More Active Posts
Front Page
Buying millstones
 |
 48 Comments |
A few weeks ago the Barna Group released a survey of Christian parents that should give pause during the Christmas shopping frenzy. Twenty-six percent of Christians who bought a DVD for their children in the past year were uncomfortable with its content. A third of parents who bought CDs for their children were troubled by what they were buying, but made the purchase anyway. Similar percentages held for video games and magazines. Barna estimates that Christians will spend $1 billion this year on media items for their children under 18, yet a significant portion of these purchases will occur despite pangs of conscience. Indeed, a pastor could do worse than cite these results each Sunday of Advent, accompanied by Christ’s warning:
“It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!” (Luke 17:1b)
Not surprisingly, those self-identified Christians who report less active faith weren’t as concerned about their purchases, nor were single mothers, perhaps because they don’t have as much time to monitor what comes into their homes. Of course it’s also possible that they were buying less objectionable material in the first place, and this is why they had fewer qualms.
Someone should tell anti-immigrant congressman Tom Tancredo (grandson of Italian immigrants), meanwhile, that Hispanics, along with fathers in general, were the least likely to buy media for their children when they found its content questionable. Perhaps not every failure to culturally assimilate is bad.
While many consider scrutiny of children’s media, rightly, a matter of protecting them from filth, I think there’s a deeper imperative, which is the importance of cultivating their taste. I know families who do this well; their children are literate and literary, and they play musical instruments. These parents could give their children credit cards and uninhibited access to Amazon.com, and remain highly confident that the resulting purchases would violate neither their high standards of decency nor intelligence. They don’t do so, however, because young minds still need guidance. But those young minds are being trained in the right direction, toward thinking lives. They are being equipped to seek truth and beauty, and therefore to abhor falsehood and ugliness, whether guised as pornography, or bad philosophy.
If we think our job is simply to vet media for sex, drugs, and profanity, we are not building anything. At best, we are keeping a clean slate, at least until our children have left us. Absent an ability to appreciate truth and beauty, however, they are consigned to battling flesh without the pleasure — created, I believe, by the ultimate author of truth and beauty — of art. The soft-porn magazine Maxim, in other words, becomes less interesting when one is capable of enjoying The Atlantic. Handel (for you classical buffs) or Sufjan Stevens (for indie fans) probably hold more appeal, likewise, for the musically-trained than does Beyoncé. Those who can appreciate Chekhov can’t help but laugh out loud when they consider Danielle Steele.
A thriving industry has sprouted to cater to Christians concerned about evil entertainment, spawning everything from soft rock to romance novels, in an effort to displace their more worldly counterparts. Much of it is abhorrent art, however, and therefore neither true nor honoring to the author of creation. Perhaps this spiritual rearguard action would be less necessary if we could do the harder work, in our homes and schools, of cultivating taste. Then perhaps fewer parents would be tempted into the wickedness of giving things to their children that they believe might lead them to sin.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Barna Group, objectionable content, parenting |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
A matter of life
Right on, Tony, right on.
I am in full agreement, but my main question is, “how?” I buy my children Little House on the Prairie DVD’s and read Narnia books to them and my daughter still clamors to watch Hannah Montana. We don’t get cable tv, but they’ve been exposed at Grandma’s house and other places. My kids are only 4 and 7, but we’re already struggling against the tide of pop culture.
For the time being, I am still mostly working at guarding them from the media that has outright objectionable content, while trying to expose them to the things I really appreciate and see as valuable. Will this work?
And just a couple other quick notes: 1. I find Focus on the Family’s movie reviews to be very helpful in guarding against unwanted content. 2. I am frustrated by the lack of consensus among Christians as to what’s unwanted. I have had other families show my kids things I didn’t want them to see, etc. I don’t want to be an ogre or condemn these other families, so I struggle to find a good balance here as well.
I can agree with Tony about something: exposing children to the good stuff, whether in music, literature, theater, or film. My parents so filled my life with the quality stuff that had little time to even ponder the bad stuff.
One things that does surprise me is how unconcerned Christian parents seem toward letting their kids be exposed to violence. They’re quite vigilant about not exposing them to sex, drugs, and other hedonistic things. But they seem to go into “sleep” mode on the violence.
Someone should tell anti-immigrant congressman Tom Tancredo (grandson of Italian immigrants), meanwhile, that Hispanics, along with fathers in general, were the least likely to buy media for their children when they found its content questionable.
This asinine, politically correct non sequitur greatly detracts from the article, which is otherwise very good.
I totally agree with post #4.
#4 and #5 Thank you Night train and White squall. Saved me somehing like “maybe someone should tell you, Mr. PC Man, that Illegal Aliens are still illegal and need to be sent home even if they refrain from buying questionable technology for their children.”
