Archive | December, 2007

Jesus Isn’t the Reason for the Season

25 Dec

I know that this is a weird and quite unusual statement, especially from a self-professed Christian.  However, we always hear the statement, that Jesus is the reason for the season, and although I’m mostly in aggreance with that statement, I’d like to take that particular philosophy to task for a moment.

Let’s go to work.

Many non-Christians, or those who feel that they have transcended the rest of us do to Christians what they accuse Christians of doing to non-Christians:  they take someone’s philosophy and/or theology and shove it down our throat as though it is the truth.  This is also the same thing that we as Christians do.  We take our beliefs and shove them down the throats of non-believers, or even those who don’t believe as strongly as we believe.  In fact many Christians have invented this notion of “the war on Christmas” as yet another excuse to hegemonically (if that’s a real word) force their opinons and beliefs on others.

However, it is interesting the facts that are presented by the transcended Christians and other non-Christians to support the fact that the character that we recognize as Jesus was probably not born around the winter solstice as we wonderfully celebrate each year.  Although there are no biblical facts to swing the argument in either way aside from this star, which according to some scholars was really more of a literary jab at Caesar Augustus really saying that in  fact this Jesus born to Mary and Joseph in Bethelehem is the Annointed One and not Augustus.  That being said, I think that it does bear some notice to the fact just how twisted have we in western society twisted this notion of “Jesus Is the Reason for the Season.”

Jesus never was the central focus of how western society celebrated this time of the year.  In fact much of this tradition of Christmas was birthed out of the multi-cultural historical celebrations of the solstices, one in summer celebrating the longest day of the year and one in winter celebrating the shortest day of the year in anticipation of spring yet to come.  Celebrating the birth of Christ, was yet another way that Christians forced their beliefs down the throats of the conquered–I mean converted–peoples of Europe, Asia, Northeast and Northern Africa thanks to that wonderful Pope Constantine I!!!

So in fact, if one were to be historically accurate, this “war on Christmas” as we know it was actually started by us Christians!!!

The non-Christians were simply responding in the only way they knew how to resist being conquered–dammit, I mean converted, I keep on doing that, sorry.  They responded in the only way they knew how, they knew how to, after a war had been declared on their traditions and values, then they in turn declared a war on Christmas. 

So as this post will have a December 25th timestamp, and all of this empty rhetoric of “reasons for   various seaons” and “wars on Christmas” and the “X-ing” out of Christmas and the ubiquitous “commercialization of Christmas” let us remember that the real reason for the season is not the Christ child, but rather the celebration of the conquering nature of Constantine who was a converted Christian, who concocted Christmas just so he could be remembered.

Keep it uppity, JLL

My Theology of Preaching, Pt. I

25 Dec

true-to-our-native-land.jpgMy cousin gave me True to Our Native Land, an African American New Testament Commentary as a Christmas present and I flipped through it and I saw names like Cleophus J. LaRue, Thomas Hoyt and Brad Braxton and since I had heard of these, among other names I was real interested in what my cousin gave me.  Naturally, Dr. LaRue and Brad Braxton garnered my attention since they are both over homiletics at Princeton and Vanderbilt respectively and I read LaRue’s article “African American Preaching and the Bible” and it was then that I realised that I needed to begin forming my own theology of preaching.

My roommate, had always told me that homiletics was my passion because above ethics, and biblical lieterature and all other fields of theological study, I always found way to talk about the preached Word and the preaching moment.  So, hopefully over the course of this blog, I will periodically have posts that deal with my evolving, or as certain Presbyterians might call, my reforming theology of preaching. 

This particular one was spurred by a particular interaction that I had with one of my friends at ITC.  He mentioned a particular theme that he was asked to prepare a sermon around and just in the matter of the text message conversation (as I was taking a break from studying in the Robert Woodruff Library) I just shot a metaphor back.  He intimated to me that we as preachers must not sit in the confines of our own pastors’ studys, or libraries in my case, and think that because we’ve use a Greek word here or a Hebrew word there that we’ve prepared a sermon worthy of listening.  Just because our sermon sounds good to us, as a preacher, does not mean that it in fact is a word for the congregation in which we will preach.

What my good friend illuminated for me is that we as preachers must understand that we preach a collective word, to a collective body of Christians.  What this means is that while my church may be the foot part of the body of Christ that, in fact whatever adversely may affect the hand affects the body and ultimately the foot as well.  Although this is foundational Paulinian doctrine found in I Corinthians 12, it stands to reason that as preachers we need not be afraid of talking to others for our own inspiration.  God is not confined to the four walls of our study!  Just because it sounded good to us, could really mean it sounded dry as the valley of dry bones. 

Too many pastors wit no power and teach with no power.  It appears to me, in my limited knowledge that is, that particularly in the Black Church, the pastor is asked to do everything, and often times sermons get neglected.  I personally knew of one pastor who did not have a sermon prepared on Sunday morning, and randomly read Acts 2 and preached on the Holy Ghost.  The sad thing is that he got more shouts and more amens from that sermon than the ones he prepared and wrestled with on previous Sundays.

The clip I have, hopefully won’t expire before some you get a chance to look at it, but to me it speaks about some of what should go into sermon preparation, and just how long does it take to prepare a sermon.  Although this clip does not feature people in the African American tradition and some may say that this doesn’t affect the Black Church, then perhaps you didn’t understand the gist of this post; we must engage other ways of learning and understanding and inspiration because apparently,  what we’ve been producing has given the world less than stellar results.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5309495&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Ron Paul’s thought-provoking choice on racist’s $$$

24 Dec

  I know I haven’t posted in a few days, so I finally found something worth posting.  Even though this really isn’t going to be a long post, I believe it bears mention on some other wide reaching issues as far as money given to people and other entities are considered.

This was actually a blog post from The Swamp, Chicago Tribune’s Washington Bureau and from the cursory glance of the post, most of the posts spoke of Ron Paul’s Libertarianism, and why this political ideology fostered the atmosphere for him to accept money from an open white supremacist.  The story reports that Ron Paul said he accepted the money on the basis that it this guy now has less money with which to spew hatred around the world, and also that Ron Paul’s campaign now has $500.00 more in his campaign coffers.

Personally, I’m more inclined to agree with the second reason; the fact that his campaign now has more money.

I wish people would stop being beholden to others on the basis of money.  I wish people would take a Ron Paul stance and say that the money was needed and run and do what needs to be done with it.  Understandably, campaign spending is another ball of wax as to who you can accept money from and what you can do with it, and spending and donation caps, but be that as it may, it appears to me that Ron Paul has the right idea about money.  And of course I’m about to tie it specifically to black institutions, or rather as Robert Michael Franklin says in Crisis In The Village, “anchor institutions.”

Why is it that we as a black community feel that we must be beholden to those that give us the money?  We listen to what they say to us and we know that it is bad advice and yet and still we listen to them!  Black churches and black schools rationalize that “we need the money” and accept the money under terms that are not beneficial to the people who are supposed to benefit from these anchor institutions. (There are also institutions who severely need the money but refuse to accept any money in order to stay solvent, regardless of whatever contractual agreement they’re tied to.)

Black people have a responsibility to each other to do the absolute best at all times, and not be beholden to anyone but ourselves.  We must determine for ourselves what is best for us instead of allowing others who have historically shown themselves incapable of doing so, and shown that they flat out do not care about us.  We MUST set the course for ourselves instead of letting others do so.

So the next time, you therreader, gets something,  it money, or some other form of responsibility, please do with it that which will positively affect your community in the future, not settling for mere short term improvement, but rather leaving a legacy of love.

  

 ron-paul.jpg 

Ron Paul’s thought-provoking choice on racist’s $$$

by Frank JamesYou have to hand it to Ron Paul. Most presidential candidates who weren’t running as white supremacists themselves would reflexively return a donation from a self-proclaimed racist so fast they would break speed records for financial transactions.

But as has been reported, Paul has decided to keep a $500 donation from Don Black of West Palm Beach who runs a website called Stormfront whose slogan is “White Pride World Wide.”

As Paul’s campaign explained, it plans to keep the money because that will reduce the cash Black has to spend on spreading his controversial ideology by $500.

And, according to the campaign, another good will occur. Paul will have $500 more with which to spread his libertarian message of freedom from big government, including his opposition to the Iraq War.

One freedom Paul has comes from the unlikelihood he’ll receive his party’s nomination. If he were a real threat to be the Republican nominee, he would’ve given back the money immediately since no top tier candidate would want to take a chance on losing the big prize because of the kind of controversy surrounding this kind of controversy.

But a lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That’s a given. The only difference is that Black doesn’t hide his views.

Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it’s radioactive.

