By Rick Pearcey
The topic is film, and they're talking about The Nativity Story over at the LATimes, where Pop Culture Talking Points notes that Catherine Hardwicke's new effort "premieres at the Vatican [Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006] and will be released in theaters at the end of the week. New Line is pushing some major The Passion-style Christian outreach, but Hardwicke (whose previous gigs include kids-gone-wild films Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown) is sorely lacking Mel Gibson's religious clout."
IndiaeNews worries the pope will be a no-show. "Pope Benedict XVI is not likely to attend the premiere of the film The Nativity Story though it is to be screened in the Vatican itself."
The problem? "The movie stars Keisha Castle-Hughes, who plays Mary," and a "reason cited for the Pope skipping the screening is that Hughes is pregnant but unmarried and the Catholic Church has not taken well to that, said imdb.com."
The Vatican offers a different explanation: The pope is visiting Turkey. "The surprise would have been if he had [attended]," says the Vatican.
SanFranGate is undaunted. "Industry Buzz" says, "Roll Out the Red Carpet. "Today [Sunday, Nov. 26] marks a blessed event in the annals of movie marketing, as The Nativity Story . . . becomes the first feature film to premiere at the Vatican. The movie will be shown at Pope Paul VI Hall with filmmakers on hand along with 7,000 guests. Proceeds from the benefit screening go toward construction of a school in Mughar, Israel. Populated by Christians, Muslims and Druze, the village is located 24 miles from Nazareth."
Ted Baehr at MovieGuide says The Nativity Story "shatters expectations." He seems to like the script -- "one of the best . . . ever for a biblical story."
A thumbs-up as well for the "dialogue, the plot development," and for "turning points" that are "refreshingly dramatic."
Director Catherine Hardwicke is "superb. Joseph and Mary are very human and very Jewish and very much in love."
All in all: The Nativity Story is "nearly perfect."
Comment: Even closer to perfection might be this: New title -- The Nativity. Drop "Story," which unnecessarily feeds into the secular line that we're not dealing with historical events, etc.
The information in the primary New Testament documents reports the events of the birth of Jesus as rooted in space and time. It is well known that naturalistic scholars have a problem with this, but this is a philosophical defect on their part not reflected in the historical data.
Here's the website.
_______________
Rick Pearcey is editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
British Airways: Secularism Takes Hit in England
By Rick Pearcey
Secularists tell us that God and religion relate to private matters that have no place in public life or polite society. This is not a convincing view, but it is a commonly held view, so much so that many bright people may affirm it without really having thought it through.
It's not at all difficult to imagine the head-shaking that might be going on in some circles upon hearing that British Airways is backing down on its policy of banning employees, such as Nadia Eweida, from wearing a Christian necklace or other symbol at work, in full view of staff and customers.
But no one should be shocked. Not really. If you understand the concept of "worldview," you shouldn't be shocked. And if you understand Christianity, you shouldn't be shocked.
This suggests two sets of comments.
1. Everyone has a worldview (some have elements of many). A "worldview" is your "view" of the "world," that is, your basic philosophy of life, the set of principles and assumptions about reality that you rely on to navigate existence in all its wonder and all its challenge.
In this sense, Nadia Eweida has a worldview and so does the CEO of British Airways. As does every customer and baggage-handler. Even the scientist in the lab has a worldview and so does the village pragmatist. Having a worldview is part of what it means to be a human being.
Worldviews will not be denied. This is because people seek to externalize these their most deeply held convictions (even if they are not aware of them). People regard these convictions as reliable guides to life, as truths and principles to live by. Over time they become "common sense."
People try to live consistently with their worldview. This is understandably an attempt to avoid a schizophrenic way of life. You don't have to a saint to prefer unity and integrity in behavior instead of a kind of hypocrisy (or harm) that results when one's worldview is denied an honest expression.
2. Some religious worldviews are private, but Christianity is not one of them. It's personal, yes, but not private.
It's personal because it involves the whole person. It treats human beings holistically and does not burden individuals with one set of ideals for public life and then a different set of ideals for private life.
