do real comedy--post-woke comedy.
That IS great news. I remember Chappelle from twenty years ago, thought him brilliant, and knew that he'd largely dropped out of Showbiz. It takes ballsiness for any Showbiz figure to be anti - T, and here's hoping he isn't gelded for it.
Kelce is 35 and is near the end of a brilliant career. He is a lock for the Hall of Fame. But football stars rarely coach well so, unless he makes it as an announcer, Kelce's glory will be short lived.
I am generally of the opinion that we would all be better off if pop-stardom were not a thing at all, and certainly better off if there were no such artist as Taylor Swift. As to the weird speculative theories out there concerning her, the one I personally indulge in believing is that she is, in fact, a witch.
Does anyone even buy records any more? Apart from a couple classical compilations I haven't bought a CD in years-- mostly I just add individuals song to my playlists.
Buying vinyl is a thing in my generation among some people, either because they're hipster types into vintage stuff or because they're genuine audiophiles (or both). I have friends with record players.
I've gotten really into buying up old vinyl records of late. My tastes tend towards older country, traditional folk, and classical, and I just appreciate the warmth of the sound more coming off of a record, even though it's obviously not as clean as digital.
Even on vinyl of mediocre quality, the sound is much more "live" and in the room with you than all but the very best digital recordings, I think. And when the engineering of the vinyl is good - wow, even more so. Beats digital hands down. Beatles and other artists with analog masters still remaining have had their albums reissued as vinyl for the last 10 years or so, and people are buying. Used vinyl market has expanded, too.
I think that she's a type of Rorschach test: I just see a woman who writes well-crafted songs, a lot of it not in my style but some of it quite good, especially when she collaborates with indie musicians. Um, yeah, that's about it for me. People probably see in her what they're predisposed to see.
She fit the bill for average girls to idolize. Early on, she was billed as wholesome Christian (which somewhat fits the"positive world" timeline suggested in Rod's entry today and mimics Brittany Spears....etc). Those days are over for her (image wise). She's talented. She's good looking but not off the charts. She seemingly wears underwear and doesn't look enhanced (remember 10 years or so ago, when every pop star was "accidentally" flashing their junk?.....not TS). By today's standards she's downright modest.
Also she's a girl boss, who's ex partners remain silent in the face of her song lyrics because they risk cancelation for retaliation......Check mate boys! She's perceived as a winner.
I want to like TS. I wish she stayed away from politics but that just doesn't seem to happen anymore.......girls must fight the power!
Just took a look. Yes, its ridiculous. I couldn't get through 30 seconds of it. All the 10 year old Christian and country music-loving girls, who got onboard with Taylor 15 years ago are now 30. My guess is that most of them stand with Taylor.
Like I was saying yeterday, I was very surprised to find out that the likes of Bon Iver and The National were collaborating on songs with her. I like those guys, so I gave said songs a listen, and I found them pretty good. And insofar as her own stuff is in that sort of indie rock wheelhouse, I also find that good. Her celebrity is totally irrelevant to me; I don't pay attention to that sort of thing.
It seems to me that she's a romantic with an actual soul, so that may be keeping her at least somewhat safe. She appears to be a real musician before she is a media phenomenon, and she probably does want to get married and live happily ever after.
Oh yeah, she totally sold her soul. I bet Marina Abramovich showed her how.
This Kelce thing is weird too, when seen through a witchy light--dating "Mr. Pfizer" the big NFL star st the height of her long and successful career. It's all a little too on-the-WEF-nose to me.
I know it sounds crazy but well, there you have it.
Ever since the gladiators and charioteers of the Roman Empire popular entertainers have been a thing. Arguments and throw-downs between their fans sometimes escalated into riots.
She's up there with Beyonce as far as star power goes. One thing both Swift and Beyonce have in common is they both have carefully created public images of being 'wholesome'. Wholesome, certainly by today's standards particularly in music. Certainly, if I had a girl, I'd much, much rather her listen to Swift (I have to say I'm not familiar enough with Beyonce's work to comment on the work itself - I do know it's influential) than some of the other stuff that is out there!
Bill and I annotate classic mystery novels and a regular topic in our household is who will last.
When you get down to it, VERY FEW writers, artists, musicians, etc., last much past their death.
Those who do, capture lightning in a bottle.
Those who don't (read over the list of Nobel Prize literature winners going back to the beginning for starters) vanish into time.
A great example: when Agatha Christie wrote "Partners in Crime", a cycle of loosely-tied together Tommy & Tuppence short stories, she parodied a whole series of immensely popular mystery writers of the early '20s. Other than herself, Conan Doyle, and possibly G.K. Chesterton, all those authors have disappeared from the public consciousness.
They vanished into time. They are unread. They are gone.
Taylor Swift will most likely disappear too, other than for scholars and as yard sale fodder.
Christians who merely prayed and sang in an abortion clinic were sentenced this week to over a decade in prison here in the US. Meanwhile, countless other protesters who commit all sorts of violence never even get arrested. Is this not an indicator that Christians and Christianity is scorned nowadays? I pray the reality of this horrid incident penetrates the pervasive denial amongst churches in the US and wakes American Christians up.
AnAnglican'sAngle said they were "sentenced". They were not. 10 1/2 is the max. They won't be sentenced until July. It's so important to get this stuff right. The other side gets away with it, we shouldn't be in the sty with them (have you seen the numbers about pregnancies resulting from rape?).
Renn's book came in the mail yesterday, and I eagerly began reading it with what little time I had. I'm only on p. 15, but I am disappointed so far. For one thing, I think he takes the election of Trump as a negative world phenomenon for the wrong reason, at least the wrong main reason. He focuses on Trump's crudeness when he should have focused on Christians voting for him in self-defense. It's because we are in a negative world that Christians overlooked Trump's sins to vote for someone willing to fight to defend them.
Also, couldn't he find a better man to quote favorably than Russell Moore?
But no book is perfect other than the Good Book, and I retain an open mind and intend to get Life in the Negative World read in the next few days.
Yes, Howard. I acknowledge his manifold shortcomings but I do not feel I want to throw away my vote on a third-party candidate. It would be nice this time to feel I was sending a message of sorts if I did that, but the reality is that it would help the current regime. One of my favorite sayings of all time from Rush Limbaugh was, “I live in Realville.”
I hear you, but please don't be quick to dismiss people like me: I will almost certainly vote for Trump, though I think he is a menace in some respects, and a mediocrity in others, simply as self-defense. Whatever damage he stands to do to the country and its people is less than what Biden is doing, and will do in the next term. I don't think one is obliged to conclude that Trump is a good man, or an effective leader, to recognize that he speaks for a lot of people that the Ruling Class prefers to dump on unjustly. I just can't bring myself to say that he's somebody he's not.
If Trump wins, a whole lot depends on who he recruits to do the actual work of the Administrative Branch. He did maybe 3 good things in 4 years, but otherwise hardly produced anything at all. What he "did" was all about who was around him (and who led in Congress), and that was a very mixed bag. I trust neither Trump nor his acolytes, well-intentioned as any of them individually might be, any more than I trust the current crew. I honestly don't think a Trump administration will shake out to be any better than Biden 2; different categories, but same overall amount of irrational destabilization and gridlock.
Hm, I guess we'll see. Haven't heard anything from him about tech; it's just refreshing that he's reviving the old-school language of the American dream. Feels like a chance, although it's probably too late for us.
I hope Stephen Miller comes back, he was brilliant on immigration. Trump needs more clever people from the dissident right, but he likes celebrity and is easily fooled.
"Consider, for example, the 2012 All Too Well, which was pretty good when released, and elevated to stunning with the extended 2021 reissue. Watch the live performance here, and tell me anyone contemporary has captured lost love and the pain of rejection quite as well lately."
That this song represents "rejection" to women says a lot about the difference between men and women's experiences in the romantic sphere.
It's a great take on Swift from your reader, I think, although I would say that her own actual political inclinations are somewhat harder to discern.
What seems clearer to me is that Swift is incredibly deft at managing her image and "reading the room" culturally. She knows she has the power to move the culture, but also that the culture moves without her, too (as it did on LGBT before she "came out" politically on the issue, and rather late actually for someone of her celebrity). For Swift, publicly taking the stance she did, when she did, in light of the overwhelming shift in the culture, is likely just as much of a case of Swift reading the room and moving deftly to be in sync with it (yet appear to have always been so, as she does so apparently effortlessly, while obviously being anything but) as it is of Swift being passionate about the issues. I do not doubt that Swift is actually center- left -- that would be totally unsurprising, as it is the overwhelming affiliation of her demographic (young, single, upscale white American women). In terms of her passion for politics of any kind? Much less clear to me, other than to the extent needed to be in sync with where the culture overall is heading (or is currently) and so on.
I think in some ways the current romantic link to the NFL star (it reminds me of that Sesame Street game "one of these things is not like the other ...." in terms of the contrast with virtually her entire, lengthy, prior set of beaus) is certainly not "fake", as some have speculated, but rather is also a sign of the times, and a reflection of the idea that a young woman can go for a very stereotypically atavistically masculine man without compromising in a cultural/political sense (ie, putting up with some right wing loudmouth), while at the same time being rather understated in one's own political profile, while nonetheless maintaining one's center-left bona fides. In other words, it's a cultural moment that marginalizes the right pretty effectively and subtlely (ie, you don't have to put up with a right winger to land an atavistically attractive hypermasculine dude), without Swift having to act in a way that obviously is doing so. And that is ... vintage Taylor Swift, it seems to me.
She's slippery. I am not a fan of her or her music, but she's worth watching, I think, to "see how it's done".
Her music is nothing (as a father providing transportation in the zeros and early teens I had to listen to a lot of it). And her voice is not a voice, though compared with Katie Perry, e.g., she's Ella, Mildred Bailey, and Billie Holiday rolled up into one cuddly little ball of fun.
What she is is beautiful. And what she's really good at is marketing.
In pop stars have to have both looks and what passes for talent. Years ago this wasn't the case. Often looks were in inverse proportion to talent. Ella. Nat Cole.
I am not to old and remember when Swift came on the scene. I am not quite 5 years older than her. Yes she is pretty but I went to high school and college with people prettier than her. Her looks are not amazing but just above average. She connects with the women though and for that she has became a huge success.
Have you heard of Esperanza Spalding? She started as a jazz bassist, but thank God, followed her impulse to sing. I'm not sure there are many videos of her, but last night I was watching her performance of the last great American popular song, "Girl Talk" ( 1966 ), accompanied by Fred Hersch, on YouTube. She's adorable, hilarious, as original as anyone has ever been as an American performer. She's about Swift's age. She's a jazzer, she doesn't write songs, but she does monologues, and in her monologues, some of which I think are spontaneous, she articulates the kinds of things Swift, whom I have never heard and intend to keep that way, does.
If taste were still a thing, she'd be a huge star, but speaking of taste and Ella Fitzgerald, a lot of Americans knew who she was, but was she cherished by the public as she should have been? Not that I'm aware of.
She's what I describe as "an eccentric singer," the way "eccentric dancers" were a big thing in vaudeville. I suppose the singer she reminds me of in that respect is Shirley Booth ( yes, that Shirley Booth ), who was in the musical of "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." They don't sound alike, they're both just so odd.
Someone else Esperanza Spalding reminds me of is Victoria Jackson, who had a nice career going for herself as sort of a performance artist/comedienne thirty - five years ago, then made the wise decision to drop out of Showbiz. Both women are/were quite silly, and to my taste, at least. She also brings Rickie Lee Jones to my mind, somehow. I do think Esperanza Spalding is likely to remain a cult figure, alas. She's a specialty type, but is that to be held against someone who entertains the Hell out of you?
I just watched the SNL video. What she captures—even physically—is the awkwardness and emotionally overcharged life of the adolescent girl. I’m not criticizing the performance negatively. I feel like I watched it, and I get it. (It’s a terrific performance.) But to me her appeal to young American women is, one part, that of the pretty and “amazing“ girl friend (of your middle or high school clique); and, one part, that her songs go right to the heart of fevered, adolescent romance. It’s a girl crush on someone who gets you.
Well, I don't know her work, but I've listened to a few of her songs in the past few days, trying to "get" her, and I do think she is incredibly adept at articulating the femininity of teenage and young adult women. Watching her pop song take on Romeo & Juliet revealed something to me about the play that I hadn't quite understood before.
Similarly, the other night I was noodling around on YouTube, as one does when one is trying to put off doing the work one should be doing, and I watched the 1980s Van Halen song "Panama". Listening to the chords, the words, and watching the leonine joy of David Lee Roth and Eddie Van Halen working together reminded me of what it felt like to be a teenage American boy. I don't think it was simply that that song was popular when I was a teenage American boy. I wasn't particularly a fan of Van Halen -- I went way more for "college radio" bands -- but there was something about that song that made a red-blooded American boy want to drive a Camaro real fast, if only for three and a half minutes.
I hate to admit it, but "Born To Run" by the Boss (before he went insane...) always gets me going. Saw him live with Roy Orbison as the opener at Winterland (or was it the Cow Palace?) just before it closed for good. Roy played the Theme from Star Trek, of all things, as his first song...
There is something I do not "get". I have not been a teen for some time. But before "my day" and during it, and for quite a while afterwards, a teen idol was male. He was cute, sensitive, charming and generally a singer or perhaps an actor. From Frank Sinatra up through Davy Jones and on beyond.
Is a female really the top thing young teenage girls go for these days? I'm not saying these girls are gay, but....isn't there a cute young man like there has been for generations? I admit, I'm out of touch.
Btw, I think - my opinion - the three Swift songs I've heard are no good. They seem whiney and unsophisticated - OK, so is a lot of pop. But they pretend to be about romance while having nothing in the way of a tune that can touch the heart. The tunes are also just bad, not appropriate to their subject. I liked the Swift-related video Rod linked, however, as an example of young female dreams.
Connie Stevens, The Shangri-Las, Lesley Gore, Connie Francis, Diana Ross and the Supremes (and just Diana Ross, later), Aretha Franklin, Brenda Lee, Dionne Warwick, Martha and the Vandellas, Barbara Streisand, Etta James, Mary Wells, Patsy Cline, Patti LaBelle, Eartha Kitt, Peggy March, Ronnie Specter: there were a lot of great female singers in the 1960s, and I haven't even gone into the rock and roll legends of Janis Joplin and her like.
Very much with you, Eve. But...I am out of touch and the near-worship of the Swifties seems different from what I had for Diana Ross, etc. It seems more similar to what I had for Davy Jones (though agian, not saying girls feel romantic or sexual about Taylor Swift). Are there males who command the attention of young teens these days, are there still teen idols?