Paul’s approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. And because it’s so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what’s right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.

Text message break ups

14 Dec

I remember I didn’t get my first cell phone until 2004, entering my junior year of college.  I also have a good memory of sitting at the top of the stadium seats at a packed basketball game at Dillard and sitting next to my friend when my phone buzzed on my hip. I pulled it out and much to my chagrin it was a message that was offering certain lewd and lascivious services.  I showed my friend, who’s mouth dropped, and then she was totally at a loss for words when I scrolled down and revealed the name of who it was.  Needless to say, I was shocked and I definitely DID NOT respond.

In early 2005, text messaging was still in its early stages, people only having 100 or 200 paid for text messages and this idea of texting as we do now embarking on 2008 was a foreign concept, at least for me it was.  Now, I have unlimited messaging.  This started with my T-mobile Sidekick II and from then on, it was a wrap.  Between sent and received messages, I’ve had as many as 5,200 text messages in a one month billing period, so I know just how much text messaging is now a part of the everyday landscape.

However, I wonder jsut how disconnected we as humans are when it comes to many things technological.  I also have Yahoo Instant Messenger (phynest_in_da_504 for those who would like to hit me up) which prevents me from picking up the same cell phone and minimally talking to the person over the phone; we’ve become so impersonal and out of touch with one another it’s kind of scary.  Realistically, the proposition that I got from this person would not have occurred over the phone, let alone in person because if it had occured in person, there would have been a discrepancy where their face would have hit my fist.  But it seems that technology is this veil that we hide behind as people.

Are we that afraid of what people may think or may say to us that we feel only comfortable to send it in an instant message on Yahoo or AIM, or send it in an Honesty Box message on Facebook where the sender is anonymous (let’s not get started on what messages I’ve received from that unholy creation) or randomly adding people we’re attracted to on Myspace.  Here’s a case-in-point even more egregious than my own incident with text messaging.  I had a friend who had to temporarily delete their Facebook page because of what was sent in an Honesty Box and it resulted in a nasty fight between associates and a break-up of a relationship.

Which begs the question about internet dating.  As I have many friends and associates who are quite familiar with internet dating (and I must admit that I tried it for a quick minute and was convinced this is for the birds) and still are and they have had so many horror stories about who they met and what happened, and what got sent through text messages and instant messages.  Well, duh!  If you met people the old fashioned way, IN PERSON, be it in a club or through a friend, some of those issues wouldn’t exist.

Well, maybe this is just the further move down the continuum of individualised philosophy, “I think, therefore I am.”  There used to be a time where one cared about another’s feelings enough where a break-up wouldn’t occur in a text message.  Or even that you valued the person enough to merely just see their reaction in person or hear their voice.  I have friends whom I went to college with, and I consider them good friends, but I only talk to them every few months, and its weird when I do, because at least once a week, I have conversations with them through text messaging.

We’ve become so dehumanized that it feels weird to have conversations in person.  We rationalize saying that it’s cheaper to text because we have a certain amount of minutes, yet unlimited texting.  Hopefully, we’ll see a shift in this, back towards talking to people in person and engaging the people with which we wish to communicate our feelings and emotions.

Keep it uppity, JLL

Lovers turn to text message to say it’s over

2007_12_14t055728_450x334_uk_britain_text.jpg

Fri Dec 14, 7:54 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) – U R dumped — one in seven say they have suffered the same fate as Britney Spears’ ex-husband and been told it’s all over via text message or email, a survey said on Friday.

While hiding behind technology might appear a cowardly way of splitting up, it contrasts with the four percent who simply drop all communication with their lovers without notice.

“Most of us send emails and texts everyday, so it comes as no surprise they are now being used to ditch someone — however distasteful this is,” said Rob Barnes from moneysupermarket.com, which carried out the survey.

“The results show one per cent of the population would use a social networking site to dump a partner. It would be interesting to see how this changes as sites such as Facebook and MySpace become more apparent in our everyday lives.”

One of the most high-profile victims of dumping by text was Kevin Federline, who reportedly received news that pop singer Spears was filing for divorce while being filmed for a television show.

The survey said 15 percent of the 2,194 people questioned had been dumped by text or email, although a quarter of those in the most tech-savvy 18 to 24-year-old age group would choose the traditional method — a letter.

(Reporting by Michael Holden)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/tc_nm/britain_text1_dc_1

What did Andrew Young say about Sen. Barack Obama?

