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 Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:16:47 EDT 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/2005/06/13/131647.php Scott StiegemeyerFather John Parker of Holy Ascension Orthodox Church (OCA) was recently asked to give a benediction at the graduation of the Medical University of South Carolina. But when the school officials found out that Fr. Parker was planning to say a Christian prayer (gasp!), they un-invited him, ironically, in the name of tolerance. Read more here.Imagine the arrogance it takes to ask a Christian cleric to pray while insisting that he make no mention of his God. There is no generic god. The only God that exists is the Holy Trinity, confessed by Father Parker. To ask him to pray without mentioning Jesus or the Trinity would be asking him to break the First Commandment.Fr. Parker says it best, "Slowly, like the proverbial frog in the kettle, we are being taught that it is the pinnacle of erudition and public good to believe anything, but it is indeed the nadir, not to mention simply dangerous and offensive, to believe something." Culture30955@blogcritics.org Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:16:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/02/153047.php Scott StiegemeyerSt. John's church in Cardiff, Wales has opened a Pandora's box that they won't be able to close. Supposedly in order to attract people to attend their services, they have installed wireless computer networking equipment to make it easier for people to use their personal laptops to retrieve e-mail or surf the net. Check here and here.All the minister asks is that folks keep it quiet during worship services. Here's the quote that slays me: "I have no problem with people quietly sending an email or surfing the Internet in church, as long as they respect the church."That's like saying it's OK to watch TV while your spouse is trying to talk to you, just so long as you respect marriage. Duh! The very act of composing e-mail to your uncle Henry or surfing the internet, viewing who knows what, while the Word of God is being proclaimed or the Holy Eucharist is being administered is the very definition of NOT respecting the church. Why isn't this obvious to everyone?Technology is great, but can't a person get away from the world for even one hour to hear the Gospel?? Jesus said if you will not forsake all for Him, you cannot be His disciple. And some folks can't even disconnect long enough to sing a few hymns and say a few prayers. Gee, I'm glad God doesn't ask for our undivided attention while the flogging and crucifixion of His Son is being proclaimed.I'm with those four churches in Monterrey, Mexico who have installed cell phone jammers so that people in their building are unable to receive a signal. It used to be the biggest distraction one had to tolerate during the sermon was a crying baby, but now the words of Jesus have to compete with a sudden burst of "Who Let the Dogs Out?"Thanks to Bunnie Diehl for the story. Culture30479@blogcritics.org Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:30:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/31/004433.php Scott StiegemeyerYesterday, the family and I happened to catch not one, but two movies. It was a day off school, you see. But don't think we observed our Memorial Day only with self indulgence. Earlier in the day we visited the Soldiers and Sailors Museum for a patriotic celebration. The Pacifier starring Vin Diesel was playing at the local dollar theater. And let me say that I thought it was a terrific family film. I enjoyed it A LOT. Admittedly, I'm kind of a Vin Diesel fan already because Saving Private Ryan is one of my all time faves. Why I liked it: No cursing (that I can recall). It was clean. It was very pro-family. And I would say that it was pro-military too. And it was funny, with a decent story and enjoyable characters. Occasionally, over-the-top silliness, but that's OK. Criticisms: A bit too much diaper humor. Gets a laugh the first time, maybe, but then after that it just reveals the laziness of the writers. Y'know, whenever you get stumped, just throw in another poop joke.And I suppose some might suggest that the subplot with the oldest boy is a subtle attempt to encourage acceptance of homosexuality, as was purported for Shark Tale. And that may well have been the producer's intent, but it could also just be a way to encourage the audience to accept that people are different and have different likes and dislikes. I guess I'm just not in the mood today to find a cultural boogeyman behind every bush.I, Robot with Will Smith. Watched on DVD. Second time for me. Not really based on the Isaac Asimov collection of stories of the same name, only "suggested" by it. Why I liked it: Awesome action sequences and special effects. Good story. And Will Smith remains an outstanding action movie hero but has something Arnold and Sylvester could never quite achieve, and that is humor. Bruce Willis is another one who can deliver in the rough-and-tumble department and still also deliver a funny line. Another thing the movie did well, in my opinion, was to illustrate the classic Science Fiction theme that technology dehumanizes us. There's a note of warning in there somewhere.Criticisms: Bad language all over the place. I don't know if this is so much a criticism as an observation. The movie had almost no connection, plot-wise, to the Asimov book it was named