I would also guess that since they are poor they just use the excuse “sorry little one, this is too grown up for little illegal aliens like you and innappropriate for me to buy it for you’ to cover up how poor they really are.
No problem, llama. If it kept you from writing even one line of your horrible attempts at satire, my post was worth it.
Tony,
I agree with comment #4 as well.
Tancredo is not anti-immigrant. He is anti-illegal immigrant. You should be more careful.
Funny how that error has generated more comments than the actual subject of your post. I’m sure there’s a lesson in there somewhere.
So why do so many parents ignore their consciences in this area?
You can blame the industry that produces it, but I tend to place more blame on the parents. The supply is abundant because the demand exists. It is possible (and good) to say no, but so many don’t.
NY Girl,
We share your struggle. We have friends further along in this battle who have shared reading lists and other materials with us (we home school), plus my wife has a background in education, as I do in literature, all of which helps equip us.
TRR (and others),
I deliberately call Tancredo anti-immigrant because he favors greatly restricting the flow of legal immigrants, not just hammering the illegals. So he is anti-illegal immigrant, but also anti-immigrant.
Llama,
Your speculation about the motives of Hispanic Christians who, according to Barna’s research, seem on average to be more vigilant than white Christians, is decidedly unkind.
Well, those of us who are anti-Tancredo still appreciated the jab nonetheless.
Tony, I never thought Sufjan Stevens would be mentioned here. Bravo!
Yeah, I liked the Sufjan Stevens reference too. He is hott. (And a great musician. That too.)
TRR (and others),
I deliberately call Tancredo anti-immigrant because he favors greatly restricting the flow of legal immigrants, not just hammering the illegals. So he is anti-illegal immigrant, but also anti-immigrant.
Nice try at dodging the issue, Woodlief, by lumping us all in with TRR. I won’t speak for the others, but my objection had nothing to do with you calling TT anti-immigrant. My objection was that this puerile and snide remark has no place in the article, along with being a really lame argument against Tancredo’s position on immigration.
Because Hispanics are allegedly more careful than whites when it comes to choosing DVDs and CDs for their kids, you think it refutes Tancredo’s arguments against lots of immigration? As if that’s the only criteria we should look at. Well, fundamentalist Muslims are probably a lot more careful about letting their kids than even Hispanics, so why don’t we flood the country with them?
Maybe you should’ve read the whole article, or read it a bit more closely. It goes on to say that non-whites are less diligent than whites are about what they buy for their kids. I have no idea how Barna squares that with what he said about Hispanics, so there it is. So, by your reasoning, maybe there’s a good case for deporting all non-whites.
It was an asinine remark, apropos of nothing, that had no place in this column, and simply made you look juvenile and petty.
Train,
simply made you look juvenile and petty
Do you mean like your seeming inability to speak to anyone here without calling him names?
you think it refutes Tancredo’s arguments against lots of immigration?
Of course not. It does, however, offer some refutation to the meanspirited and unchristian attitude that Tancredo and his ilk have toward non-white immigrants.
Maybe you should’ve read the whole article, or read it a bit more closely
Since they singled out Hispanics as not being in that category, I think it’s safe to presume their research doesn’t, in fact, put Hispanics in that category. Not A, in other words, pretty much equals Not A. I don’t think one can read the article any more closely than that.
So, by your reasoning, maybe there’s a good case for deporting all non-whites.
You understand, I hope, why that is neither logical, nor my point of view.
I understand why you think it was an unnecessary sideswipe at Tancredo. Certainly I didn’t need it in there to make my larger points, and as the comments thread indicates, it was probably a mistake to include it, because it distracts some readers from those other points.
It is, however, entirely accurate. Tancredo represents an ugly attitude that is, unfortunately, too often tolerated among Christians. This attitude fosters hatred toward Hispanics (evidenced, I would argue, by Llama’s comment, which wasn’t denounced by anyone else here, though we all seem to have pretty sensitive denunciation triggers when it’s a matter of high theology or conservative orthodoxy), and an errant notion that somehow they will despoil our culture. This is one bit of data that suggests otherwise.
Tony,
Do you have any quotes from Tancredo himself to indicate his anti-immigration position, or better yet, examples of legislation introduced or sponsored by him that would reduce the number of legal immigrants to the United States?
I have this, to the contrary:
As he has done with any number of other public policy issues, he has continued to learn more about immigration and how to use his knowledge to advance policy improvements. He has made it a point in all of his public speeches to differentiate between those who come to this country legally and those who come illegally. He says he likes to go to naturalization ceremonies and to congratulate new citizens for “doing it the right way.”
Al Knight, Denver Post columnist
it’s not much, but then, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Do you mean like your seeming inability to speak to anyone here without calling him names?
Not me, pal. I don’t engage in name calling. Never have.
