A friend recently enticed me to watch an episode of Family Guy because it featured the entire cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Believing that this would be the main thrust of the episode I said I would and I did. And the parts with the TNG cast were very, very funny. Unfortunately, and belying the advertising for the episode, it was the “B” story.
The “A” story was Meg’s conversion to Christianity.
I informed my friend of this, after watching the episode, and he responded, “Oh, dude, I’m sorry. If I had known I never would have told you about it.”
See, according to Family Guy, sincere Christians are literally stone-throwing, book burning, irrational fanatics. I’m not engaging in hyperbole here. When the town found out that Brian was an atheist (because Meg felt it her Christianity duty to tell them) the news compared him to Hitler, banned him from various stores, and literally tried to stone him. Later, Brian confronts Meg outside a church where she and its members are engaging in a jolly book burning, destroying the works of Darwin, Steven Hawking, and a tome titled, First Grade Logic. Brian turns Meg away from her faith by pointing out, essentially, that if God were loving He’d have made her attractive and not placed her in a home where she’s as mistreated as she is.
This only reinforced my dislike of the show because not only is it grossly unbalanced, which is something I can live with, I don’t demand fairness in private media or ventures, but it’s mean spirited.
And I think that’s why I like South Park over Family Guy. South Park does stuff I don’t agree with, even things I think might be unbalanced, but I’d never call it mean. Even in the episode where it addressed Mormonism, singing a song that included the lyrics, “Dumb, Dumb, Dumb…” when exploring its foundational beliefs, it presented Mormon families as kind, happy, caring people that pushed their beliefs on no one and sincerely wish the best for their neighbors. Indeed, it was Stan’s family that were the a**holes in the story because they couldn’t get past the tenets of the faith and simply appreciate the people for who they were.
I’ve never seen Family Guy extend this basic kind of decency to anyone it disagrees with. It’s never said to such a person or group, “Yeah, we disagree with you, we think your thinking is a little ridiculous, but your heart is in the right place and you’re good people anyway.”
And that’s the difference between me rolling my eyes and still watching your show, and wishing never to have anything to do with you again.
{ 46 comments }
Very well elucidated. That’s precisely my problem with the show too. Well, that and the lazy, lazy reliance on 80s nostalgia in the lowest common denominator of the let’s-all-reminisce-mockingly-about-the-things-we-liked-as-kids miasma of irony that envelops postmodern pop culture today.
But that part is obvious. What you point out is the less easily crystallized character of the show, which some people find cathartic (because it reinforces their own beliefs and feeds on their prejudices) and others find revolting. Shows like Family Guy, Boondocks, Robot Chicken, and Seth McFarlane’s other outings like American Dad (an even meaner clone of Family Guy, where the characters are even more blatant caricatures of the things he despises about modern American life) exist as giant piñata-smashing parties, where they can unapologetically hang hated symbols in front of a sympathetic crowd and beat them to death while basking in the chants and applause from an audience that’s self-selected to contain no dissenters. I can take Bush jokes from South Park; there, they’re sparingly deployed and well earned. In Family Guy, they’re gratuitous and pandering. Besides, I can’t bear to hear Seth McFarlane’s talentless voice-acting trying to wrap itself around someone like Osama bin Laden or Mel Gibson; Trey Parker is no great shakes as a voice actor, but Seth McFarlane is no Trey Parker.
Shrug. Seth McFarland is a leftist. The show still has its moments.
But let’s not kid ourselves here — South Park, which I love, is far crueler. The hippie episode? Michael Jackson’s face falling off? I could come up with a dozen if I tried.
There’s a principle in psychology that applies here — you always feel the hurt done to you more than the hurt done to others. Its been shown in tests where people shock each other that you always overestimate the first and underestimate the second. It’s something to keep in mind whenever your feelings are hurt.
You really have to inure yourself to the weird leftism in entertainment. Stargate has an episode where a reporter is adamant about free press because “his father was a reporter jailed during the McCarthy era,” as if that ever happened. A much more realistic version would have had him in a Soviet gulag, but you could starve to death if you had a loaf of bread for every time Hollywood criticizes the Soviet Union. And just yesterday on Heroes, the blonde woman who looks like his mom asks Micah “Who are you? Che Guevara?” Che fucking Guevara, the butcher who shot a child in cold blood. These people live in a bubble where they only think nice things about leftism.
