(Ir)religiosity

I had an interesting discussion with some friends on Facebook the other day over this comic.  It’s a depiction of a quote from Neil Postman’s important book Amusing Ourselves to Death. Here’s the full quote from the forward:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”. In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Postman goes on to argue, very convincingly, that Huxley was indeed right and that our preoccupation with entertainment and excess of information has negated our ability to determine what is important, relevant, and true.  The book is a must read for anyone, especially people involved in social media.

The conversation I had revolved around the question of whether Postman was completely right.  In the book he argues that Huxley’s prophecy has come to pass (more or less) and Orwell’s has not.  I tend to think that there are elements of both in our culture and at our worst we oscillate between the two.  Which may turn out to be more dangerous than one or the other by itself.

Which do you believe is more present in our culture today? Or is it some mixture of both?

(ht)

I wonder if someday I’ll have to explain to my children or grandchildren what a newspaper was.

(ht)

I’ve been out of the loop for a few weeks now.  My original “week” long break from blogging turned into two — and it’s been great.  I didn’t make as big of dent in my stack of books as I would have liked, but oh well.  Time off is good.

I’m sure it’s old news to most everyone now, but a piece by Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk) in the Christian Science Monitor titled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” has made asizable splash in the blogosphere over the past few weeks.
His predictions are bleak (or encouraging, depending on your point of view.

In the opening paragraph alone he claims that a “major collapse” of evangelicalism will occur within 10 years that will “fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West” resulting in a new “anti-Christian chapter” of our history in which “intolerance to Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible.”

Why?  He lists seven reasons, chief among them the reality that evangelicalism has — rightly or wrongly — been close related to fundamentalism and the Christian Right resulting in politicization and a reputation for intolerance and anti-intellectualism. As Spencer succinclty observes, evangelicals “fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.” As we saw in last presidential election, the political power of the Christian Right is crumbling.  Combine that with the rising disenchantment of many “cradle evangelicals” with what they perceive to be the politicization and co-option of a vibrant and robust faith, and the outlook for evangelicalism as a cultural and religious monolith is not good. Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t know what to make of Burger King’s latest ad campaign.  It’s abductive, that’s for sure.  But I can’t help but find it at least a bit arrogant and maybe even culturally imperialistic.  Here’s one of the original commercial that aired a few weeks ago.

It sure got my attention when I first saw it.  Another ad with basically the same format wonders if other “Whopper Virgins,” this time Transylvanian farmers, will chose, as have Americans, the Whopper over the Big Mac.  Even more interesting  is the mini-documentary that Burger King has released on its new “Whopper Virgins” website.

They tried pretty hard to make it seems pure and innocent there toward the end, but I’m not convinced.  The way the whole thing has been marketed, starting with the name — Whopper Virgins, conjuring up sexual imagery that unnecessarily marginalizes those it is applied to  — seems to suggest that these people are just another means to the larger end of promoting Burger King around the globe and raking in more cash that will ultimately be bequeathed to the new transnational empire of consumer capitalism.  And I don’t for a second think that benefits the Transylvanian farmer or the Thai peasant.  It just uses and abuses them — making them the punchline for yet another cutthroat marketing scheme.  Sure, it’s ingenious, but it’s also, in my opinion, immoral.

Maybe I’m way off base here, but I just think that the resources used to fund, manage, and implement this project could be put to much better use in way that doesn’t orientalize or exoticize persons in other cultures.  We don’t need more people in service to American hegemony, transnational corporations, or global consumer capitalism; we need more people to actually take the time to learn about other cultures and communities and intentionally look for creative ways to help local economies.

What do you think?  Does this cross the line, or is just another harmless ad campaign?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Burger King under fire for Whopper Virgins taste test challenge
• BK Ads Flame-Broiled in Controversy
• Cultural Arrogance or Brilliant Marketing?
• We’re no Whopper Virgins
• Whopper Virgins: it doesn’t get much more offensive than this

…by refusing to participate in mass consumption. Today — buy nothing. Instead….Give. Imagine. Create. Be.

Commercials usually don’t grab my attention when I’m watching TV, but this ad by Discover Card stopped me the other night.

“We’re a nation of Consumers,” the voice matter-of-factly announces, “and there’s nothing wrong with that.”  “After all, there’s a lot of cool stuff out there.”  The commercial then goes on to assert that the “material world can be made brighter” if you would only use Discover, which will somehow keep you from spending too much — never mind the fact you’re still spending money you don’t have — while still allowing you to accumulate more things and thereby, according to the announcer, improving your “quality of life.” Read the rest of this entry »

On this day last year, I wrote a post expressing my regret and distaste for the Fourth of July also known as Independence Day in the United States.  The celebration of any empire is, to me, to undermine the better qualities of human nature not mention to the rejection of the teachings of Jesus.

To be clear, I still hold those convictions, perhaps even more today than last year given the state of affairs in the US and the climate of the global economy, but that is another matter altogether. However, to associate those convictions with Independence Day is somewhat of misnomer because July 4, 1776 isn’t so much a commemoration of the United States and the celebration of American empire itself as much as it is a commemoration and celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the document on which the United States was founded and the document — along with what is left of the Constitution — from which it dubiously justifies its imperial existence.

So, I will celebrate the fourth of July not because I’m an American nationalist who will rally around the flag, praise the prospects of empire, eat grilled meat, and blow stuff up.  No, I will celebrate the fourth because I want to commemorate the Declaration of Independence and because I want to actually take it seriously. Read the rest of this entry »

We’re beginning to see more and more signs that the old traditional form of evangelicalism is slowly dying and with its death we are witnessing the emergence of something new.  According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 70% of evangelical Christians agree  that “many religions can lead to eternal life” and 57%  believe theirs is not the only path to salvation. This is good news. [Ht. Ben]

This post may get me into trouble.

Gas prices just aren’t high enough.  They really aren’t.  That is, if we really want justice in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate paying upwards to $4.00/gallon just as much as the next guy and I complain probably twice as much — that just proves that most days I’m a walking talking paradox of contradictions.  That aside, I find it very interesting that some people (myself included) who are constantly ranting and raving about the need for justice in the world are the same people demanding that they pay almost half as much in gas prices as the rest of world — the same world that according to them, is in dire need of justice.

That just doesn’t really add up for me.

Frankly, it makes it a little hard for me take the people who get on their soap box about all the problems in the world while at the same time Read the rest of this entry »