Of course not. It does, however, offer some refutation to the meanspirited and unchristian attitude that Tancredo and his ilk have toward non-white immigrants.
Believing that tens of millions of foreigners shouldn’t sneak into a country illegally and take up residence is mean spirited and unchristian? Wow.
Since they singled out Hispanics as not being in that category, I think it’s safe to presume their research doesn’t, in fact, put Hispanics in that category.
As you so often do, you missed the point entirely. On second though, I think you got the point, judging by where you stopped quoting. The point was that Barna goes on to say that “non-whites” are more lax when it comes to buying questionable stuff for their kids than whites are. That he doesn’t include Hispanics in “non-whites” was only an aside.
You understand, I hope, why that is neither logical, nor my point of view.
Oh, I doubt if it’s your point of view. But it most certainly is consistent with your reasoning.
Tancredo represents an ugly attitude that is, unfortunately, too often tolerated among Christians.
Again, what’s ugly, mean, hateful about opposing tons of immigrants, either legal or illegal? Until quite recently, everyone and his brother would have agreed with Tancredo, including Christians. But now apparently it’s racist, hateful and evil to think that national borders have any significance or function. (Except in Israel, of course.)
This attitude fosters hatred toward Hispanics (evidenced, I would argue, by Llama’s comment, which wasn’t denounced by anyone else here,
Who hates Hispanics? Name one person that wants to harm Hispanics. That’s what hate means. Seems to me if there were large numbers of people in this country who “hate” Hispanics there’d be a national outcry to invade Mexico. I’m not aware of any such thing, which is odd, considering all this “hatred” of Hispanics you talk about. Not wanting your country to be flooded by tens of millions of aliens, with alien customs and an alien language isn’t “hate”.
Tell me, Woodlief, why should we have borders in the first place, then?
And, FYI, llama wasn’t agreeing with posts #4 & #5. He was attempting to ridicule us. His satire is really lame, and you haven’t been around long enough to recognize when he’s trying to be funny, so it’s an easy mistake.
OK, should have looked it up first…I can see how this:
Tancredo introduced the Mass Immigration Reduction Act. The act would have imposed an indefinite moratorium on immigration to the United States. About 300,000 total legal immigrants would have been allowed into the country annually for at least the first five years of the act and, after that, until such time as there were fewer than 10,000 illegal immigrants entering per year. When those conditions were met, immigration would only have been allowed at whatever level the president and both houses of Congress agreed would have no adverse impact on wages, housing, the environment, or schools. When last introduced in 2003, the bill had 11 cosponsors. Organizations that have endorsed Tancredo’s bill include: NumbersUSA, Population-Environment Balance, Carrying Capacity Network, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Negative Population Growth, and the American Patrol. Tancredo introduced the bill in 1999 (H. R. 41)[45], 2001 (H. R. 2712)[46], and 2003 (H. R. 946).[47] Tancredo did not re-introduce the bill in 2005, but in 2007 he proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to “establish English as the official language of the United States,” (H.R. 19).[48]
could be interpreted as anti-immigration, as it does reduce the number allowed to immigrate.
Legal immigration to the United States totals approximately 800,000 per year.
….
Nearly three-fourths of all new immigrants intend to reside in six states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois.
Undocumented immigration total approximately 300,000 annually, according to the INS. One half of these undocumented [i.e. illegal] immigrants arrive in the U.S. legally and overstay their non-immigrant visa. (www.aila.org)
So Tancredo’s legislation would have restricted immigration to the current level of *illegal* immigration.
I stand by my statement that Tancredo is not anti-immigration, but add that he does favor some additional restrictions. One could reasonably argue that there is some ideal level of immigration between zero and *completely unlimited*, and I would disagree that it should be zero or that it should be unlimited. I surmise that Tancredo would agree with that as well.
Tony,
Welcome to the Arena! The lions are circling and licking their chops!
Hey Anlir,
Hope you’re not “lumping me in with” Night Train by that comment. I’ll have none of that!
OK, ow about dragging this thread kicking and screaming away from the immigration question and back to the original topic, ‘kay?
“Much of it is abhorrent art, however, and therefore neither true nor honoring to the author of creation”
THAT IS SO AWESOME. Thank you, Tony. My wife and I were going through the Prado art museum in Madrid and just marveling at all the beauty and profundity around us, and reflecting that genius of this magnitude just HAD to come from God. But then you do have the occasional works by Goya or Bosch that are disturbing, and not suitable for kids. And then there is the occasional nude study that even adult Christians should probably avoid.