Seems to me that the big female "idol" began largely with Madonna, then carried over to the Spice Girls, Britney Spears, etc., and has now moved to Swift.
I am young enough that I enjoyed dressing the way Madonna did. It was just quite different from what I had for Davy Jones. Maybe it is a "girl thing". I had no romantic feelings about Madonna. My question - we can assume most girls don't feel romantic about Taylor Swift. What male teen idol do they feel romantic for, if any?
I was going to suggest the Spice Girls. There is a girl power element which is then syndicated and mass-marketed. I think the difference between TS and the groups you've mentioned is that she writes her own songs too. I've heard people compare Taylor Swift to Joni Mitchell, but I think she doesn't even approach Joni's talent.
There haven't been a whole lot of boy bands recently (to my knowledge). Perhaps the Jonas brothers before 2 of them made high-profile disaster marriages.
I feel like I am not communicating somthing to most here though you come cloasest. - - What a young girl feels about a singer or an actor is a romantic crush. Later she will feel that for a real guy. At age 11, 12, 13 a guy just her age would not work, and many are somehow "safe" - not close enough or attracted enough to older teens to have those be their crushes just yet. The do not fantasize about women, if they are hetersexual.
My biggest fandom as a female was Emma Peel of the Avengers. I cried when she left the show. But I did not have romantic fantasies about Emma Peel. I had them about Davy Jones. - - I also do not know who might be the latest. I think it was Justin Bieber (I am not sure) just about 7 years ago or so.
Upon googling, I can see the term "teen idol" has changed meanings - probably after the show American Idol came out. It can now be either gender - I should have known. But the old-style use of the word - a popular singer or actor young girls get a crush on - Does that even happen and if not, why not?
And whatever they have for Taylor Swift, no way is it what they had for The Monkees, etc (and it was always for one favorite Monkee rather than for all at once). They may have an equal amount of "enthusiasm" but it is not romantic. I also wonder how they behave at a Swift concert - do that scream and swoon at her? I kind of doubt it. Is it dead - the male teen idol thing that began around the time of a very young Frank Sinatra, or maybe with Rudolph Valentino (though I think all ages swooned for him)? If so, why? Young girls still have the same feelings. I'm not getting it.
Oh, I felt absolutely the same about Emma Peel, and so did every other girl my age - but of course we weren't in love with her. We wanted to BE her, smart and strong and sexy and beautiful and able to take care of herself and every once in a while rescue Steed! Huzzah!
Completely agree that coming out so late on LGBT issues didn't move the culture, she moved with it. I don't see her as trying to manipulate public opinion on cultural issues, but rather, she responds to them.
To support LGBT issues in the 70s and 80s? Transgressive, and against where popular cultural was, by and large. Now, or at any time in the last 15-20 years? Mainstream and well, boring. There's nothing particularly trangressive or shocking or courageous with Swift.
Now, to push back, like JK Rowling? That takes courage (though she's insufferable in many other ways).
Pop stars are not known for their courage, are they? That's why figures like Rowling are so astonishing when they actually exist.
Of course, being completely financially independent makes the consequences of being "canceled" less onerous than for us plebs. Even then, though, pop stars crave adoration more than any pagan God, and to lose that would be worse than death for most.
I listened to the "witch trials of JK Rowling" over at the Free Press and was struck by how many fans she did lose. It seems, and I had no idea before listening, that many in the gay/queer movement saw the struggles of Harry in the magical world (read queer/gay world) amidst a bunch of muggles (read straight people) as written for them. So they felt terribly betrayed by Rowlings pro-woman ideas. Rowling is definitely brave.
Rowling did not attack gay people in general in any way-- in fact she even (somewhat irrelevantly) told us that Dumbledore was gay. Of course too many people do not bother to dig into teapot media tempests and just believe whatever scuttlebutt they happen to hear is the Gospel truth.
" Magical" people, or for that matter "mutants" like the X-Men, have been a stand-in for gays for a long time.
Right. It’s not transgressive at all. And that’s the point, I think. Namely that being an upscale attractive young woman, being center-left, lockstep supporter of LGBT+ rights, while being conventionally heterosexual in an almost stereotypical way (beauty with football star) is all of a piece. It is a seamless, utterly conventional, cloth for today’s young women, and no aspect of it is at all transgressive — to the contrary, it’s all utterly conventional.
She seems like pretty much any of these women around here in the city of Austin, except that she writes massively popular songs. I'm just a year older than her, and she strikes me as normal, as in she's exactly what you would expect for the demographic bracket.
What a jumble of words Archbishop Zuppi says in such an obscure way. So he's odds-on favorite to be the next pope. New pope, same as the last pope. Didn't The Who write perform a song about this?
Generally I don't like religious writers of any persuasions. Most write in meandering, indirect ways. I even find my own side on religious writing to be rather dull.
I mused as I read- it seems to me everything Christians are shunned for - as Christians, not just as conservatives - is related to sex. Beliefs on abortion, transexuals, sex only inside marriage, etc. The other beliefs Christians wind up being shunned for are the political beliefs not related to sex that a majority of Christians conclude indirectly from application of Christian principles, but about which it is possible for Scripture-honoring Christians to disagree.
For instance, a progressive might deny marriage, saying "sleep with whomever". A person saying that and saying they are Christian would be plainly going against Scripture and Christian teaching. However, it would be possible for a badly mistaken Christian, who wishes to be compassionate and can't understand that some acts that are "compassionate" toward individuals for a brief time are terrible over all and for all, to support open borders. The Bible does not discuss countries.
Maybe I am missing some beliefs directly in Scripture for which Christians are persecuted that are not about sex? Again - many conservative beliefs are based on ****applications of Christian Scripture and principles, **** but Scripture does not say for sure one way or another what a Christians should do, how Christians should apply the principles. The incontrovertible Christian beliefs (directly in Scripture) for which Christians suffer are all related to sex - or am I wrong?
People have been trying to offer practical guidance on the application of Christian doctrine to daily life and judgment at least since St. Augustine and the topic of suicide on the night of 24 August 410. And along come ++Zuppi, and Father Martin, and the rest of the ghastly crew saying who are you to judge?
The other day we were kidding around on X and I told Caitlyn Flanagan apropos of this new thing the Times is so keen on that polyamory was Greek for "fooling around". I think the problem is these people are trying to institutionalize what has been human behavior from forever. That's one way of putting it.
I think the life issues are more important. I think abortion is reslly a life issue rather than a sex issue. People who oppose abortion tend to be Christian, but it doesn't necessarily follow, and I've met an intense gay activist who was very pro-life. Euthanasia is not a sex issue.
Even in sex issues, the secular hostility is not primarily to Christian morality per se - no one minds if you decide to save yourself for marriage - but to anything that acts as a brake on the most monstrous forms of exploitation, with pornography, intensely sexualised mass entertainment, and transgenderism being added to the age-old horror of prostitution.
Yeah, but no one's going to arrest you or beat you up for it like they might over abortion and transgenderism.
Where Christian values are radically at odds with the culture is where they affirm the value of the powerless, defend the weak, oppose an instrumental view of life, and seek to at least knock the rougher edges off capitalist exploitation.
But I also think that if you object to schools teaching kids that sex is a leisure activity and porn is good and they can choose their gender etc, I think you might get aggressive pushback.
On the other hand, one of the main reasons there is a basic class in body parts in kindergarten and the early grades is to teach children where the naughty bits are, and how no one has the right to touch them there or do other things to them. Stranger danger. As opposed to when I was a child and it just wasn't talked about. A lot of child molestation has been stopped with those classes.
My point was that progressivism "believes" is it doing the things you listed (affirm the powerless,etc.) whether or not it is. It would not persecute Christians for affirming the (born) powerless. (And just falsely says the unborn aren't people.) It would persecute Christians for affirming traditional beliefs about sex. It does not pretend to much sexual morality (exceptions: rape & child porn) whereas it does pretend to morality about the downtrodden.
And actually, progressives don't always think rapist should be punished. There is a new episode of "Law and Order" in which a lesbian is raped by a black teen. She won't press charges, explaining that she is privileged and can afford counseling but if the teen goes to jail he will likely never get over it. The show affirms her point (it is written to show her virtue, not written to show her view as anything but good.)
Appalling. In the real world the teen would likely become a serial rapist, doing untold harm and violence because one individual wanted to check her privilege.
"My point was that progressivism "believes" is it doing the things you listed (affirm the powerless,etc.) whether or not it is. ...... It does not pretend to much sexual morality (exceptions: rape & child porn) whereas it does pretend to morality about the downtrodden."
Do you think mainstream progressivism really still does pretend that? It did when I was young, 40 years ago, when it was mainly about economics, so to be progressive meant to be Marxist or socialist. There was a lot of exploitation going on under the cover of opposing exploitation back then, to be sure, but at least that was the pose. However, the cutting edge of progressivism seems to have lost interest in economics and the vulnerable, and is all about pushing the Noah Yuval Harari dream of humans being converted into agglomerations of body parts, all of which are for sale.
Rombald, it was precisely for those non-sexual-behavior values (which ultimately underlie the sexual-behavior ones) that Christians have been persecuted over the years, when Christians have actually been even somewhat intentionally united about expressing them and actually living them.
I don't actually think the sex-related and non-sex-related issues are as clearly separable as I have presented them. I think belief in chastity is fundamentally about respecting humans as potentially heaven-bound beings rather than sex gadgets. I think something other than sex underlies Christian concern about sex. However, for talking to a non-Christian culture it's easier to show the objection to abortion than the objection to fornication or homosexuality, and I think it is important for Christians to explain why their values actually fulfill values that secular progressivists claim to affirm, such as respect for life and opposition to exploitation.
I agree that the horror of abortion is because it takes a human life, but that those who support it do so because of the sexual revolution. To many pro-choicers I've encountered, it's inconceivable (heh) that someone must bear responsibility for creating a new human life when they have sex. They'll even explicitly state "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy"--and Mother Nature just laughs at such arrogance, like saying jumping off a cliff isn't consent to splat at the bottom.
Exactly. I've on occasion made that point, or tried to make it, to pro-choicers, and been met with absolute blank incomprehension. There's an assumption that we have some kind of cosmic right to have sex without pregnancy. From that follows the line that to stop someone from having an abortion is "forced pregnancy."
But that's not their argument. The slogan "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy". That states that the sex is consented to.
And even if you have those exceptions, the majority of the vocal pro-choice crowd thinks thar isn't enough--abortion on demand, forever, because of "bodily autonomy".
Do you believe everything the vocal "pro-life" crowd thinks? Like rapists should have parental rights? Or that there should be no exceptions, as Bill Krueger, 79, head of Door County’s Right to Life chapter in Wisconsin, thinks that in an ideal world, there would be no exceptions to an abortion ban. If a woman dies? “That’s God’s plan,” he said.
I mean, I don't have to defend what vocal pro-choicers think. I know what I believe. Rape, incest, and life of the mother - and have that spelled out a little more clearly, as in preeclampsia, sepsis in the womb, ectopic pregnancy, and a few other (what used to be) obvious situations.
Totally agree with your points. I had severe preeclampsia and a premature baby, and the solution can't be "a woman is a disposable vessel" or "a child is a clump of cells." There's no humanity in either of those positions. I also wonder why most pro-life politicians are silent regarding human euthanasia. I believe the casual promotion of human euthanasia as a normal part of the human life cycle is one of the greatest evils of our time.
I agree on the principal of self-defense that if the continued pregnancy would lead to the mother's death, then of course the mother has the right to life. The ideal should be the preservation of both lives, but that is not always possible in the world in which we live.
In regards to "parental rights" for rapists, well, I don't believe in ghosts, so I don't think that the executed rapist has much rights to do anything. (Of course, not many support the death penalty for rapists, so if they're not put to death, then assuming at some point they get out of incarceration, I do not believe they should have any parental rights--though in such a twisted scenario that a convicted rapist will see the light of day, their funds should be garnished for child support, but that should confer no parental rights.)
As far as rape and incest (and I don't really see incest as anything but a sub-class of rape, unless you're including adult, consensual incest--which I don't think confers a special exception for abortion), for purely pragmatic reasons I'd support an abortion law that, in addition to threats to the life of the mother, there would be a rape exception as well.
However, from a moral standpoint, any child conceived from rape should not be punished for the crimes of his or her father. Killing the child that results from a rape is still morally unacceptable...however, as I say, from a practical standpoint, a law that prohibits most abortion except for the cases of the life of the mother or rape is more likely to pass, thereby resulting in fewer child killings.
All that said, I'm pretty black-pilled about abortion law in this country. I think by and large abortion on demand will continue as a legal option for the majority of the country, as even red states like Ohio seem to defend it as a "human right". So I really don't see laws limiting abortion to a few extreme cases as gaining traction. As to the Red state laws passed by various legislatures, I don't really think they'll last long.
What I do know that not allowing any exceptions for the life of the mother or even for incest will kill women and girls. And the way the current laws are written, there are no guidelines as to "life of the mother" - in fact the Texas Supreme Court told doctors to go ahead and make their best judgment regarding it, but, if the doctor performed the abortion, then the courts would decide if the doctor made the wrong decision and prosecute them, potentially sending them to prison.
Clearly, in the context of heterosexuality, the issues of abortion and fornication are closely tied together. People who are unwilling to accept restrictions on sexual behaviour also convince themselves that abortion is acceptable.
However, the two are logically separable. I've met one or two gay activists who were pro-life. One man in particular who I used to vaguely know was very much an LGBT activist, and also heavily involved with the pro-life movement. He had got to the point at which he had basically stopped associating socially with heterosexuals, because he couldn't stand them expressing pro-choice sentiments. He was also a vegan, animal-rights activist, and had come to his pro-life position from that angle.
In East Asia Buddhism is generally pro-Life but they seem to go about it is very different ways. There are public memorials for "moon babies"-- any fetus which is not carried to term-- and that emphasizes the "life" aspect of the matter while ignoring the "sex" aspect.
I only know about Japan, and there are indeed memorials for mizuko ("water children"), which are like you describe "moon babies" (China or Korea?) However, I don't think that actually leads to action against abortion. It tends to be treated as a non-issue, even among vocal sociocultural conservatives.
I think perhaps some Latin Catholic countries are more like you say, in the sense of ignoring Catholic sexual morality, but being rigorously against abortion.
The relationship between Buddhist morality (which tends to be hyper-puritanical) and actual public morality in Asia is very complex, especially since Buddhism tends to be very political except when it comes to matters that directly affect the clerical class and its holdings. Buddhism tends to ficus on the corrupting influence of desire, not on sin and guilt or divine will. Asian sexual morality is much closer to the old time realities of polygamy and respectable prostitution (there are still geishas in Japan).
