And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ. Philippians 1:9-10
There seems to be a trend in Christianity in which Christians love the sinner and accept the sin. People seem to have emphasized over-emotionalized love and in the process sacrificed Truth.
Henry Blackaby explains it this way in The Experience:
Love without discernment is not really love; it is actually causes more harm than good. Parents who show love to their children by overindulging them and refusing to discipline them are really hurting them in the long run. They guy who asks his girlfriend to prove his love by having sex is not loving her. A person who lies in order to keep a friendship is not acting as a true friend.
Love can manifest itself in many ways. If your definition of love is that warm-fuzzy, tingly feeling that runs up your spine, we better take another look at love. Sometimes loving means correcting and pointing the way to the Truth, and many times that does not leave either party with that warm-fuzzy feeling. Does that mean that you are not loving people? No its not that easy. A child who is being punished does not understand love in this way, in fact they will often confuse it with hate even though the punishment is in the best interest of the child. When sin is revealed in the life of someone, it rarely creates a warm-fuzzy feeling. Those being corrected, much like a children, will accuse the corrector of being close-minded, hateful, anything but loving. Does this misunderstanding mean we ignore the sin? Nope! That will cause more harm than good.
More from Blackaby:
What a tradgedy to hurt those you love simply because you lack the wisdom to treat them as you should. Love has to be discerning, for love always seeks the best for others. If you ask Him, God will help you know how to love others. He will tell you when to be gentle with someone and when be firm. The Holy Spirit will help you know when to get involved in someone's problems and when to leave them to God. He will show you how to give without asking for something in return.
Instead of blindly accepting sin we need to discern what God would have us do through our relationship with God.
Mr. Wright, out!
When you get up in the morning and look out the window to find a dusting of snow on the ground and temperature above freezing, always, ALWAYS, call the school hotline to make sure that school is in session. Otherwise, you will feel like a big nerd showing up to an empty building.
I guess, while I'm here I might as well do some work.
Mr. Wright, out (and a little upset that he is not sleeping)!
Socialism in the works of Mapplethorpe
1. Narratives of dialectic
If one examines socialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural semioticist theory or conclude that sexuality is used to marginalize the Other. Sontag uses the term 'socialism' to denote the difference between class and sexual identity.
In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. It could be said that Brophy[1] implies that the works of Gaiman are reminiscent of Tarantino. If the dialectic paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between socialism and subcultural objectivism.
In a sense, the primary theme of Reicher's[2] essay on the dialectic paradigm of expression is not, in fact, dematerialism, but predematerialism. The example of precultural semioticist theory intrinsic to Pynchon's V is also evident in The Crying of Lot 49, although in a more self-justifying sense.
But Baudrillard uses the term 'the dialectic paradigm of expression' to denote a textual totality. The premise of the postcapitalist paradigm of consensus holds that the collective is capable of significant form, but only if Bataille's critique of socialism is invalid; if that is not the case, reality may be used to entrench sexism.
In a sense, the main theme of the works of Pynchon is the absurdity, and some would say the rubicon, of modern society. An abundance of narratives concerning the bridge between sexual identity and class exist.
2. The dialectic paradigm of expression and pretextual discourse
If one examines pretextual discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept the dialectic paradigm of expression or conclude that truth is capable of truth. However, the subject is interpolated into a pretextual discourse that includes reality as a reality. Debord uses the term 'socialism' to denote a mythopoetical whole.
The primary theme of von Junz's[3] model of the dialectic paradigm of expression is the role of the observer as participant. In a sense, Tilton[4] suggests that we have to choose between socialism and textual narrative. The subject is contextualised into a neoconceptual paradigm of consensus that includes art as a paradox.
It could be said that several desituationisms concerning pretextual discourse may be found. If socialism holds, we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of expression and cultural libertarianism.
But Lyotard uses the term 'socialism' to denote the collapse, and subsequent fatal flaw, of pretextual society. Hamburger[5] implies that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and posttextual objectivism. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the reader as participant. The subject is interpolated into a semanticist paradigm of expression that includes truth as a reality.