The God of the Bible is a public figure. The truth-claims regarding his character and existence can be rationally discussed and empirically investigated. This is the emphasis in the history of Moses, Joshua, Gideon, and then of Jesus engaging his disciples in discussion, and so on.
Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem are points on the globe. Enemies or honest doubters could examine the empty tomb to corroborate (or try to destroy) eye-witness claims about a resurrection. Miracles can be observed by the same kinds of eyes that behold a Manhattan sunset.
Faith in this setting is primarily a matter of trust. It is the trust of the whole person on the basis of what Francis Schaeffer would call "good and sufficient reasons."
"Faith" can disclose new horizons of knowledge, "the evidence of things not see" (Heb. 11). But that faith is first grounded in knowledge. "Faith" is not an epistemological magic wand that turns something false into something true. "Faith" does not transmogrify an idol into God no matter how passionate the "believer" or how deep the "spirituality."
Given the modern defition of "faith" as belief in something for which one lacks evidence, Christianity may not even qualify as a religion.
The Christian worldview is reality-oriented. This means if the Christian truth-claims are false, they should not be believed. Thus, if Jesus of Nazareth did not really rise from the dead, says Paul in 1 Cor.15, "your faith is in vain."
But if the Christian propositions are true, they can be relied upon, and acted upon, as a solid foundation for life and culture, not only in the old days of ancient paganism but also in the flashy twilight of modern secularism.
So, you see, the surprize, the shock even, should go in the other direction. Because of the nature of Christianity as a humane worldview, our expection should be that healthy-functioning human beings will behave as though its information and principles apply beyond the closet door into the entirety of their lives.
The truncated "believer" singing hymns while sitting in a closet nailed shut should be the surprize. A secularist may be in the way. Someone needs to open that door.
Secularists tell us that God and religion relate to private matters that have no place in public life or polite society. This is not a convincing view, but it is a commonly held view, so much so that many bright people may affirm it without really having thought it through.
It's not at all difficult to imagine the head-shaking that might be going on in some circles upon hearing that British Airways is backing down on its policy of banning employees, such as Nadia Eweida, from wearing a Christian necklace or other symbol at work, in full view of staff and customers.
But no one should be shocked. Not really. If you understand the concept of "worldview," you shouldn't be shocked. And if you understand Christianity, you shouldn't be shocked.
This suggests two sets of comments.
1. Everyone has a worldview (some have elements of many). A "worldview" is your "view" of the "world," that is, your basic philosophy of life, the set of principles and assumptions about reality that you rely on to navigate existence in all its wonder and all its challenge.
In this sense, Nadia Eweida has a worldview and so does the CEO of British Airways. As does every customer and baggage-handler. Even the scientist in the lab has a worldview and so does the village pragmatist. Having a worldview is part of what it means to be a human being.
Worldviews will not be denied. This is because people seek to externalize these their most deeply held convictions (even if they are not aware of them). People regard these convictions as reliable guides to life, as truths and principles to live by. Over time they become "common sense."
People try to live consistently with their worldview. This is understandably an attempt to avoid a schizophrenic way of life. You don't have to a saint to prefer unity and integrity in behavior instead of a kind of hypocrisy (or harm) that results when one's worldview is denied an honest expression.
2. Some religious worldviews are private, but Christianity is not one of them. It's personal, yes, but not private.
It's personal because it involves the whole person. It treats human beings holistically and does not burden individuals with one set of ideals for public life and then a different set of ideals for private life.
The God of the Bible is a public figure. The truth-claims regarding his character and existence can be rationally discussed and empirically investigated. This is the emphasis in the history of Moses, Joshua, Gideon, and then of Jesus engaging his disciples in discussion, and so on.
Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem are points on the globe. Enemies or honest doubters could examine the empty tomb to corroborate (or try to destroy) eye-witness claims about a resurrection. Miracles can be observed by the same kinds of eyes that behold a Manhattan sunset.
Faith in this setting is primarily a matter of trust. It is the trust of the whole person on the basis of what Francis Schaeffer would call "good and sufficient reasons."
