<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <iframe src="http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=12843592&amp;blogName=Poor+Young+Things&amp;publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT&amp;navbarType=BLACK&amp;layoutType=CLASSIC&amp;searchRoot=http%3A%2F%2Fpooryoungthings.blogspot.com%2Fsearch&amp;blogLocale=en_US&amp;homepageUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpooryoungthings.blogspot.com%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="30px" width="100%" id="navbar-iframe" allowtransparency="true" title="Blogger Navigation and Search"></iframe> <div></div>

The Golden Compass and a Proper Response

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Recently, I was emailed an article from a concerned Christian friend that talked about a new movie coming out called "The Golden Compass," and linked to this article.

The author of these books might be a menace, but the subject I wish to discuss is slightly different. I can appreciate the real possibility of this authors intentions. The article, complete with quotes (which I appreciated), did make me raise my eyebrows. J. K. Rowling, for example, was never malicious towards religion, so that gave the Harry Potter books a general feeling of playfulness with interesting morals lessons at the center, and have even prompted discussions with my students here: "Was Harry right in feeling this way?" etc. This new author, though, seems to be purposefully attempting to push a bad agenda.

The issue I wish to raise is that the Christian community, as a community, is soon going to suffer from a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. It simply needs to be more discerning. This author could very well be a troublemaker; he could be a Wolf. But if many other frenzied stands the church makes turn out to be over-reactions, then won't others assume its not a wolf this time but just an ugly sheep maybe? I can remember the church having a problem with "The Little Mermaid" due to the fact it "featured a child rebelling against their parent's wishes." I don't want to stoop to silly elementary language but I can only think to respond, "Oh, please. That's stupid." Remember the Harry Potter fiasco -- all the stink raised there? That really stopped those books didn't it? No, it just made the church look reactionary, and most Christians I talk to still have not read them yet try very hard to discuss how evil they are. And there are many other examples as well. But you can see my point? I am concerned with how Christians present their cause to the world, and its done rather sloppily. Let's make sure something is truly a danger before we lash out at it. Maybe "The Golden Compass" is, and from what I've read about the author, it might be. I, for one, would be wary of listening to the talking points of the community based on their track record.

Christians need to do a better job of advocating education. Perhaps this author is a bad deal. I still want to read his books for myself so I can know exactly why. Why is a very important question. If you know why, many things in life are made clear and you don't fall prey to listening to someone else's opinion. The Christian community seems to have grown comfortable relying on the talking points from the pulpit or other Christian leaders. That's dangerous and very very bad for future generations.

Dr. James Dobson Oversteps His Station

Thursday, October 04, 2007

The past two Presidential elections have been pivatol ones and the 2008 election looks to be no different. It will be a heated race, making it important for voters to decide which issues are truly the most important ones. So, it is with not a small amount of irritation I discover Dr. James Dobson, who runs Focus On the Family in Colorado Springs, wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times on Wednesday, Oct. 4th entitled "The Value Test" in which he says that, "If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous."

Dobson, who is a prominent leader among evangelical Christians, is pushing to make abortion the only issue that matters in this election. But Dobson is not an unintelligent man. He must realize the impact he, and other Christian leaders, can have on voting decisions, and he also must understand that if a large percentage of the evangelical community completely abstain from voting for the GOP the democratic candidate will probably be handed the election. No minor party is going to win, so Dobson is willing to sacrafice an election for the sake of one ideal.

I find this both irresponsible and arrogant. Tow our line or we'll give the election over to the opposite side? That's not an attitude a man in Dobson's position should have. Yes, abortion issues are important, but you can't make an entire voting policy out of this one issue. What about economics, foreign policy, domestic safety from international threats, education, big business, etc, etc, etc. I have no idea how evangelical leaders got it into their heads that a man will be a great President as long as he is solid on one issue alone. Saving babies is important but where's the win if, in the long run, our country is destroyed or bankrupt because the President's other policies and skills just weren't up to snuff? In the article Dobson goes on to say, "I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed." Well, we know where he stands. What I'm wondering is how many of American evangelical Christians share that view? You can't boil down a potential president to such a "value test." Again, they may be very moral, but a horrible leader. Morality and true leadership are not two qualities that automatically go hand in hand. They would be nice to have, but they are not the same. Dobson is over simplyfying the issue, making it one of black and white morality, as so many evangelical Christians tend to do. The desire to preserve positive, healthy values is noble and it should continue, but not at the expense of possible solutions to more immediate threats. Besides, morality and family values cannot be legislated. If the country isn't changing (and the elected president reflects the country's views) then perhaps Dobson and evangelical American leaders should at themselves and what there focuses are.

Dobson should be encouraging his listeners and followers to study and understand each candidates entire platform. He should be educating them on how to truly make the most informed decision. Instead, he is insinuating that all issues are unimportant save one, and so, logically, you need only study and understand one issue. From a non-Christian point of view, this makes Christians look hard-headed, or worse, flat out dumb and out-of-touch.

Dobson has admitted he feels betrayed by the GOP. That's a shame but let's look at it like this:
Gary: Hey, Fred, you've got a stick of dynamite in your back pocket!
Fred: Yeah.
Gary: Why? You'll blow yourself up!
Fred: Because of Louis. I'm tired of Louis. Every time Louis sees me he kicks me in the butt. Well, this time he'll get his.

But then again, Dobson has had a history of being a little myopic. This is the same man who helped launch the (failed) evangelical tirade against Harry Potter, who said Harry Potter was bad because it had trolls, ogers, and other magical beings in it. Heaven forbid. Oh well, Tolkein, sorry. I know you were a believer and all, just like Dobson, but you put the "no-no" characters into your books. Or what about the other great works of literature that include fantastical beings and/or magic: Sir Thomas Malory's "Arthurian Legend?" Or "The Chronicles of Narnia? Or the Greek myths? Kids love those. I did. Forget parenting or the fact that adults should put each story in context, giving it a time and a place and a history.

I don't want to lump all the other evangelical "family leaders" in there with him, and I don't know how many evangelicals actually listen to Dobson, but I can't shake the feeling the entire evangelical community in America hasn't progressed all that much past Dobson's ideas.

In other news, (a) you must absolutely watch this amazingly frank 5 minute talk from Newt Gingrich and (b)UC Berkley has taken a leap forward and posted a lot of their lectures and classes on YouTube. I'm taking an anatomy course right now.

ADDENDUM:
After discussion with a friend, it was brought to my attention that my argument is broken into two parts and that the first part is hypocritical. The two parts I discuss are (1) my irritation over Dobson's call for a third-party vote and (2) his reasons why such a vote should be cast.

It was presented to me Dobson is merely practicing democracy and doing something I would do: rally to a 3rd party should the GOP or Dems abandon any issues, ideals or policies I feel are absolutely necessary, and that it is hypocritical of me to insist Dobson is doing something irresponsible. It's a good point, but I am still undecided. I see what Dobson is doing as akin to laying out threats. By leveraging the power of all his listeners and followers he is trying to sway an entire party to his likings. If I choose not to vote for a party, its just me, one vote. My wife might even vote differently than me. If Dobson makes a personal decision based on conscience that's fine, that's what the voting system is for, but for him to publicize it in this manner stinks of it not being merely personal, but a type of power play. I see him as manipulating his base because he dislikes something. I believe he has a responsibility to the greater good because of his power and the greater good often means making compromises, it means choosing the lesser of two evils. And that is different that one man alone choosing to vote for a different party.

Second, I stand by the fact that I disagree with his reasons why. Boiling down the recipe of a good leader to a moral man is a simplistic view of man himself. Moral issues alone do not a good leader make.