However, many theories concerning a neosemiotic whole exist. If the dialectic paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between cultural materialism and posttextual dialectic theory.
3. Contexts of fatal flaw
"Consciousness is fundamentally a legal fiction," says Marx; however, according to von Junz[6] , it is not so much consciousness that is fundamentally a legal fiction, but rather the genre, and hence the failure, of consciousness. Thus, the premise of pretextual discourse holds that narrativity is used to exploit the underprivileged. The characteristic theme of Finnis's[7] critique of the dialectic paradigm of expression is the difference between society and class.
"Culture is impossible," says Debord. Therefore, any number of desemanticisms concerning the subcapitalist paradigm of narrative may be discovered. Pickett[8] implies that the works of Rushdie are not postmodern.
If one examines socialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject predialectic capitalism or conclude that government is intrinsically elitist, given that consciousness is distinct from narrativity. Thus, a number of sublimations concerning a mythopoetical totality exist. In Satanic Verses, Rushdie examines pretextual discourse; in The Moor's Last Sigh he affirms capitalist subdeconstructive theory.
"Class is dead," says Sontag. In a sense, Debord's analysis of socialism suggests that language, ironically, has intrinsic meaning. If pretextual discourse holds, we have to choose between socialism and the materialist paradigm of discourse.
However, the premise of the dialectic paradigm of expression holds that the significance of the writer is social comment. The futility, and some would say the economy, of postdialectic narrative depicted in Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet emerges again in Midnight's Children.
In a sense, Sartre uses the term 'the dialectic paradigm of expression' to denote the role of the poet as writer. Socialism states that culture is fundamentally impossible. However, any number of appropriations concerning pretextual discourse may be revealed. The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the fatal flaw of textual class.
It could be said that the premise of the dialectic paradigm of expression suggests that the purpose of the artist is deconstruction, given that Lacan's critique of pretextual discourse is valid. Cameron[9] implies that we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of expression and capitalist discourse.
Therefore, a number of narratives concerning the role of the observer as writer exist. If socialism holds, we have to choose between pretextual discourse and Derridaist reading.
In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning the dialectic paradigm of expression may be found. The main theme of Parry's[10] model of socialism is the defining characteristic, and some would say the futility, of capitalist sexual identity.
4. Rushdie and postpatriarchialist deconstructive theory
The characteristic theme of the works of Rushdie is not construction per se, but preconstruction. However, many narratives concerning the rubicon, and eventually the futility, of subcultural class exist. Lyotard uses the term 'socialism' to denote the bridge between art and class.
If one examines the dialectic paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either accept pretextual discourse or conclude that the collective is capable of social comment. Therefore, several discourses concerning socialism may be discovered. The main theme of Long's[11] analysis of pretextual discourse is the role of the artist as writer.
In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a dialectic paradigm of expression that includes truth as a paradox. In Melrose Place, Spelling examines Foucaultist power relations; in Models, Inc., however, he affirms the dialectic paradigm of expression.
Therefore, an abundance of narratives concerning not materialism, but neomaterialism exist. Lacan suggests the use of socialism to challenge consciousness. It could be said that textual feminism holds that reality is elitist, but only if art is interchangeable with consciousness. Dietrich[12] implies that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and subdialectic cultural theory.
Therefore, Sartre uses the term 'predialectic discourse' to denote a self-falsifying totality. Baudrillard promotes the use of pretextual discourse to attack outdated perceptions of class.
5. Contexts of fatal flaw
"Reality is intrinsically responsible for hierarchy," says Sartre; however, according to Werther[13] , it is not so much reality that is intrinsically responsible for hierarchy, but rather the futility of reality. It could be said that if the dialectic paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between pretextual discourse and Derridaist reading. The primary theme of the works of Spelling is the common ground between class and sexual identity.
The main theme of Reicher's[14] essay on the dialectic paradigm of expression is not theory, as postdialectic libertarianism suggests, but subtheory. But Pickett[15] suggests that we have to choose between socialism and the textual paradigm of reality. The primary theme of the works of Madonna is a mythopoetical whole.
"Society is used in the service of sexism," says Debord. However, the subject is interpolated into a dialectic paradigm of expression that includes language as a paradox. If postdialectic discourse holds, we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of expression and the textual paradigm of context.
If one examines pretextual discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject subconceptualist desituationism or conclude that expression comes from the masses. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a dialectic paradigm of expression that includes consciousness as a reality. Foucault uses the term 'socialism' to denote not, in fact, theory, but neotheory.
In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the concept of dialectic language. Thus, Humphrey[16] states that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and submaterialist textual theory. Several narratives concerning the dialectic paradigm of expression may be revealed.
"Sexual identity is fundamentally impossible," says Foucault; however, according to Dahmus[17] , it is not so much sexual identity that is fundamentally impossible, but rather the meaninglessness, and some would say the economy, of sexual identity. However, Lacan suggests the use of socialism to modify and analyse society. Marx's model of textual submaterial theory implies that the State is meaningless, given that the premise of socialism is invalid.
It could be said that the main theme of Prinn's[18] critique of pretextual discourse is a dialectic paradox. The example of socialism intrinsic to Stone's Heaven and Earth is also evident in Platoon, although in a more self-sufficient sense.
Thus, Sartre uses the term 'posttextual desituationism' to denote the role of the artist as poet. The subject is interpolated into a socialism that includes narrativity as a whole.
It could be said that the characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the stasis, and eventually the economy, of constructivist class. Pretextual discourse states that society has objective value.
Thus, Foucault promotes the use of subcapitalist textual theory to deconstruct the status quo. In Natural Born Killers, Stone reiterates socialism; in Heaven and Earth, although, he examines the dialectic paradigm of expression.
In a sense, the primary theme of Werther's[19] analysis of pretextual discourse is not theory per se, but pretheory. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic paradigm of expression that includes language as a reality.
Therefore, the defining characteristic of socialism which is a central theme of Stone's JFK emerges again in Natural Born Killers. A number of discourses concerning the rubicon, and eventually the futility, of patriarchialist class exist.
However, the premise of the dialectic paradigm of expression holds that truth is part of the dialectic of reality. Any number of theories concerning socialism may be found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Brophy, T. ed. (1983) Reassessing Expressionism: The dialectic paradigm of expression in the works of Pynchon. Panic Button Books
2. Reicher, B. L. U. (1976) Socialism in the works of Cage. O'Reilly & Associates
3. von Junz, P. K. ed. (1993) Semioticist Desemanticisms: The dialectic paradigm of expression and socialism. Harvard University Press
4. Tilton, G. V. C. (1986) Socialism in the works of Eco. Panic Button Books
5. Hamburger, N. V. ed. (1971) The Paradigm of Sexual identity: Socialism, capitalism and the capitalist paradigm of narrative. O'Reilly & Associates
6. von Junz, E. S. T. (1998) The dialectic paradigm of expression in the works of Joyce. University of North Carolina Press
7. Finnis, Y. ed. (1985) The Reality of Absurdity: Socialism in the works of Rushdie. Cambridge University Press
8. Pickett, I. J. V. (1992) Socialism and the dialectic paradigm of expression. University of Georgia Press
9. Cameron, M. ed. (1979) Reinventing Surrealism: The dialectic paradigm of expression and socialism. Loompanics
10. Parry, S. A. (1984) Socialism and the dialectic paradigm of expression. University of Michigan Press
11. Long, J. ed. (1971) The Absurdity of Society: The dialectic paradigm of expression in the works of Spelling. Harvard University Press
12. Dietrich, Z. A. I. (1986) The dialectic paradigm of expression and socialism. Schlangekraft
13. Werther, J. ed. (1970) Deconstructing Constructivism: Socialism and the dialectic paradigm of expression. O'Reilly & Associates
14. Reicher, O. E. S. (1988) The dialectic paradigm of expression in the works of Spelling. University of California Press
15. Pickett, K. N. ed. (1999) The Economy of Narrative: Socialism in the works of Madonna. Schlangekraft
16. Humphrey, Z. T. C. (1985) The dialectic paradigm of expression and socialism. Panic Button Books
17. Dahmus, A. U. ed. (1990) Reading Derrida: Postsemioticist sublimation, socialism and capitalism. Schlangekraft
18. Prinn, W. (1981) Socialism in the works of Stone. And/Or Press
19. Werther, J. S. Q. ed. (1972) The Narrative of Stasis: Socialism and the dialectic paradigm of expression. Yale University Press
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page. Link found via blogs4God. Sorry Dean, I forgot!
If you thought that was funny, here is a band name generator.
BTW, I have a short review of The Recruit up at The Screening Room.
Mr. Wright, (hehe) out!
Someone needs to invent a mind recorder. Why? That way when I author one of my super hilarious or terrifically thoughtful or wonderfully inspiring blog entries while lieing in bed trying to sleep or driving between Sullivan and Rolla or day dreaming in class, the entry will be recorded so it could be uploaded to my computer and then posted for everyone to laugh or be provoked to thought or be inspired.
Readers of WIT?!?!? are only getting the table scraps. Well its not that bad but you all don't know what you have missed out on. Some really good stuff, all becuase I couldn't remember when I had an opportunity post. Sometimes, I try to recreate the post, but normally what gets posted is not close to what was in my head. Other times I just scrap the post because the reconstructed post would not do what I had wanted. I have even typed out lengthy posts only to delete them because it just wasn't what I had intented to. So what we need is a blog mind recorder. I would even beta test it, that way I wouldn't have to sit at my computer and stare at a blank MovableType screen, when just the night before I had composed an award winning post. Well probably not award winning.
I think this post has fallen to the same fate.
Cheryl knows what I'm talking about.
____
Guys, do you and your significant other argue? Do you argue a lot? You might find this site... well quite frankly hilarious. WARNING: Guys will find it hilarious. So much so, you might as well go get another pair of pants right now. Link found via Where the West Begins
___
Well, crud, I just forgot the other thing I was going to blog about. Mmmm, poo.
Sometimes I hate being a role model. It requires alot from me. When you are a role model, people expect things from you. Some folks will go as far as to act and do things the way their role model acts. It's a drag being a role model sometimes. You don't get to have any "fun."
The first time that I realized that I was a role model, or a "measuring stick," for anyone, was in High School. I was in the musical Godspell (for those of you unfamiliar with the show, Godspell is about the life and ministry of Jesus, written in the 70's, the show can be... trippy?) The funny thing is, I didn't want to be in the show at all. The only reason I was in it was because I needed a reference for a scholarship, from a teacher, quick. I asked the drama teacher and he said that he would do it on the condition that I would be in the show. So there I was in a show that I didn't want to be in. In the show, for some reason, there is a song called Turn Back, O Man, which is fashioned as a kind of sultry female solo to Jesus (who in our show wore carpenter's overalls, but most productions is dressed as a clown wearing a Superman shirt), it is odd. That particular song turned a few heads. I was told later by one of my teachers that attended my church, that some students in her class were discussing the show and whether the show was appropriate or not. One student commented that it had to be okay if I was in it. I had never considered that I would be making an endorsement of the show by being in it, I just wanted a reference for a scholarship. The experience made me step back and think about what I do, what I associate myself with, and how I represent Christ, because as a Christian, I am a spokesperson for him. Where ever I go, I take Him with me.
Things only got worse after that. Then I decided to become a teacher. Holy cow! I have 24 (soon to be 25 from what I hear) kids that look to me to see how to act and behave. The most impressionable are the boys. I think that around half are not living with any father, or have limited access to their father. That is an incermountable task for those moms. (So the whole family thing that God established does make sense...) Those boys are around me more than their fathers and are look for some kind of a male role model. I was reminded of this the other day when one of the boys in my class told me that is was time to change our haircut.