for. However, the three laws of robotics which play a central role in the film do come from Asimov. A good flick. Sci/Tech30342@blogcritics.org Tue, 31 May 2005 00:44:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/30/121940.php Scott StiegemeyerToday I saw a photo that made me cry. It was of an American soldier, Major Mark Bieger, holding and hugging a little dead Iraqi girl that the animals we are fighting murdered. A Muslim suicide bomber decided to attack our troops at the exact moment when about twenty children were crowding around them.I have asked the journalist, Michael Yon, for his permission to include the photo (and maybe others) on my blog. But here is a link to his site. You should read it and scroll down to view his pictures of the Iraqi children. I was literally brought to tears. They are beautiful. Looking at his site only made me want to go there myself. At 35, I'm too old to enlist, even as a chaplain (I think), but only a stone could look at these images and not want to do something to help them.Tomorrow I will be writing checks to Operation Iraqi Children and Wounded Warrior Project as my way of honoring our brave service men and women on Memorial Day weekend. Another excellent charity is Ollie North's Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund. They provide college financial aid for children of our soldiers who've died or been permanently disabled.Many of you will get a three day weekend for Memorial Day. And some of you will have picnics and have fun and drink beer with your friends. Think of those who cannot be with their families because they are serving their nation and take AT LEAST the price of a case of beer and give to these worthy causes.Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, one of my new favorite people. Politics30310@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 May 2005 12:19:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/27/151855.php Scott StiegemeyerThe Gitmo prisoner who'd originally accused his captors of flushing the Koran in a toilet as a means of intimidation has now recanted. At least that's what the Pentagon now says. I noticed that yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette top front-page headline was about supposed FBI corroboration of the original claim. Today's headline was about Bolton, but a smaller headline - still front page and above the fold - did at least allude to this new information.Hugh Hewitt, in his important new book Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World, says that mainstream media (MSM) is increasingly impotent. News cycles are not 24 hours, but 15 seconds or less. So while I knew about the Pentagon's latest claim yesterday from scanning the blogosphere, this morning's paper includes an editorial by E.J. Dionne Jr. based on the now irrelevant FBI documents released yesterday. Hewitt offers the frankly indisputable argument that blogging makes the morning paper taste like day-old bread (and the news weeklies like stale week-old hot dog buns - And not the kind you keep around to make into homemade croutons either).Of course, I realize the Pentagon could be lying, but who should I give the benefit of a doubt to? The Pentagon or Al Quaeda?Don't like the news? Wait five minutes. It may well change again.Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin. Sci/Tech30241@blogcritics.org Fri, 27 May 2005 15:18:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/25/115822.php Scott StiegemeyerI've been hearing and reading certain dismayed braying over the alleged incident of U.S. interrogators in Guantanamo Bay flushing the Quran in a toilet.It's wrong to desecrate religious symbols and texts... unless they're Christian, of course. In that case, it's not only acceptable. It's hip. If you want to, for instance, immerse a crucifix in a jar of urine or smear elephant dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary, that's not disrespect. That's art. (What're you, some kind of Cretan?) The taxpayers will give you big dollars too.When the Baptist church in Danieltown, NC put this message on their church sign "The Koran Needs to Be Flushed," it raised a ruckus. One local college professor criticized the Baptists for their "intolerance" and "aggressive disrespect for other citizens' deeply held views." I hope he complained about the NEA funded projects I mentioned above.Call me nuts, but sometimes I detect a double-standard. When you bash Christianity, it's free speech. When you bash Islam, it's a hate crime. Personally, I think we should ALL be nicer. But there is that whole Patrick Henry thing about not agreeing with what you say though defending to the death your right to say it.The top cleric in Saudi Arabia, one Grand Mufti Adul-Aziz al-Sheik, said, "We condemn and denounce this criminal act against Muslims' most sacred item." Is that the same guy who called fire and brimstone down on those Palestinians who used pages from the Bible as toilet paper while violating the Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem three years ago? I guess not.And for the record, we should note that the government of Saudi Arabia routinely burns Bibles whenever such contraband is uncovered. In late April, 40 Pakistani Christians living near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were arrested for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs to others through the distribution of books and pamphlets." Apparently, Christians are supposed