13 Dec

First things first.  You all should know that I don’t “do” FOXNews, but its the only regular news story that I could find that wasn’t an opinion piece.

Now, lets deal with Ambassador Andrew Young.

I read the story, and my issue wasn’t that Young felt comfortable enough to kid around about Bill Clinton’s alleged “blackness” (lest we forget Clinton’s “Welfare to Work” program) or that Young made an ignorant comment that “It’s a matter of being young” (lest we forget that President John F. Kennedy was only 42 with the same experience as Sen. Obama when he was elected, but it was rather the quote that said “His time will come and the world will be ready for a visionary leadership.”

Oh my God….the words I really want to say behind that comment.

Has Ambassador Young gotten amnesia so bad that he has forgotten what people said about other black leaders.  Let’s not forget who he was the lieutenant for during the modern civil rights movement.   If Martin Luther King had listened to what white liberals had said as far as “deliberate speed” was concerned or the black conservatives of the National Baptist Convention, USA had said, along with his own father who was friends with J.H. Jackson . . . well let’s not engage in the roll call of past milestones in the history of the United States. 

But honestly, if not now when?

If Frederick Douglass hadn’t declared that “Power concedes nothing without a demand: it never did and it never will” then when was the right time?  If Vernon Johns hadn’t said “If you see a good fight, get in it,” and challenged the establishment of Montgomery, Alabama, then when was the appropriate time?  If Martin Luther King hadn’t spoken truth to power and quoted the prophet Joel saying “But let justice roll down like rivers of water and righteousnes like an everflowing stream,” then when was the appropriate time? 

 I guess Ambassador Young is the only qualified person to know when the time is right?  But hell, did Andrew Young in all of his sanctified sadiddiess actually forget where he came from and what he came through and what people said about him running for mayor and being appointed Ambassador to the U.N.?   So I guess the appropriate question is “when is the right time?” Or even who determines “the right time.” 

Of all the arguments in favor of your candidate of choice and political barbs used to discredit the other candidates, the words that came out of the mouth of Andrew Young are the most insensitive and immature that I’ve heard from anyone. 

Sir, we’ve got to do better.

Keep it uppity, JLL

Andrew Young Says Obama Lacks Experience to Be President, Bill Clinton ‘As Black as Barack’

Monday, December 10, 2007

 

ATLANTA —  Civil rights icon Andrew Young says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is too young and lacks the support network to ascend to the White House.

In an interview posted online, Young also quipped that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has her husband behind her, and that “Bill is every bit as black as Barack.”

“He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack,” Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live audience. Young, 75, was quick to follow his comment on Bill Clinton with the disclaimer, “I’m clowning.”

Young, a former United Nations ambassador and lieutenant of Martin Luther King Jr., made the comments at an appearance at “Newsmakers Live,” an urban media forum that interviews prominent Atlanta personalities and political figures.

Click here to view Newsmakers Live and Andrew Young interview.

Excerpts of the interview were posted on Newsmakers Journal, the Newsmakers’ Web site, though the date of the appearance was not included with the video posting. Young had been scheduled to appear on “Newsmakers Live” on Sept. 5, according to a press release.Repeated efforts by The Associated Press to reach Young were unsuccessful. Obama campaign officials declined Saturday to comment on Young’s remarks.

Young’s comments were prompted by a member of the audience who inquired about his opinion on Obama’s candidacy.

“I want Barack Obama to be president,” Young said, pausing for effect, “in 2016.”

“It’s not a matter of being inexperienced. It’s a matter of being young,” Young said. “There’s a certain level of maturity … you’ve got to learn to take a certain amount of (expletive).”

Young went on to say that Obama needs a protective network that he currently lacks — a quality that could hurt him if he were to be elected. He said Hillary Clinton already has that kind of network, including her husband to back her up.

“There are more black people that Bill and Hillary lean on,” Young said. “You cannot be president alone. … To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion. His time will come and the world will be ready for a visionary leadership.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316366,00.html

Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients

8 Dec

I vividly remember the day that in my ninth grade biology that I suggested that we take all of the HIV/AIDS patients of the world and stick them on an island and we wouldn’t have this problem any more.  It was in a group project that the members of my group were stunned to say the least.  I also remember the incredulity of my teacher’s face; a teacher who was green before it was popular.  He was 20-something kid, would be considered my equal if I was the age I am now back then, and he rode his bike to school everyday because he was doing his environmental part in society.  I’m sure that didn’t help my standing in class, but I wanted to make a statement and I didn’t care who I offended and I wanted to be heard no matter what and I wanted to be the center of attention, no matter what–and I accomplished just that.