"Faith" can disclose new horizons of knowledge, "the evidence of things not see" (Heb. 11). But that faith is first grounded in knowledge. "Faith" is not an epistemological magic wand that turns something false into something true. "Faith" does not transmogrify an idol into God no matter how passionate the "believer" or how deep the "spirituality."
Given the modern defition of "faith" as belief in something for which one lacks evidence, Christianity may not even qualify as a religion.
The Christian worldview is reality-oriented. This means if the Christian truth-claims are false, they should not be believed. Thus, if Jesus of Nazareth did not really rise from the dead, says Paul in 1 Cor.15, "your faith is in vain."
But if the Christian propositions are true, they can be relied upon, and acted upon, as a solid foundation for life and culture, not only in the old days of ancient paganism but also in the flashy twilight of modern secularism.
So, you see, the surprize, the shock even, should go in the other direction. Because of the nature of Christianity as a humane worldview, our expection should be that healthy-functioning human beings will behave as though its information and principles apply beyond the closet door into the entirety of their lives.
The truncated "believer" singing hymns while sitting in a closet nailed shut should be the surprize. A secularist may be in the way. Someone needs to open that door.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Reasons to Be Thankful, Thoughtful
By Rick Pearcey
Thankfulness and thoughtfulness go hand in hand, and this Thanksgiving season is no exception.
The filmmaker "urged TV networks to be mindful of what they show on the air because of the possible effects on children. Mr. Spielberg said programs like 'CSI' and 'Heroes' were too gruesome. 'Today we are needing to be as responsible as we can possibly be, not just thinking of our own children but our friends' and neighbors' children,' Mr. Spielberg said.
"He decried on-air promotions for television shows like 'CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' that shows 'blood and people being dissected.' He also said that when his favorite TV show of the new season, NBC's 'Heroes,' showed someone cut in half in the 9 p.m. hour, he sent his younger children out of the room. 'I'm a parent who is very concerned,' Mr. Spielberg said."
Comment: We who are "very concerned" parents should not be satisfied with simply controlling TV viewing inside the home. That's a tactic but not a strategy.
Go to the sources of the toxic culture (of which Hollywood is one). Replace bad water with good water kids can drink. For that matter, replace bad water with water fit for human beings who happen to be grown-ups. For more on Cal Thomas's column, go here.
* Discriminate and Live: In an age of terror, it pays to know the good side of "discrimination," says Mona Charen. "We are so robotic in America whenever the word "discrimination" is used that we shut down thought and all genuflect in the direction of whoever is complaining. But the proper question is not whether it is discrimination but whether it is justified."
"The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it" -- Proverbs 27:12 (ESV). Mona Charen's column appears here.
_______________
Rick Pearcey is editor & publisher of The Pearcey Report.
Thankfulness and thoughtfulness go hand in hand, and this Thanksgiving season is no exception.
* $50,000 Screenwriter Alert: First-time screenwriters may want to take a look at MovieGuide, which is urging writers to submit "screenplays for the $50,000 Kairos prizes awarded by the John Templeton Foundation and MOVIEGUIDE(R).
"Winners will be announced at the 15th Annual MOVIEGUIDE(R) Faith & Values Awards Gala and Report to the Entertainment Industry on February 20 in Beverly Hills." Additional information is available at MovieGuide.
* Spielberg, TV, Kids: "I'm a parent who is very concerned" -- "Filmmaker Steven Spielberg recently addressed the International Emmys board of directors in Los Angeles," writes Cal Thomas.The filmmaker "urged TV networks to be mindful of what they show on the air because of the possible effects on children. Mr. Spielberg said programs like 'CSI' and 'Heroes' were too gruesome. 'Today we are needing to be as responsible as we can possibly be, not just thinking of our own children but our friends' and neighbors' children,' Mr. Spielberg said.
"He decried on-air promotions for television shows like 'CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' that shows 'blood and people being dissected.' He also said that when his favorite TV show of the new season, NBC's 'Heroes,' showed someone cut in half in the 9 p.m. hour, he sent his younger children out of the room. 'I'm a parent who is very concerned,' Mr. Spielberg said."
Comment: We who are "very concerned" parents should not be satisfied with simply controlling TV viewing inside the home. That's a tactic but not a strategy.
Go to the sources of the toxic culture (of which Hollywood is one). Replace bad water with good water kids can drink. For that matter, replace bad water with water fit for human beings who happen to be grown-ups. For more on Cal Thomas's column, go here.
* Discriminate and Live: In an age of terror, it pays to know the good side of "discrimination," says Mona Charen. "We are so robotic in America whenever the word "discrimination" is used that we shut down thought and all genuflect in the direction of whoever is complaining. But the proper question is not whether it is discrimination but whether it is justified."
"The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it" -- Proverbs 27:12 (ESV). Mona Charen's column appears here.
_______________
Rick Pearcey is editor & publisher of The Pearcey Report.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Dawkins: Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"?
By Rick Pearcey
The headline at LifeSite is stunning: "Anti-Religious Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics." Moreover, says the kicker, Dawkins "says Nazi regime’s genocidal project 'may not be bad'."
The report begins: "A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project 'may not be bad.'
"Since the end of the second world war," LifeSite reports, "the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and 'racial hygiene' programs."
Now comes Dawkins: "In a letter to the editor of Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, 'if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?'”
People are outraged, as one might expect. But it's hard to disagree with Dawkins, if one accepts Darwinian presuppositions.
Evolutionary theory asserts an unbroken line of continuity between life and nonlife, from the empty void of nothingness, to the impersonal particle, to the unconscious amoeba, to the cute little monkey, to the magnificent artist decorating the Sistine Chapel.
In such a framework, there seems no logical or moral barrier to the breeding of human beings for particular kinds of purposes, whether that breeding is imposed by a secular state or promoted by the free market. If the Darwinian view is correct, then what evolutionists regard as our true creator -- the cosmos -- has produced a form of existence (humanity) which over time has come to possess the power to manipulate human reproduction.
That same cosmos, however, is silent regarding the morality of reproductive manipulation and control. The impersonal universe is indifferent to such concerns. In this view, there is no Heaven above, no Hell below, and the particles care not about peace on Earth.
Let us consider where this line of thinking would lead us, if we are to take it seriously as a reality-oriented truth-claim about life in this world. If it is agreeable in principle to breed humans for "mathematical, musical, or athletic ability," then what possible ethical objection could there be to breeding blacks for speed, Jews for herding, whites for swimming, and women for yielding milk?
The rocks do not cry when a baby dies. Electrons do not pause at half-time for a moment of silence. Venus does not remember where it was when JFK died.
If that’s all there is to existence -- variations on the theme of cold rocks and impervious particles –- then, in the impersonal Darwinian universe, what really is the spectre? "Hitler" isn't the spectre. We are, that is, humanity, those who wonder and question.
Yes, conceptually speaking, Hitler is at one with the ethically insensate cosmos, for he believed in the rule of power in the struggle for survival of the strong over the weak.
No, subjecting human reproduction to the eugenic machine in the struggle for survival isn’t the problem: We are. We resist. We question and slow things down. We ghosts of humanity are cogs in the machine.
So the question is: Who are we to stand in the way of progress? The Darwinists want to know. Who are we to question? The Darwinists want to know. And who are we to think we’re special, not exhaustively identified with nature? The secular priests know what to do: Let doubters be cast out as alienated misfits unreconciled to science.
But we revolt. We shake our fists against the indifferent, empty sky. And that is good. We accept the aspirations of meaning and worth and goodness that animate our lives. Our heartache in the face of worldviews too small tells us the sky may not be as empty as some presuppositions require.
There are voices other than those typified by Mr. Dawkins, who is driven to excess by the impress of his view of life. They are rebellious voices who ask questions first and trust later.
I have heard there are people abroad in the land, wild people. They think the science and the evidence and their humanity point in a direction shockingly different from Darwin. There is talk about a strange worldview founded upon a Creator who endows every single human being, every race, every color, with certain inalienable rights. Add a little water and sunlight, it is said, plus determination, and this worldview yields an amazing bounty of human freedom, creativity, beauty, and love.
Hope abounds. Sadly, some may not be able to endure the night without Darwin to console their emptiness. On the other hand, the shadowy world of eugenics and death camps seems less likely to last without Darwin's hand to block the light and justify the darkness.