I think the key is that with genius comes hubris. People / artists who are truly exceptional may think they can make up their own rules. The question is, how do we expose kids to the glory of this God-given genius without also allowing them to fall prey to the hubris??? An eternal question, and one probably without a good answer…
As an addendum to the above, my wife likes to recount the story of the time she saw Michaelangelo’s “David” sculpture in Florence. She says that she was physically affected by it, noting the incredible detail including individual veins sculpted into the marble, how it was a totally idealized version of humanity, and the way people were standing around just thunderstruck looking at it. She said in that moment she could understand how people could worship idols. She’s kept that as a lesson and a warning her entire life of how the worldly can enthrall us if we’re not careful.
Tell me, Woodlief, why should we have borders in the first place, then?
Still waiting for an answer, Tony.
And then there is the occasional nude study that even adult Christians should probably avoid.
Tell me if you need the nurse to fetch the smelling salts.
TRR in #17: I don’t think it’s splitting hairs to point out that Woodlief said Tancredo is “anti-immigrant,” as opposed to your less inflammatory (?) attribution “anti-immigration.” Anyway, as you and others have noted, the Tancredo reference *is* a head-scratcher.
TRR and Night Train:
Have you two paragons of evangelical virtue been living under a rock? Tancredo’s entire political platform is built on taking pot-shots at immigrants.
As has been pointed out repeatedly on this blog, illegal border crossing is a de minimis offense, and is certainly not malum in se. Thus, there is no moral turpitude associated with this offense. Your continued efforts to cast aspersions on the moral character of undocumented immigrants demonstrates a fundamentally flawed understanding of Biblical ethics. While we as Christians recognize that existence of offenses classified as malum prohibitum, we also recognize that there is no Biblical basis for attaching moral turpitude to such offenses. Your persistent efforts to do this bespeaks a disregard for Christian ethics, not a regard for it.
Or maybe you just don’t like brown people?
Kyoshi, I’d like to respond, but all them big words make my brain hurt.
Tony, You are pointing the way for faithfulness in child rearing. What is the path for faithfulness is marriage? According to the original language (American Standard Version of the Bible, 1901) which is it that God actually hates, Divorce or Putting Away? what does that mean for spouses who have been put away?
“What is the path for faithfulness in marraiage?”
is how the question from the previous post should read.
I’ll try to break these into bits to be sure I address everyone’s points.
Regarding Tancredo’s unchristian attitude towards immigrants (legal and illegal), and my claim that he fosters hatred toward Hispanics, I suggest you begin with his campaign commercial.
From there you might consider his suggestion that we bomb Mecca in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the U.S. While not directed at Hispanics, it does indicate a mindset toward “those others” that is at odds with my reading, at least, of the Christian call to peace.
Beyond that, consider any number of his speeches, which reveal his belief that when “they” don’t let go of their cultural and familial ties (yes, he wants to see immigrants sever ties to their families, at least that’s what he indicated in this speech), it is problematic for U.S. culture. My point in my essay was that some failure to assimilate to the U.S. way of doing things is probably good. One could go further, and note that the Drug War supported by Tancredo and others is a significant cause of the violence we see in Central and South America, as well as U.S. cities. It is, in other words, an outgrowth of misguided policy, rather than some deeper cultural “problem” with brown people south of the border.
TRR and Train,
I believe it’s a legitimate debate, what level of immigration is best, what should be expected of immigrants, and so on. My concern is that many on the Right, and among my own Christian friends, are uncharitable toward desperate people to the south. Consider the applause for two border agents who shot and killed an unarmed drug dealer. The legality of their actions aside, we ought to mourn death, not applaud it, nor recommend those who bring it against an unarmed man for medals, as Tancredo did.
To take another example, I know Christian missionaries who, upon having their mission field switched from the Phillipines to a border town in Mexico, saw a significant withdrawal of support among Christians who don’t want to help “those people.” In general, I think as Christians, our views on immigration policy — on all policy — ought to be informed by our faith. I believe the call of Christ is to bring good news to the lost, to comfort the oppressed, to give of ourselves. But when we have a diaspora of the lost at our own borders, begging to come in, we act as if our lives will be ruined should we allow too many in. As if our lives are ours to begin with.
Train,
I don’t know if I answered your other questions with enough specificity, so please let me know. I’m checking with Barna on the Hispanic v. non-whites question you raised, and I’ll report back what they say. Regarding your question of why national borders are needed, there are plenty of national security reasons, which I appreciate as a citizen. My concern is that we not let our views and interests as citizens subsume our duties as Christians. By my reading, we are Christians first, and Americans a distant second. That’s a worldview issue, however, and I understand that others vehemently disagree.
Oops, I forgot to say something to the people with whom I’m not arguing:
John M., you raise an interesting question, which is how we can train our children to recognize the glory reflected in the created thing, without them coming to worship it, as opposed to its creator. I think that applies beyond art, to work, sex, food, and a host of other blessings that man tends to idolize. I wish I had a simple answer. I pray that vigilance, and training them to see the Author of beauty and truth, will suffice.