Others here have pointed out that pro-Life political activism in the US is a failure and what we need are "good works" on problem pregnancies. I tend to agree with this very much.
I have a lady I work with who is a widow and in her 50's. Maybe 50 or 51 or 52. She has started seeing a new man. She spends the night with him. I have actually talked with her about she should not be spending the night with him. Her response was a few years ago she would have agreed with me but now you got to get it when you can at her age.
Yes, but it is one guy, right? I do run into the occasional older woman who sleeps around here, but I think the women would say they would prefer one faithful partner, but the only men they can find to sleep with are the sleep around kind. Any older man who wants a faithful partner already has one or - if temporarily without - usually find one right away.
There is also the exclusive claim that Christ alone is the means of salvation, including the requirement of belief that the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection are historical events. I've found that many non-believers really don't like claims of exclusive truth.
Thank you, Rod, for this thought provoking article. We are noticing quite a phenomenon here in my Greek Orthodox church. I can only attribute this to the work of the Holy Spirit. For a few months now, people with no ethnic ties whatsoever are becoming catechumens. We have never seen this before in such numbers. So far, they eventually become Orthodox. I understand this is happening across the nation. In our fallen and negative world, people are searching for everlasting truth. .
Oh, that's so great to hear. Getting similar anecdotal reports from Orthodox I know across the US. The common thread seems to be concluding that the culture is falling to pieces, and people want to take refuge in a seaworthy ark. It has something to do with why a number of Protestants of my generation, in the JP2 era, became Catholic. In my own case, I was headed for Catholicism after Chartres in 1984, no doubt, but watching what was happening in Protestantism broadly in my young years made me unable to believe that it would be resilient enough to withstand the power of our nihilistic culture. I was wrong about some of that, but seeing the Evangelical crack-up now, not most of it. In any case, Pope Francis has been a sign to a lot of people that the Catholic Church is not what converts of my generation thought it was.
That's not to say it's not the true Church! Obviously I don't believe it is, but that's not what I'm asserting here. I'm asserting that I believed, as a convert, that Rome, despite its problems, was an unshakable doctrinal bulwark. I think it was still possible to believe that throughout the beginning of the abuse scandal; I left for different reasons. But since Francis? Catholics who evangelize for their form of the faith will have to reckon with the fact that one strong argument for it in the JP2-Benedict era has been all but destroyed by Francis.
What I would say to Orthodox converts is please not to look to the institution as somehow immune from the discord of post-Christian modernity. There is corruption there, and sin too. I personally know people who have been alienated from Orthodoxy over the behavior of people in the institutional church. One difference is that Orthodox ecclesiology has built in structures that prevent someone like Bergoglio from gaining power and making the kinds of radical changes that he has done. More to the point, though: if you understand that Orthodoxy is first of all a way of life, though with an institution attached, you'll be better prepared.
Well, I almost swelled the throng, but I decided to stick it out with Rome, after much pondering and a pretty terrific if brief correspondence with Father at St. Demetrios. One thing. As to Bergoglio putting paid to the JPII-Benedict era, yes. I don't know about Benedict, because there was such hope that he would allow more TLM and more and more young priests would try it. But I don't think shutting down the JPII church is a bad thing at all. We've been through this before, but he was the Vatican II Pope par excellence. And anybody who thinks that Vatican II was good for the Church is either onboard with Bergoglio, or not paying attention--by any measure.
Two things. This can't go on--Bergoglio's tyrannical willful assertion of raw power. I kind of think I have to around for what happens next, even if it's ++Zuppi and "Yes, but." Also, the night cometh when no man can work.
If you live in the Williamsburg VA area it’s hard to find a better young priest than Fr Anthony Ferguson at St. Bede’s. Our parish had him as a seminarian.
St. Bede's is where I attend Mass. The sermons are first rate, yes. The architecture looks like a first sketch for Pandemonium in a movie of Paradise Lost. And the music is Rick Astley transposed to tenor.
I guess they were going for that plain 18th century architecture. Also I don’t like churches in the round. They have tried to dress it up a bit I think. My husband & I enjoy visiting Williamsburg because we’re history nerds & theme park freaks. Been tempted to go to Divine Liturgy at Ascension of Our Lord Byzantine Catholic Church but it’s really small & I’m afraid I wouldn’t know what to do & would stick out like a sore thumb.
Please do not be afraid. Just follow what the people do. Sit when they sit, stand when they stand, turn when they follow the great entrance. It will be unlike anything you have experienced, but remind you of the way, the Catholic Church used to be quite a bit.
When you go in, there will usually be a stand where you can give a donation and buy a candle which you put in the sand before icons. Then you simply go in and take a seat.
Yes. I attended Ascension for nearly a year. The thing is it is a very small church with a very large choir and the liturgy is chanted from stem to stern. A friend of mine says it makes it difficult to pray. The exception are Father Alex's sermons, which seem fine, but his Ukrainian accent is so thick I got about 1/3 of it.
I hate to sound like a liturgical mystery shopper, but I'll jonesing for a low Mass in Latin.
What a comment! I agree with it all. I have some admiration for JPII but I think that in the end he was hoping that oil and water could mix if he tried hard enough.
I can tell you, Rod, that the belief in Rome as an "unshakable doctrinal bulwark" is not held by most Catholics, certainly not those born into the Faith. I've been Catholic and around Catholics my whole life; we do not trust in the Church's authority because of some rigid, rationalist claim to truth, though of course we reverence the great intellectual/teaching tradition of the Magisterium.
For us, the Church is the living repository of the Faith. The Magisterium is just one of its claims to authority, an extremely important one, but minor changes to those collected teachings, which Francis HAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED, is not, as you incessantly insist, going to bring the whole edifice crashing down. Maybe it would for hyper-intellectual converts, but we live our faith through spiritual traditions that date back millennia.
Francis—who you sneeringly refer to by his given name, something you wouldn't do for, say, an Orthodox theologian who called for the extermination of the Jews—has not made radical changes. It's simply not true! He may have tried to. Certainly some of his acolytes have. But as this recent dust-up with the same-sex blessings (which are not a sanction of gay marriage but a recommendation for pastoral care) shows, he does not have enough support to push through actual radical changes. To do so would risk schism, and he and his supporters are too outnumbered to risk it, even if they were considering it.
It seems to me, Rod, that you came to the Church expecting a purity of doctrine and practice that is simply not available to us in this vale of tears.
So Miss Swift hates conservatives. I am not surprised. It is sad that tens of millions of young women have such empty lives that they hold Miss Swift in high esteem. There is little that conservatives can do to respond to such young women. These young women will vote Democrat, engage in all sorts of non-marital sex acts, and be generally unhappy and unhealthy.
Does she hate conservatives? She seems a bit more circumspect or coy with her political views. I vaguely remember during the Trump years that was criticized for not speaking out (silence=violence), you know, not marching around in a Handmaid's getup like the rest of the (literal) drama queens.
I live about 3/4 of a mile from the local county court house, it's on the main drag you have to take to get to town. We have Handsmaid Tale gals out there all the time. I always wave.
I could never understand the fascination college-educated, urban/suburban women have with the Handmaid's Tale, and the need to parade about subservient in red robes, chanting "under His eye". Can someone explain this to me?
I think it appeals to the same woke white wealthy women with the "In This House We Believe" signs who attended the women's march and like to virtue signal. They want to feel oppressed because it confers power, assuages their guilt, and gives a feeling of moral righteousness. But the only life experience they have that approximates feeling "oppressed" might be when they were young and hot and got unwanted male attention, harassment, or not taken seriously. Take that little seed of resentment, add smug condescension towards anyone morally or religiously conservative, and create from that the perfect enemy: a repressive religious regime that oppresses young women and turns them into sex slaves. It's their dream villain. Bonus: they can then compare Trump to this fictional villain and dream about their younger selves in the victim turned heroine role where they fight back (which is what the hero of that book does).
I experience this somewhat at home. I am the most religiously conservative person in my house. As "dad" I tend to vocalize my religious beliefs, for my under-catechized kids. Therefore I am the stand-in for Trump, Andrew Tate, and all the other meanies of the world. I'm a punching bag at times for my wife and daughter. It's like they have no clue what I believe....pure emotion. "Feelings"are more important than truth, it's very unreasonable.
After spending holidays with my mother-in-law (a saint) and my much more bombastic, opinionated brothers-in-law, I get a bit more love.
Dystopian fiction of many sorts is a thing. It functions as a means of social criticism, and lets the reader (or viewer) feel better about his/her own imperfect life.
Today, Jon, one is considered anti-homosexual for being against Single-sex marriage. Think of how far we've gone in such a short time. If Bill Clinton had advocated homosexual marriage in 1992, he would have been have lost to Bush decisively.
In 1750 very few people in the American colonists desired independence and nearly everyone considered limited monarchy the best of system of governance whatever defects an individual king might have. Thirty years later most people were on board with independence and republicanism. Abolition of slavery caught on in a similarly short time frame, and women's suffrage in a bit longer period of time (but less than a lifetime). Public opinion sometimes does change very fast.
Of course conservatism is defined, in part, by attitudes toward sexual behavior. Traditional values are the cornerstone of fostering a healthy nuclear family and culture. If traditional values are not worth conserving, a Christian civilization could not exist. I would think that would be self-evident even by Natural Law if nothing else.
I am NOT suggesting that any church change its teaching. I am suggesting that we not make political divisions over such things. If we can accept Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, assorted heretical Christian sects and even outright atheists without raising political strife over their existence and open espousal and practice of their beliefs, it should be very easy to accept gays and lesbians.
Natural Law is never "self-evident" as it depends on certain metaphysical assumptions which may or may not be true.
Derek, the best male friend a young woman can have is a male homosexual. You know where you are with them. They will never ply you with drink and try to have their way with you: instead, you'll have a couple of beers or a couple of glasses of wine, watch sad movies and cry together. They read serious literature, like opera, classical music, theater, and will go with you and sit through the whole show without yawning and bitching and generally acting like you've asked them to go through hell, and expecting recompense when you get home. Instead, they're enjoying the show, too. They will LISTEN when you're in trouble, they will always warn you when you're about to go out of the house looking like a wreck or a sleaze, and they have unerringly good taste at decoration. They're also excellent at spotting the man who will use and abuse you. You do the same for them. Neither of you will take the other's advice, because you're in love... but you know they're always in your corner. So... if that makes me pro-homosexual, so be it. Doesn't mean I hate conservatives. I just hate jerks.
Lol....so true. My best friend at school was gay (although he didn't realise until later). I dunno about opera but he did drag me to see The B52s and he was inordinately fond of Batman (the tight outfit, I suppose).
Absolutely true! Plus gay male friends make it possible for a young woman to go out for a social evening without being hit on by creepers. One of the best New Years Eve I ever spent was in the 1970’s at a gay bar in Georgetown with gay male friends. Strangely enough I was an evangelical at the time. It’s a mistake to throw gays & transgenders in the same box. Gay men & women generally don’t want to be the opposite sex. Some are concerned that tomboyish masculine girls & sensitive effeminate boys are being encouraged to transition when they’re just gay. Not all LGB folks are down with the trans thing.
There's plenty of complaints these days that gay nightclubs are overrun with straight women, and sometimes they let themselves go and get obnoxiously drunk (as they wouldn't around straight guys) and make asses of themselves
I met a new relative back in the 90’s and he took me to a couple of gay clubs and I was pretty shocked at the videos and the behavior that I saw. The country bars were better. Although I admire people like Dave Ruben and Douglas Murray I have no illusions how people act in private. I remember NPR was doing their weekly subtle positive push for gay marriage featuring a story of a couple who adopted a child and stressed how they had been together for 20+ years and in a committed relationship but that one partner had eventually contracted and died of HIV...I don’t like how activists bully businesses and people of good conscious after they swore it wouldn’t end up like that if society would just affirm and legitimize. It’s been a huge mistake and nail in the coffin imo.
Gay men call them, affectionately, fag hags. It's a real social phenomenon but the problem for many women is that it goes on for far too long. Unable to form real, solid relationships with straight men -- sometimes for good reason -- they wile away endless hours with the gay guys.
Well, I have both a 45 year marriage to a man - which, I'm happy to say, started like "Jackson", married in a fever, hotter'n a pepper sprout, only in our case the fire never died out until old age dampens things. But I also have gay male friends. I don't think men can truly understand the friendship a straight woman and a gay man can have, because so many straight men are grossed out by and/or afraid (after all, what if the gay guy comes on to them! Try saying "no".) of gay men.
Interesting. So the same reason you prefer gay male friends (they don't hit on you or have ulterior motives etc) is an invalid reason for straight men not to want to hang out with them.
I never said that. What I said was that many straight men can't understand the friendship that can happen between straight women and gay men. And sometimes it's because they really believe the "When Harry Mert Sally" line that "men and women can't be friends." I disagree. So does my husband.
But I would say that, considering that women are expected to "hang out" quite normally with men who definitely want to hit on you and perhaps have ulterior motives (and sometimes act on those ulterior motives) perhaps men are a little more touchy on the subject than women. After all, you can always say "No", right?
I thought you said, in your post above replying to Derek, that:
"You know where you are with them. They will never ply you with drink and try to have their way with you:"
Right, well the same can be said for straight men preferring to be with other straight men and not with gay men. Gay men may have ulterior motives, and they may also try to roofie you (you may think it doesn't happen, but it does). It doesn't mean that no straight men are interested in having gay friends, but it does mean that some are uncomfortable with it for the same reasons you gave above for reasons why straight women sometimes prefer the social company of gay men -- because they're not interested in you.
Of course, you can always say, no, and straight women can do the same with straight men who hit on them (and have no problem doing so, generally), but, again, avoiding the need to have to do so, or worry about having to do so, was the reason you cited at the very beginning of your first post about this.
I don't think that's an invalid reason, by the way -- it makes sense to me. But it also makes sense for straight men. We can fend off as well, but mostly we'd prefer not to, as women generally do as well.
Um, ha -- knew that was coming. And why did He "hang out" with sinners? Was it maybe to prompt repentance? And do you think that the fact that He was the most holy man to ever walk the earth had something to do with it? After all, St Paul did tell us that bad company corrupts good morals, but Jesus didn't have to worry about that, and I don't imagine that the great saints did either.