Family Guy is pure tripe, adolescent (at best) humor repackaged with the most offensive stereotypes possible, 90% of the time attacking conservatives, conservatism and traditional values.
Which might be OK if the humor was able to reach the pinnacles of sophistication and sublimity characterized by the Three Stooges…
30 minutes of Family Guy is 90 minutes of wasted life.
Dave,
Are you talking about the hippie episode where Cartman was going house to house routing them with a fire extinguisher? If so, that’s hardly an example of cruelty. And the treatment of Michael Jackson? He’s a public figure that lives, to be kind, an abnormal life. Ridicule comes with the fame.
But Christians that stone atheists and burn books? Not some radical sect but reflective of mainstream Christianity? There’s no comparison!
Family Guy is one of the best written, best produced, cleverest, and funniest shows on television. The show draws a quite sophisticated audience of viewers–sorry, but it’s true.
And, contrary to Cosmic’s assertion, it is not full of “the most offensive stereotypes possible” (a charge can only be made by someone who’s rarely seen the show, and has never done so without blinkers on–or, someone so deeply mired in Political Correctness they can’t laugh at much of anything in the least bit edgy).
Ditto anyone who claims the show spends “90% of the time” attacking ANY group. That’s about as bizarre as suggesting that 90% of Bill Clinton’s Presidency consisted of receiving oral sex from interns.
Me? I’m just plain used to the blinkered leftism of Hollywood. McFarlane has some deep prejudices and anger issues regarding conservatives of all types, Christians of most types, and a few others. The thing is, from my perspective, he makes no bones about his agenda. He’s thoroughly biased and proud of it. OK, fine. I prefer that to what most of Hollywood and the working press do, which is pretend to be even-handed when they’re not.
The show rarely delves deeply into religion. When it does, it’s clear where McFarlane stands. If religion and topical politics take up more than 1% of a season’s worth of the show I’ll eat my hat.
I found the episode annoying in parts, but highly amusing in others. That’s showbiz.
Oh, but I’d add that somone in McFarlane’s circle ought to clue him in on the fact that even the American Library Association can’t come up with many examples of widespread book burnings in the United States in either the Twentieth Century or the Twenty First Century, except a few fringe Christian groups in a few places who burned some Harry Potter books–and, irony of ironies, some furious lefty-liberals burning books by a right-winger they hated.
So, yes, Seth is a bigot. A deeply misinformed one. I guess when you live in a comfortable bubble of people who never confront you about this kind of shit, it’s easy to get arrogant.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. It’s a comedy show – the fact that you believe that it’s trying to honestly portray mainstream Christians in that light just shows how much you need to lighten up. Yes, the potrayal was hyperbole, but that’s the point. It’s supposed to be a version of things that are far more extreme than reality, because it is so over the top that it is silly, and therefore funny to at least some people. If you don’t find it funny, that’s fine, Family Guy humor isn’t funny to everyone, but if you start taking it this seriously I think you’ve got a stick up your bum.
And yes, I do realize there is a political message there. It’s not entirely untrue either. According to polls atheists are the least trusted group in America. In some areas being openly atheist can make you a social pariah – usually not the the extent that people will throw rocks and mud at you, but people can be rather unfriendly towards you. That said, I’ve also known atheists who are overly hostile towards the religious – it does go both ways.
Yeah, I guess you’ve never seen the news specials and documentaries of how Atheists are treated in communities. You’re just mad because truth hurts. Also, exaggeration is what makes it funny. If the people in the town simply said, “We don’t like you, no punch socials for you anymore!” then it would be a very boring episode. But at least it wouldn’t offend you!
I’m about as agnostic as one gets and even I’m tired of Christian bashing every time I turn on the TV.
Don’t get me wrong, I like gutter comedy, but after awhile a lot of it comes down to “Haha we’re pissing off Christians” or “Let’s shock the squares.”
I thought it was funny too, but then I turned 18.
People can defend the “sophistication” of this drivel all they like. I remain unconvinced. The show is a sterling example of why our culture is going to hell in a handbasket. The fact that it is viewed by people as “clever” and “sophisticated” is exactly what I mean.
Tripe. Disgusting, offensive, childish tripe. Defend it all you like. I won’t waste my time with it.
I agree that folks belonging to groups need to have thicker skin and be able to take a ribbing every now and then — this includes Christians, but it also includes blacks, gays, Muslims, and women.
In the 50′s, the groups taking MOST of the ribbings were liberals, commies, blacks, gays and Jews — this became excessive. Often, it became evil.
In the 2000′s, the groups taking MOST of the ribbings are whites, males, Christians, Republicans, traditionalists, evangelicals, Darwinian Deniers. You can say anything you want about these groups without recrimination. Some of it is fair game, some is excessive, some borders on evil.
Myself, I prefer to be able to take a joke and make a joke, but I agree that finding that fine line is a delicate balance.
Now, please go f%#^ off!
–HB
I’m not necessarily offended by “Family Guy”, I just happen to think it’s not all that funny. I agree that “South Park” pushes the limits of good taste (and sometimes leaps over them), but I think it is a more “equal opportunity” offender.
I have watched many episodes of “Family Guy” (including two or three complete seasons) and I just don’t really like it.
Hank:
Heh, nice post.
On the “can’t take a joke” subject.
I can take a joke.
And I can recognize vicious demagogury.
I laugh at the first.
I bristle at the second.
The line between them is not so fine. Those who refer to “Family Guy” as “mean-spirited” are correct, but such a comment does not go nearly far enough. The show, and shows like it, substitute meanness for cleverness and substitute insult for exaggeration.
I am no prude. I am not a Christian. I enjoy a good joke as much as anyone. I find “Family Guy” to have virtually no redeeming characteristics whatosever.
Just my opinion.
Shrug. I have kind of a hard time with “Family Guy” myself, mainly because I don’t care for poop humor. But the depictions of Brian being mistreated simply because he didn’t share the prevailing beliefs in the supernatural were pretty well right on.
Atheists are pretty much the last group of people it’s considered to be okay to hate.
Are you talking about the hippie episode where Cartman was going house to house routing them with a fire extinguisher? If so, that’s hardly an example of cruelty.
No, the one where he drove a giant drill through a crowd of them. That’s mean-spirited.
He’s a public figure that lives, to be kind, an abnormal life. Ridicule comes with the fame.
Sure, but if we’re talking about being mean… Heck, look at the Trapper Keeper episode and the Mel Gibson thing. Yes, they’re fair game, but so is religion. South Park was certainly cruel to Scientology and Mormonism.
I don’t watch South Park either, but when I have, it has been my observation that South Park skewers in both directions pretty equally, which does have SOME redemptive effect. At least they are not ideological demagogues like Family Guy.
On the other hand, I’ve seen some King of the Hill episodes that I thought were both even handed and much less mean-spirited than either Family Guy or South Park. I could almost watch King of the Hill. Almost.
Cosmic: I’m not trying to have a “whose brain pan and/or penis is bigger” argument. Dude, I’m really not. I’m just surprised.
This show is unambiguously labeled as to its content. The societally-approved warnings are attached at the beginning of each episode. It doesn’t even get aired nationwide until “9pm (8 Central)”, which I’m pretty sure pretty much mirrors “9pm Mountain (8 Pacific)”.
So if you’re watching this show, you’ve had ample warning. You’ve had plenty of time to hush your kids off to bed, and even if you haven’t, right up front in the first few minutes, a screaming big warning is printed in big bold black and white words. Although those words may not be this blunt, here’s what those words mean to me:
“Much course language and potty mouth and awful ideas are to ensue. If this disturbs you, or you’re worried about your kids seeing such things, turn away immediately.”
Seriously, Sean, how much should you be able to ask for? Is there any chance that anyone on the planet could not get the message? If you’re a father of young children–boys or girls–how much do you need the rest of us to shield your children for you?
In any case, do you know what? I’m going to be 43 years old in July. I graduated with a 4.0 GPA. Summa Cum Laude. Make of it what you will. And I voted for George W. Bush twice. With no regrets.
So honestly I have to ask:
Do you really need to keep insulting my intelligence if I like this show?
Oh, and by the way, Sean:
Can you explain why this isn’t funny?
Dean:
In the “who is insulting the intelligence of the other” question here, I have to say that when you (and others) talk about this show being sophisticated, clever, brilliantly written, etc. I certainly feel that you are implying that those of us who find it course, stupid, childish and mean-spirited are the ones lacking intelligence.
OK, since you asked, why isn’t that stupid clip funny?
Start with Stewie, the “baby” who talks like an English Aristocrat with arrested social development, who exhibits hyper-sexual behavior (“Hey, I KNOW, let’s make a BABY a PERVERT!!!”)
(“That’s BRILLIANT, just BRILLIANT!!”)
(“And it’ll sure piss off those stuffed shirt traditional conservatives too, woohoo aren’t we clever!!!! High five!”)
Then we have the talking, upright dog. OK, so Scooby Doo has a speech impediment, but since when is “talking dog” considered comic genius? Of course the DOG is the decent, reasonable one, not the baby (or the father, or daughter, etc… MORE comic brilliance.)
Now on to the skit itself. The FUNDAMENTAL concept is slightly funny. If you can get past the pervert, talking baby, and upright talking dog. Which I can, even though I find it to be pathetically contrived. Someone writing a song about a girl, naming the song after a girl and being told how trite and overdone that is. Well, it’s not funny until the FIRST time Stewie says “name six more.” That brought a mild chuckle to my lips. I guess the writer realized that was the funniest part of the skit because he went right back to that well with “name five more.”
Of course they had to throw an insult to Beethoven in there as well because, you know, making fun of classical musicians is always a laugh-a-second riot.
Yeah Dean, comic brilliance of the first order. Brought to you by the upright talking dog and the pervert baby with the aristocratic English accent.
BRILLIANT! just BRILLIANT!!
So a Politically Incorrect cartoon that is clearly and unambiguously written as being adult-only, with multiple warnings for parents in plain black and white as to the content, is a perverted example of the decline of Western Civilization and proof positive of the stupidity of the show’s fan base.
Got it. Hey, thanks for that heads-up. My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, and Western Civilization thanks you.
In the meantime, my 11 year old son and I shall continue tuning in every other weekend. We will bask in the glory of this latest attempt to destroy Western Civilization with cartoons. I had no idea that comics were so powerful, and that my 11 year-old loved perversion so much. As a fellow Dad, I thank you for correcting me on this matter.
Signed,
Dean Esmay the pervert, + his little pervert sons too.
The thing about moral decline, Dean, is that most people never see it. And those that do, well, are treated like how you treat them.
If evil were plain as day then everyone could resist it. But the creeping vulgarity, hyper-sexuality, rejection of traditional values is an evil.
I mean, really, Dean, are you even equipped to see a slow decline? Short of someone making a graph for you, it seems like you can’t. Or won’t.
As professing Catholic I find it strange that you buck the Church’s stance on homosexuality, the Church’s stance on man’s fallen nature, you’re pro-Choice, right?, also in violation of Church teachings…
Who are you to point to the authority of the Catholic Church on theological matters you disagree with me and others on but then feel, I must assume, justified in cherry-picking your own religious tenets from that body?
You are ill equipped to see decadence and corruption growing because you have rejected the very foundation by which we are given the tools to judge these things – though you protest otherwise.
“Family Guy” is but a single example in a trend you refuse to see because, well, it’s a trend you seem to like.
Tell me I’m wrong. I want to be wrong. I don’t see how I can be.
If you want to start somewhere tell me how you can say Catholic tradition is binding, I and others like me are wrong in rejecting it, but then you hold personal beliefs contrary to the long-standing decrees of that body?
Because, really, that’s my main problem here. I think you’re ill equipped to even know what the decline looks like because you’ve chosen to ignore the very traditions you chide me and others for doing.
Address that and we can get somewhere…
My only problem with Family Guy is it just isn’t funny. Maybe some find it humorous; but I don’t. And it isn’t a conservative or religious thing; it just does not make me laugh or entertain me.
But, the overwhelming amount of what is broadcast on TV these days is just a waste of time to watch.
Mike:
My MAIN problem with the Family Guy is that it isn’t funny. It substitutes shock, insult and vulgarity for humor. For some reason this appeals to many people. I understand how it appeals to 11 year old boys who find poop references hilarious, but I DON’T understand how it appeals to adults. Dean’s constant yammering about how this is clearly advertised as ‘adult’ content is funnier in it’s unintended irony than the show itself is.
The fact that it is filled with ideological demagoguery just pisses me off. I don’t like that no matter WHO it is aimed at. It’s cheap and condescending. When it comes to witty repartee I frequently find myself the target of similar cheap and easy shots, to which I usually reply that I leave the easy stuff to the amateurs.
Which is basically how I see the Family Guy and shows like it. It’s amateur hour, taking all the obvious cheap and easy shots at those they want to belittle and insult so that their echo chamber erupts in knee-jerk laughter. I don’t like that sort of “humor” no matter the source or the target.
The Beethoven shot in the clip Dean linked is one example of this. “Hey, let’s throw in a gratuitous insult at a famous dead classical music composer! People love it when we stick it to the stuffed shirts!”
It’s trite, cheap, gratuitous and, imho, totally not funny.
Dean, this is all my opinion. YOU ASKED ME what wasn’t funny about the clip, so spare me your righteous indignation. I’m allowed to have an opinion, and I’ll express that opinion.
I didn’t bring this up. I didn’t attack you or your kids. I said what I think about this show. If you take that personally, that’s your problem, not mine.
CC: I could almost watch King of the Hill. Almost.
I liked it. Right up until the “Hank’s Colonoscopy” episode in the first season, and haven’t watched it since. (Like I said: I don’t care for poop humor….)
As far as all the arguing over the decline of Western civilization: get used to it. It’s on the way out (although I disagree that the problem is one of morality; it’s actually politicoeconomic), and there isn’t a damned thing we can do about it unless we have the will to turn it around. And we don’t. So we might as well enjoy the band as the ship slips quietly beneath the waves.
Mark:
I agree with you except the politicoeconomic comment. The decline of Western Civilization has two root causes.
1. Internal decay: Democratization has its own demise in it’s own DNA. As has been noted by people since ancient Greece, once the non-productive majority realizes they can vote themselves the productive results of the minority, democracy crashes under its own weight.
2. External pressure: As many brilliant people have noted, demography IS destiny. Western civilization downplays reproduction, external forces don’t. That results in an inevitable decline in population and therefore in political, economic and cultural power. In the USA whites are declining in number while hispanics are increasing. In Europe it’s the Muslims who are winning the demography war.
The combination of the two is unbeatable.
CC: agree w/ #1; that’s kind of what I meant – or at least part of it.
I have to say I find #2 uncomfortably close to a clear expression of racism on first read. Perhaps you could explain why I shouldn’t.
(Anyway: US population is not declining, more’s the pity.)
Mark:
Because it ISN’T racist to point out facts that are easily discernable.
Europe’s white population is in decline while Muslim populations are growing fast.
America’s white population is very nearly steady, but the historical trend is declining growth leading to actual decline in numbers. Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population.
These are facts. There are cultural consequences of these facts. I do not judge one culture over another, I simply point out what the facts show.
Accusing someone of racism for pointing out facts is one of the rhetorical tricks I find most repulsive.
Now, it is fair to point out that Hispanic culture is part of the Western tradition, whereas Muslim culture is not, so the cultural impact in the USA as Hispanic influence grows is likely to be far less than the cultural impact in Europe as Muslim influence does.
Some (no doubt whom you would accuse of racism) see a demography based future where muslim and hispanic cultures dominate and clash.
One other comment, this analysis is really just for Europe and North/South America. Once you factor in India, China and Indo-China it becomes more complex, but the same basic dynamics are in play.
Kevin: I don’t buck the church’s teachings on any of those things you mentioned. As I’ve repeatedly explained to you, only to have you ignore it. Indeed, I write this fairly confident that you won’t even read it.
Furthermore, whenever the subject of so-called moral decline is brought up, I look to history as my guide, and try my best so cite examples. From what I can see, all you do is repeat the words of whichever self-declared teacher or self-declared prophet you happen to find personally compelling today. That’s all anyone in your branch of the faith ever does, really. It’s what Jesus chided the pharisees for doing: treating the traditions of men as if they were the traditions of God.
I think I’m pretty well-equipped to judge allegations of moral decline, because I look to the facts of history. You generally can’t be bothered with that, being much too busy rendering your own own opinions as if they were the Word of God.
As a nation we have become less moral in some ways, but a lot more moral in others. That’s easy to see if you just bother to look at the facts. For those of you who can’t be bothered, however…
Cosmic: It’s fine by me if you think a very funny clip is not funny. You’re so mired in political correctness, I can see why you wouldn’t laugh. But, simply speaking factually, you regularly state things about this show that simply aren’t true, and run away when someone challenges you on your false allegations.
In the meantime, there is no irony in the fact that I, as a father, choose to allow my child to see or read certain things that other parents don’t. The point is that we’ve all been given ample warning if we’re concerned about such things. The very fact that we are warned pretty much flies in the face of the notion that we’re in a civilizational decline.
Also, by the way, contrasting “Muslims” to “white people” is about as silly as contrasting Germans with Buddhists. Sorry, does not compute.
Dean:
I read it anyway…
So, Kevin does equate this with a moral decline. I call it a cultural one. I think there is a distinction between the two. I don’t equate culture with morality.
Morality is a complex and ill-defined concept. “Right” and “Wrong” as absolutes are the source of nothing but constant conflict. Is it “right” or “wrong” to execute a convicted murderer? Is it “right” or “wrong” to engage in homosexual activities? is it “right” or “wrong” to abort a fetus? These are just a few of the key debates that are couched in “moral” terms by both sides.
Culture is not nearly as vague. I suppose it is fair to say that when I talk about “cultural decline” I am passing judgment because for it to be in “decline” that means it must be getting worse. I think anyone who looks at our culture would admit that it is CHANGING dramatically, and has been for decades. It is only fair to point out that what one person sees as a “decline” another person might see as “growth.” So my characterization of our culture in “decline” based on things like the sort of humor that graces our TV screen is, I admit, a purely individual value judgment that is fair target for rebuttal.
Let’s just say that it’s cultural change that I don’t like. Now there are lots of cultural changes that I DO like, so I should be clear that not everything that is changing is negative. I happen to think that homosexual behavior is no skin off my nose and cultural changes that make acceptance of such relationships are cultural improvements. The same goes for any improvement in racial equality.
Still, even if I admit that some of what I see as cultural change is positive and some is negative, is it even remotely acceptable for me to say that I find myself sometimes nostalgic for the “old days” in those areas of culture that I used to find more appealing, even if at that very same time other aspects of culture were worse? In other words, can I say I miss the days of the Beverly Hillbillies and Carol Burnett when compared to Family Guy and South Park without being accused of wanting to bring back segregated bathrooms? I guess I wish we could have the improvements I appreciate without having the decline in other areas that I abhor.
But that’s probably too much to ask.
CC: Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population.
How is this a demographic cause of the ongoing decline of Western civilization? Last time I checked, Latin America was part of the West, and I don’t see where Hispanic culture is any less valuable than White Gringo culture.
And: I didn’t accuse you of anything. I told you how I read your comment, and invited you to explain where I was wrong. You didn’t exactly do that, but you did acknowledge what I say about Hispanics above, so I’ll just assume you’ve retracted that part of your comment.
I think we’re mostly in agreement here. It’s just a good thing to take a bit of extra care when discussing things like this.
Cosmic: Personally, I consider the fact that we are no longer having the government censoring art to be a sign of cultural progress rather than decline. I consider politically incorrect humor the same way. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it, or don’t let your kids watch it. That’s a big step up from the government deciding for us, which is what it used to do.
Mark:
Western Civilization is also a somewhat vague concept. Does it include Moscow, which had heavy influence from the mongols and other eastern cultures? Does it include Madrid which had heavy influence from the Muslims? Does the influence on current north and south American Hispanic culture from indigenous cultures in North and South America factor in?
I’ll call it clarification, not retraction. Hispanic culture is part of Western culture, but, like Russia, it has its own unique influences which make it, at least, not central to what we normally think of as “Western”. At least not central to what America at one time accepted as its cultural roots.
CC,
not that you’re necessarily saying otherwise, but to toss in my $.02 – i’d consider the fact that most americans rank their historical roots (the culture of their ancestors) as second or third in importance compared to their current roots (the culture of their current local community) is a feature, not a bug. leave getting caught up in the past to europe, quite frankly.
Zach:
It’s not a question of how people “rank” their historical roots, cultural impacts go far beyond what most people even acknowledge, much less rank in a poll. It covers pretty much everything from what we eat, drink and wear, to the cultural memes which underlie much of our reasoning.
This is why cultures clash, and so many wars are based on cultural differences.