That was 1998, this is about to be 2008.

I spoke with the naivete of a kid who didn’t know any better and at that age, really didn’t care.  I didn’t know anyone who had been affected by HIV or AIDS, or at least I didn’t know anyone who had told me that they were infected, thus making me affected.  Well, since 1998 naturally I’ve grown older.   I remember when I came home and told my parentswhat I had said that sme look of “What child is this?” came over their faces much like the teachers.  But, again, that 1998 and this is now, isolationism, or rather containment as the military would call it, has never been in the best interest of human welfare.  Particularly that of a disease that does not have a communicability rate of near 100% ( meaning that it can be transferred from merely being breathed upon or from touch).  So, just when I was ready to support a decent Republican (even though my bloggers needn’t worry about me voting Republican ANY time soon), this about Mike Huckabee rises to the surface, like a dead body floating in the streets of New Orleans when the levees broke.

How is it that a grown man could fix his mouth to say that this was a “genuine plague”?  Especially after information about how the disease was contracted and is transferred was released–one can’t get HIV or AIDS from shaking hands or even kissing!!!  But I guess Huckabee was making a statement and didn’t care who he offended and wanted to be heard no matter what and wanted to be the center of attention no matter what.

Guess you got your wish…

Keep it uppity, JLL

mike-huckabee.jpg

Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients

By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated Press Writer

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could “pose a dangerous public health risk.” As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.

“If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,” Huckabee wrote.

“It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”

The AP submitted the questionnaire to both candidates; only Huckabee responded. Incumbent Sen. Dale Bumpers won his four term; Huckabee was elected lieutenant governor the next year and became governor in 1996.

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee complained that AIDS research received an unfair share of federal dollars when compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

“In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified,” Huckabee wrote. “An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.”

Huckabee did not return messages left with his campaign.

When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.

The nation had an increased awareness of AIDS at the time because pro basketball star Magic Johnson had recently disclosed he carried the virus responsible for it. Johnson retired but returned to the NBA briefly during the 1994-95 season.

Since becoming a presidential candidate this year, Huckabee has supported increased federal funding for AIDS research through the National Institutes of Health.

“My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals,” Huckabee said in a statement posted on his campaign Web site last month.

Also in the wide-ranging AP questionnaire in 1992, Huckabee said, “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.”

A Southern Baptist preacher, Huckabee has been a favorite among social conservatives for his vocal opposition to gay marriage. In 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as gay marriage or domestic partner benefits.

“What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business,” Huckabee said. “If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse.”

 This story is courtesy of http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_po/huckabee_aids

Christian groups slam new Kidman children’s movie

5 Dec

I’ll never understand the “religious right” here in the United States.  Understandably, Christianity is the predominant religion here in this country, but I fail to see how the “religious right” in fact has the right to act as the final arbiter on all things religious.  The fact that conservative Christians, and even Roman Catholics to some extent, act as the mouthpiece for Christians here in North America is quite repulsive.   There are many different factions and different issues  and different understandings about Christ being revealed to us in the Scriptures–why do you think Paul wrote different letters to the different churches–and the conservative Christians of Texas certainly don’t speak for the conservative or even liberal Christians of the rest of the United States.

My biggest pet peeve is being spoken for, particularly when I have the ability to speak for myself and did not relinquish that right to do so.  So I get highly incensed when we as Christians here in the United States allow for others to speak for us, and the rest of us sit idly by as if what they say is the only and correct way of interpreting the Scripture.  Secondarily, I blame the media.  In the whole scheme of things, this was almost a non-news story; technically, who cares if the damn religious right or certain Christiant groups don’t like the movie–such is life.  Try being a black man in the United States and watch how black people are treated on the silver screen–don’t get me started.

Again, what I’ve always wondered, is that how did the Roman Catholic church solidify itself in Hollywood as the only Christian religious entity that has power to cast out demons, or the only authority on religious matters in the movie.  By in large the Roman Catholic church has a monopoly in this area–why hasn’t the religious right complained about this?  Doesn’t the religious right largely include many Protestant denominations, many of which are Baptist. 

