Thursday, June 23, 2005 |
Conversation(s) at Pam's House Blend |
I am having at Pam's House Blend (be warned there is mild profanity in Pam's response).
The background is that Pam is openly homosexual and spends much of her time bashing conservative Christians. Otherwise she seems like a nice person :)
To follow the conversation visit Pam's blog. Look in the comment section of an article titled A Sunny Rotting Cryptkeeper on Wednesday June 22, 2005 |
posted by Rickie @ 11:04 AM |
|
|
Monday, June 20, 2005 |
Mike's Bad Church Signs |
I came across this blip on a church sign. It made me both cringe and laugh at the same time. In honor of Mike over at my drivetrain of thought, I submit this bad and tastless church singnage for consideration.
When the only alternative is the above, it is best to leave the sign blank. |
posted by Rickie @ 10:07 PM |
|
|
Tuesday, June 07, 2005 |
Cry, Wolf! |
In the children's story, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, a young boy is entrusted with the task of watching over sheep in the hills of a quintessential village. For whatever reason, the boy cries wolf several times when there really is no wolf. The day comes when the boy and the sheep are really being threatened by a wolf, but no one comes to help . In several of the versions I have heard over my life the boy is actually eaten by the wolf. The moral of the story is don't cry for help unless you really need it. Every person, after reading this post, should go outside and cry, "WOLF, WOLF, WOLF!"
Francis Shaeffer in his How Should We Then Live? (Not to be confused with Colson's How Now Shall We Live?) writes,
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire said that the following five attributes marked Rome at its end: first, a mounting love of show and luxury (that is, affluence); second, a widening gap between the very rich and the very poor...; third, an obsession with sex; fourth, freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality, and ethusiasms pretending to be creativity; fifth, an increased desire to live off the state.
So at Rome's end there was
- An over emphasis on wealth
- The rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer
- An obsession with sex
- Filth was being substituted for art
- The Welfare state was getting out of control
Allow me to draw some comparisons if you haven't already. - Americans are obssessed with other people's bling bling. Shows like Cribs (think lifestyles of the rich and famous) serve to satify the viewers appetitie for seeing how the wealthy live. Let's not forget the ridiculous amount of magazines that line magazine racks. Magazines such as US provides glimpses into all the delights of those who spend idiodic amounts of money on things like lingerie (think Jessica Simpson).
- If you have listened to the news in the last 10-20yrs you know #2 is a constant topic of discussion (no need to beat a dead horse).
- Sex sells EVERYTHING in America. Sexual orientation is the new alleged civil rights issue. Sexual images bombard the average American everyday. Men seem to be the main targets. Men keep the ponography industry alive. A man's visuale appetite can be insatiable and today's society and culturaly acceptable advertisement feeds his imagination.
- Art...humm....ponography, pictures of carcuses, crucifix in urine? (I could go on but I think I've painted a pretty good picture).
We really are in trouble as a nation. Just this morning I heard Rosie O'donnel declare that we are living in a new day where people should proudly wear shirts that promote shows such as Queer as Folk. She then went on to accuse the United States of being an invading force and not a liberating influence in Iraq. As to the justification of stem cell research, she summits that Christopher Reeves died without the hope of a cure. The bottom line is that she wants to sacrifice the unborn for the living. Sound familar? It was customary for Romans to discard thier unwanted children by leaving them stranded in forests and on mountains where predators could devour them. They discarded the unwanted children, i.e., unwanted females and the handicapped, for the betterment of their society. The Romans chose who would live based on a class system (e.g., male children were of highest priority). In America, some, like Rosie, want to extract stem cells from embryo's all for the betterment of society. They, like the Romans, have devided the human race into a class system, the living and the unborn. In turn, the unborn are left at the mercy of science and its processes. If the unborn could speak, they would be crying, wolf!
|
posted by Rickie @ 1:28 PM |
|
|
Monday, June 06, 2005 |
On the Empowerment of Women: A Reflection Concerning Comments made by Katherine Fugat, Screenwriter of The Prince and Me |
For those who have not seen The Prince and Me, allow me to provide you with a brief summary of the movie. It is a story about love and self-discovery. A young farm girl from Wisconsin (Paige, played by Julia Stiles) and a young Prince from Denmark (Edvard, played by Larry Mably) meet and fall in love at the University of Wisconsin. Paige is a hard working no time for nonsense kinda girl. While Edvard is a play hard no time for work kinda boy. After a rocky first meeting, the two gradually become lab partners (much to the dismay of Paige). Eventually, the two become friends and fall in love. Due to his father’s diminishing health, Edvard returns to Denmark. Paige, in a moment of enlightenment brought about by her Humanities exam, realizes her desires for Edvard and darts out of class and catches a flight to Denmark.