Psalm Singer,
Since I started this whole Tancredo kerfuffle, I can’t rightly question your insertion of divorce into the discussion, can I?
I’m hesitant to give my two cents because even though it’s a general question, most people read it with very specific circumstances in mind. So please consider what I say next as addressed to the general question at hand: It is clear that God hates divorce. He allowed it because of the hardness of our hearts, and only in very narrow circumstances.
While the Bible gives specific guidance, then, for spouses contemplating divorce, I don’t see anything as specific for those who have divorce thrust upon them. That’s where I think the guidance of Biblically knowledgeable Christian elders — those who are also skilled at counseling, because many well-intentioned pastors and elders are entirely unskilled at that practice — is imperative.
So if your question is a general, theological one, I’d say that it’s not clear to me, the untrained amateur theologian, that there is general guidance for the spouse who has been put away, beyond the call to all Christians to love our enemies, perservere in faith, and so on. If your question pertains to a specific situation, I urge you to seek the counsel of reliable, wise Christians in your community.
I am not appealing to you as a deep thinker, authority, or any other lofty thing, but as a fellow human being. I think that we all have incorrect biblical translations, from the KJV to now. According to the American Standard Version, 1901, Malachi 2:16 does not say that God hates divorce; it says that God hates putting away. There is a whole book written on this issue called Divorce: A Gift of God’s Love. It sure was for me. Should a put away wife (one that lives with an unfaithful husband) be made (pressured from the religious community in which she finds herself) to stay with him, or would God rather that she be free to remarry? That is the whole point of divorce in the books of the bible.
And quite honestly, in another article, you tore down a christian bookstore at length. Would it not show a whole lot more integrity and maturity to use that space fleshing out what you stated at the end of the article, that you trivialize Jesus as well? How do you do that, Tony? Write the majority of the article exposing your own failings. We might learn a lot more that way. We might even be given to courage to be more open and honest about ourselves. Rather than continuing to display our own righteousness by creatively pointing out what is wrong out there, we need to be able to effectively spell out what is wrong IN here.
And as a single, divorced mom, I will say that the real millstones have more to do with the relational integrity and skills that you bring to the home. Yes, protect them from bad media, but, look hard at how you treat your own family. Do you bully your wife? Do you bully your kids? Are you a conflict resolver/peace-maker or a war-winner in the home?
I have seen God faithful to my children in the most unlikely circumstances. Everything fell apart but the faithfulness of God. The only priority I had left was how I treated my kids. I don’t have money anymore; I don’t have a nice home, the kids don’t have a dad, they can’t relate to the sermons in our church which are preached to the “general” public, I don’t have energy and the resulting organization, but God has the faithfulness, and God is here.
Psalm Singer,
The sad truth is that there are many women in your position, because so many men are not doing their jobs. I’ll pray that God brings blessings that lighten your load, and a church family that fulfills its obligations to abandoned women and children.
Consider the applause for two border agents who shot and killed an unarmed drug dealer. The legality of their actions aside, we ought to mourn death, not applaud it
Well, if we are to mourn death, then we should certainly not be too troubled by the death of a dope dealer. Why don’t you take a poll of parents whose kids have died from overdoses, been killed by stoned drivers, killed in a drug fueled robbery, or had their lives ruined by drug addiction? Compassion for dope dealers, and not for the victims of their vile trade? That’s Christianity?
I believe the call of Christ is to bring good news to the lost, to comfort the oppressed, to give of ourselves. But when we have a diaspora of the lost at our own borders, begging to come in, we act as if our lives will be ruined should we allow too many in. As if our lives are ours to begin with.
Uh, they’re not at our borders, begging to come in. They’re simply coming in by the millions. And when did “bringing the good news to the lost” become “let tens of millions of people into the America illegally, without checking their health, their criminal backgrounds, etc.? It sounds to me as if you don’t really believe the lost need Jesus, they just need to live in America.
Regarding your question of why national borders are needed, there are plenty of national security reasons, which I appreciate as a citizen.
But national security doesn’t have anything to do with keeping millions of foreigners from simply crossing the border and taking up residence?
And what’s this “citizen” garbage? You think you’re better than illegal aliens? You think you have more rights than they do, simply because of where you were born? And that’s not prejudice and discrimination?
And your “national security” reply doesn’t answer the question why we have borders. So let me rephrase the question.
Given everything you’ve said and implied above, that not wanting tens of millions of Mexicans or others to move here is prejudice, bigotry, and unchristian, that Jesus wants us to welcome the strangers and love our neighbor as ourselves, and that opposition to mass immigration is ugly and mean spirited, then tell me: why should we even have separate countries to begin with? I honestly don’t understand how Christians and others with your view can justify racial/ethnic segregation based on an artificial line separating “us” from “them”. So why, given everything you say above, should we even have separate countries?