Hmmm….maybe they’re in bed together….wouldn’t that produce a bastard of a child.

Well, for those chosen ones who read this, I would like your opinions, make sure to leave a comment.

Keep it uppity, JLL

capt_sge_ghn22_041207005645_photo00_photo_default-341x512.jpg

Christian groups slam new Kidman children’s movie

by Tangi Quemener Mon Dec 3, 7:33 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (AFP) – Christian groups are up in arms here over a new children’s film starring Nicole Kidman and based on an award-winning novel by British author Philip Pullman, accusing it of being anti-religious. “The Golden Compass” which opens here Friday is the film version of “The Northern Lights,” the first book in Pullman’s “Dark Materials” fantasy trilogy aimed at teenage readers.The books by confirmed agnostic Pullman trace the fate of a young girl, Lyra, as she becomes drawn into an apocalyptic battle of good against evil, meeting a host of strange characters along the way including a polar bear, voiced in the film by Ian McKellan.Evil in Pullman’s books is represented by the church, called the Magisterium, whose acolytes kidnap orphans across England to subject them to horrible experiments in the frozen northern wastelands.“The Northern Lights” won Pullman the 1995 Carnegie Medal for children’s fiction in Britain, and the final volume in his trilogy, “The Amber Spyglass” was the first ever children’s novel to be awarded the prestigious British Whitbread Book of the Year award in 2002.With its 180-million-dollar big budget movie, New Line studios is hoping to repeat the box-office success of its “Lord of the Rings” series.And it aims to tap into the young audiences of cinema-goers who flocked to the five “Harry Potter” films making them big earners for Warner Bros.But already “The Golden Compass” is whipping up the same controversy which saw the “Harry Potter” series based on the novels by British author J. K Rowling, accused by some on the religious right of promoting witchcraft.The author’s attack on organized religion has been toned down for the film, in a bid to attract as wide as audience as possible, something director Chris Weitz has acknowledged.“In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic Church gone wildly astray from its roots,” Weitz wrote in the British Daily Telegraph.But “if that’s what you want in the film, you’ll be disappointed,” he warned.However, the sanitized version of Pullman’s book has failed to appease the Catholic League, which gathers some 350,000 members, and which has already been sending out leaflets denouncing the film.“The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books,” said president William Donohue.“Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books,” he added.The League already took on the movie world in 2006 to denounce the blockbuster “The Da Vinci Code” and its central tenant that Jesus Christ had a child by Mary Magdalene whose descendants still survive today.The US Conference of Catholic Bishops however has been more nuanced in its approach warning in a review of “The Golden Compass” of its “anti-clerical subtext, standard genre occult elements, character born out of wedlock, a whiskey-guzzling bear.”But it adds that “taken purely on its own cinematic terms, (it) can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.”“The Golden Compass” will be released in some 3,000 cinemas and only 60 have so far refused to screen it, according to the industry daily Variety. “It’s this undisguised anti-religious theme that has numerous groups in a lather, but perhaps more of an issue for some … will be the film’s lack of exciting uplift and the almost unrelievedly nasty treatment of the young characters by a host of aggressively unpleasant elders,” Variety added.

Saggy Pants bans may not be lawful

3 Dec

I’ve yet to have weighed in on this issue and since I was scrolling my usual haunts online, I decided to provide this story.  This particular story does include my viewpoint of how I feel on the issue of sagging pants, but I can speak from my own 23-year-old self.  If I feel the need to somewhat sag my pants, then so what!  Personally, I don’t walk around with a wife-beater and my butt hanging out, but I do sag my pants to the point that if I’m sitting one may see my underwear or maybe when I stand up, if I don’t pull my shirt down one may see my boxer shorts.  So usually if someone makes a comment, I try and reserve myself and not say anything because I don’t have time to tell about my right and my preference to dress as I do.

Some once said that I must dress a certain way, meaning, I must dress the part of a grad student seriously pondering doctoral work.  Well, as far as I’m concerned, I feel I need to be more focused on my class work, not worried about what I have on.  Particularly, when I’m dressing for a 9 o’clock class on a Saturday morning–the fact that I’m there and awake is more than half the battle as far as I’m concerned. 

The issue for me is a lot bigger than what clothes I have on; I’d rather see community leaders attack other issues where black youth are concerned.  Particularly in these predominantly black municipalities, we’d rather fine our youth and sentence them and possibly their parents to a misdemeanor–giving them a record and entering them into the system–just because some older people didn’t like what they wore and how they wore it?  This seems like black people are just looking for an easy out; expecting government to do what it has historically shown itself incapable of doing: that is adequately tending to the needs of the black community.