to respect Islam, but the favor need not be returned.Trashing someone's sacred book is not torture. It's not illegal (in America, that is). It might even be an effective interrogation technique. I don't know if the Newsweek account is true. Probably, it's not. But if they did do it, the Saudi cleric is wrong. It wasn't criminal. It was just rude. P.S. Here's a pretty insightful commentary from over at the Washington Times. Culture30121@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 May 2005 11:58:22 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/21/172354.php Scott StiegemeyerBy now, everyone has heard about the Newsweek story that claimed that some of the U.S. interrogators at Gitmo flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to rattle their detainees. When this story broke internationally, there were anti-American riots and upwards of 20 people were crushed or trampled to death. And now Newsweek is retracting their story claiming that their anonymous source cannot be sure the allegation is factual.In the Washington Post's coverage of the Newsweek disgrace, they report: "The intensity of the anti-American riots, fueled in part by outraged Muslim clerics and radio broadcasts by elements of the ousted Taliban regime, took many Western analysts by surprise (emphasis added)."And all I can say to that is, "WHAT??!!" Who exactly was surprised that reports of desecrating the Koran would foment riots? Muslims view the Koran as sacred, as the very words of God. All Muslims are taught to treat the book with the utmost respect. Christians in Muslim countries are even advised not to place their Bibles on the floor because no Muslim would do that to the Koran and if a Christian has such low respect for his sacred text, it would convince them that Christians don't take their faith very seriously. In some Islamic countries desecrating the Koran is a crime punishable by death. And many Western analysts were surprised?!That would be comparable to me shouting "FIRE!!" into a crowded theater and later saying I was surprised to have caused such a panic. I might be forgiven for the ruckus if my warning were based on fact, if the theater truly were burning. But if I carelessly hit the alarm and were thus responsible for the ensuing havoc and admitted later that I really had no evidence that the theater was on fire, I ought to be penalized.The problem, as I see it, is that many of those who are reporting on Islam don't know much about it. In fact, the mammoth ignorance of religion by those who report on it is, at times, frankly staggering.Newsweek Editor, Mark Whitaker said: "I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't." Y'think? Culture29907@blogcritics.org Sat, 21 May 2005 17:23:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/21/122452.php Scott StiegemeyerI am not one who spends a lot of time, in the pulpit or out, talking about homosexuality. Some churches seem to talk about little else. Just do a google of the word "homosexuality" and nearly any major American denomination and see how many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hits you get.But when I see a major news headline "Lutheran Bishops Mull Allowing Gay Clergy," I feel forced to say something. Though this particular article does differentiate the major American Lutheran denominations and clarifies that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not the church body that is discussing gay clergy and gay marriage, it doesn't do so until the very last sentence of the article. Many readers will not get that far.I do not support allowing gay clergy, as the article puts it, and I'll tell you why. But first, I want to be quite clear about what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that I hate anyone. I am NOT saying that I think I am better than anyone. I am NOT in favor of discrimation against homosexuals in terms of civil rights. I am NOT even saying that people who struggle with homosexuality can't be fine Christians. So hear me out.I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful. And I am saying that the Christian Church has no right to condone it. Like Martin Luther, our conscience is bound by the Word of God. One does not have to rely on Old Testament Jewish prohibitions to make the case. The New Testament likewise explicitly condemns homosexual behavior.I've heard some argue that "well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And my response is, "true, but He didn't say anything about date rape, necrophilia or cannibalism either. Does that mean we can put those on the table as well?" Theirs is an argument from silence, which is the weakest possible argument one can make. Jesus did not say anything directly about homosexuality, but a man that Jesus personally called to be his spokesman, Paul of Tarsus, did. Cf. Romans 1:26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10.Some will further argue that homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't hurt anybody. Well, that is a premise with which I do not agree. A recent article in the Christian Research Journal (Vol.27/No.6/2005) by Frank Turek ably demonstrates the harm homosexual practice causes to individuals, families and societies. Some of his arguments are stronger than others, but all of them need to at least be considered.Homosexuality is contrary to the will and design of the Creator. Occasionally, the point is offered that people are born gay. First, there is no evidence of that, though