CC: Western Civilization is also a somewhat vague concept. Does it include…
Interesting (and very fair) question. I’d broadly define it, in the context of what we’re discussing here, as the values and concepts (e.g. classical liberalism) that sprang from the Enlightenment of ca. the 18th Century onwards.
I do think you have a point about demographic influence on the ongoing decline and eventual death of those values and concepts, but I’d note that the changing genetic landscape of the West isn’t necessarily a root cause – rather, I’d blame the cultural and religious obstinacy (and I mean that technically, not pejoratively) of some of those demographics rather than anything else for this.
I don’t think increasing our birth rate is the answer, though. We’ve got too damn many monkeys on this ball of dirt as it is….
Dean,
I read your post and you didn’t answer my question. Instead, you dismissed it and made false accusations against me and gross generalizations about whatever group you think I’m involved with.
For someone so concerned about facts and history, you seem unwilling to put your money where your mouth is and answer my questions and what I see as hypocrisy on your part. If there is an answer, I want to hear it. I said I wanted to hear it.
Instead, you decided to hear your own bigotry, ignore my words, fire randomly in my direction, then accuse me of not bothering to read your post anyway.
Nice setup you got there: You can take the moral high ground and never have to explain yourself because, well, those asking you to account for yourself are too closed-minded to read the response anyway.
If you didn’t think I was going to read it, why’d you even write it? Verbal masturbation or something?
No, you knew I’d read it and you instead took it as an opportunity to attack me and the people you disagree with.
I listed three SPECIFIC things I wanted you to explain and you chose to flail about.
I wish I could avoid answering specific questions about my beliefs and still say everyone that doesn’t agree with me is wrong…
Mark:
I concur with much of what you’ve said. On the subject of Demography being Destiny I think that is a profoundly accurate concept, much more so than people realize. BUT it is not the end-all, be-all of history because on occasion cultures morph. They morph from internal or external causes. My hope is that as “Western Culture” fades, it is replaced with a comparable culture in terms of personal freedom and rational thought. I think such a result is inevitable, but I would rather see it sooner rather than later.
Kevin: You have, on numerous occasions, made false allegations such as these:
As professing Catholic I find it strange that you buck the Church’s stance on homosexuality, the Church’s stance on man’s fallen nature, you’re pro-Choice, right?, also in violation of Church teachings…
Hoo boy. In one sentence, three gross mischaracterizations. Let me try to unravel this:
1) I do not buck the church’s stance that homosexuality is a sin, and I’ve responded to you on numerous occasions that I agree that it’s a sin. As I’ve explained before, I simply don’t find it necessary to outlaw or persecute gay people. I also feel that the Church is correct to deny sacramental marriage to gay couples, but I disagree with the current Pope’s personal opinion that there should be no legal protection for such unions.
We are allowed to disagree on matters like this with the Church. If I said homosexuality wasn’t a sin, I’d be “bucking the Church” (and probably excommunicated). If I say I think Benedict’s reached a wrong conclusion about a secular matter and that simple Christian charity says we should probably give these relationships some legal protection, I’m not “bucking the Church.” All I’m doing is asserting that I disagree with His Holiness on a fairly mundane matter of public policy. Which I’m not just allowed to do, but I’m actually expected to do as a good Christian. Because one of the Church’s teachings is that if you are truly in your heart of hearts convinced that the leaders of the Church are wrong about something, it would be a sin not to speak up about it.
2) Good Lord, where, where, where, where, WHERE have I EVER contradicted the Church’s stance on man’s fallen nature? If you think I did that, can you please show it to me? I consider man’s fallen nature to be one of the bedrock beliefs of Christianity. I don’t know what the explanation is for this bizarre charge, but it’s annoying all the same. The only thing on this subject that I reject is the Calvinist doctrine of “Total Depravity.”
3) I’m pro-life. To get me to be a part of any plan to abort a baby would be extremely difficult. If the mother’s life’s on the line, I’ll think about it. Otherwise, I’d see it as my duty to help any woman who finds herself pregnant at a bad time with food, shelter, clothing, emotional support, whatever I have to do to help her. On the other hand, on a pragmatic level, I do admit that I think having an abortion 4 weeks after conception is less disturbing than having one 8.5 months after conception. I also think that on a practical level, we should overturn Roe v. Wade and allow the states individually decide how to regulate abortion.
