I was watching one of my favorite shows the other day, and the characters paid homage to one of the worst songs in pop history. No, everything Britney Spears has ever recorded is vastly superior to this idiotic slime. Yes, I said it. And I mean it. The sick, twisted part of it all is that the artist (justly, probably) and his former band define popular music itself. But the song that inspires me to want to punch someone in the face every time is "Imagine," by John Lennon. This 4-minute bucket of dog-piddle is the reason we have a culture-war in the first place, and not that this is a good thing. If you attended university in the US any time in the last forty years or so, you know the grubby guy with the crappy goatee who is always blathering about "corporate interests" or some such? This is his favorite song. Ditto, Marxist college professor. I don't even have to think war is a good idea to think, "You'd have to be a first-class buffoon to believe that" every time I hear the song. And I just figured out why, beyond a palpable antipathy for the paradigmatic college-age bearers of such a message. It is the "religion is the source of all our troubles" canard set to music. Does anyone with a shred of sense (and the willingness to pick up a history book) actually believe this? Apparently. And what is more, the record of history shows precisely the opposite: the most vicious crimes against humanity have been perpetrated by committed secularists. Oh, the most annoying of us Christians will preach Jesus in a public school assembly after being told to go easy on the Jesus (God bless you, Kurt Warner). But are you kidding? Do you seriously want to make this argument? More than that, the most militant Marxist regimes imitate religious practice. A popular fictional example is Marko Raimius' description of the Soviet Union in Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October." I think David Horowitz makes the case powerfully in his autobiographical work, "Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey." (A must-read; he made me cry. He said everything I had ever felt, he explained my coming-of-age as an anti-socialist so well, even 40 years later.) Same point made (though more from the left) in "Torture and Eucharist" by Cavanaugh. The New Atheism terminates in anti-humanism. So one can tell me to settle down if you wish; it's only a song, after all. But the logical outworking of those ideas--and the power to enforce them--ends in state-sanctioned murder.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments