James Tour is an evangelical. His day job is as a Chemist at Rice University, specializing in nanotechnology.
He is a convert from Judaism, and has spent years studying christian morality and ethics. He has reached a conclusion that perhaps we all need to think about.
That Christians supporting contraception--which is about 90% of Evangelicals, a large percentage of Catholics, and I don't have any idea of the percentage of Main Line denominations, have the same view of this ethical issue as atheists. He maintains that those of us who have embraced these "reproductive technologies" (why are they called "reproductive? They're about not reproducing!) have lost sight of the Christian call--a vocation--to be unique. To be a light to an unethical and fallen world. To be, in his words, "Agents of life in the world".
He also says, along with a few others, that a deliberately infertile marriage-- one that has contraception as part and parcel of it-- is no different than Gay sex, or Gay marriage--it does not have life flowing from it, it does not manifest the over flow of love into a new and unique life.
TRIUMPHALIST--YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The YMCA--hmmmmmm....
It used to be forbidden for catholics men to join the YMCA. The initials, of course, stood for Young Men's Christian Association. It was a non-denominational protestant organization meant to provide young men and boys with wholesome fellowship, a place to go to recreate without the temptations and dangers of a secular America, and a way to cultivate healthy bodies while sublimating some of the less savory drives of youthful masculinity. Although it's goals were laudable, it was felt that it would be hard for young Catholic men to maintain their faith in the face of the constant erosion and relativism of a non-denominational or inter-denominational organization, and since the goal of the YMCA was to promote wholesome and faithful development in young men, that it would conflict with the faith formation of Catholic boys--after all, it was an avowedly Protestant group.
Well, in the way of many non- and inter- denominational groups, a certain flexibility of definition took it's toll, over time.
The first defection from the purpose of the YMCA was the decision to admit women, and the amalgamation of the YWCA into it.
The next was a decision--more a marketing decision than a pastoral or outreach decision--to make the YMCA a "family" center, as opposed to a place that young men could go to for fellowship, sports, exercise and learning.
Over time, marketing has driven the YMCA to morph itself into a sort of health club, with it's facilities becoming plusher, more elaborate and MORE EXPENSIVE. It became a place where one needed to be relatively affluent to attend. Prior to that, it had been a place where boys and young men of modest, or even deprived, means could go--it got them out of the crime breeding circumstances that many poor people find themselves in. It was a loss of purpose--the original ministry being subsumed by marketing and "growth potential" considerations.
Now the YMCA has changed it's name and it's logo--it's just the Y. The idea that it's a place for boys and young men to go to have a more salubrious environment and wholesome influences is dead. (And, it is clearly young men and boys who are most at risk in our society--check statistics on everything from educational failure, to crime, to premature death!). And the commitment of it's founders to Christianity, of any form, is dead.
Now it's just a non-profit heath club with good facilities, for people who can afford it.
I guess the original prohibition was correct--the temptation towards lukewarmness and relativism proved to much, not only for individual members, but the entire organization. The old, authoritarian, insular Church was right on this one, as it has proven to be (by the fruits of new policies, official and unofficial) so many times.
Well, in the way of many non- and inter- denominational groups, a certain flexibility of definition took it's toll, over time.
The first defection from the purpose of the YMCA was the decision to admit women, and the amalgamation of the YWCA into it.
The next was a decision--more a marketing decision than a pastoral or outreach decision--to make the YMCA a "family" center, as opposed to a place that young men could go to for fellowship, sports, exercise and learning.
Over time, marketing has driven the YMCA to morph itself into a sort of health club, with it's facilities becoming plusher, more elaborate and MORE EXPENSIVE. It became a place where one needed to be relatively affluent to attend. Prior to that, it had been a place where boys and young men of modest, or even deprived, means could go--it got them out of the crime breeding circumstances that many poor people find themselves in. It was a loss of purpose--the original ministry being subsumed by marketing and "growth potential" considerations.
Now the YMCA has changed it's name and it's logo--it's just the Y. The idea that it's a place for boys and young men to go to have a more salubrious environment and wholesome influences is dead. (And, it is clearly young men and boys who are most at risk in our society--check statistics on everything from educational failure, to crime, to premature death!). And the commitment of it's founders to Christianity, of any form, is dead.
Now it's just a non-profit heath club with good facilities, for people who can afford it.
I guess the original prohibition was correct--the temptation towards lukewarmness and relativism proved to much, not only for individual members, but the entire organization. The old, authoritarian, insular Church was right on this one, as it has proven to be (by the fruits of new policies, official and unofficial) so many times.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
That D****d Oil Well
Well, it looks like we may finally have some sort of handle on the oil well in the Gulf, if things continue good. I hope so. We have really, really FUBARed one of my favorite places on earth.
But I've been looking at all the attempts to control the damage, stop the well etc, that have been slowed, stymied, stopped or forbidden by various parts of the executive branch of the government.
(The people living on the Gulf have been steady on saying that the government needs to get out of the way on this!)
They have been making the problem worse. Not through malevolence, but through ineptitude, turf wars and a sense that maybe it's better to let oil befoul the shore than to expedite things as if it were a dire emergency.
