http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:06:53 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/07/200653.php Benjamin C.The 60 Minutes special on New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson just concluded, and I remain shocked at the entire situation. Last summer, I listened carefully to the justification offered by those who endorsed and supported the Episcopalian departure from any wholesome ethic of human sexuality. The new bishop of New Hampshire, for example, exclaimed in interviews that "God is doing a new thing." I wince every time he suggests that "the church needs to see what God is doing in our generation, and get in on it." To be honest, I'm often left wondering what precisely he thinks is so new about sexual perversion and the attempt to rationalize it.When Ed Bradley asked Robinson during tonight's interview if he has had any regrets since his election last summer, an emboldened and defiant Robinson said he had none. When asked how he gets through the day with all the criticism and the refusal of churches and ministers in New Hampshire to recognize his authority, the "good" bishop said, "I know that God is beside me."Preacher, it's not who's beside you during the day that troubles us....it's who's behind you at night.The highlight of the interview was the interview with the terminated episcopalian minister of 48 years who has defied Robinson. Bradley asked him how he justified rejecting the bishop's authority when in his own vow he promised to work under the authority of the bishop?The minister responded: "My vow was first to serve under the authority of the Scriptures, then to teach according to it, and finally to protect the flock from false and deceiving doctrines. Way down the list, I vowed to support the bishop, and his godly judgments. In my estimation, there's nothing godly about Robinson."When asked what churches who reject Robinson's authority should do, the minister said, "Stand....just stand up for truth."Bishop Robinson really thinks that he is starting a reformation. I'm sure in his private counsel he likens himself to a Luther or a Calvin. I'm sure he takes courage from the fuzzy-headed lesbians who applaud his brazen disregard for the Bible and the Church. I'm sure he enjoyed immensely the laying on of hands by which he was ordained.I'm trying hard not to say something out of anger. I really don't want to be lumped in with that Fred Phelps group on anything. In no way do I rejoice in what I am about to suggest. And both those who are in the Episcopalian communion who are disheartened and those who share their disgust can be assured of this: Gene Robinson might get to wear a miter in New Hampshire, but I don't think he'll be wearing it in heaven. You interpret that sentence however you think best. I know how I mean it. Video13490@blogcritics.org Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:06:53 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/04/105657.php Benjamin C.Fort Worth, Texas, has become the epicenter of a sexual revolution among American housewives. "Passion Parties" are cropping up like herpes outbreaks, and like the incurable virus I don't suspect they'll be going away any time soon.Today's Fort Worth Star Telegram carries a story about Joanne Webb, who is under criminal indictment and will soon be facing trial for opening up her home for a $60,000 a year business of peddling potions, lotions, trinkets and doo-dads which promise to kick up the average couple's sex life Emeril style.I don't suppose there is anything inherently wrong with chocolate frosting, fluffy cuffs, zappers, zingers or zippy-zerts; but I am concerned about groups of women getting together to snicker and jabber about their marital (or non-marital) intimacies. And surely there is nothing criminal about it. And I'm sure their husbands (boyfriends) appreciate the extra special attention being paid to make the bedroom spin with a little more than candles and Barry White, but a pornographic pyramid scheme is just unsettling to me. What you do in your love chamber is your business (within biblical parameters, of course...even then, I'm not sure I want to hear about it)...and it should be fun. But silly women gathering in coital conclaves to discuss their sexual appetites among friends, buying and trading sex like it was a tupperware dish or a Mary Kay lip liner is just wrong. And apparantly these parties are being marketed especially for the most sexually repressed among us, evangelical housewives. At least Promise Keepers never marketed a line of love stuff for purchase in the accountability groups the movement spawned. Culture13381@blogcritics.org Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:56:57 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/02/144606.php Benjamin C.The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.Today, the US Senate reauthorized the ban on assault weapons by a 52-47 vote. I read about their vote, and my gut instinct was to somehow think that this denied my rights under the United States Constitution. So, I went and re-read the 2nd amendment, and I'm convinced now how silly the NRA's rabid support for assault weapons is. I mean, come on, did the framers really have assault weapons in mind? No, more than likely they were protecting the right of ever American citizen, except women and negroes of course, to own a flint-lock muzzle-loader and a black-powder revolver. Not only