On one occasion, during my student teaching experience, one of my cooperating teachers asked me to see if I could fix one of the classroom computers. Most of the class was outside a recess but about six kids were staying in to work on late assignments. The computer was not doing what I wanted it to do, I was getting frustrated and forgot where I was (no excuse by the way): "Crap!" I didn't yell it, I didn't really say it that loud but those six kids heard it. There was an assortment of looks from those kids, from shock and suprise to smiles. That day,I effectively told those kids it was okay to use language that some folk find offensive. I want to set a higher standard than that.
During my third year of studying education at Southwest Baptist University I came to a point when I asked myself why am I doing this. I knew only one guy really well on campus because I spent 85% of my waking hours with other elementary education majors (read: female). I never knew which one of the fifty ladies in my class was going to be angry at me that day because "I was a guy." There was a different one each day, I was a bit of an outcast to many of the other students and to a couple of my professors (I have some horror stories aboutthat for another time), the other 15% was spent with children (Talk about stimulating conversation there). I could make much more money and respect in other fields. At the time, I just was not a happy person. The only reason that I could think of was that I felt this is were God wanted me. At the time that was not enough (I'm such an idiot). So I asked God, why do you want me doing this. My answer and my mission statement as a teacher: To reflect God's glory to the kids under my supervision. To comfort, to love, to care, to be a role model for kids who may not get those things at home and for those who do.
That was one of the those prespective altering (and you could say life changing) moments for me. Like normal, I was approaching this from a self-center point of view. I didn't like being unhappy. I didn't like being an outsider most of my day (the only time I really felt comfortable at school was when I was with my friends from home.) I didn't like that I had all these other skills and interests that at the time just seemed to be going to waste. (I had a much longer list of complaints at the time, but I can't remember them.)
So, yes I am a teacher. I teach multiplication, how to count money and give change, cursive, nouns, verbs, simple machines, parts of cells, what a community is and how a government works, how to write a friendly letter, what contractions are, how to decode new words and how to use a dictionary to find out what that new word means, and what in tarnation is photosynthesis and why do we have to use such bigs words when a couple of little ones will serve the same function. But more importantly I am a mirror, a role model. I teach love, kindness, responsibility, respectfullness, politeness, appropriate language, understanding, and empathy (that's the short list.) It is not easy and much is demanded from me, and no I don't get to do what I always want to do, or say what I want to say, but hey I'm a role model. How 'bout you?
Mr. Wright, out!
There continues to be several comments on the Harry Potter is Evil post, so I thought I would continue the discussion here in the sequel to that post. I really haven't commented on some of the comments because I thought the comments where either a) made without even reading what I said or b) completely uniformed. However I think that the discussion can continue.
Recently the following comment was made:
WHAT WOULD YOU ACCCEPT AS EVIDENCE THAT HARRY POTTER IS EVIL? (I'm not sure if the flaming was needed.)
Hmm, well I think I would suspect something if Satan sprang from the book and did a little Irish Jig in my apartment, then I would wonder.
I think, however, people are fixating on just one element of these very dense stories. People suggesting that the Potter books are a primer for Witchcraft 101, are missing all the other cool stuff that the stories have to offer.
I think I fall in the group of people who think that maybe Christians shouldn't be promoting and facilitating fear, but educating people in the spiritual part of life. People are ignorant of spiritual matters and whose fault is that? Those who don't know about it or those who do? What if we use the Harry Potter books to open a discussion about spiritual matters? I gave a suggestion for doing this here.
On the other hand, the "witchcraft" seen in the books is not based in reality. One of my favorite comments from that entry makes fun of this very fact:
The magic in Harry Potter doesn't work. I know this. I have tried removing the ugly tree/shrub/bush (whatever the heck it is) in my neighbors yard at the end of my driveway. It is an eyesore and an obstruction to my view when backing out and I've yelled a many "treeis removis" spells, but it just won't go away!
The magic in Harry Potter is of the fairy tale variety. It is like the magic found in the stories that we grew up with as kids. No one is decrying these stories. According to the folks that think that Harry is evil should find the stories just as threatening and evil, but evidently the magic in such stories is viewed as... I don't know... harmless? Being viewed as hypocritical certainly isn't going to help the cause.
| Having said all that, I want to bring this back to the whole reason that I started this conversation. Parents need to be involved and aware if their children are going to be reading these books. Parents need to be able to take advantage of the teachable moment on spiritual matters. Instead of hiding the books from kids, making it more enticing, let's have an open dialogue with them. |  |
To round out my trilogy on entries on topics like this, please be looking for the third and final entry entitled: "SpongeBob SquarePants is Evil." (He runs around in his underwear you know.)
Mr. Wright, out!
P.S. Again, just to reemphasize, I don't mind comments on either end of the topic, but if you are going to comment you need to be informed and please don't use this as a forum to slander others simply because they have a different opinion than you.
I have stayed pretty silent about the significance that this day holds, mainly because I have already commented on it in my short essay on neopatriotism. But I grow weary. I'm getting tired of tributes that we see in public venues. For example, today at school we had what seemed like a four hour, all-school assembly to honor and pay tribute to those that lost their life in the destruction. It seemed hollow to me. Looked good on the outside, but really empty on the inside, carrying no significance. We went on and on about how we are proud to be Americans because we have our freedoms, freedom to do this, freedom to do that. One essay that was read at our assembly stated that they were happy to be an American because they have the freedom to worship their own god in the way they see fit, which is what the terrorists were kinda doing when they took control over four planes one year ago today. I figured out why these tributes and honorings are so vacuous. They are praising the wrong things. We spent the day honoring those public servants who work everyday to keep us safe, but somewhere in the activity of the day, I would wager that we have not praised the source of life, the One who gave these people their talents and skills. We have gone on about the freedom that we enjoy in the US but have blindly ignored the One who has given us freedom from sin and from the eternal death that is the result of sin. Today has been a day of misdirection. Yes I know that people are in pain today, I would expect them to be, but the unending source of healing is readily available. Today has been empty for me because the USA as a whole has missed it, we have missed the point. We miss it every Easter, we miss it every Christmas, why should today be any different? By the way, if you would like to know more about the One who gives life, healing, and freedom from sin, click here.
Mr. Wright, out!
I would like to point you to an interesting discussion on Postmodern thinking. I know you won't read but I am going to point it out anyway.
I found this link through blogs4God and Grace Awakening. The actual discussion can be found at Next Wave
This little table I found to be very helpful in my studies: (I hope they don't mind me coping it)
| Modernism | Postmodernism | |
| Anthropocentric | Man's rationality can determine all things and so I am in charge | Language and the human mind are inadequate to fully grasp the truth, so I am in charge |
| Theocentric | I have the ability to determine truth and learn of God and Creation. "....the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2b NASB | God is a mystery and I will never completely comprehend Him. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God." Deuteronomy 29:29a NASB |
Mr. Wright, out!
I would like to suggest an article to any Christian movie watcher.
Watch Movies with Wisdom and Discernment
The article discusses five points about Christians and movies:
Mr. Wright, out!
Thursday I went to Six Flags with several teachers from Wyman. We had a good time even though it was hot and I got wet on the log flume. While we were there we were trying to decide which show we should see. The only prerequisite was that the theater should have A/C. We narrowed it down to Miss Kitty's Saloon (I have seen it many times) and a show in the main theater called The State of Rhythm. The part of the description that I heard was a travel through time with Broadway music... I didn't hear the rest. Well that sounded interesting to me so I said that I wouldn't mind seeing that. Then I heard the rest of description when it was too late: ...ending with a patriotic salute. I hate patriotic salutes for reasons listed in my short essay on neopatriotism below. (By the way the show had nothing to do with Broadway and it was awful. They slaughtered EVERY SINGLE SONG. They even sang Fame and I could hardly recognize it.)