NIGHT TRAIN writes, ” Compassion for dope dealers, and not for the victims of their vile trade?”
I can assume with a high degree of certainty that Tony W. has a great deal of compassion for the victims of drug trade. But wait! That would be an assumption based on a generous reading of his essay and ensuing comments. The same generosity isn’t extended from Tony W. toward Tancredo when the latter decries the unfortunate effects of bending over backward to accomodate *illegal* immigrants. But I agree, the “bomb Mecca” idea was ridiculous.
Then there’s Tony W.’s broad, question begging swipe: “when we have a diaspora of the lost at our own borders, begging to come in, we act as if our lives will be ruined should we allow too many in.” So the Christian response should be to *favor* illegal immigration? Tony’s anecdotes notwithstanding, surely there are Mexican missionaries and their supporters who *oppose* illegal immigration. This means they have a problem with “brown people”? And when has Tancredo used this phrase, or refered to immigrants as “those people” or “those others” (in quotes), and how is it racist to use the pronoun “they” to refer to a group of people?
Good grief you guys! I usually carefully read every post, but my eyes glazed over with all the immigrant posts.
So I ‘cheated’ and skipped down here to say that I agree with Anlir in post #3. Filling your children with ‘good stuff and beauty’ is so important. My 11 year old’s favorite composer is Ravel, her favorite piece ‘Bolero’, how could Hannah Montana compete with that? My 7 year old prefers Mozart, and my 1 year old likes hymns.
Anlir, I share your puzzlement over so many christian parents failing to filter out violence. I don’t even let my children watch or read anything with people speaking cruelly at each other or displaying anger, let alone open violence. Occasionally we’ll be exposed to children’s cartoons in our Children’s Hospital, and my children turn away from it as soon as the characters start arguing.
When I leave the children with a babysitter, I ask them to refrain from violent children’s DVDs. They aren’t offended, (at least, they don’t seem to be). A few weeks a year we host a family in our house, and they don’t let their children watch any tv, so to honor that we turn ours off that week. Their children are young, but intelligently discuss great literature.
Your continued efforts to cast aspersions on the moral character of undocumented immigrants demonstrates a fundamentally flawed understanding of Biblical ethics.
Where did I do that, Kiyoshi? I think you are confusing me with someone else.
———————————
Tony,
Thanks for your response. I haven’t seen *any* campaign commercials, so I’ll take a look at Tancredo’s later, for the sake of this discussion - I never had any intention of voting for him. I do think that anti-immigrant and anti-immigration are not the same thing, although you might get anti-immigrant from subjective things like Tancredo’s tone, which I haven’t heard.
————————————
Psalm Singer,
I can’t possibly relate to your situation. It sounds very hard. May God sustain you and bring you peace. I’m not sure it matters whether the word in Malachi is “divorce” or “putting away”. Your divorce is justified biblically if your husband was in adultery. I think you are assuming that “God hates divorce” translates into “God hates you, if you are divorced”, which isn’t the same, or true.
Train,
Compassion for dope dealers, and not for the victims of their vile trade?
I don’t think compassion for the former precludes compassion for the latter, nor does compassion for the latter necessitate applauding the killing of the former.
Yeah,
The same generosity isn’t extended from Tony W. toward Tancredo when the latter decries the unfortunate effects of bending over backward to accomodate *illegal* immigrants
I’m happy to extend that generosity to Mr. Tancredo when he, as you put it, “decries the unfortunate effects of bending over backward to accomodate *illegal* immigrants.” But I was referring to, as I detailed in my earlier comments, specific instances where he does more than “decry unfortunate effects;” he was fostering meanspiritedness and bigotry toward Hispanics.
Train,
And when did “bringing the good news to the lost” become “let tens of millions of people into the America illegally, without checking their health, their criminal backgrounds, etc.? It sounds to me as if you don’t really believe the lost need Jesus, they just need to live in America.
I don’t think I was clear enough before. I want to distinguish between the national interest, which, you rightly note, extends to protecting homes from criminals and disease, and Christian duty, which at times calls us to risk our well-being. What troubles me is the complacency with which many of my Christian friends conflate their patriotism and their faith, as if the two have no conflicts. It is that attitude that troubles me, as evidenced by Christian support for people like Tancredo. What I’m asking is some introspection and hesitation, before we Christians jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon.
Given everything you’ve said and implied above, that not wanting tens of millions of Mexicans or others to move here is prejudice, bigotry, and unchristian, that Jesus wants us to welcome the strangers and love our neighbor as ourselves, and that opposition to mass immigration is ugly and mean spirited, then tell me: why should we even have separate countries to begin with?