In Denamark, Paige and Edvard are reunited. After some in-house royal bickering about Paige being a commoner, she is eventually accepted by the family and is set on her way to becoming the future Mrs. Edvard and Queen of Denmark. As time passes (weeks maybe days), Paige realizes that she has to leave because she doesn’t want to give up her dreams of medical school and working with the organization Doctors without boarders. Paige returns to school, and she completes her degree with honors. As the movie draws to a close, Edvard makes his appearance and confesses that he simply can’t live without her, and that he will wait however long it takes for her to fulfill her dreams.
The melodramatic ending seeks to appease both the camps of the hopelessly romantic and liberal feminist. My biggest criticism of the movie has to do with this appeasal ending. Paige leaves to follow her dreams, then Edvard chases after her a semester later to confess his undying love. In the alternate ending the movie closes with Paige standing in her dorm room at John Hopkins marking with a push pin that she has been to Denmark (Paige has a map with pins in all the places she wants to go and all the places she has been). I felt the alternate ending was the stronger of the two. In the special feature section of the dvd writer Katherine Fugate says,
What was important to me, I think, from the very beginning, from the very first treatment I wrote to the last screenplay was that there wasn’t a big royal wedding at the end, and it didn’t have a fairy tale ending where Paige walked away from her dream and her school and her degree to be a queen. And by her not doing that, I think it’s a very empowering movie for women and for young girls. Why is Paige’s decision to leave and pursue her dreams anymore empowering then if she had decided to stay and become Edvard’s wife, Queen of Denmark? Quite frankly it’s not. The screenwriter's opinion reveals more of Hollywood’s agenda to mode young women into there feminist cast. Career first, family second appears to be the politically correct mantra! “I don’t need a man” the battle cry.
True empowerment for women does not come from making one decision verses another. Empowerment comes from having the ability to make the decision. Paige is not a strong woman because she left Denmark and Edvard. She is strong because she chooses for herself the life she wants to live. Paige would be just as empowered if she stayed in Denmark (because she made the choice). All across America, young girls are being told to do the opposite of their inner calling. If you want to be empowered, you must chose a brief case over a diaper bag, a desk over a crib and a title over a term of endearment.
Can a woman do both? Certainly. Yet, empowerment is not the result of giving up the traditional homemaker role to adorn business attire and join the rat race. Women for centuries have proven that managing a home is just as empowering and is arguably more important than managing Microsoft. It is at home that education, morals and dreams are conceived in the minds of children. Mothers have been the caretakers of these invaluable commodities from the beginning. If Hollywood really wants to empower young ladies, they can start by halting their attack on traditional values and quit treating a woman’s ability to choose as some unmitigated slant toward their liberal feminist agenda.
It was God that fashioned women with intellect and volition, not the National Organization of Women (NOW). |
posted by Rickie @ 2:00 PM |
|
|
|
About Me |
Name: Rickie
Home: United States
About Me: I am currently working on a Master of Arts in Apologetics. This site is intended to stimulate discussion, as well as, inform. I welcome differing opinions, especially opposing views that engage me intellectually and challenge me to think in new ways. I may continue to disagree with you, but I welcome the dialogue. The beautiful woman in the picture with me is my wife. I personally think I married one of the most giving and beautiful women in all the world, an opinion that is not open for debate.
See my complete profile
|
Manuals |
|
Receiving |
|
Inventory |
|
Shoutbox |
Jesus wants a child's heart and a grown-up's head. ~C.S. Lewis |
Warehouses |
|
Powered by |
|
|