many assume there is. No gay gene has been identified that I am aware of. And even if it could be shown to be a genetic trait, that does not mean that it is good or helpful or the will of the Creator. All sorts of bad things are genetically determined or predisposed: cystic fibrosis, obesity, breast cancer, violent behavior and so on. If I were a Darwinist, espousing the survival-of-the-fittest doctrine, I would think a gay gene to be a harmful mutation that endangers the species. All of that is evidence that God's good creation has been thoroughly corrupted and no one is exempt. The will of the Creator in this case can be discerned by looking at the creation itself. Arguing from design, our sexual organs are fashioned for heterosexual relations. Not otherwise.All that having been said, it's necessary to remember that heterosexuals are guilty of thoughts, attitudes and behaviors which are just as sexually immoral. And let's not forget that gossip is a sin. As is pride, hatred and sloth. In fact, every one of us stands condemned before God by our sins.And thankfully, the good news is that the death of Jesus upon the cross was sufficient to pay for all our sins, indeed the sins of the world. So I welcome all who are penitent, no matter what particular sin they struggle against. The rub is when we decide to call evil good and good evil, to upgrade our particular peccadillos from sin to acceptable alternative. We can't give any person's perversities a pass just because it's fashionable at the time, no matter what they are. God is offended by our sins whether we are or not. And by glazing over the offense of God for this or that, we deprive the individual of an opportunity to be reconciled to his Heavenly Father. And how loving is that? Culture29893@blogcritics.org Sat, 21 May 2005 12:24:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/20/175102.php Scott StiegemeyerJourney Back to Eden: My Life and Times Among the Desert Fathers by Mark GruberThe author is an American Benedictine monk who teaches anthropology at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA. For his doctoral research, he spent a year or so visiting and living in Coptic monasteries in the Sahara desert. This wonderful book was the result. It is his log of his time in Egypt.Personally, one of my great desires is to visit Egypt and at least see the types of ancient desert monasteries he writes about. He focuses on the liturgical life of the Coptic monks, their forms of piety, and some of their theological reflections on sin, temptation, and grace. He gives insights into their cycles of fasting and feasting, their austerity, and their tremendous joy under hardship. He noted that Coptic monks are quite a bit more rigorous than Western monks. For instance, they go to pray for up to six hours at a time, standing, singing the entire psalter every day. He tells of attending a Christmas Eve service that lasted from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.I have often been intrigued by the life of the Christian churches in Muslim countries. Christians in Egypt are a despised minority, though they probably fare somewhat better than in many other countries in the region. Books29847@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 May 2005 17:51:02 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/20/142503.php Scott StiegemeyerThe other day, a Lutheran pastor asked me about a movie I had recently recommended, The Addiction, so I decided to post a comment about it.I'm not a film critic and I don't particularly fancy horror films, but I did become intrigued by the genre after being assigned to write an article for Higher Things magazine. I found that there are some distinctly biblical notions underlying many of the better horror movies. I know that might sound strange to some, but it's true. The Addiction is a vampire movie, pure and simple. I stand by my recommendation, but with this word of caution: It is a gory movie and has some quite unpleasant scenes. The fact that it is black and white helps a bit. But the easily rattled may want to stay away.The vampire motif is the film's way of portraying Original Sin. The disposition of fallen man toward evil is a bit like an addiction, a craving that must be fed. One of the reasons I recommend the picture is because it does not buy at all into this modernist notion that people are good and ever improving. Enlightenment optimism regarding man's nature is simply not borne out in our experience.Don't misunderstand, human nature is good in essence. If I said otherwise, I'd be accusing God of creating something evil. Even more, I'd be saying that God Himself is evil. We were created in the image and likeness of God after all. But since our first parents took the forbidden fruit, our pristine human nature has been corrupted. Now, as St. Augustine said, "Non posse non peccare," ("We are not able not to sin.")And that is what this movie is about. Why is that beneficial to the cause of Christ? Because we live in a society that is in denial. By failing to recognize our corruption for what it is, we fail to understand our need for a savior. As long as I can remain even the slightest bit optimistic about myself then I will not seek Christ. Martin Luther once said, "It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ (Heidelberg Theses)." To recognize your need is the first step toward recovery. Video29831@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 May 2005 14:25:03 EDT