I don’t intend to imply that not wanting “tens of millions to move here” is inherently bigoted and unchristian. One might believe, for example, that open borders would destroy the U.S. economy, limiting, in the long run, the ability of churches to spread the gospel, and therefore yielding a net negative, from an evangelistic point of view. A Christian who cares little for his own well-being, but everything for the gospel of Christ, might then conclude that open borders should be opposed. I have no quibble with reasoning like that, which begins with the assumption that my needs are secondary to the demands of the Gospel.
A great many people who oppose even moderate immigration, however, put their material and physical well-being first — which is entirely understandable. As Christians, however, we are called to at least consider whether our practical stances place us at odds with the gospel. I confess I don’t know the answer, when it comes to immigration, but I am troubled by the fact that few of my Christian friends care to consider the question.
Then there are people who seem to not only care about their own well-being first, but who have active dislike for, or even hatred of, all immigrants. Finally, there are those who reserve their hatred for illegals. Both groups are behaving in an unchristian manner, and ought to be denounced by Christians.
Since I’m being longwinded (again), I’ll point out that I have no firm answer to your question about why we should have borders. My sense is that they are absolutely consistent with a Christian worldview, because so long as there is evil in the world, there will be a need for citizens to combine to protect themselves from evil. That implies some constraint on admission. That constraint ought to be matched by compassion and mercy, however, and not be redolent of tribalism.
At the same time, Christians should be ever vigilant that we don’t let man’s borders create barriers between us and our brothers and sisters, wherever they happen to reside. My own worldview is that I will forever have more in common with a Christian in Mexico, or Zimbabwe, for that matter, than a non-Christian in my own city of Wichita.
Finally, I’ll note that I constantly struggle with what I believe my Christian duty to be, and how I behave. Because I believe in the resilience of markets, I am less troubled than others by an influx of immigrants. I’m also less skeptical about cultural differences. I would be hard pressed to favor immigration if I thought it meant my children might go hungry, or greatly escalate their chances of getting shot on the street. I have to struggle daily, like every Christian, not to let my personal fears and wants intrude on my understanding of the Gospel. That’s what I’m asking for here.
JoanneB,
I’m thankful I’ve never had to play the Bolero, as it has a dreadfully tedious horn part, save for the little bit where the horn and piccolo play in parallel to give the effect of a pipe organ. Now, Mother Goose Suite, Daphnis and Chloe, there’s some cool music. Good taste your your daughters have.
TRR, Yes, it matters!
If you read the book Divorce: A Gift of God’s Love, you will find out that divorce and putting away are not the same thing and it DOES matter what words mean. I have looked long and hard for where God meets the abused woman, or neglected spouse, for where God meets those who are abused, and this issue is it. Putting away your spouse, not loving her like a wife any longer, but not freeing her to remarry, is the treachery described in Malachi 2. God says to let her get remarried. Our conservative churches teach that God hates divorce. While He did not desire it from the beginning, He prefers it to abusive or neglectful situations, in other owrds, putting away. God hates abuse. Free the woman to get remarried so she can be happy. He allows it so that people are not trapped in misery. How many people do you now hwo are miserable in their marriages and would never leave because of the church’s view on the Bible?
I will miss Tancredo. He was saying what needed to be said. Yes, the 1992 Ford explorer still retains its DUNCAN HUNTER for President bumper sticker. (Alas, Duncan’s days are numbered too I fear)
Most of the media (DVD’s I buy) is thoroughly examined by me. A recent good find is the children’s songs done by Jim Hendricks. (You can google him or Maple Street Music) Hendricks was a folkie in the 60s who at one time performed with the pre-Mamas&Papas Cass Elliot. My wife and I even love his songs! (Esp in a world where there’s no B’s! “And when we said our alpha-Et we’d say our ACDs!”)
Discerning parents can get lotsa great stuff. My daughters love Clubhouse Jr and NATURE FRIEND magazine (NF is advertised in World and you call the 800 number and the publisher answers)
I dont oppose the teaching of evolution for the theory/opinion irreproducible “science” it is, but I’m always en guard about evo ideas in popular films. [When have you last watched “The Incredible Mr Limpett?” strong undercurrent of evo as Don Knotts morphs into a fish at the beginning]
Like Peggy Noonan the thing that troubles me about illegal aliens is how their first action as residents of the US is like it not a crime. I’m not saying they’re bad folks. Good folks can and do knowingly or unknowingly break our laws.
Shame those who issue credit cards, make home loans etc to ILLEGALS are not themselves punished someway.
Did anyone read the recent TIME essay by Kinsley? If we oppose only illegal immigration, why not just make LEGAL immigration easier? Sounds simplistic from me but read the Kinsley article. So much for Parkinson’s clouding a man’s thoughts!!!