that, but the emphasis of the amendment is clearly on the regulation of a militia, which means that it was necessary for citizens to have guns because they might be called upon to join a state militia that would not provide them with a gun.Now, I used to be a card-carrying member of the NRA. My daddy taught me how to shoot when I was about 8 years old, and I must say that I'm a pretty good shot. But I know some folks that have this frightening fetish for firearms. What really, I ask, are they trying to compensate for? Not only that, but most of those types would be the last you'd want fighting in a militia to protect your homestead. They're fat, tail-gate bubba types that break a sweat walking up the courthouse steps to apply for their hunting license.I'm not against owning firearms, though. So here's my solution: I think every United States citizen should have the right to TWO handguns (one for each hip), ONE shotgun, and ONE rifle...that's it.And by the way, I'm going to start a lobbying group soon to protect and defend our Constitutional Rights as stated in the 3rd Amendment: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."That's right. Ain't nobody gonna quarter troops in my house. I mean, come on, first they want to take away our cop-killer bullets and automatic assault rifles...next thing they'll be wanting me to cook, clean for and house some Marine. I ain't gonna do it I tell ya. I know my rights. If you are interested in joining The National Association Against Quartering Troops--"The NAAQT," then email me today!!! Politics13331@blogcritics.org Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:46:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/01/073600.php Benjamin C.The Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., is a queer seminary in more ways than one. Not only does the school boast among its faculty two of the original "Philadelphia 11," a group of lesbians ordained by the Church of The Advocate during the summer of 1974, but also it advertises with pride its feminist, liberationist and gay theology as the hallmarks of the social life and academic perspective available to its ministry students.I had not known of the seminary until this past week, and for good reason. A casual examination of its faculty members' curriculum vitae reveals a largely unpublished or obscurely published hodgepodge of angry dissenters and ecclesiastic renegades who have wreaked havoc in each of their respective confessional traditions. For lack of an interested constituency or any broad confessional appeal, this ragtag group of malcontents has distilled themselves onto the beautiful campus of a Northeastern seminary whose architectural and landscaped grandeur betray its moral and doctrinal perversity.The much vaunted "queerness" of Episcopal Divinity School was articulated during the seminary's chapel service on February 19, 2004, when one of the school's lesbian professors of theology, The Rev. Dr. Carter Heyward, gave an address on "The Queer Christ: Transforming Anger into Hope."But before I carefully elaborate on the professor's numerous and profane blasphemies, perhaps an introduction to Carter Heyward would be helpful.Against the counsel of the presiding bishop, Carter Heyward joined ten other women on July 29, 1974, for an ordination service in a small and disenfranchised church on the outskirts of Philadelphia. Heyward had been open from day one about her universalism, feminism and lesbianism, and she soon became the poster person for homosexual clergy in the Episcopalian Church of America. It comes as no surprise, then, that she was among the staunchest supporters of openly gay New Hampshire Bishop Gene V. Robinson. For her it was the latest victory in the battle begun thirty years ago by a group of eleven rogue women clerics.In the course of her academic career, Heyward has written a few autobiographic pieces about her own struggle for equality, a pamphlet manifesto for homosexual clergy and several small books on justice, war and social theology. Interestingly, an online search revealed that Archbishop Desmond Tutu commends her work wholeheartedly. Is anyone really surprised?The purpose of Heyward's chapel address last month was "to celebrate the affirming presence of an angry and queer Christ." Standing in a chapel whose windows are graced by a stained glass commemoration of Frederick Denison Maurice, a 19th Century theologian fired from Kings College in London because he rejected the doctrine of eternal punishment, Heyward paid tribute to every perversion of moral and biblical fidelity imaginable.The term "queer" does not only refer to being "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and other ways of being at odds with dominant gender culture," according to Heyward. "Queerness is public solidarity in the struggle for sexual and gender justice and of irrepressibly making connections to other struggles for justice, compassion and reconciliation."Heyward then makes the giant leap from affirming her own lesbianism, which she says is "by the grace of God," to discussing the queerness of Jesus Christ. To what authority does Heyward turn to affirm the queerness of Christ? Strangely enough, she talks of her own mother, Mary Ann Heyward."Some of you have heard me say that my 88 year old happily heterosexual mother is the queerest member of my family. Yes, she has a dyke for a daughter whom she loves and many other lesbians and gay and