It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for. I just wish we got even less, sometimes.
But I've been looking at all the attempts to control the damage, stop the well etc, that have been slowed, stymied, stopped or forbidden by various parts of the executive branch of the government.
(The people living on the Gulf have been steady on saying that the government needs to get out of the way on this!)
They have been making the problem worse. Not through malevolence, but through ineptitude, turf wars and a sense that maybe it's better to let oil befoul the shore than to expedite things as if it were a dire emergency.
It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for. I just wish we got even less, sometimes.
An Article, With Disturbing Links (and associated comments!) That you Should Read.
I know that this is a cop out, to simply give a couple of links, instead of telling you what I think. But the articles are more informative than I could ever be. Go read it:
www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/sex_and_state_power.html
The thing is, you can with profit read most of the links in the article. Some of them are to definitions, that some of us may need. (I wish I did, but unfortunately, I have been an evil, degenerate person.)
I have a bleak view of American Society and it's intersections with politics, but this was depressing, even for me.
www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/sex_and_state_power.html
The thing is, you can with profit read most of the links in the article. Some of them are to definitions, that some of us may need. (I wish I did, but unfortunately, I have been an evil, degenerate person.)
I have a bleak view of American Society and it's intersections with politics, but this was depressing, even for me.
People Leaving th Church in Detroit
No kidding. I wonder why.
Let's get something straight, with no mealy mouthed circumlocutions, and no nuanced arguments that let things slip. The Church in Detroit, as elsewhere, (most places!) in the US is shedding young adult members in large numbers.
And the institutional Church in Detroit has even noticed that they are going to two places: Mega Churches, or secularity. Well, it's not a mystery why this is happening, and the Detroit Church has even noticed one of the roots, but not the cause of the root.
First, what the Church in Detroit has not tripped to is this: Most mega Churches preach unabashedly a Christo-Centric faith. And people i the Church who believe in the significance and divinity of the person of Christ can get rather disenheartened in the Catholic Church when it becomes the Church of St.. Iwemeus, or when "social justice" especially a version of it that's identical with Left Wing Democratic Policies and Agendas is the focus of the preaching. It's not an accident that one of the better known t-shirts for Catholics seeking the Reform of the Renewal says "I'm not being fed!"
If the Church in Detroit would emphasise Christ, the Gospel of Repentance, and the Forgiveness of Sins (which means the acknowledgement of sin!) they might find that they do better!
Now, the thing that the Church in Detroit did acknowledge is this: that many young catholics now think of church services as a place to be entertained. They seem rather put out by it, too.
Well, whose fault is that? You have spent 40 or 50 years gutting the liturgy, or allowing dissenting cle3rgy and lay "liturgists" to do so. Of course they have the wrong idea.
You know what? This will not end until the Ordinaries, and the Priests, accept that they have vandalized the Liturgy and the Faith, and take responsibility for that. And further, they must also take responsibility for the correction and restoration of what they have damaged. Until then, we will shed members.
And people will continue to fall away into secularity, because we are experiencing the Great Apostasy. But those who go to the Evangelical Mega Churches are often not leaving because they are unfaithful, but because they are faithful, they believe in Christ, and find themselves in "catholic" communities that are not faithful, having placed their faith not in Christ but in politics, community and emotion.
Let's get something straight, with no mealy mouthed circumlocutions, and no nuanced arguments that let things slip. The Church in Detroit, as elsewhere, (most places!) in the US is shedding young adult members in large numbers.
And the institutional Church in Detroit has even noticed that they are going to two places: Mega Churches, or secularity. Well, it's not a mystery why this is happening, and the Detroit Church has even noticed one of the roots, but not the cause of the root.
First, what the Church in Detroit has not tripped to is this: Most mega Churches preach unabashedly a Christo-Centric faith. And people i the Church who believe in the significance and divinity of the person of Christ can get rather disenheartened in the Catholic Church when it becomes the Church of St.. Iwemeus, or when "social justice" especially a version of it that's identical with Left Wing Democratic Policies and Agendas is the focus of the preaching. It's not an accident that one of the better known t-shirts for Catholics seeking the Reform of the Renewal says "I'm not being fed!"
If the Church in Detroit would emphasise Christ, the Gospel of Repentance, and the Forgiveness of Sins (which means the acknowledgement of sin!) they might find that they do better!
Now, the thing that the Church in Detroit did acknowledge is this: that many young catholics now think of church services as a place to be entertained. They seem rather put out by it, too.
Well, whose fault is that? You have spent 40 or 50 years gutting the liturgy, or allowing dissenting cle3rgy and lay "liturgists" to do so. Of course they have the wrong idea.
You know what? This will not end until the Ordinaries, and the Priests, accept that they have vandalized the Liturgy and the Faith, and take responsibility for that. And further, they must also take responsibility for the correction and restoration of what they have damaged. Until then, we will shed members.
And people will continue to fall away into secularity, because we are experiencing the Great Apostasy. But those who go to the Evangelical Mega Churches are often not leaving because they are unfaithful, but because they are faithful, they believe in Christ, and find themselves in "catholic" communities that are not faithful, having placed their faith not in Christ but in politics, community and emotion.