Some sins are worse than others in terms of potentially corrupting character. Plus it's wrong in those cases to appear as if you condone the sin or are willing to give it a pass. When Paul says that bad company corrupts good morals, he means it.
a) Don't know what state you reside in but in this day and age it is quite peculiar to say that you would not hang out w/ an openly gay person. Not that the "spirit of the age" should be your guide, it should not. But on a prior age you'd be hanging around w/secretly gay people. And if you are a Christian, you are not here to condemn them. If you have something to offer them out if genuine friendship do that. They may equally well have something to offer you. If being gay is a sin, is it worse than your sins? Pride is a nasty sin, some people are free of obvious overt sins but full of pride and condemnation for others.
b) If you know any people at all you are hanging around w/sinners. Some sins are more grievous than others to be sure. For me, gay people don't offend me just for being gay if they are friendly toward me as a person. I am glad I don't have their struggle to contend with.
And really at this point I have so few friends my main criteria is do I enjoy their company. I don't know any sinless people.
If a person were an adulterer I would be more likely to avoid their company because to me this is a more grievous sin. But I do know a woman who is technically an adulterer. Quit drinking and waited 15 years for her husband to quit, he just refused. After 15 years of trying and pleading moved on. But financial reality makes divorce impractical for her.
Florence King recounted how she and her "sapphic" friends regularly got together with some of the good old boys in town to play cards, booze and watch sports. I recall my father inviting "the girls" (a lesbian couple from next-door) over to watch football games. Assuming we aren't talking about misandrist political activists but rather about butch tomboys this may not be all that uncommon.
I actually find that I get on well with lesbians, although of course not the man-hating ones.
It's something to do with that down-to-earth quality, and being willing to have a laugh, drink beer, not care about looks. I find hyper-feminine women a bit irritating generally.
The Swift analysis from your reader is interesting. It just seems a shame that everything in culture has to be political. It would be impressive if we did not know Swift's politics, if she offered something to all sides, if she bought people together with stories of longing, love, betrayal, and hope - that's probably asking too much!
I sometimes scroll the news site Revolver. Among the dross, they often link worthwhile pieces. But a few weeks back I saw this in the lineup of headlines:
Help Aaron Renn Bury Rod Dreher
“Huh?!” I thought. “Is Renn fighting Dreher?” I clicked the link. It just went to the Amazon page for Renn’s new book.
Soooo. I’m guessing the bad blood from the Revolver folks is mostly Rod’s scepticism of Trump and his rejection of what some young rightists now call “race realism”.
As for the Evangelicals who still can’t see Negative World, I put it down mostly to their rather weak interpretive grasp of stuff right in front of their eyes. If this new century has taught us anything, it should be this: people are AMAZINGLY good at living in mental constructs and simply brushing off all that shows the construct to be false. This uncanny knack is seen in both our “progressive” left hordes and in many patriotic Evangelicals.
The “head for the hills” shorthand for the BenOp will never die, will it? Facepalm.
Evangelicals have always had a bit of an inferiority complex. About 25 years ago or so, when I was still an evangelical, a major newspaper came out with a piece claiming the evangelicals were unsophisticated and poorly educated, etc. Suddenly, you had evangelicals with PH.D's coming out of the woodwork outraged. "We are smart, too! You are mistaking us for those ignorant fundamentalists." It was a bit of a crisis for them because they had been working so hard to be able to be good Bible believing Christians and have worldly acceptability as well. When I was at Wheaton College over 30 years ago, we loved to bash the "fundies" because they made us look bad to the world. In the college faculty, if a Bible/Theology professor had Ivy league credentials, the administration would slobber over him and give him all kinds of accolades and praise while the profs who came from small and more solidly faithful Christian universities were ignored. The Benedict Option and Aaron Renn are telling them their desire for worldly respect is a fool's errand and they don't want to hear it. Now that is not the only reason, but it is one of things I have observed.
Renn reminds me of Jung. Jung didn't have much new insight, I think. He just noticed things which had always been there, named them, and wrote about them. And for that, he's rightly celebrated. ( No, I'm not a Jungian, I'm a Christian, but I can't ignore the validity of Jung's primary ideas. )
When I first read about Renn, I tried for a brief time ( less than a minute ) to quarrel with his timeline, and realized I couldn't. The reason he's under attack is because as Rod quoted someone recently, so many "Evangelicals" really worship America.
Terrific article. I think most including church folk are ignorant of history and don’t read important things or don’t read at all. Thus, folks miss a lot of things that are re-runs of what has occurred in past. Folks who think things will just change for better because ignorant will have St. Paul moment live in a dream world. The signs are so obvious and the future dangers so easy to see I am not sure why some Christians are so blind to this reality.
Interesting take on swift. I don’t follow pop culture. My contempt is for those who should know better - not swift, kelce. I wish them the best. But so many blind conservatives & others claiming swift, kelce archetype of traditional white picket fence and even before engagement. Like I noted yesterday her dating suggests a promiscuous life style. I can’t prove but when you write about boyfriend relationships it usually does not mean just movie, dinner. Nice lady and sweet appearance but couple is not archetype of traditionalism. Yesterday saw video of kelce using F word like the. Lack virtue. If you observe way he speaks about relationship, hard to imagine it will end up in matrimony. Just my guess. Again I wish them well.
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got to the highest level of each's profession because each was narrow-minded. Each had one goal. That sort of leaves out anything else. I would imagine that Taylor Swift and Kelce are rather boring people to be around, much less interesting than anyone who posts on this site.
Someone made the DiMaggio /Monroe comparison, but dang, Marilyn Monroe was a brilliant woman, a reader. She got bored with DiMaggio, who was not those things.
DiMaggio was a great player who was a big bore. But he was a loyal brother. When San Francisco had that big earthquake circa 1989, he flew out to take care of his sisters. By the way, Ted Williams was an interesting man. Great hitter, great fisherman.
Har har. He could always have used "Robert Morrison." That would have been an acceptable name. But if he had, would Robert Morrison have been Robert Morrison?
Bingo. I Quit Reading the Gospel Coalition website about 5 years ago because I had had it with the nonsense "one up-ing". They are as bad as college professors, busting their rear ends to come up with some new thought, or turn of phrase to maintain legitimacy. I think they should all just take a vow of silence for a year. I spend nearly every Sunday wanting to lock the doors in the sanctuary and absolutely "Thunder-doming" it with my tribe. Theatric passionate prayers, overly sentimental singing of songs that say absolutely nothing...just as you say; its the "feel-goodism" that is discrediting the faith.
There is also intuition, the third faculty. In common parlance it’s often called “feeling” and thus confused with emotion.
And IMO faith should be more intuition-based rather than logic or emotion based.
Agreed. The old distinction was between the psyche and the pneuma, with the psyche being emotional and the pneuma being intutiive. I also sometimes refer to them as the water and the light, respectively, sort of alluding to Jesus' midnight talk with Nicodemus: being born again of water and spirit.
Feminization, it affects everything now.
Aren’t they Calvinist or something? Their stuff always gave me a sort of creeped-out feeling.
CT was begun by mainstream Evangelicals back in the 1950s, and was intentionally inclusive of mainstream, conservative Protestants in that day. At the time of its founding, there was no other publication that spoke for or to them, and good Protestant thinkers were also associated with the magazine. It was a more sober journalistic endeavor than what was available for people who weren't Catholic, or members of the Protestant Mainline.
Dana
I'm not entirely clear of the distinction between Evangelical and conservative Protestant. I tend to use the terms more or less interchangeably, except that I'd tend to exclude Calvinists from the Evangelical category.
Is it that "Evangelical" implies being more emotional/hysterical, and also actively proselytising in the sense of standing on street corners?
Yes, I think it is difficult with -isms. People, including me, could do with defining terms better.
"literal interpreters of the Bible": I'd use "Fundamentalist", for them, seeing them, if Protestant, as a subgroup of Evangelical.
Wow. Your reader analyses Swift brilliantly -- writes brilliantly too!
Agreed. I am basically ignorant of Ms. Swift, but after reading the lyrics of both songs referenced in his comment, he may be spot-on. Remember, Ms. Swift is flesh and bones--and critically--an immortal soul like the rest of us. It should not surprise us that she is capable of being as lost as much of our society. Given her momentary cultural power, believers could do worse than to keep her in our prayers.
The line about the voice not mattering because the heart is there—that made me think of Bob Dylan.
I’m a weirdo. Bob’s voice is what reaches into my soul.
Ah, agreed. It’s not a technically good singing voice by any stretch of the imagination, but it carries the soul, which is what a voice is supposed to do.
If history is any guide, (1) the Swift-Kelce coupling will end without matrimony, (2) her pop stardom will eventually fade, and -- absent another flavor-of-the-month beau from the NFL -- (3) the Swift-NFL political meme will be more dust on the history books, to be replaced in currency by something else inane, only probably more so.
Agree the comment is very astute, but, "...her pop stardom will eventually fade..."
Likely, but whether it does or not the last pop phenom to churn out that many hits and which began to leak its mojo lost one of its two creatives to murder--and he was easily the most political of the four. Of course I don't want this to happen, and I'm not saying it will, but TayTay has been setting herself up as Mighty Prophetess, Seeress Blest of the teenyboppers for 15 years now. There was a time during her 2014 tour when she made a speech to the girls about how it's ok to screw up, and you're never damaged goods, etc., etc. Now that she's pivoting to sexual politics and politics period, she's setting herself up. It comes down to she's playing with fire.
Is Tom Hiddleston "effeminate"?
I think the setup there is that most men are "effeminate" if Kelce is the baseline standard of "masculine". It's just a poor comparison. One could just as easily say she stopped dating creative types and went for a jock type, and basically make the same point.
I didn't get that. I get the pop guy who wore a skirt, but Tom Hiddleston is just an actor.
Somebody in these boxes yesterday said that Kelce was the first guy she "dated" (again, that always raises a smile) who changed his own oil (I assume that means on his car). Oh. OK. Your agent is a conscientious objector to the NFL. Kelce is going to be lucky if he makes it to 55 without having to wear a diaper.
I couldn't name or hum a single Swift tune -- I'm currently on a Nancy Sinatra kick -- but I have the feeling that her public romance with Kelce will eventually go the way of Monroe/DiMaggio, i.e., not well.
Nancy had a nice voice. You know the duet she sang with her father, Something Stupid?
I might add that Nancy Sinatra's Bond song, "You Only Live Twice" was hauntingly beautiful, the best of the Bond songs that I've heard.
If you heard "Shake it off" you would recognise it.
"These Boots Are Made For Walking" was a big hit, written by Lee Hazelwood. The cowboy psychedelia songs she did with Lee Hazlewood were interesting. "Some Velvet Morning" was very good.
"Cowboy Psychedelia" = Peak Nancy
According to DiMaggio, he and Marilyn Monroe were on the verge of re-marrying when she died.
Sorry, but I would take Ella Fitzgerald over any of these whiny, annoying, female pop singers, but I'm an old fuddy duddy. Ella and Frank were the best.
As I noted in yesterday's thread, it's interesting that she should be so all-in on her gay and trans fan base - yet herself be so "based," as a blonde, white, conventionally attractive cis heterosexual woman who is dating a football player. If symbols matter, this one effectively undermines any yapping she does about gay rights - yes! Go be gay and be yourself! But I'll be over here in a traditional girl-boy relationship with an athlete, the epitome of the manliness we all agree must go away!
It actually makes perfect sense to me. There's a writer somewhere (I forget who) who wrote about the idea of "luxury beliefs." Rich, upper class to upper middle class white people will talk all day about being pro trans and how polyamory is great. But what do they do? Settle into a normal male/female monogamous relationship and have a couple of kids. I have an ex who's entire friend group was like this. Some of the wives were even stay at home moms. Not a single one of them was a conservative by any stretch.
You'd think it's almost an intentional strategy to maintain their class privilege: do what works for yourself, but then propagandize everyone else to embrace self-destruction and call it liberty. I don't think they're doing it on purpose, though, at least not most of them.
That was part of the argument about why they were luxury beliefs. Someone well off could play around with these ideas and not completely self destruct (materially anyway). But when the ideas trickle down to poorer people, the results on their lives become disastrous.
Right? I’ve noticed that. Almost an inversion of “conventional” hypocrisy.
Steve, it's Rob Henderson, whose book is coming out this week, I believe.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-status-symbol-for-rich-americans/
Not only do upper class people hold the beliefs but often do something different than what they espouse, but holding those beliefs very often make life more difficult for lower class people. Henderson explains. I think Mary Harrington has written on that, too, but not sure where.
Dana
Ross Douthet wrote about it a few years ago by he may not have been the first.
When was the last time you heard a significant celebrity dissent from the Zeitgrist on LGBQ? ( That "r" is a typo, but I'm not correcting it because I think it may be an unintentional neologism. )
Add the "T" to the formula, and if you dissent from what to a mind still capable of occasional sanity must see as lunatic, you're courageous, indeed. That's the one part of The Sexual Revulsion ( intentional, that one, and it ain't half bad ) which remains a matter of controversy, but The Devil has caught a great wave on it, and if you dissent, you're likely to be swept under.
I'm still wondering if the alliance between LGB and T is ever gonna just blow up, seeing as their claims are fundamentally not compatible with each other. (Is there such a thing as a sexed body or not?—they can't tell ya.)
I think the LGB need the T so they can point them out as if to say, "Wow, that's really weird".
So far only TERFs. Andrew Sullivan still wants to take "trans kids" under the shelter of his bright wings.
Andrew Sullivan writes intelligently and personally (as always) about this tension. He laments the little boy who is same sex attracted today. In the past the boy would have thought (and been told) "Maybe I'm gay." Today they think "Maybe I'm really a girl in a boy's body." Horrifying. And an existential threat to "traditional", as Andrew defines it, gayness.
And how solid has the LGB alliance ever really been? Solid enough, I guess. But the now dead writer, Florence King, who described herself as bisexual, wrote that the nasty little secret about gay men and gay women was that each group hated the other.
I just don’t see how there’s a T without the others, they paved the road and T is just walking it.
Viva Zeitgrist!
"When was the last time you heard a significant celebrity dissent from the Zeitgrist on LGBQ?"
Never. Because they're cowards. There is nothing cheaper than ass-creeping.
They're not cowards. Like a majority (yes) of Americans they are tolerant and even accepting of gay people-- in many cases because they know such people personally and know they are not freaks of nature or malicious cretins. By all means bash the acronymic activists, but the rank and file gay person is no more like those ranters than the average black person is a BLM scammer or the average woman is a girl boss feminist. I can't to speak about lesbians, but among gay men there's more than a few these days who are voting for Republicans (even for Donald Trump) insofar as those Republicans are not actively anti-gay because they share much of the disdain for the crazypants Left expressed here.