Anyway, that’s three things, to my mind, where you grossly mischaracterized my views. In areas where I am quite certain I already answered those charges, only to get silence from you. How can I respond to that appropriately? I’m sorry if I allowed my annoyance to treat you badly, but, seriously Kev, where are you getting this shit?
Now, you claim you asked me three specific questions. I don’t remember what those were, can you give them to me in bullet-point form? In any case, you said this:
If you want to start somewhere tell me how you can say Catholic tradition is binding, I and others like me are wrong in rejecting it, but then you hold personal beliefs contrary to the long-standing decrees of that body?
This, again, gets to something that annoys me because I’ve explained it before. There is a vast difference between lower-case “t” tradition (the tradition of men) and the Sacred Tradition of God. The Church is full of traditions of men, as it should be. Traditions of men are good things, so long as they are not confused with the Traditions of God. So, you know, we may have this tradition that we eat donuts the day before Ash Wednesday. Which is cool, there’s nothing wrong with it. But if I try to say that God requires us to do this, I’ve gone way beyond my authority.
I’m actually stymied by this, because I think I’m giving perfectly logical answers only to be accused of believing things I don’t believe.
So, what the heck am I missing here? Can you distill your questions down into bullet-points, so I can try to figure them out?
Oh, but by the way Kevin: why would you think it wrong of me to bring up the teachigns and tradition of your own sect, but you’re free to just say “Catholic Catholic Catholic” when Dean’s the subject?
You can’t have it both ways. You can either state that our respective theologies are fair game, or you can declare that they aren’t. Is my faith open for scrutiny but yours isn’t? Or what?
Dude talking dogs and matricidal babies are obviously the work of the devil. It’s that seductive evil that clings to every one of your dark impulses, constantly massaging them until you do something crazy like take some Benadryl or read the Bible backwards or something.
Considering the fact that there’s a ton of references to musicals, sitcoms, and other culture references that an 11 year old wouldn’t even know about; I am guessing 11 year olds are not the guy’s target audience. Also as far as the references to certain people not getting jokes aimed at hem. Blacks, Jews, and other “unteasables” get made fun of all the time on that show.
Some of the show is a bit droll but a lot of the episodes have very interesting non-sequiturs that poke fun at a number of cultural artifacts almost long forgotten. It’s a good show, but if it isn’t your cup of tea that’s okay. But, having shows like that go off the air and be replaced by what you would find entertaining… now that would be a terrible crime and more likely a sign of the end of America.
Yeah, there’s a ton of shows I hate. Shows like the Bachelor and Survivor, and most of network television to be honest. There’s a great solution to dealing with programing you find objectionable. It is awesome and it works. You’ll never have to worry about offensive programming ever again!
Turn it off.
Dean,
Thanks for answering my questions.
As for:
“why would you think it wrong of me to bring up the teachigns and tradition of your own sect, but you’re free to just say “Catholic Catholic Catholic” when Dean’s the subject?”
Frankly, I don’t believe you know anything about my sect. You THINK you do. You think it’s just some radical, fundamentalist, Bible-only fringe group that you can paint in the same colors you do pretty much any Protestant sect you disagree with, but, as far as Ive seen, you’ve stopped thinking up to that point.
You went with me to Canada that one time but you did so in a heart of judgment. You decided long before you got into my car that you were there to see where they were wrong, not where they might be right.
But, hey, free country. Say whatever you like. I can’t stop you. But I will point out I’ve never seen you give them a fair shake. Certainly not the time and consideration you’ve given, say, Islam.
However, if I’m wrong, if you have seriously looked at what I believe, and still have come away with the belief it’s wrong, I’d love to hear what you have to say. And I’m talking about specific points on my specific sect too – not things nearly any Protestant would disagree with a Catholic on.
If you know my faith, what we believe, I want to hear what you have to say because I’m constantly examining it. Testing it. And if there’s something I’ve overlooked, something I cannot defend, I want to know what it is. And if you’re in the position to show it to me it would only be a blessing.
Kev: Well first off, will you please acknowledge that you falsely accused me of some stuff?
Personally, I blame the manatees.
Falsely accused you of what? I may have gotten your position on some issues incorrect but, if I recall, it was within the context of having you explain them to me.
Hardly a false accusation.
But, if you feel it was more than that, I apologize.
Comments on this entry are closed.