Orthodox atheists may not like it, but the shouts of the evolutionary priesthood may signal the demise of a great secular dream. Besides, the alternative looks pretty good: There's something appealing about holding science up without casting humanity down.
Note: The entire LifeSite story is here.
______________
Rick Pearcey is editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report.
The headline at LifeSite is stunning: "Anti-Religious Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics." Moreover, says the kicker, Dawkins "says Nazi regime’s genocidal project 'may not be bad'."
The report begins: "A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project 'may not be bad.'
"Since the end of the second world war," LifeSite reports, "the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and 'racial hygiene' programs."
Now comes Dawkins: "In a letter to the editor of Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, 'if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?'”
People are outraged, as one might expect. But it's hard to disagree with Dawkins, if one accepts Darwinian presuppositions.
Evolutionary theory asserts an unbroken line of continuity between life and nonlife, from the empty void of nothingness, to the impersonal particle, to the unconscious amoeba, to the cute little monkey, to the magnificent artist decorating the Sistine Chapel.
In such a framework, there seems no logical or moral barrier to the breeding of human beings for particular kinds of purposes, whether that breeding is imposed by a secular state or promoted by the free market. If the Darwinian view is correct, then what evolutionists regard as our true creator -- the cosmos -- has produced a form of existence (humanity) which over time has come to possess the power to manipulate human reproduction.
That same cosmos, however, is silent regarding the morality of reproductive manipulation and control. The impersonal universe is indifferent to such concerns. In this view, there is no Heaven above, no Hell below, and the particles care not about peace on Earth.
Let us consider where this line of thinking would lead us, if we are to take it seriously as a reality-oriented truth-claim about life in this world. If it is agreeable in principle to breed humans for "mathematical, musical, or athletic ability," then what possible ethical objection could there be to breeding blacks for speed, Jews for herding, whites for swimming, and women for yielding milk?
The rocks do not cry when a baby dies. Electrons do not pause at half-time for a moment of silence. Venus does not remember where it was when JFK died.
If that’s all there is to existence -- variations on the theme of cold rocks and impervious particles –- then, in the impersonal Darwinian universe, what really is the spectre? "Hitler" isn't the spectre. We are, that is, humanity, those who wonder and question.
Yes, conceptually speaking, Hitler is at one with the ethically insensate cosmos, for he believed in the rule of power in the struggle for survival of the strong over the weak.
No, subjecting human reproduction to the eugenic machine in the struggle for survival isn’t the problem: We are. We resist. We question and slow things down. We ghosts of humanity are cogs in the machine.
So the question is: Who are we to stand in the way of progress? The Darwinists want to know. Who are we to question? The Darwinists want to know. And who are we to think we’re special, not exhaustively identified with nature? The secular priests know what to do: Let doubters be cast out as alienated misfits unreconciled to science.
But we revolt. We shake our fists against the indifferent, empty sky. And that is good. We accept the aspirations of meaning and worth and goodness that animate our lives. Our heartache in the face of worldviews too small tells us the sky may not be as empty as some presuppositions require.
There are voices other than those typified by Mr. Dawkins, who is driven to excess by the impress of his view of life. They are rebellious voices who ask questions first and trust later.
I have heard there are people abroad in the land, wild people. They think the science and the evidence and their humanity point in a direction shockingly different from Darwin. There is talk about a strange worldview founded upon a Creator who endows every single human being, every race, every color, with certain inalienable rights. Add a little water and sunlight, it is said, plus determination, and this worldview yields an amazing bounty of human freedom, creativity, beauty, and love.
Hope abounds. Sadly, some may not be able to endure the night without Darwin to console their emptiness. On the other hand, the shadowy world of eugenics and death camps seems less likely to last without Darwin's hand to block the light and justify the darkness.
Orthodox atheists may not like it, but the shouts of the evolutionary priesthood may signal the demise of a great secular dream. Besides, the alternative looks pretty good: There's something appealing about holding science up without casting humanity down.
Note: The entire LifeSite story is here.
______________
Rick Pearcey is editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