This topic was not originally about illegal immigration, but since it has become a large part of the discussion, I’ll say this here.
There’s an easy solution: Require employers who hire illegals to pay them at least the minimum wage and give them benefits.
Why? Because the primary draw for illegals is that they can get work here at higher wages than they can at home, but U.S. employers can still pay them less than they do U.S. citizens. The labor is cheap by U.S. standards and lucrative by Mexican standards, so both the illegals and the employers stand to gain.
So why pay them even more, you ask? Because then the employer no longer has that economic incentive. If he has to pay them the same as he’d pay Americans, there’s no longer a gain in taking the risk of being prosecuted (or sued in order to hire illegals.
Enforcement is critical of course. It’s already illegal to hire illegal aliens, but prosecutions are rare and inconsistent. But if you add stronger penalties for hiring them at substandard wages and enforce it, the vast majority of people likely to enter the US illegally would no longer have much reason to, because their chances of getting hired at all would evaporate.
I typed out a long comment that didn’t appear. I’m not going to do it all again because it will probably show up eventually.
Just in case it doesn’t, though, the short version is that the solution to illegal immigration is to require employers who hire them to pay them the same wages they’d pay to citizens, and enforce that.
The reason is that right now hiring illegals is a win-win. The employer can pay them less than they’d pay Americans, but the immigrants can still earn more than they could at home.
By adding stronger penalties for paying them substandard wages, the employer loses the incentive to hire them. And without the ability to get hired, the immigrants lose their incentive to come.
Of course it’s already illegal to hire illegals, but enforcement seems to be spotty at best. Make the enforcement consistent and make the penalities substantial for paying them less, and the problem would largely solve itself.
On the actual topic … the interaction of Christian moral beliefs with art is interesting. I think there’s an argument that art that depicts evil things is not necessarily wrong. The Bible depicts evil things!
To that end, paintings that depict darker themes of human nature — or songs or films or whatever medium — are not necessarily to be avoided. Human nature does have a dark side, and denying it does not make it disappear.
(Of course, some things are not approrpriate for children. I’m talking about adults here.)
From a Christian standpoint, I’d think the determining factor should be whether the evil is celebrated. Take a nihilistic film such as The Devil’s Rejects, which is entertaining and stylish but hardly uplifting. It doesn’t exactly celebrate evil, but it does portray it as a grim reality. Or consider Schindler’s List which is also about evil, and hard to watch in some passages because of the raw depravity shown. But it is about redemption.
Goya and Bosch, mentioned in #20, both explored these darker themes in their paintings. And they produced some seriously unsettling works. But does that mean they should be avoided? The macabre is appealing to many perfectly normal people, and I think it is because some are more accepting of the dark side and others are in denial. When you can take it out and look at it in the sunlight, it loses much of its power over us. Artists that express that know this.
(The aversion to mere nudity expressed in #20 just makes me laugh. There’s nothing wrong with the human body, but some Christians seem to be more accepting of a movie with 20 violent deaths than one naked butt.)
In recent days I’ve been re-watching DVDs of The Shield, one of my favorite TV shows, and it occurred to me that it’s a perfect example of what I am talking about in #45.
In brief, for those who aren’t familiar, the core of the show is four corrupt LA cops called the Strike Team. There are other characters around them with varying degrees of moral uprightness.
The Shield gets a lot of criticism from people outside of its fan base, in large part because it is violent, profane, grim and it’s told from the point of view of the “bad guys.”
I suspect many Christians would consider it a “millstone” for those reasons. But if you watch it from its beginning, what you see is long story of almost Shakespearian proportions. The Strike Team starts bad and gets worse and as time passes, their pasts haunt them, unravel them and become their undoing. The stories show, in unflinching candor, that actions can have far-reaching consequences. And as they struggle to escape detection and consequence, they only dig themselves deeper into their pit.
Someone who believes that the only proper “Christian” art is all sunshine and puppies would never give it a chance, but someone who wants to see an excellent dramatic illustration of the wages of sin being death would find few better examples.
I would hesitate to call questionable media “millstones”. I believe the millstone title is refering to the bible passage that says if someone harms a child it would be better for him to have a millstone placed around his neck and be thrown into the sea? If all it takes to harm child to the degree that this passage is talking about is something like exposure to unchristian media, than all parents would be guilty. I think that harm in that passage would probably be a little more substantial, like abuse.
On the other hand, it is silly for parents to allow themselves to be guilt-tripped into believing the “everyone is doing it, it’s normal” lie. Younger children especially should be guarded and protected from worldly influences. But I would like to add that as your children get older (teens?) you need to guide their exposure to the world. As they become adults they will be exposed to it whether you like it or not, the quetion is will they be ready to think things through and combat it for themselves.