Dave Chappelle speaks loud and clear on this--and bravely. And his mocking of the "Ts" is invaluable. He leads a burgeoning movement (with Joe Rogan and friends) to do real comedy--post-woke comedy.
That IS great news. I remember Chappelle from twenty years ago, thought him brilliant, and knew that he'd largely dropped out of Showbiz. It takes ballsiness for any Showbiz figure to be anti - T, and here's hoping he isn't gelded for it.
"Is Tom Hiddleston "effeminate"?
Yes.
Yes. He’s also a stone fox. I can’t explain it : he seems kinda sissy, but yet he has “It” to spare. Go figure ...
Who is Tom Hiddleston?
Who is Tom Doniphon?
Print the legend.
How about Tom Bombadil?
Tom Bombadil — dead sexy!
English actor. Been in several well publicised films.
He was Loki in the Thor movies.
Oh, that guy. Well, Loki is surely effeminate, but I think that's part of the character (as a foil to Thor).
I saw Loki (in the Avengers movies) as being more the uncool kid, a nerd seeking revenge or at least recognition from the Asgard A-listers.
If Publius is correct, any fire she is playing with will bring woe not to her but to her attacker. ;)
I don’t think he’s effeminate, patrician perhaps...who are you referencing about murder?
John Lennon.
Kelce is 35 and is near the end of a brilliant career. He is a lock for the Hall of Fame. But football stars rarely coach well so, unless he makes it as an announcer, Kelce's glory will be short lived.
And then the CTE will start. She should enjoy the moment with him and move on...
CTE??
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Many football players suffer from it.
https://medicine.iu.edu/expertise/traumatic-brain-injury/what-is-chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy#:~:text=Chronic%20Traumatic%20Encephalopathy%2C%20or%20CTE,concussions%20and%20repetitive%20head%20impacts.
Oh wow 😯
Never heard of him until a month ago.
Ten days for me.
DITKA
A few stars do make it as pro football head coaches. Bart Starr. Forrest Gregg. Raymond Berry. Otto Graham. Ron Rivera. But not many.
I am generally of the opinion that we would all be better off if pop-stardom were not a thing at all, and certainly better off if there were no such artist as Taylor Swift. As to the weird speculative theories out there concerning her, the one I personally indulge in believing is that she is, in fact, a witch.
If she turns someone into a newt, even if they get better, that's it -- not gonna buy any of her records.
I don’t know about that, but she does appear to weigh more or less the same as a duck.
This thread wins the internet!
Does anyone even buy records any more? Apart from a couple classical compilations I haven't bought a CD in years-- mostly I just add individuals song to my playlists.
Buying vinyl is a thing in my generation among some people, either because they're hipster types into vintage stuff or because they're genuine audiophiles (or both). I have friends with record players.
I've gotten really into buying up old vinyl records of late. My tastes tend towards older country, traditional folk, and classical, and I just appreciate the warmth of the sound more coming off of a record, even though it's obviously not as clean as digital.
Even on vinyl of mediocre quality, the sound is much more "live" and in the room with you than all but the very best digital recordings, I think. And when the engineering of the vinyl is good - wow, even more so. Beats digital hands down. Beatles and other artists with analog masters still remaining have had their albums reissued as vinyl for the last 10 years or so, and people are buying. Used vinyl market has expanded, too.
Dana
Yep. Just completed my library of Pink Floyd studio albums. I never do digital. Physical media all the way..
I feel that way about books, but I compromised on the music.
All media for me, books, music, movies, etc.
I have my fathers opera records and love to hear them on my player...
Hm, as long as they got better, I think I'd be willing to let it go.
I think that she's a type of Rorschach test: I just see a woman who writes well-crafted songs, a lot of it not in my style but some of it quite good, especially when she collaborates with indie musicians. Um, yeah, that's about it for me. People probably see in her what they're predisposed to see.
She fit the bill for average girls to idolize. Early on, she was billed as wholesome Christian (which somewhat fits the"positive world" timeline suggested in Rod's entry today and mimics Brittany Spears....etc). Those days are over for her (image wise). She's talented. She's good looking but not off the charts. She seemingly wears underwear and doesn't look enhanced (remember 10 years or so ago, when every pop star was "accidentally" flashing their junk?.....not TS). By today's standards she's downright modest.
Also she's a girl boss, who's ex partners remain silent in the face of her song lyrics because they risk cancelation for retaliation......Check mate boys! She's perceived as a winner.
I want to like TS. I wish she stayed away from politics but that just doesn't seem to happen anymore.......girls must fight the power!
Just took a look. Yes, its ridiculous. I couldn't get through 30 seconds of it. All the 10 year old Christian and country music-loving girls, who got onboard with Taylor 15 years ago are now 30. My guess is that most of them stand with Taylor.
Like I was saying yeterday, I was very surprised to find out that the likes of Bon Iver and The National were collaborating on songs with her. I like those guys, so I gave said songs a listen, and I found them pretty good. And insofar as her own stuff is in that sort of indie rock wheelhouse, I also find that good. Her celebrity is totally irrelevant to me; I don't pay attention to that sort of thing.
I tend to look at these things mostly from the "Dad" perspective. My main wish is that she stays somewhat classy. She has good songs, for sure.
It seems to me that she's a romantic with an actual soul, so that may be keeping her at least somewhat safe. She appears to be a real musician before she is a media phenomenon, and she probably does want to get married and live happily ever after.
Oh yeah, she totally sold her soul. I bet Marina Abramovich showed her how.
This Kelce thing is weird too, when seen through a witchy light--dating "Mr. Pfizer" the big NFL star st the height of her long and successful career. It's all a little too on-the-WEF-nose to me.
I know it sounds crazy but well, there you have it.
Even since the later 19th century (see: Lily Langtree; Sarah Bernhardt) popular entertainers have been a thing.
Ever since the gladiators and charioteers of the Roman Empire popular entertainers have been a thing. Arguments and throw-downs between their fans sometimes escalated into riots.
Dana
Well people have to worship something don’t they?
She's up there with Beyonce as far as star power goes. One thing both Swift and Beyonce have in common is they both have carefully created public images of being 'wholesome'. Wholesome, certainly by today's standards particularly in music. Certainly, if I had a girl, I'd much, much rather her listen to Swift (I have to say I'm not familiar enough with Beyonce's work to comment on the work itself - I do know it's influential) than some of the other stuff that is out there!
On your other 2 points, I agree.
Bill and I annotate classic mystery novels and a regular topic in our household is who will last.
When you get down to it, VERY FEW writers, artists, musicians, etc., last much past their death.
Those who do, capture lightning in a bottle.
Those who don't (read over the list of Nobel Prize literature winners going back to the beginning for starters) vanish into time.
A great example: when Agatha Christie wrote "Partners in Crime", a cycle of loosely-tied together Tommy & Tuppence short stories, she parodied a whole series of immensely popular mystery writers of the early '20s. Other than herself, Conan Doyle, and possibly G.K. Chesterton, all those authors have disappeared from the public consciousness.
They vanished into time. They are unread. They are gone.
Taylor Swift will most likely disappear too, other than for scholars and as yard sale fodder.
This. The arc of the pop-culture universe is long, but it bends toward obscurity.
Christians who merely prayed and sang in an abortion clinic were sentenced this week to over a decade in prison here in the US. Meanwhile, countless other protesters who commit all sorts of violence never even get arrested. Is this not an indicator that Christians and Christianity is scorned nowadays? I pray the reality of this horrid incident penetrates the pervasive denial amongst churches in the US and wakes American Christians up.
Don't forget being arrested for praying silently by yourself in a no praying zone (UK)
Would you provide a link, please?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-life-protesters-convicted-violating-federal-law-blocking-abortion-clinic-door
AnAnglican'sAngle said they were "sentenced". They were not. 10 1/2 is the max. They won't be sentenced until July. It's so important to get this stuff right. The other side gets away with it, we shouldn't be in the sty with them (have you seen the numbers about pregnancies resulting from rape?).
OK, cool - then the link provides the correct information.
But if I didn't call him on it it would have been out there and people might have repeated it.
I did not object to you "calling him on it". I provided additional information.
Renn's book came in the mail yesterday, and I eagerly began reading it with what little time I had. I'm only on p. 15, but I am disappointed so far. For one thing, I think he takes the election of Trump as a negative world phenomenon for the wrong reason, at least the wrong main reason. He focuses on Trump's crudeness when he should have focused on Christians voting for him in self-defense. It's because we are in a negative world that Christians overlooked Trump's sins to vote for someone willing to fight to defend them.
Also, couldn't he find a better man to quote favorably than Russell Moore?
But no book is perfect other than the Good Book, and I retain an open mind and intend to get Life in the Negative World read in the next few days.
Mark, as a reader of Renns Substack, I think you’re mistaking why he used Moore. There’s a subversive element to using Moore.
By using Moore makes it harder for the Moore-French types to criticise him. He’s literally using one of them to make his case.
I got to read the draft about two months ago.
Let me just say, stick with it.
The second part of the book is where he’s at his best.
That's a fair point. And I will definitely keep reading. :)
Mark, it saddens me that so many people do not grasp the Trump appeal and so easily dismiss it.
They do not make a genuine effort to understand it and are content to condemn it, and by extension, his followers.
Yes, Howard. I acknowledge his manifold shortcomings but I do not feel I want to throw away my vote on a third-party candidate. It would be nice this time to feel I was sending a message of sorts if I did that, but the reality is that it would help the current regime. One of my favorite sayings of all time from Rush Limbaugh was, “I live in Realville.”
Agreed, but I don't think Renn condemns it. But, like I said, I need to read more.
I hear you, but please don't be quick to dismiss people like me: I will almost certainly vote for Trump, though I think he is a menace in some respects, and a mediocrity in others, simply as self-defense. Whatever damage he stands to do to the country and its people is less than what Biden is doing, and will do in the next term. I don't think one is obliged to conclude that Trump is a good man, or an effective leader, to recognize that he speaks for a lot of people that the Ruling Class prefers to dump on unjustly. I just can't bring myself to say that he's somebody he's not.
I totally agree with that opinion, Rod.
If Trump wins, a whole lot depends on who he recruits to do the actual work of the Administrative Branch. He did maybe 3 good things in 4 years, but otherwise hardly produced anything at all. What he "did" was all about who was around him (and who led in Congress), and that was a very mixed bag. I trust neither Trump nor his acolytes, well-intentioned as any of them individually might be, any more than I trust the current crew. I honestly don't think a Trump administration will shake out to be any better than Biden 2; different categories, but same overall amount of irrational destabilization and gridlock.
Dana
I'd like to see Ramaswamy for VP.
He's intelligent, but won't challenge Trump on anything. And really: "Tech will save the world!!!" No thanks.
Dana
Hm, I guess we'll see. Haven't heard anything from him about tech; it's just refreshing that he's reviving the old-school language of the American dream. Feels like a chance, although it's probably too late for us.
I hope Stephen Miller comes back, he was brilliant on immigration. Trump needs more clever people from the dissident right, but he likes celebrity and is easily fooled.
"Consider, for example, the 2012 All Too Well, which was pretty good when released, and elevated to stunning with the extended 2021 reissue. Watch the live performance here, and tell me anyone contemporary has captured lost love and the pain of rejection quite as well lately."
That this song represents "rejection" to women says a lot about the difference between men and women's experiences in the romantic sphere.
It's a great take on Swift from your reader, I think, although I would say that her own actual political inclinations are somewhat harder to discern.
What seems clearer to me is that Swift is incredibly deft at managing her image and "reading the room" culturally. She knows she has the power to move the culture, but also that the culture moves without her, too (as it did on LGBT before she "came out" politically on the issue, and rather late actually for someone of her celebrity). For Swift, publicly taking the stance she did, when she did, in light of the overwhelming shift in the culture, is likely just as much of a case of Swift reading the room and moving deftly to be in sync with it (yet appear to have always been so, as she does so apparently effortlessly, while obviously being anything but) as it is of Swift being passionate about the issues. I do not doubt that Swift is actually center- left -- that would be totally unsurprising, as it is the overwhelming affiliation of her demographic (young, single, upscale white American women). In terms of her passion for politics of any kind? Much less clear to me, other than to the extent needed to be in sync with where the culture overall is heading (or is currently) and so on.
I think in some ways the current romantic link to the NFL star (it reminds me of that Sesame Street game "one of these things is not like the other ...." in terms of the contrast with virtually her entire, lengthy, prior set of beaus) is certainly not "fake", as some have speculated, but rather is also a sign of the times, and a reflection of the idea that a young woman can go for a very stereotypically atavistically masculine man without compromising in a cultural/political sense (ie, putting up with some right wing loudmouth), while at the same time being rather understated in one's own political profile, while nonetheless maintaining one's center-left bona fides. In other words, it's a cultural moment that marginalizes the right pretty effectively and subtlely (ie, you don't have to put up with a right winger to land an atavistically attractive hypermasculine dude), without Swift having to act in a way that obviously is doing so. And that is ... vintage Taylor Swift, it seems to me.
She's slippery. I am not a fan of her or her music, but she's worth watching, I think, to "see how it's done".
Her music is nothing (as a father providing transportation in the zeros and early teens I had to listen to a lot of it). And her voice is not a voice, though compared with Katie Perry, e.g., she's Ella, Mildred Bailey, and Billie Holiday rolled up into one cuddly little ball of fun.
What she is is beautiful. And what she's really good at is marketing.
In pop stars have to have both looks and what passes for talent. Years ago this wasn't the case. Often looks were in inverse proportion to talent. Ella. Nat Cole.
I am not to old and remember when Swift came on the scene. I am not quite 5 years older than her. Yes she is pretty but I went to high school and college with people prettier than her. Her looks are not amazing but just above average. She connects with the women though and for that she has became a huge success.
The era of faces made for radio. Mel Torme. Roy Orbison.
Buddy Holly.
Have you heard of Esperanza Spalding? She started as a jazz bassist, but thank God, followed her impulse to sing. I'm not sure there are many videos of her, but last night I was watching her performance of the last great American popular song, "Girl Talk" ( 1966 ), accompanied by Fred Hersch, on YouTube. She's adorable, hilarious, as original as anyone has ever been as an American performer. She's about Swift's age. She's a jazzer, she doesn't write songs, but she does monologues, and in her monologues, some of which I think are spontaneous, she articulates the kinds of things Swift, whom I have never heard and intend to keep that way, does.
If taste were still a thing, she'd be a huge star, but speaking of taste and Ella Fitzgerald, a lot of Americans knew who she was, but was she cherished by the public as she should have been? Not that I'm aware of.
She should be a star for her name alone. Will check it out.