And while I’m on the subject, as a current resident of Atlanta, I’m quite put out by the media and who they chose to interview when it came to the news reports surrounding the issue of proposing a ban by Atlanta Coucilman C.T. Vivian.  It seemed that they found the most unintelligble young black men, and they showed them with their pants under their buttocks.  By in-large, the pants sagging that I witness on the university campus is not that extreme and you have people who just merely as a style of dress do this–AND THESE ARE EDUCATED STUDENTS.  Why couldn’t the reporters, who I’m sure had sons and nephews that they could have asked as far as what their take on the issue was, have went to the college campuses and interviewed the students at the AUC?  Which further makes me wonder, would this law be enacted on the campuses of Emory and Oglethorpe–white boys sag their pants as well.

And again, as a young person, I believe in respect of the elders of the community, however, how far are these old people, or an demographic for that matter, willing to go to protect their own sensitivity? 

 

30baggy600_1.jpg

 

Saggy pants bans may not be lawful

ST. LOUIS – Call her old-fashioned, but Mary Gray doesn’t want too much access to other people’s underwear. “I’m from the old school,” Gray said of the saggy pants ban she helped enact last month in Pine Lawn, Mo. “You got to leave something for the imagination.”

Besides, the 67-year-old alderwoman said, “I’m tired of looking at people’s behinds. It just doesn’t look nice.”

Pine Lawn, a mostly black municipality outside St. Louis, is among a growing number of U.S. cities enacting laws that ban low-slung pants.

Critics say the bans amount to government attacks on youthful fashion that some find offensive. And constitutional scholars say they may not be lawful.

“People have a right to express their identity through speech and action,” said Neil Richards, a First Amendment expert at Washington University in St. Louis. “On the other hand, municipalities have a vague power to control the health, safety and welfare of citizens.

“The question is what is motivating these laws? … What is so threatening about it?”

Richards said the ordinances seem to single out a form of dress popular with young black men and hip-hop culture.

Saggy pants fashion is believed to have started in prisons, where inmates are issued ill-fitting jumpsuits but no belts to prevent hangings and beatings. The look was popularized in gangster rap videos.

Benjamin Chavis, the former executive director of the NAACP who now heads the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, said in August his coalition would challenge the ordinances in court. He did not return several phone calls last week seeking an update.

Pine Lawn Mayor Sylvester Caldwell has said he began seriously contemplating the ban last summer, when developers discussed how the impoverished town could improve its image and boost its redevelopment potential.

He said developers specifically mentioned the propensity of Pine Lawn’s youths to let their pants ride low.

“I look at the future of a person and their ability to get a decent job,” 72-year-old alderman James Brooks said. “It’s going to be pretty difficult if you’re not wearing your belt.”

Violators whose low-slung pants or low-rise jeans expose underwear or skin face up to a $100 fine, and their parents could be fined up to $500 fine or serve 90 days in jail.

A number of U.S. communities have passed or considered similar ordinances.

Officials in Stratford, Conn., rejected a ban on claims it would be unconstitutional and unfairly target minorities.

Two years ago, the Virginia Senate defeated a saggy pants ban passed by the House, but not before it became an international embarrassment, said David Hudson Jr., a legal scholar at the Nashville-based First Amendment Center.

He finds it bizarre that cities spend so much time regulating clothing.

“I’m not sure what it really serves,” Hudson said. “They should solve some real problems.”

Besides possibly violating the First Amendment, Hudson says saggy pants bans raise serious concerns under the 14th Amendment‘s due process clause guaranteeing life, liberty and property interests.

“This is an arbitrary regulation that infringes on individual liberty,” he said. “Applying this outside of a public school environment is simply beyond the realm of proper government regulation.”

Robert Harris, a gang expert and consultant who worked for 20 years in federal prisons, said gang members often use saggy pants to conceal weapons and drugs.

“That’s a concern, but I don’t know how effective an ordinance would be,” he said. “It’s also a pretty big fashion thing among kids. There are thousands of teens who wear them who are not involved in criminal activity.”

Story credit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_re_us/saggy_pants_bans;_ylt=AhB1Q26Fwmew.A1IoeCRl4xH2ocA

Photo credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers