Sd#318

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

the iron horse

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
3,266
Location
in a glass of CheerWine
Sunday Dispatch #318


“I believe in the culture war. And you know what? If I have to take a side in the culture war I’ll take [the conservative Christian] side. Because if you give me the choice of Paris Hilton or Jesus, I’ll take Jesus.”

~Alexandra Pelosi in the NY Times
(yes, her mom is the new Speaker of the House)
 
old people say the craziest things

it is not a choice between Paris Hilton or Jesus


and as usual, these culture wars
are presented as a false dichotomy
 
Angela Harlem said:
raise your hand if you give a shit what alexandra pelosi thinks. keep it raised if you actually know or care who she is.

So - is that vote for Paris?
 
The culture 'wars', in my humble opinion, are a determined effort to poison our political sphere.

As a result of thirty or forty years of this slow seeping poison, debate in good faith is now all but impossible.

Also as a result of this insanity, Australian politicians now debate US talking points.

Very curious.
 
INDY500 said:


Hey, nice to see you back.:)

Thanks. I've been very busy with the National Guard lately. I've checked in from time to time.
 
You can't be serious? What's not to get? A conservative posts a typical one liner which sums up the view of conservatives in general which is "If you dont follow Jesus, then you follow Paris" and we all know what it implies. You honestly cannot see what is flawed with this type of thinking. Unreal.
 
Re: old people say the craziest things

deep said:
it is not a choice between Paris Hilton or Jesus


and as usual, these culture wars
are presented as a false dichotomy


img007.GIF
 
Angela Harlem said:
You can't be serious? What's not to get? A conservative posts a typical one liner which sums up the view of conservatives in general which is "If you dont follow Jesus, then you follow Paris" and we all know what it implies. You honestly cannot see what is flawed with this type of thinking. Unreal.

As someone who believes you are either with Christ or against Him - I don't see this as a false dichotomy. One could argue that Paris doesn't represent the extreme opposite of Christ, and perhaps there are better examples of that ideal opposite - but she does represent much of what Christ was against (worldliness).

I don't see why Pelosi's statement bothers you so much. It makes decent sense for a one liner.
 
I think she maybe more had in mind that it sounds jingoistic and trite, and things which are jingoistic and trite can strike many as patronizing. Personally I barely know who Paris Hilton is, just that she's some blond celebrity who often appears on the glossies at the supermarket aisle, which is enough to kill my interest right there. Maybe this is an elitist way to look at it, and I don't think it's intrinsically sinister to be interested in famous people or anything, but for me it's more of a rejecting-the-dismally-banal-and-stupid kind of thing than a rejecting-the-wordly-and-impure kind of thing.

I'll echo what INDY said though, good to see you.
 
AEON said:


As someone who believes you are either with Christ or against Him - I don't see this as a false dichotomy. One could argue that Paris doesn't represent the extreme opposite of Christ, and perhaps there are better examples of that ideal opposite - but she does represent much of what Christ was against (worldliness).

I don't see why Pelosi's statement bothers you so much. It makes decent sense for a one liner.

You don't see, that is clear. My attitude is (figuratively) one of fuck you, really. It's a generic attitude to most of you conservative types. Let me spell it out very clearly why. For starters, you don't have a literal clue who I am or what I am. You sum me (figuratively) up based on one thing - belief in Jesus. It is this, this one thing, which paints me, in your eyes, as, let me guess here: lacking morals? A sense of loyalty and duty to something bigger than myself? Someone who is tainted and one day going to succumb (if I haven't already) to evil and Satan himself? You see me as a Paris Hilton. Literally, someone you do not know, either. I don't know her. Perhaps being likened to her is not a bad thing - I do not know. I do know she has been painted with a brush which leaves everyone assuming she is cheap, stupid, vacuous, etc. I don't need to go on. She must lack soul. Look at how she dresses. Speaking of which, let me remind this forum of a very famous quote from the now departed nbcrusader when he and I discussed a girl dressed in fishnets walking in to his church. I asked him how he would respond to that. He replied he would think of her "as she deserved." Beautiful. I suspect you are not grasping a word of this, and granted, I waffle. Still, let's continue. So; we have me as everything which is wrong with humankind and society. I am not with Jesus, right? Therefore I must be all these things as you can only be one or the other. Let me state this next part as clearly as I possibly can. Bullshit. Did you get that? Let me repeat it: Bullshit. Let me state my faith for you. I have my faith in humankind. In people. The world we live in. These ideas are all so much bigger than me. I've done charity and dedicated hours of time and myself to things which are so much bigger than me. I give. I understand, without Jesus, right and wrong and the difference between. I can see evil, and I can avoid it. I see beauty and horror in everything around us. I am not ignorant. I am not naive. I am not without a moral compass. I am not without guidance. I have fed the poor, literally, AEON. I have assisted those less able. I give. Continually. I care and have cried over it, too. I do not need Jesus to do this. I already have done it so far without him. Speaking of the man himself, though. I've gone looking. Searched, actually. Wondered what you were all talking about for years now, but never found him. I walk into church and feel nothing. Try a new church. Nothing. No one is there. I've actually been going to a church with a friend a bit lately. Like all of them, this one is again different, and I do like it. But there is no one there, either. I've asked and not received. And then asked again. This is irrelevant, though. You still don't know me and me being this does not change the fact that I am not a "Paris Hilton".

To suggest that line and what you believe makes decent sense is an insult to who I am and an insult to what I do and believe.
 
yolland said:
I think she maybe more had in mind that it sounds jingoistic and trite, and things which are jingoistic and trite can strike many as patronizing. Personally I barely know who Paris Hilton is, just that she's some blond celebrity who often appears on the glossies at the supermarket aisle, which is enough to kill my interest right there. Maybe this is an elitist way to look at it, and I don't think it's intrinsically sinister to be interested in famous people or anything, but for me it's more of a rejecting-the-dismally-banal-and-stupid kind of thing than a rejecting-the-wordly-and-impure kind of thing.

I'll echo what INDY said though, good to see you.

Jingoistic is a brilliant word in this case.
 
yolland said:


I'll echo what INDY said though, good to see you.

Thanks Yolland. That means a lot coming from you and INDY.

As I said, the Army NG has kept me pretty darn busy. I leave for Ft. Benning in May and won't be back until late January 2008 (Infantry Officer Basic Course and then Ranger School). And then of course, a probable deployment.

I've been able to read the threads from time to time. Some things change, others don't. But there is always something new to be learned.
 
AEON said:
And that is the root cause of our disagreements...

A trite one-liner is all you can say to that large response of hers? Can't say that I'm all that surprised.
 
AEON said:
As someone who believes you are either with Christ or against Him - I don't see this as a false dichotomy. One could argue that Paris doesn't represent the extreme opposite of Christ, and perhaps there are better examples of that ideal opposite - but she does represent much of what Christ was against (worldliness).

Except most of the conservative Christian elite (you know, the kind who have the luxury to start "family organizations" while the rest of us actually work for a living) lives in and with as much "worldly" comfort as Paris Hilton. I doubt that "Colorado Springs" is a popular destination because of its poverty.
 
AEON said:
And that is the root cause of our disagreements...

No. Your willingness to ignore her entire post and focus on the only part of it you seem to understand is the root cause of any disagreement you may have.

God help you in the future when you have to start actually dealing with people who think differently from you, yet are still good and decent people. I mean that literally; God help you.
 
Ormus said:


Except most of the conservative Christian elite (you know, the kind who have the luxury to start "family organizations" while the rest of us actually work for a living) lives in and with as much "worldly" comfort as Paris Hilton. I doubt that "Colorado Springs" is a popular destination because of its poverty.

I do have a problem with such inauthentic behavior. Unfortunately, there will always be those cunning creatures that take advantage of well meaning people - and they should be dealt with accordingly. However, wealth, by itself, is not what I take issue with. No, I take issue with the celebration of immorality.
 
Ormus said:


A trite one-liner is all you can say to that large response of hers? Can't say that I'm all that surprised.

To me, this one line of hers summed up everything she was trying to say. It is a bold statement and it is the crux of the problem with today's prevalent message being projected and sold through the media. It is a message that sells itself with brilliant smiles and a false sense that tolerance, not love, is the supreme virtue. It is a message that has been proved false and leads to a disconnected life drenched with disillusionment and despair - usually accompanied with a wake of wrecked lives trailing behind it.
 
I hardly think Alexandra Pelosi meant it in that way or is that kind of person, not from the little I know about her. I agree with yolland, she was probably referring to banality. I find Jesus more interesting than Paris is, but that also doesn't mean that I judge Paris or anyone like her as being "less than" in some sort of dichotomy, or unworthy. She is equal under God just as we all are. The quote taken out of the context in which she said it is hardly worth getting hot and bothered over, and it is out of context. Alexandra would have to explain exactly what she meant by it.

I do know one thing for sure- Paris has much better shoes than Jesus ever did :wink:
 
AEON said:

No, I take issue with the celebration of immorality.



could we flip this on it's head a bit?

what's immoral to you isn't immoral to me. in fact, what's immoral to you is a source of love and comfort and companionship and joy.

but you think it's immoral, at least the physical expression of this love i'm talking about.

and you know what? that's fine. you're totally free to think that. and so long as you aren't passing laws to restrict how i can and cannot live my life, i'm happy to let you continue to think that i'm immoral. in fact, i'm going to celebrate your freedom to deem me immoral. because what the coexistence of Paris Hilton and Jesus represent -- and what the pitting of one against the other destroys -- is freedom.

authentic freedom. self-determination. we can all love each other, and judge each other, and scream at each other, and condemn each other to hell. but we're all free to do that because what's important isn't morality, or even love, but the freedom to seek morality and to seek love, however we might understand it, and the freedom to toss off the shackles others might place upon us in order to tie us down to their notions of morality or love.
 
Irvine511 said:




could we flip this on it's head a bit?

what's immoral to you isn't immoral to me. in fact, what's immoral to you is a source of love and comfort and companionship and joy.




Please help me understand. If something provides love, comfort, companionship, and joy - then it must be moral?
 
Back
Top Bottom