She's what I describe as "an eccentric singer," the way "eccentric dancers" were a big thing in vaudeville. I suppose the singer she reminds me of in that respect is Shirley Booth ( yes, that Shirley Booth ), who was in the musical of "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." They don't sound alike, they're both just so odd.
Someone else Esperanza Spalding reminds me of is Victoria Jackson, who had a nice career going for herself as sort of a performance artist/comedienne thirty - five years ago, then made the wise decision to drop out of Showbiz. Both women are/were quite silly, and to my taste, at least. She also brings Rickie Lee Jones to my mind, somehow. I do think Esperanza Spalding is likely to remain a cult figure, alas. She's a specialty type, but is that to be held against someone who entertains the Hell out of you?
I just watched the SNL video. What she captures—even physically—is the awkwardness and emotionally overcharged life of the adolescent girl. I’m not criticizing the performance negatively. I feel like I watched it, and I get it. (It’s a terrific performance.) But to me her appeal to young American women is, one part, that of the pretty and “amazing“ girl friend (of your middle or high school clique); and, one part, that her songs go right to the heart of fevered, adolescent romance. It’s a girl crush on someone who gets you.
Well, I don't know her work, but I've listened to a few of her songs in the past few days, trying to "get" her, and I do think she is incredibly adept at articulating the femininity of teenage and young adult women. Watching her pop song take on Romeo & Juliet revealed something to me about the play that I hadn't quite understood before.
Similarly, the other night I was noodling around on YouTube, as one does when one is trying to put off doing the work one should be doing, and I watched the 1980s Van Halen song "Panama". Listening to the chords, the words, and watching the leonine joy of David Lee Roth and Eddie Van Halen working together reminded me of what it felt like to be a teenage American boy. I don't think it was simply that that song was popular when I was a teenage American boy. I wasn't particularly a fan of Van Halen -- I went way more for "college radio" bands -- but there was something about that song that made a red-blooded American boy want to drive a Camaro real fast, if only for three and a half minutes.
There are a few songs that do that to me but "Born to be Wild" has to be # 1.
(2nd place goes to "Highway Star" by Deep Purple)
For me, that song is "Goodbye Baby, So Long" by the Blasters.
I hate to admit it, but "Born To Run" by the Boss (before he went insane...) always gets me going. Saw him live with Roy Orbison as the opener at Winterland (or was it the Cow Palace?) just before it closed for good. Roy played the Theme from Star Trek, of all things, as his first song...
There is something I do not "get". I have not been a teen for some time. But before "my day" and during it, and for quite a while afterwards, a teen idol was male. He was cute, sensitive, charming and generally a singer or perhaps an actor. From Frank Sinatra up through Davy Jones and on beyond.
Is a female really the top thing young teenage girls go for these days? I'm not saying these girls are gay, but....isn't there a cute young man like there has been for generations? I admit, I'm out of touch.
Btw, I think - my opinion - the three Swift songs I've heard are no good. They seem whiney and unsophisticated - OK, so is a lot of pop. But they pretend to be about romance while having nothing in the way of a tune that can touch the heart. The tunes are also just bad, not appropriate to their subject. I liked the Swift-related video Rod linked, however, as an example of young female dreams.
Connie Stevens, The Shangri-Las, Lesley Gore, Connie Francis, Diana Ross and the Supremes (and just Diana Ross, later), Aretha Franklin, Brenda Lee, Dionne Warwick, Martha and the Vandellas, Barbara Streisand, Etta James, Mary Wells, Patsy Cline, Patti LaBelle, Eartha Kitt, Peggy March, Ronnie Specter: there were a lot of great female singers in the 1960s, and I haven't even gone into the rock and roll legends of Janis Joplin and her like.
Very much with you, Eve. But...I am out of touch and the near-worship of the Swifties seems different from what I had for Diana Ross, etc. It seems more similar to what I had for Davy Jones (though agian, not saying girls feel romantic or sexual about Taylor Swift). Are there males who command the attention of young teens these days, are there still teen idols?
Seems to me that the big female "idol" began largely with Madonna, then carried over to the Spice Girls, Britney Spears, etc., and has now moved to Swift.
I am young enough that I enjoyed dressing the way Madonna did. It was just quite different from what I had for Davy Jones. Maybe it is a "girl thing". I had no romantic feelings about Madonna. My question - we can assume most girls don't feel romantic about Taylor Swift. What male teen idol do they feel romantic for, if any?
Maybe those K-pop bands?
Maybe Madonna changed the focus of the "idol" from someone they were attracted to, to someone they wanted to be.
I was going to suggest the Spice Girls. There is a girl power element which is then syndicated and mass-marketed. I think the difference between TS and the groups you've mentioned is that she writes her own songs too. I've heard people compare Taylor Swift to Joni Mitchell, but I think she doesn't even approach Joni's talent.
There haven't been a whole lot of boy bands recently (to my knowledge). Perhaps the Jonas brothers before 2 of them made high-profile disaster marriages.
Joni Mitchell - her "Blue" and "Court and Spark" albums were megahits, and I know I was one of those who listened obsessively.
Aretha Franklin - "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" made her an idol, even with white girls.
Carole King's "Tapestry." (And all her song covers by other artists like James Taylor)
Yes, there are still teen idols, but I can't keep track of them - I'm too old.
The one who should have been the greatest of all of them but mysteriously was never close to it was Laura Nyro.
Thanks for mentioning Laura Nyro and making me think about the Brill Building Sound. She really was a great singer and song writer.
I feel like I am not communicating somthing to most here though you come cloasest. - - What a young girl feels about a singer or an actor is a romantic crush. Later she will feel that for a real guy. At age 11, 12, 13 a guy just her age would not work, and many are somehow "safe" - not close enough or attracted enough to older teens to have those be their crushes just yet. The do not fantasize about women, if they are hetersexual.
My biggest fandom as a female was Emma Peel of the Avengers. I cried when she left the show. But I did not have romantic fantasies about Emma Peel. I had them about Davy Jones. - - I also do not know who might be the latest. I think it was Justin Bieber (I am not sure) just about 7 years ago or so.
Upon googling, I can see the term "teen idol" has changed meanings - probably after the show American Idol came out. It can now be either gender - I should have known. But the old-style use of the word - a popular singer or actor young girls get a crush on - Does that even happen and if not, why not?
And whatever they have for Taylor Swift, no way is it what they had for The Monkees, etc (and it was always for one favorite Monkee rather than for all at once). They may have an equal amount of "enthusiasm" but it is not romantic. I also wonder how they behave at a Swift concert - do that scream and swoon at her? I kind of doubt it. Is it dead - the male teen idol thing that began around the time of a very young Frank Sinatra, or maybe with Rudolph Valentino (though I think all ages swooned for him)? If so, why? Young girls still have the same feelings. I'm not getting it.
Oh, I felt absolutely the same about Emma Peel, and so did every other girl my age - but of course we weren't in love with her. We wanted to BE her, smart and strong and sexy and beautiful and able to take care of herself and every once in a while rescue Steed! Huzzah!
Can I add Loreta Lynn, Connie Smith and Tammy Wynette to your expansive list?
Absolutely. I never liked Tammy Wynette myself, but Loretta Lynn was one of the supergreats.
When I grew up in the 70s, the teen girls really liked the boy singers. David Cassidy. Donny Osmond. Sean Cassidy. A few others.
Bobby Sherman. Davy Jones.
Knowing some “Swifties”, they feel a part of a movement that Davy Jones could never even dream of. Also, I don’t think the movement is political.
Completely agree that coming out so late on LGBT issues didn't move the culture, she moved with it. I don't see her as trying to manipulate public opinion on cultural issues, but rather, she responds to them.
To support LGBT issues in the 70s and 80s? Transgressive, and against where popular cultural was, by and large. Now, or at any time in the last 15-20 years? Mainstream and well, boring. There's nothing particularly trangressive or shocking or courageous with Swift.
Now, to push back, like JK Rowling? That takes courage (though she's insufferable in many other ways).
Doing a JK Rowling would be career suicide for a pop star.
Nobody dares offend BigTrans.
Pop stars are not known for their courage, are they? That's why figures like Rowling are so astonishing when they actually exist.
Of course, being completely financially independent makes the consequences of being "canceled" less onerous than for us plebs. Even then, though, pop stars crave adoration more than any pagan God, and to lose that would be worse than death for most.
Rowlings is rich as a god and she has a dedicated fandom who won't drop her.
I listened to the "witch trials of JK Rowling" over at the Free Press and was struck by how many fans she did lose. It seems, and I had no idea before listening, that many in the gay/queer movement saw the struggles of Harry in the magical world (read queer/gay world) amidst a bunch of muggles (read straight people) as written for them. So they felt terribly betrayed by Rowlings pro-woman ideas. Rowling is definitely brave.
Rowling did not attack gay people in general in any way-- in fact she even (somewhat irrelevantly) told us that Dumbledore was gay. Of course too many people do not bother to dig into teapot media tempests and just believe whatever scuttlebutt they happen to hear is the Gospel truth.
" Magical" people, or for that matter "mutants" like the X-Men, have been a stand-in for gays for a long time.
That’s a fantastic deep dive into Rowling and the controversy.
Right. It’s not transgressive at all. And that’s the point, I think. Namely that being an upscale attractive young woman, being center-left, lockstep supporter of LGBT+ rights, while being conventionally heterosexual in an almost stereotypical way (beauty with football star) is all of a piece. It is a seamless, utterly conventional, cloth for today’s young women, and no aspect of it is at all transgressive — to the contrary, it’s all utterly conventional.
She seems like pretty much any of these women around here in the city of Austin, except that she writes massively popular songs. I'm just a year older than her, and she strikes me as normal, as in she's exactly what you would expect for the demographic bracket.
What a jumble of words Archbishop Zuppi says in such an obscure way. So he's odds-on favorite to be the next pope. New pope, same as the last pope. Didn't The Who write perform a song about this?
Popish gobbledygook in training. Spiritual castrati don’t have the balls to say anything straight.
Generally I don't like religious writers of any persuasions. Most write in meandering, indirect ways. I even find my own side on religious writing to be rather dull.
It’s a saturated genre and about as meaningful to me as someone describing their dinner. The meaning is in the doing.
I'm finding Benedict XVI's books very valuable in my faith journey. But he writes clearly and honestly.
Yeah, but I'm afraid that 'we' will be fooled again.
I mused as I read- it seems to me everything Christians are shunned for - as Christians, not just as conservatives - is related to sex. Beliefs on abortion, transexuals, sex only inside marriage, etc. The other beliefs Christians wind up being shunned for are the political beliefs not related to sex that a majority of Christians conclude indirectly from application of Christian principles, but about which it is possible for Scripture-honoring Christians to disagree.
For instance, a progressive might deny marriage, saying "sleep with whomever". A person saying that and saying they are Christian would be plainly going against Scripture and Christian teaching. However, it would be possible for a badly mistaken Christian, who wishes to be compassionate and can't understand that some acts that are "compassionate" toward individuals for a brief time are terrible over all and for all, to support open borders. The Bible does not discuss countries.
Maybe I am missing some beliefs directly in Scripture for which Christians are persecuted that are not about sex? Again - many conservative beliefs are based on ****applications of Christian Scripture and principles, **** but Scripture does not say for sure one way or another what a Christians should do, how Christians should apply the principles. The incontrovertible Christian beliefs (directly in Scripture) for which Christians suffer are all related to sex - or am I wrong?
People have been trying to offer practical guidance on the application of Christian doctrine to daily life and judgment at least since St. Augustine and the topic of suicide on the night of 24 August 410. And along come ++Zuppi, and Father Martin, and the rest of the ghastly crew saying who are you to judge?
The other day we were kidding around on X and I told Caitlyn Flanagan apropos of this new thing the Times is so keen on that polyamory was Greek for "fooling around". I think the problem is these people are trying to institutionalize what has been human behavior from forever. That's one way of putting it.
I don't think they are primarily about sex.
I think the life issues are more important. I think abortion is reslly a life issue rather than a sex issue. People who oppose abortion tend to be Christian, but it doesn't necessarily follow, and I've met an intense gay activist who was very pro-life. Euthanasia is not a sex issue.
Even in sex issues, the secular hostility is not primarily to Christian morality per se - no one minds if you decide to save yourself for marriage - but to anything that acts as a brake on the most monstrous forms of exploitation, with pornography, intensely sexualised mass entertainment, and transgenderism being added to the age-old horror of prostitution.
"...no one minds if you decide to save yourself for marriage..."
Except the girl you're crazy about who thinks you're a circus freak if she can't take you out for a test drive. Come on.
A man refusing sex before marriage with a girl he's crazy about would be pretty rare.
No, it doesn't happen a lot. But "no one minds" is a knee slapper.
True.
People definitely mind.
I read last week that virginity isn't actually a thing. It's just a 'harmful social construct'.
https://twitter.com/PPFA/status/1674462837425446912
I did it with my wife thankfully. Not that the desire was there but I think the 3 hour gap between us helped us a lot.
Yeah, but no one's going to arrest you or beat you up for it like they might over abortion and transgenderism.
Where Christian values are radically at odds with the culture is where they affirm the value of the powerless, defend the weak, oppose an instrumental view of life, and seek to at least knock the rougher edges off capitalist exploitation.
I agree it's about more than sex.
But I also think that if you object to schools teaching kids that sex is a leisure activity and porn is good and they can choose their gender etc, I think you might get aggressive pushback.
On the other hand, one of the main reasons there is a basic class in body parts in kindergarten and the early grades is to teach children where the naughty bits are, and how no one has the right to touch them there or do other things to them. Stranger danger. As opposed to when I was a child and it just wasn't talked about. A lot of child molestation has been stopped with those classes.
I agree those lessons are a great idea.
Well, we had the usual "Don't take candy from strangers", but for sure no one was talking to us about sexual molestation.
My point was that progressivism "believes" is it doing the things you listed (affirm the powerless,etc.) whether or not it is. It would not persecute Christians for affirming the (born) powerless. (And just falsely says the unborn aren't people.) It would persecute Christians for affirming traditional beliefs about sex. It does not pretend to much sexual morality (exceptions: rape & child porn) whereas it does pretend to morality about the downtrodden.
And actually, progressives don't always think rapist should be punished. There is a new episode of "Law and Order" in which a lesbian is raped by a black teen. She won't press charges, explaining that she is privileged and can afford counseling but if the teen goes to jail he will likely never get over it. The show affirms her point (it is written to show her virtue, not written to show her view as anything but good.)
Appalling. In the real world the teen would likely become a serial rapist, doing untold harm and violence because one individual wanted to check her privilege.
"My point was that progressivism "believes" is it doing the things you listed (affirm the powerless,etc.) whether or not it is. ...... It does not pretend to much sexual morality (exceptions: rape & child porn) whereas it does pretend to morality about the downtrodden."
Do you think mainstream progressivism really still does pretend that? It did when I was young, 40 years ago, when it was mainly about economics, so to be progressive meant to be Marxist or socialist. There was a lot of exploitation going on under the cover of opposing exploitation back then, to be sure, but at least that was the pose. However, the cutting edge of progressivism seems to have lost interest in economics and the vulnerable, and is all about pushing the Noah Yuval Harari dream of humans being converted into agglomerations of body parts, all of which are for sale.
Rombald, it was precisely for those non-sexual-behavior values (which ultimately underlie the sexual-behavior ones) that Christians have been persecuted over the years, when Christians have actually been even somewhat intentionally united about expressing them and actually living them.
Dana
Definitely.
I don't actually think the sex-related and non-sex-related issues are as clearly separable as I have presented them. I think belief in chastity is fundamentally about respecting humans as potentially heaven-bound beings rather than sex gadgets. I think something other than sex underlies Christian concern about sex. However, for talking to a non-Christian culture it's easier to show the objection to abortion than the objection to fornication or homosexuality, and I think it is important for Christians to explain why their values actually fulfill values that secular progressivists claim to affirm, such as respect for life and opposition to exploitation.
I agree that the horror of abortion is because it takes a human life, but that those who support it do so because of the sexual revolution. To many pro-choicers I've encountered, it's inconceivable (heh) that someone must bear responsibility for creating a new human life when they have sex. They'll even explicitly state "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy"--and Mother Nature just laughs at such arrogance, like saying jumping off a cliff isn't consent to splat at the bottom.
Exactly. I've on occasion made that point, or tried to make it, to pro-choicers, and been met with absolute blank incomprehension. There's an assumption that we have some kind of cosmic right to have sex without pregnancy. From that follows the line that to stop someone from having an abortion is "forced pregnancy."
Rape, incest, life of the mother. None of those conditions are consented to.
But that's not their argument. The slogan "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy". That states that the sex is consented to.
And even if you have those exceptions, the majority of the vocal pro-choice crowd thinks thar isn't enough--abortion on demand, forever, because of "bodily autonomy".
Well, that's my argument, not theirs.
Do you believe everything the vocal "pro-life" crowd thinks? Like rapists should have parental rights? Or that there should be no exceptions, as Bill Krueger, 79, head of Door County’s Right to Life chapter in Wisconsin, thinks that in an ideal world, there would be no exceptions to an abortion ban. If a woman dies? “That’s God’s plan,” he said.
I mean, I don't have to defend what vocal pro-choicers think. I know what I believe. Rape, incest, and life of the mother - and have that spelled out a little more clearly, as in preeclampsia, sepsis in the womb, ectopic pregnancy, and a few other (what used to be) obvious situations.
Totally agree with your points. I had severe preeclampsia and a premature baby, and the solution can't be "a woman is a disposable vessel" or "a child is a clump of cells." There's no humanity in either of those positions. I also wonder why most pro-life politicians are silent regarding human euthanasia. I believe the casual promotion of human euthanasia as a normal part of the human life cycle is one of the greatest evils of our time.
I agree on the principal of self-defense that if the continued pregnancy would lead to the mother's death, then of course the mother has the right to life. The ideal should be the preservation of both lives, but that is not always possible in the world in which we live.
In regards to "parental rights" for rapists, well, I don't believe in ghosts, so I don't think that the executed rapist has much rights to do anything. (Of course, not many support the death penalty for rapists, so if they're not put to death, then assuming at some point they get out of incarceration, I do not believe they should have any parental rights--though in such a twisted scenario that a convicted rapist will see the light of day, their funds should be garnished for child support, but that should confer no parental rights.)
As far as rape and incest (and I don't really see incest as anything but a sub-class of rape, unless you're including adult, consensual incest--which I don't think confers a special exception for abortion), for purely pragmatic reasons I'd support an abortion law that, in addition to threats to the life of the mother, there would be a rape exception as well.
However, from a moral standpoint, any child conceived from rape should not be punished for the crimes of his or her father. Killing the child that results from a rape is still morally unacceptable...however, as I say, from a practical standpoint, a law that prohibits most abortion except for the cases of the life of the mother or rape is more likely to pass, thereby resulting in fewer child killings.
All that said, I'm pretty black-pilled about abortion law in this country. I think by and large abortion on demand will continue as a legal option for the majority of the country, as even red states like Ohio seem to defend it as a "human right". So I really don't see laws limiting abortion to a few extreme cases as gaining traction. As to the Red state laws passed by various legislatures, I don't really think they'll last long.
None of that is the majority of abortions.
I never said it was.
What I do know that not allowing any exceptions for the life of the mother or even for incest will kill women and girls. And the way the current laws are written, there are no guidelines as to "life of the mother" - in fact the Texas Supreme Court told doctors to go ahead and make their best judgment regarding it, but, if the doctor performed the abortion, then the courts would decide if the doctor made the wrong decision and prosecute them, potentially sending them to prison.
Clearly, in the context of heterosexuality, the issues of abortion and fornication are closely tied together. People who are unwilling to accept restrictions on sexual behaviour also convince themselves that abortion is acceptable.
However, the two are logically separable. I've met one or two gay activists who were pro-life. One man in particular who I used to vaguely know was very much an LGBT activist, and also heavily involved with the pro-life movement. He had got to the point at which he had basically stopped associating socially with heterosexuals, because he couldn't stand them expressing pro-choice sentiments. He was also a vegan, animal-rights activist, and had come to his pro-life position from that angle.
In East Asia Buddhism is generally pro-Life but they seem to go about it is very different ways. There are public memorials for "moon babies"-- any fetus which is not carried to term-- and that emphasizes the "life" aspect of the matter while ignoring the "sex" aspect.
I only know about Japan, and there are indeed memorials for mizuko ("water children"), which are like you describe "moon babies" (China or Korea?) However, I don't think that actually leads to action against abortion. It tends to be treated as a non-issue, even among vocal sociocultural conservatives.
I think perhaps some Latin Catholic countries are more like you say, in the sense of ignoring Catholic sexual morality, but being rigorously against abortion.
The relationship between Buddhist morality (which tends to be hyper-puritanical) and actual public morality in Asia is very complex, especially since Buddhism tends to be very political except when it comes to matters that directly affect the clerical class and its holdings. Buddhism tends to ficus on the corrupting influence of desire, not on sin and guilt or divine will. Asian sexual morality is much closer to the old time realities of polygamy and respectable prostitution (there are still geishas in Japan).
Others here have pointed out that pro-Life political activism in the US is a failure and what we need are "good works" on problem pregnancies. I tend to agree with this very much.
I have a lady I work with who is a widow and in her 50's. Maybe 50 or 51 or 52. She has started seeing a new man. She spends the night with him. I have actually talked with her about she should not be spending the night with him. Her response was a few years ago she would have agreed with me but now you got to get it when you can at her age.
"Lady?"
Yes, but it is one guy, right? I do run into the occasional older woman who sleeps around here, but I think the women would say they would prefer one faithful partner, but the only men they can find to sleep with are the sleep around kind. Any older man who wants a faithful partner already has one or - if temporarily without - usually find one right away.
Yeah it is one man. She is in love with this guy and it is very clear that she is. I do see a wedding in their future.
An STD? 🤣
There is also the exclusive claim that Christ alone is the means of salvation, including the requirement of belief that the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection are historical events. I've found that many non-believers really don't like claims of exclusive truth.
Thank you, Rod, for this thought provoking article. We are noticing quite a phenomenon here in my Greek Orthodox church. I can only attribute this to the work of the Holy Spirit. For a few months now, people with no ethnic ties whatsoever are becoming catechumens. We have never seen this before in such numbers. So far, they eventually become Orthodox. I understand this is happening across the nation. In our fallen and negative world, people are searching for everlasting truth. .
Oh, that's so great to hear. Getting similar anecdotal reports from Orthodox I know across the US. The common thread seems to be concluding that the culture is falling to pieces, and people want to take refuge in a seaworthy ark. It has something to do with why a number of Protestants of my generation, in the JP2 era, became Catholic. In my own case, I was headed for Catholicism after Chartres in 1984, no doubt, but watching what was happening in Protestantism broadly in my young years made me unable to believe that it would be resilient enough to withstand the power of our nihilistic culture. I was wrong about some of that, but seeing the Evangelical crack-up now, not most of it. In any case, Pope Francis has been a sign to a lot of people that the Catholic Church is not what converts of my generation thought it was.
That's not to say it's not the true Church! Obviously I don't believe it is, but that's not what I'm asserting here. I'm asserting that I believed, as a convert, that Rome, despite its problems, was an unshakable doctrinal bulwark. I think it was still possible to believe that throughout the beginning of the abuse scandal; I left for different reasons. But since Francis? Catholics who evangelize for their form of the faith will have to reckon with the fact that one strong argument for it in the JP2-Benedict era has been all but destroyed by Francis.
What I would say to Orthodox converts is please not to look to the institution as somehow immune from the discord of post-Christian modernity. There is corruption there, and sin too. I personally know people who have been alienated from Orthodoxy over the behavior of people in the institutional church. One difference is that Orthodox ecclesiology has built in structures that prevent someone like Bergoglio from gaining power and making the kinds of radical changes that he has done. More to the point, though: if you understand that Orthodoxy is first of all a way of life, though with an institution attached, you'll be better prepared.
Well, I almost swelled the throng, but I decided to stick it out with Rome, after much pondering and a pretty terrific if brief correspondence with Father at St. Demetrios. One thing. As to Bergoglio putting paid to the JPII-Benedict era, yes. I don't know about Benedict, because there was such hope that he would allow more TLM and more and more young priests would try it. But I don't think shutting down the JPII church is a bad thing at all. We've been through this before, but he was the Vatican II Pope par excellence. And anybody who thinks that Vatican II was good for the Church is either onboard with Bergoglio, or not paying attention--by any measure.
Two things. This can't go on--Bergoglio's tyrannical willful assertion of raw power. I kind of think I have to around for what happens next, even if it's ++Zuppi and "Yes, but." Also, the night cometh when no man can work.
If you live in the Williamsburg VA area it’s hard to find a better young priest than Fr Anthony Ferguson at St. Bede’s. Our parish had him as a seminarian.
St. Bede's is where I attend Mass. The sermons are first rate, yes. The architecture looks like a first sketch for Pandemonium in a movie of Paradise Lost. And the music is Rick Astley transposed to tenor.
I guess they were going for that plain 18th century architecture. Also I don’t like churches in the round. They have tried to dress it up a bit I think. My husband & I enjoy visiting Williamsburg because we’re history nerds & theme park freaks. Been tempted to go to Divine Liturgy at Ascension of Our Lord Byzantine Catholic Church but it’s really small & I’m afraid I wouldn’t know what to do & would stick out like a sore thumb.
Please do not be afraid. Just follow what the people do. Sit when they sit, stand when they stand, turn when they follow the great entrance. It will be unlike anything you have experienced, but remind you of the way, the Catholic Church used to be quite a bit.
When you go in, there will usually be a stand where you can give a donation and buy a candle which you put in the sand before icons. Then you simply go in and take a seat.
Expect chanting, even the gospel, and incense.
Ever been here?:
https://ascensionva.org/
Yes. I attended Ascension for nearly a year. The thing is it is a very small church with a very large choir and the liturgy is chanted from stem to stern. A friend of mine says it makes it difficult to pray. The exception are Father Alex's sermons, which seem fine, but his Ukrainian accent is so thick I got about 1/3 of it.
I hate to sound like a liturgical mystery shopper, but I'll jonesing for a low Mass in Latin.
What a comment! I agree with it all. I have some admiration for JPII but I think that in the end he was hoping that oil and water could mix if he tried hard enough.
I can tell you, Rod, that the belief in Rome as an "unshakable doctrinal bulwark" is not held by most Catholics, certainly not those born into the Faith. I've been Catholic and around Catholics my whole life; we do not trust in the Church's authority because of some rigid, rationalist claim to truth, though of course we reverence the great intellectual/teaching tradition of the Magisterium.
For us, the Church is the living repository of the Faith. The Magisterium is just one of its claims to authority, an extremely important one, but minor changes to those collected teachings, which Francis HAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED, is not, as you incessantly insist, going to bring the whole edifice crashing down. Maybe it would for hyper-intellectual converts, but we live our faith through spiritual traditions that date back millennia.
Francis—who you sneeringly refer to by his given name, something you wouldn't do for, say, an Orthodox theologian who called for the extermination of the Jews—has not made radical changes. It's simply not true! He may have tried to. Certainly some of his acolytes have. But as this recent dust-up with the same-sex blessings (which are not a sanction of gay marriage but a recommendation for pastoral care) shows, he does not have enough support to push through actual radical changes. To do so would risk schism, and he and his supporters are too outnumbered to risk it, even if they were considering it.
It seems to me, Rod, that you came to the Church expecting a purity of doctrine and practice that is simply not available to us in this vale of tears.
We baptized/chrismated four people right before Christmas and now we have eight katechumens again. There was a ninth one but he dropped out.
More than forty catechumens in my Antiochian church right now!
We've gotten so big we have to start a new church.
Antiochians are far ahead of us in this respect
So Miss Swift hates conservatives. I am not surprised. It is sad that tens of millions of young women have such empty lives that they hold Miss Swift in high esteem. There is little that conservatives can do to respond to such young women. These young women will vote Democrat, engage in all sorts of non-marital sex acts, and be generally unhappy and unhealthy.
Does she hate conservatives? She seems a bit more circumspect or coy with her political views. I vaguely remember during the Trump years that was criticized for not speaking out (silence=violence), you know, not marching around in a Handmaid's getup like the rest of the (literal) drama queens.
I live about 3/4 of a mile from the local county court house, it's on the main drag you have to take to get to town. We have Handsmaid Tale gals out there all the time. I always wave.
I could never understand the fascination college-educated, urban/suburban women have with the Handmaid's Tale, and the need to parade about subservient in red robes, chanting "under His eye". Can someone explain this to me?
What??
I think it appeals to the same woke white wealthy women with the "In This House We Believe" signs who attended the women's march and like to virtue signal. They want to feel oppressed because it confers power, assuages their guilt, and gives a feeling of moral righteousness. But the only life experience they have that approximates feeling "oppressed" might be when they were young and hot and got unwanted male attention, harassment, or not taken seriously. Take that little seed of resentment, add smug condescension towards anyone morally or religiously conservative, and create from that the perfect enemy: a repressive religious regime that oppresses young women and turns them into sex slaves. It's their dream villain. Bonus: they can then compare Trump to this fictional villain and dream about their younger selves in the victim turned heroine role where they fight back (which is what the hero of that book does).
I experience this somewhat at home. I am the most religiously conservative person in my house. As "dad" I tend to vocalize my religious beliefs, for my under-catechized kids. Therefore I am the stand-in for Trump, Andrew Tate, and all the other meanies of the world. I'm a punching bag at times for my wife and daughter. It's like they have no clue what I believe....pure emotion. "Feelings"are more important than truth, it's very unreasonable.
After spending holidays with my mother-in-law (a saint) and my much more bombastic, opinionated brothers-in-law, I get a bit more love.
Dystopian fiction of many sorts is a thing. It functions as a means of social criticism, and lets the reader (or viewer) feel better about his/her own imperfect life.
She's very pro-homosexual and pro-transgender. She hates conservatives.
Conservatism is not and should not be defined by attitudes toward LGBT
Today, Jon, one is considered anti-homosexual for being against Single-sex marriage. Think of how far we've gone in such a short time. If Bill Clinton had advocated homosexual marriage in 1992, he would have been have lost to Bush decisively.
In 1750 very few people in the American colonists desired independence and nearly everyone considered limited monarchy the best of system of governance whatever defects an individual king might have. Thirty years later most people were on board with independence and republicanism. Abolition of slavery caught on in a similarly short time frame, and women's suffrage in a bit longer period of time (but less than a lifetime). Public opinion sometimes does change very fast.
Of course conservatism is defined, in part, by attitudes toward sexual behavior. Traditional values are the cornerstone of fostering a healthy nuclear family and culture. If traditional values are not worth conserving, a Christian civilization could not exist. I would think that would be self-evident even by Natural Law if nothing else.
I am NOT suggesting that any church change its teaching. I am suggesting that we not make political divisions over such things. If we can accept Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, assorted heretical Christian sects and even outright atheists without raising political strife over their existence and open espousal and practice of their beliefs, it should be very easy to accept gays and lesbians.
Natural Law is never "self-evident" as it depends on certain metaphysical assumptions which may or may not be true.
Derek, the best male friend a young woman can have is a male homosexual. You know where you are with them. They will never ply you with drink and try to have their way with you: instead, you'll have a couple of beers or a couple of glasses of wine, watch sad movies and cry together. They read serious literature, like opera, classical music, theater, and will go with you and sit through the whole show without yawning and bitching and generally acting like you've asked them to go through hell, and expecting recompense when you get home. Instead, they're enjoying the show, too. They will LISTEN when you're in trouble, they will always warn you when you're about to go out of the house looking like a wreck or a sleaze, and they have unerringly good taste at decoration. They're also excellent at spotting the man who will use and abuse you. You do the same for them. Neither of you will take the other's advice, because you're in love... but you know they're always in your corner. So... if that makes me pro-homosexual, so be it. Doesn't mean I hate conservatives. I just hate jerks.
Lol....so true. My best friend at school was gay (although he didn't realise until later). I dunno about opera but he did drag me to see The B52s and he was inordinately fond of Batman (the tight outfit, I suppose).
Absolutely true! Plus gay male friends make it possible for a young woman to go out for a social evening without being hit on by creepers. One of the best New Years Eve I ever spent was in the 1970’s at a gay bar in Georgetown with gay male friends. Strangely enough I was an evangelical at the time. It’s a mistake to throw gays & transgenders in the same box. Gay men & women generally don’t want to be the opposite sex. Some are concerned that tomboyish masculine girls & sensitive effeminate boys are being encouraged to transition when they’re just gay. Not all LGB folks are down with the trans thing.
There's plenty of complaints these days that gay nightclubs are overrun with straight women, and sometimes they let themselves go and get obnoxiously drunk (as they wouldn't around straight guys) and make asses of themselves
I met a new relative back in the 90’s and he took me to a couple of gay clubs and I was pretty shocked at the videos and the behavior that I saw. The country bars were better. Although I admire people like Dave Ruben and Douglas Murray I have no illusions how people act in private. I remember NPR was doing their weekly subtle positive push for gay marriage featuring a story of a couple who adopted a child and stressed how they had been together for 20+ years and in a committed relationship but that one partner had eventually contracted and died of HIV...I don’t like how activists bully businesses and people of good conscious after they swore it wouldn’t end up like that if society would just affirm and legitimize. It’s been a huge mistake and nail in the coffin imo.
I'm not big on cliches but sometimes they fit.
Hence, do you want some cheese with that whine?
Gay men call them, affectionately, fag hags. It's a real social phenomenon but the problem for many women is that it goes on for far too long. Unable to form real, solid relationships with straight men -- sometimes for good reason -- they wile away endless hours with the gay guys.
I've heard, more recently, to great amusement, "fruit flies".
Well, I have both a 45 year marriage to a man - which, I'm happy to say, started like "Jackson", married in a fever, hotter'n a pepper sprout, only in our case the fire never died out until old age dampens things. But I also have gay male friends. I don't think men can truly understand the friendship a straight woman and a gay man can have, because so many straight men are grossed out by and/or afraid (after all, what if the gay guy comes on to them! Try saying "no".) of gay men.
Loved that song!
I'll second that. I'm a big Cash fan.
Interesting. So the same reason you prefer gay male friends (they don't hit on you or have ulterior motives etc) is an invalid reason for straight men not to want to hang out with them.
I never said that. What I said was that many straight men can't understand the friendship that can happen between straight women and gay men. And sometimes it's because they really believe the "When Harry Mert Sally" line that "men and women can't be friends." I disagree. So does my husband.
But I would say that, considering that women are expected to "hang out" quite normally with men who definitely want to hit on you and perhaps have ulterior motives (and sometimes act on those ulterior motives) perhaps men are a little more touchy on the subject than women. After all, you can always say "No", right?
I thought you said, in your post above replying to Derek, that:
"You know where you are with them. They will never ply you with drink and try to have their way with you:"
Right, well the same can be said for straight men preferring to be with other straight men and not with gay men. Gay men may have ulterior motives, and they may also try to roofie you (you may think it doesn't happen, but it does). It doesn't mean that no straight men are interested in having gay friends, but it does mean that some are uncomfortable with it for the same reasons you gave above for reasons why straight women sometimes prefer the social company of gay men -- because they're not interested in you.
Of course, you can always say, no, and straight women can do the same with straight men who hit on them (and have no problem doing so, generally), but, again, avoiding the need to have to do so, or worry about having to do so, was the reason you cited at the very beginning of your first post about this.
I don't think that's an invalid reason, by the way -- it makes sense to me. But it also makes sense for straight men. We can fend off as well, but mostly we'd prefer not to, as women generally do as well.
I'd no more hang out with an openly gay guy than I'd hang out with an open adulterer.
To each their own.
In fact the most holy man to ever walk the earth would never hang out with a sinner.
Oh, wait..
Um, ha -- knew that was coming. And why did He "hang out" with sinners? Was it maybe to prompt repentance? And do you think that the fact that He was the most holy man to ever walk the earth had something to do with it? After all, St Paul did tell us that bad company corrupts good morals, but Jesus didn't have to worry about that, and I don't imagine that the great saints did either.
If you;re looking for sinless friends you'll end up a hermit.
Some sins are worse than others in terms of potentially corrupting character. Plus it's wrong in those cases to appear as if you condone the sin or are willing to give it a pass. When Paul says that bad company corrupts good morals, he means it.
a) Don't know what state you reside in but in this day and age it is quite peculiar to say that you would not hang out w/ an openly gay person. Not that the "spirit of the age" should be your guide, it should not. But on a prior age you'd be hanging around w/secretly gay people. And if you are a Christian, you are not here to condemn them. If you have something to offer them out if genuine friendship do that. They may equally well have something to offer you. If being gay is a sin, is it worse than your sins? Pride is a nasty sin, some people are free of obvious overt sins but full of pride and condemnation for others.
b) If you know any people at all you are hanging around w/sinners. Some sins are more grievous than others to be sure. For me, gay people don't offend me just for being gay if they are friendly toward me as a person. I am glad I don't have their struggle to contend with.
And really at this point I have so few friends my main criteria is do I enjoy their company. I don't know any sinless people.
If a person were an adulterer I would be more likely to avoid their company because to me this is a more grievous sin. But I do know a woman who is technically an adulterer. Quit drinking and waited 15 years for her husband to quit, he just refused. After 15 years of trying and pleading moved on. But financial reality makes divorce impractical for her.
Say it isn't so. Every girl I was interested in back in the day had a best gay friend, and I loathed every one of them.
Why? Other than a fear they might come on to you.
Bossy. Judging. Not as smart as they thought they were. And there was an emotional bond with the female I found irksome to say the least.
How did you feel about her relationships with straight male friends?
How did you feel about her relationships with her siblings?
How keen you are.
Well, not many heterosexual men are going to have strong friendships with lesbians.
Florence King recounted how she and her "sapphic" friends regularly got together with some of the good old boys in town to play cards, booze and watch sports. I recall my father inviting "the girls" (a lesbian couple from next-door) over to watch football games. Assuming we aren't talking about misandrist political activists but rather about butch tomboys this may not be all that uncommon.
I saw that a lot in the South myself.
I actually find that I get on well with lesbians, although of course not the man-hating ones.
It's something to do with that down-to-earth quality, and being willing to have a laugh, drink beer, not care about looks. I find hyper-feminine women a bit irritating generally.
The Swift analysis from your reader is interesting. It just seems a shame that everything in culture has to be political. It would be impressive if we did not know Swift's politics, if she offered something to all sides, if she bought people together with stories of longing, love, betrayal, and hope - that's probably asking too much!
The brilliant Taylor Swift analysis comes from Joshua Treviño, who has just written to give me permission to identify him. Check him out here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/about/staff/joshua-trevino/
I sometimes scroll the news site Revolver. Among the dross, they often link worthwhile pieces. But a few weeks back I saw this in the lineup of headlines:
Help Aaron Renn Bury Rod Dreher
“Huh?!” I thought. “Is Renn fighting Dreher?” I clicked the link. It just went to the Amazon page for Renn’s new book.
Soooo. I’m guessing the bad blood from the Revolver folks is mostly Rod’s scepticism of Trump and his rejection of what some young rightists now call “race realism”.
As for the Evangelicals who still can’t see Negative World, I put it down mostly to their rather weak interpretive grasp of stuff right in front of their eyes. If this new century has taught us anything, it should be this: people are AMAZINGLY good at living in mental constructs and simply brushing off all that shows the construct to be false. This uncanny knack is seen in both our “progressive” left hordes and in many patriotic Evangelicals.
The “head for the hills” shorthand for the BenOp will never die, will it? Facepalm.
Evangelicals have always had a bit of an inferiority complex. About 25 years ago or so, when I was still an evangelical, a major newspaper came out with a piece claiming the evangelicals were unsophisticated and poorly educated, etc. Suddenly, you had evangelicals with PH.D's coming out of the woodwork outraged. "We are smart, too! You are mistaking us for those ignorant fundamentalists." It was a bit of a crisis for them because they had been working so hard to be able to be good Bible believing Christians and have worldly acceptability as well. When I was at Wheaton College over 30 years ago, we loved to bash the "fundies" because they made us look bad to the world. In the college faculty, if a Bible/Theology professor had Ivy league credentials, the administration would slobber over him and give him all kinds of accolades and praise while the profs who came from small and more solidly faithful Christian universities were ignored. The Benedict Option and Aaron Renn are telling them their desire for worldly respect is a fool's errand and they don't want to hear it. Now that is not the only reason, but it is one of things I have observed.
Renn reminds me of Jung. Jung didn't have much new insight, I think. He just noticed things which had always been there, named them, and wrote about them. And for that, he's rightly celebrated. ( No, I'm not a Jungian, I'm a Christian, but I can't ignore the validity of Jung's primary ideas. )
When I first read about Renn, I tried for a brief time ( less than a minute ) to quarrel with his timeline, and realized I couldn't. The reason he's under attack is because as Rod quoted someone recently, so many "Evangelicals" really worship America.
Terrific article. I think most including church folk are ignorant of history and don’t read important things or don’t read at all. Thus, folks miss a lot of things that are re-runs of what has occurred in past. Folks who think things will just change for better because ignorant will have St. Paul moment live in a dream world. The signs are so obvious and the future dangers so easy to see I am not sure why some Christians are so blind to this reality.
Interesting take on swift. I don’t follow pop culture. My contempt is for those who should know better - not swift, kelce. I wish them the best. But so many blind conservatives & others claiming swift, kelce archetype of traditional white picket fence and even before engagement. Like I noted yesterday her dating suggests a promiscuous life style. I can’t prove but when you write about boyfriend relationships it usually does not mean just movie, dinner. Nice lady and sweet appearance but couple is not archetype of traditionalism. Yesterday saw video of kelce using F word like the. Lack virtue. If you observe way he speaks about relationship, hard to imagine it will end up in matrimony. Just my guess. Again I wish them well.
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got to the highest level of each's profession because each was narrow-minded. Each had one goal. That sort of leaves out anything else. I would imagine that Taylor Swift and Kelce are rather boring people to be around, much less interesting than anyone who posts on this site.
Someone made the DiMaggio /Monroe comparison, but dang, Marilyn Monroe was a brilliant woman, a reader. She got bored with DiMaggio, who was not those things.
DiMaggio was a great player who was a big bore. But he was a loyal brother. When San Francisco had that big earthquake circa 1989, he flew out to take care of his sisters. By the way, Ted Williams was an interesting man. Great hitter, great fisherman.
I love the Bob Costas anecdote about Ted Williams. Costas was talking to Williams and was zapped with the force of revelation:
Costas: "Ted, you're actually that person John Wayne pretends to be!"
Williams: "Aw, yeah, I know."
Did you mean Marion Robert Morrison?
Har har. He could always have used "Robert Morrison." That would have been an acceptable name. But if he had, would Robert Morrison have been Robert Morrison?
Williams fished with Benny Goodman and Bobby Orr. Pretty good company.
Didn't Williams have his head quick-frozen when he died?
"who was not those things"
I'm sure that DiMaggio was not a brilliant woman :)
Ya know, Scuds, it nagged away at me when I was in the shower: I had written it correctly, hadn't I?
Uh, no. Let it stand unchanged as a monument to carelessness.
She was also a very tragic woman, though hardly the only person who could not endure great fame.
And a home wrecker who humiliated Jackie Kennedy on live television. That was such a vulgar performance.