bisexual and transgender folks in her life whom she loves and respects."But the queerest thing about her mother, Heyward explains, is "that she is such a bundle of apparent contradictions. She is confrontational and compassionate, angry and gentle, representing for me One through whom we meet God face to face."Did you catch that? This professor of theology has taken language that the Gospels use to reveal the unique relationship of Jesus and the Father, and she has transferred that language to her own mother, who, it seems, is manifest God in all her cranky ways. But Heyward's blasphemies don't stop there.She continues: "There are many people, including many right here in this chapel, who embody Christ for me in stunning ways. But there is no one through whom I catch stronger intimations and glimpses of the Wisdom of God, Christ herself, than my own queer mother."Christ herself? It's no wonder that the doctrinal jump from Jesus to Heyward's mother isn't that difficult. In typical feminist fashion, Heyward makes Christ a woman, her aged mother a god, and herself an ecclesiastic crusader on an angry mission to undo the Christian faith as articulated by the apostles and prophets.And why is she so angry? Because "without anger, we cannot be good Christians," Heyward says."We remember the murders of our brothers and sisters who have hung on these crosses and still do, more than we will ever know, and we are angry. We listen ad nauseum to the fear-based voices of legislators, governors, candidates, president, bishops, [and the] pope - and they make us angry. We are beaten up by the absurdities dressed in Christian rhetoric and by hate disguised as Christian love. Of course we are angry. And if we are not angry, we are dead or we are dying."Bingo, Dr. Heyward. Your theology is dead and your seminary is dying. Carter Heyward wants us to be sure that she is on a mission, and that she is not alone. Just who is with her, you ask? Why none other than God herself, she suggests."God will help us. She will not fail us. She goes with us. Thanks be to God."As the homosexual marriages begin in New York and continue in San Francisco, and as the Massachusetts legislature bows to the whim of an unrestrained court, and as the nation struggles frantically to reinforce the foundation of marriage in our culture, a little lesbian in a little seminary in Cambridge invokes her female goddess before a chapel of would-be ministers who have been deceived into thinking that they are a part of something noble.For all her blasphemies, Carter Heyward is right about one thing: it is okay to be angry. It is okay to be angry when Jesus Christ, God's sinless Son, is enlisted in a cause as foreign to his gospel as that which now threatens to corrupt our national morality. It is okay to be angry when lesbian theologians breach the trust of the churches their seminary serves and uses the endowed chairs of theology in which they sit to advocate all manner of sexual perversity. It is okay to be angry, Dr. Heyward, because God is angry.I'm not sure that anger, however, is the emotion Carter Heyward should be expressing. Theologians like Heyward ought rather to be grateful - grateful that the church long ago stopped enforcing the Old Testament prescriptions for dealing with false teachers. She should be grateful that the Episcopal Church in America has lost the moral and ethical courage to apply without hesitancy the command of Christ to tie a millstone around the necks of those who show ultimate disregard for the implications of their teachings. Culture13272@blogcritics.org Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:36:00 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/29/033347.php Benjamin C.Tonight I listened again to Ann Richard's famous speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, and I had a great idea for John Kerry. He should choose "Ma" Richards for his running mate in 2004. It has all the political intrigue he needs. She was an immensely popular govenor (though defeated, incidentally by George W. Bush in 1994); she's brassy compared to Kerry's intellectual droning and policy wonking. She's got layman, trailer trash appeal and can win some major points for the Democratic ticket among Southerners and the lowest tax brackets. Like her or not, she's a success story of Lone Star proportion. She'd pick up the pieces of Geraldine Ferraro's failed vice-presidential 1984 candidacy and run like hell. Plus, she's a bare-knuckled, gritty mud-slinger that would give Dick Cheney a worthwhile opponent when the debates roll around.If you remember, the last time a Massachusetts senator had a shot at the presidency, he chose a popular Texas politician to seal the deal for the Democrats. Do the names John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson ring a bell? Does the year 1960 sound familiar.Not only that, but in 1988, Michael Dukakis' knew his only shot at beating George H.W. Bush was choosing larger-than-life Texas Senator Lloyd Bentson. Another Massachusetts/Texas partnership (of course, with horrible results....but think how much worse it would have been without Bentson!)It would be the "rematch" of the century: Richards on one ticket and Bush on the other. My how that would charge the race with all kinds of electoral excitement. So if somebody in the Kerry camp is reading this........pass the word along. A Kerry/Richards Democratic ticket in 2004 is the best shot they've got