So they're not all fornicating and ....
...doing things that are best left unmentioned in this here family type blog. (Yeah, I know, it's not exactly family oriented!).
The CDC has released a study that shows that the majority of teenagers are not having sexual intercourse.
58% of never married teenage girls between 15 and 19 are virgins, and 57% of boys in the same category. That's not exactly what Planned Parenthood has been saying. It's interesting, that the figures substantially match figure published in 2002. It's also interesting that the majority of teens reporting virginity cite moral or religious reasons for abstaining.
Something else interesting--teen sexual activity peaked in 1988, wit 51% of the age group reporting that they had engaged in sexual intercourse. The decline coincides with the growth of available abstinence education.
So why is PP et al claiming higher numbers? Because, to be honest, the progressive and the traditional subcultures rarely speak to one another any more, and I believe that PP thinks their numbers are correct, because the people they "know" and "talk too" do have a higher rate of sexual activity.
The divide in this culture is deep, probably lethally deep, and will lead to violent conflict amongst us.
The CDC has released a study that shows that the majority of teenagers are not having sexual intercourse.
58% of never married teenage girls between 15 and 19 are virgins, and 57% of boys in the same category. That's not exactly what Planned Parenthood has been saying. It's interesting, that the figures substantially match figure published in 2002. It's also interesting that the majority of teens reporting virginity cite moral or religious reasons for abstaining.
Something else interesting--teen sexual activity peaked in 1988, wit 51% of the age group reporting that they had engaged in sexual intercourse. The decline coincides with the growth of available abstinence education.
So why is PP et al claiming higher numbers? Because, to be honest, the progressive and the traditional subcultures rarely speak to one another any more, and I believe that PP thinks their numbers are correct, because the people they "know" and "talk too" do have a higher rate of sexual activity.
The divide in this culture is deep, probably lethally deep, and will lead to violent conflict amongst us.
Federal courts and Your Living Room
So the 2d US court of Appeals has stricken down the FCC regs against indecency. Maybe you heard about it, maybe you didn't. Most of the Networks reported this as more or less a blow against censorship. Well, maybe it is, but maybe it isn't.
I'm thinking that it's not. In fact, I'm thinking that it's a victory for marketing, cloaked as a blow against censorship.
Since the FCC rules against "indecency" and the times it can be aired are gone, that means that Network and broadcast TV can air some more "edgy" things and language than they already do. The regs stricken are aimed at profane language, and things of that nature, but if living in the 2d half of the 20th century taught me anything, it's the validity of the proverb about the camels nose.
I can think about what is already shown on TV, and the constant pushing of limits. With out this set of regulation, what's next?
Well, I watched episode one of this season of Big Brother. Aside from innuendo, and double meanings, there was the one participant, who at the first excuse pulled off her top to compete in her bra. No real reason, except that in daily life she was a "VIP cocktail Waitress", who looked like a stripper. I guess it was a career move.
I think this sort of thing is part of what passes for programming, and what drives the ratings train. With the weakening of the FCCs ability to regulate broadcast, I don't think it will be long before the top comes off with no bra.
What's the problem with that, some will ask. They will point out that I am not required to watch a given program. They're right, I'm not. But I have noticed that over time TV tends to cater to the Lowest Common Denominator that will draw viewers, and sell advertising (the purpose of broadcast TV, actually) and that's sex. To bolster the argument, I give you the CW--which seems to exist by showing hotties in skimpies at every opportunity and treating each show as if it were soft core "chick porn".
Straight up, purity is hard for me. And I already avoid a lot of TV programming because of that. I wonder if soon I will be able to watch at all.
I'm thinking that it's not. In fact, I'm thinking that it's a victory for marketing, cloaked as a blow against censorship.
Since the FCC rules against "indecency" and the times it can be aired are gone, that means that Network and broadcast TV can air some more "edgy" things and language than they already do. The regs stricken are aimed at profane language, and things of that nature, but if living in the 2d half of the 20th century taught me anything, it's the validity of the proverb about the camels nose.
I can think about what is already shown on TV, and the constant pushing of limits. With out this set of regulation, what's next?
Well, I watched episode one of this season of Big Brother. Aside from innuendo, and double meanings, there was the one participant, who at the first excuse pulled off her top to compete in her bra. No real reason, except that in daily life she was a "VIP cocktail Waitress", who looked like a stripper. I guess it was a career move.
I think this sort of thing is part of what passes for programming, and what drives the ratings train. With the weakening of the FCCs ability to regulate broadcast, I don't think it will be long before the top comes off with no bra.
What's the problem with that, some will ask. They will point out that I am not required to watch a given program. They're right, I'm not. But I have noticed that over time TV tends to cater to the Lowest Common Denominator that will draw viewers, and sell advertising (the purpose of broadcast TV, actually) and that's sex. To bolster the argument, I give you the CW--which seems to exist by showing hotties in skimpies at every opportunity and treating each show as if it were soft core "chick porn".
Straight up, purity is hard for me. And I already avoid a lot of TV programming because of that. I wonder if soon I will be able to watch at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)