Since September 11 our country has changed dramatically. The way that people think about the world has changed. As a result of the events of 9/11 a new type of patriotism has arisen, one that I personally despise.
This new type of patriotism has been commercialized, and not in a tasteful way. Mere weeks after the collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings, you could buy your very own American flag to plop on your car to show those terrorists that you can't keep America down. Whose idea was this? It has always been my opinion that the American flag should be treated with respect and it should always look nice. However, when you put a flag on your car and drive 70 mph down the highway, you quickly get a flag that looks like it has been bludgeoned to death. So much for respecting the flag. If that didn't float you boat you could put one on the side of your car. I'm not sure if people realize that there are rules to displaying the flag, but there are. Half the flags that I see on the sides of cars are facing the incorrect way. This commercialism of the flag has just heaped on more disrespect.
The biggest reason that I hate this neopatriotism is because it has become this country's new religion. America has become fixated on 9/11 as if it was the day the messiah came back. (I'm not kidding, if I see the footage of the plane ramming into the WTC one more time, I just might become desensitized to it.) At every gathering we have to have a patriotic showing of some kind, even at Six Flags. Many times these shows are manipulating people into getting worked up into an emotional frenzy for nothing and somehow it all seems forced or even fake. During the performance at Six Flags, they did butcher, I mean sing "God Bless America," which was a relief, especially when we have two judges telling the nation that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."
Maybe we should become less fixated on the event and start to press on to the future, one with God.
So am I off the mark, out of line? Would you like to write your own short essay? Tell me what you think, you can do so below.
This is the first entry in a new catagory called Observations. In this catagory I will make (surprise, surprise) observations about things.
There are just some words that bother me. I can never really explain why, it has nothing to do with the meaning of the words, but it usually has something to do with the way the word sounds.
So, without further ado, the first entry in observation, a list of dumb words/phrases (in no particular order):
Add your own annoying words when you comment below.
A debate of the ages continues to rage! Is Harry Potter evil or are his stories imaginative and fun that get children engaged in reading? I would land in the latter group. However, Mary Ann (scroll down near the bottom) feels that Harry is EVIL!
Please understand that I give Mary Ann a hard time about this issue (hence, the bold evil above) and she has no problem giving me a hard time back, but it is an interesting issue.
Harry's world is filled with magic, creatures, interesting and in my opinion a well written and engaging story line. The magic is what some Christians have the problem with. They suggest that the books are an introduction to witchcraft. Witchcraft is evil and extremely dangerous (I agree with this). However, I find it interesting that the people making these claims have not read the books. They simply jump on someone else’s ill-informed bandwagon.
The magic in Harry Potter is portrayed in the classic fantasy way, the way seen in many literary pieces that they regard highly. In works like the Narnia Chronicles, Alice in Wonderland, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, numerous fairy tales and nursery rhymes, the magic is evidently ignored.
There are movies, TV, and other media that are portraying magic in a real and less fantastic manner, and I would agree that this type of programming is dangerous.
In my opinion, Harry Potter has gotten kids excited about reading. Finally a series of books that does not pander to kids (as a result there are more books that take kids more seriously like The Series of Unfortunate Events). The brand of magic is clearly of the fantasy variety that is seen as fake and imaginary. Every child that I have talked to that have read the books have felt the same way and understood, without me explaining it to them, that the Harry Potter books are pieces of fiction. None of them went out and bought an Ouji board after reading the books.
Do I think parents should be reading the books with their kids? You bet! Especially as the series progresses, there has been a trend in each of the books getting progressively darker. I don't know what the fifth book will hold but parents should be reading along with their kids.
Want some further reading on this? Try out these articles:
Please give your opinion below. I would love to hear both positive and negative responses as long as you know what you speak of. Please do not comment on the quality of the writing if you have not read the books!
Mr. Wright, out!
Update: For those who got notified when I update this blog, sorry for the multiple e-mails. It was a technical problem caused by Mary Ann.
Update: Please read the sequel to this entry Harry Potter is Evil and the Chamber of Fear for additional comments and discussion.