at winning. Politics13241@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:33:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/25/041530.php Benjamin C.It's been a few years since I've had HBO, but about two months ago I ordered the service. And now, what time I'm not glued to FOX News I'm watching some movie, documentary, or original series on HBO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Family, Classics, etc.....good grief, how many are there?This week was the grand finale of Sex and the City, a silly series that has dominated HBO programming this past week. There has been "The Making of the Final Episode," and "A Farewell Episode," and a whole host of other shows on interviewing Sarah Jessica Parker or another of the show's characters. Quite frankly, it was driving me batty. I've never watched one episode of the show, and I really don't care how they made it.But against my better judgment I decided to watch some of it. The other night they were playing back to back episodes PBS-style without the phone banks and annoying pledge drives and lame mid-show entertainment varieties. I say against better judgment for a number of reasons. First, there has never been anything sexy about Sarah Jessica Parker. She's horse-faced and haggard. If they wanted my Nielson box to register, they should have put Monica Potter or Cameron Diaz on the show. But Sarah Jessica Parker?Second, I had more important things to read, to do, to think through and clean up. But remote control in hand, I set my cable box so I could flip back and forth between Sex and the City on HBO and Antwone Fisher on another channel. After about five minutes, I was so totally convinced of my earlier judgment that the show was just lame that I turned it off. An hour later, it was still on. Two hours...Sarah Jessica Parker's waif mug was still on my television. Six hours later, that stupid show was still on.I have friends that have been faithful since the show started years ago. They've told me that I should watch it....that I would get into it too. They swore that it was the best show on television. I used to have friends with discriminating tastes about culture, books, film, etc. Now, not so much. I'm not upset that the show is off. Farewell, I say...good riddance. Carrie Bradshaw can make her way to DVD hell and rot for all I care.But next weekend The Sopranos starts again. Now there is a masterfully produced and directed show for you. I've been waiting for the new season like a 10 year old outside Barnes and Noble dressed like a wizard, wearing round framed glasses and popping skittles until the doors opened and I could get my latest Harry Potter novel.I havent been dressing like a mafioso, by the way. Or saying things like, "howyadoo'in," or "fuggetaboutit." And I'm working really hard on my swearing. But I digress.Perhaps in twenty years they can have a big Sex and the City reunion like they had for Star Trek and The Dukes of Hazzard. And I've got an idea for the title too, Impotence in the Suburbs. Until then, I'll just enjoy the best HBO original series.......... Video13110@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:15:30 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/23/002043.php Benjamin C.John Updike is a troubling writer for any conservative Christian reader. His themes are dark, his language rough and his characters vexing; but more than any other novel I've read, Updike's A Month of Sundays provokes more sobering reflection about life and love, lust and godlessness. The book's epicurean protagonist, Tom Marshfield, is a minister who flirts disastrously with what the French call la convoitise de la chair. He's brilliant and winsome--perverse and deceitful. Not since Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll has a character been split so perfectly between the conflicting whispers of his better angels and lesser demons. He's in a miserable marriage and everyone knows it, including his wife, whom he attempts to entangle in an affair with his associate, Ned Bork. He wants out of the hypocrisy of his ordination, but he has no place to go. And for all of his profane honesty and candid impiety, this wicked preacher keeps me reading.Marshfield's theology is virile and his sexual appetites insatiable. He's the kind of preacher no congregation wants--but that many unwittingly call. He is Bill Clinton in a clerical collar. Updike has given personality to the tensions within the struggling souls of many ministers. He's pulled back the black robe of the ministry to reveal an even blacker heart. In A Month of Sundays, Updike tells the secrets that nobody wants to hear but cannot deny: Christian ministers need more grace than a gutter drunk or a skid row whore.Martin Luther once wrote, "The defects in a preacher are soon spied; let a preacher be endued with ten virtues, and but one fault, yet this one fault will eclipse and darken all his virtues and gifts." Never has this been more true than in Tom Marshfield. Think Jim Bakker on Viagra and crystal meth, and you get the idea.Reading the book is an opportunity for clergy and parishioner alike to explore vicariously the shadows of lust that lurk in every prayer closet, and while I appreciate Updike's introducing me to the Reverend Tom Marshfield, he is the kind of man I hope never to meet--either in a pulpit, or on the town, or in the mirror. Books13044@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:20:43 EST