Resisting Christo-Fascism

That wonderful christo-fascist organization, Focus on the Family, recently published a Christmas-Friendly Shopping Guide, which is based on the responses of 33 retailers to a letter the FoF sent to them in April 2007. Yes, you read that correctly. FoF wrote to 33 major retailers 7 months ago and advised them on the wording they should use in their Christmas advertisements. As of November 19, 2008, FoF’s ratings of retailers is as follows:

Focus on the Family Action’s 2008 Christmas-Friendly Shopping Guide
How leading retailers’ messages rate
Last updated: 11/19/08

We welcome your use of these ratings in your shopping decisions. As an additional way to help you communicate with the retailers we evaluated, we are providing the convenience of a petition which you can sign by visiting focuspetitions.com.

Retailers will be presented with petitions — thanking those that embrace “Christmas,” and alerting those that have purged or marginalized “Christmas” that you object to the secularization of Christmas. We hope you will “stand for Christmas” with us and encourage the continued acknowledgement of this historic Christian observance in our culture.

“Christmas-friendly” retailers — prominent acknowledgment of “Christmas”
Cabela’s
Crate&Barrel
Dillard’s
Eddie Bauer
JCPenney
Kohl’s
L.L.Bean
Lands’ End
Linens ‘n Things
Lowe’s
Macy’s
Neiman Marcus
Nordstrom
Pier 1 Imports
Sears
The Home Depot
Target
Toys “R” Us
Wal-Mart

“Christmas-negligent” retailers — marginalized use of “Christmas”
Barnes & Noble
Bed, Bath & Beyond
Best Buy
Borders
Circuit City
Dick’s Sporting Goods
GAP
KB Toys
Kmart

“Christmas-offensive” retailers — apparent abandonment of “Christmas”
American Eagle
Banana Republic
Bloomingdale’s
Lane Bryant
Old Navy

This publication may be reproduced in its entirety only, and for non-commercial purposes, without prior permission from Focus on the Family Action. Copyright © 2008 Focus on the Family Action. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Printed in the U.S.A.

If reproducing, please cite as follows:
Originally published by Focus on the Family Action. Copyright © 2008 Focus on the Family Action.

You can probably guess how I’ll be using this guide. First, I will patronize, as much as possible, those retailers who are rated as either Christmas-negligent or Christmas-offensive. Second, I will refuse to patronize, as much as practicable, those businesses that caved in to the christo-fascists and received a Christmas-friendly rating. Third, over the next 3-4 weeks, I will contact these companies and inform them why I decided to do business with them, or not, as the case may be. It’s obvious that the companies that acquiesced to the FoF’s demands decided that there’s more money to be made by catering to them than by offending them. I, for one, want to let them know that there are financial costs to bending to the will of narrow-minded right-wing Christian blackmailers. This is not just an atheist issue: the FoF’s pressure tactics should offend moderate and liberal Christians and believers of other faiths just as much as they offend nonbelievers. I’m going to stand up for myself, verbally and with my wallet. What are you going to do?

– the chaplain

 

Q of S

Since the deacon and I are addicted to Star Wars, Star Trek and James Bond, you won’t be surprised to learn that, two weeks ago, we fought the opening night crowds and took our places – in very bad seats in the second row, stage right – to watch the latest Bond flick. Even though the theater was packed, we managed to avoid violence, bloodshed and death – unlike shopping addicts who got carried away with Black Friday sales yesterday.

Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale left off: with Bond seeking to avenge the death of his beloved Vesper. The movie is full of amazing stunts (some of which proved to be extremely dangerous), great cinematography and cool technological wizardry. All of those great features are offset, though, by it’s less than engaging dialog. I guess that’s no surprise: Bond is, after all, a man of action, not words. (I might as well mention here, in order to be thorough, that the opening song is terrible, one of the worst Bond songs ever. Fortunately, David Arnold’s musical score matches his usual high quality.)

Daniel Craig is a great Bond. In addition to being the best-built Bond of all (although Sean Connery had great legs), he portrays Bond as a dangerous yet sensitive character, a balance that’s difficult to achieve (Connery may have come closest to Craig in finding it). When I wasn’t being swept away by the intensity of the action and the resultant adrenalin rushes, I enjoyed watching the development of the relationship between Bond and M. Judi Dench is a superb actress, the perfect choice to play a female M; she and Daniel Craig have the chemistry that she and Pierce Brosnan lacked. That relationship development, which built throughout the movie, kept me fully engaged and ensured that the movie was not just another mindless action flick.

Overall, even though Casino Royale was a superior story (and movie), Quantum of Solace is entertaining and Bond fans will surely enjoy it.

– the chaplain

 

Six Things Meme

(((Billy))) has tagged me with the Six Things Meme.

These are the rules:

1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random, arbitrary things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they’ve been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

Okay. I’ve complied with rules 1 & 2, so it’s time to move on to rule 3:

1. I love dark chocolate. Brownies are good too, with or without nuts, and with lots of icing.
2. I know that Daniel Craig is the best James Bond ever; Pierce Brosnan was a decent runner up.
3. My favorite meal is veal parmigiana, spaghetti and chianti.
4. My current favorite fictional character is Barbara Havers; Thomas Lynley is pretty good too.
5. My favorite wine is champagne.
6. My favorite jazz albums are Kind of Blue and Standard Time #3: The Resolution of Romance.

In accordance with rule 4, I am tagging the following people:

1. Aphrodite
2. DB
3. Brian
4. Eshu
5. Heather
6. OG

If I haven’t tagged you and you want to play too, you may post your responses at your blogs, or in the comments thread to this post. In the meantime, I’ve got to cruise the atheosphere and let people know that I’ve completed the meme and tagged them.

– the chaplain

 

Conservative, Strict-Constructionist Judiciary

Many on the American political and social right hold that government’s role should be narrow and restricted.  As part of their argument they frequently speak out about the need to eliminate “judicial activism”, that is, the courts expanding civil liberties by their ruling. They heatedly argue for a strict understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not within an evolving civil context, but within their original setting. They hold that it is a travesty to read into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights issues not envisioned or addressed by the Founding Fathers.

Until recently I have been somewhat perplexed by the strength of this narrow understanding of the role of the judiciary within the religious right who, like Dr. James Dobson, openly call for the President and Congress to appointment “conservative, strict-constructionist judges.” They want judges who will strike down rulings laws that expand civil liberties, impact personal and corporate property and trade rights that are not in keeping with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Three issues drive their viewpoint:

1. Abortion
2. Gay rights to marry and adopt children
3. The Broad understanding of the separation of Church and State which has led to the removal of the Lords’ Prayer, and official prayer in general, from schools and the public square.

In all three areas, the courts issued created rulings that permitted abortion, accepted the rights of gays to pursue their goals rather be than imprisoned as sexual perverts, and recognized the rights the validity of non-Christian faiths not be be confronted daily in government settings by government-sanctioned Christian worship and expression.

Many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians would freely nod in agreement that the courts have been prime movers in these areas. Hence, their stand against judicial activism makes sense, at least within a narrow context of just these issues over recent decades.

Their position puts the conservative strict-constitutionalist in a position of affirming that the courts were:

1. Correct in upholding the Dred Scott ruling and that slavery is an acceptable practice.
2. Wrong in upholding and expanding child labor laws.
3. Wrong in upholding minimum wage laws that helped to break the cycle of indentured servitude to their employers.
4. Wrong in rulings such as Brown vs. the Board of Education that integrated public schools.
5. Wrong in numerous civil rights rulings that eliminated segregation
6. Wrong in helping to define and uphold truancy laws.
7. Wrong in issuing rulings that eliminated laws that institutionalized the mentally handicapped.
8. Wrong in issuing rulings that allowed the mentally and physically handicapped to attend the same public schools as their neighbors rather than “special schools.”
9. Wrong in invalidating legal contracts with children that were not signed by the parents.
10. Wrong in granting Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent and be interrogated only with one’s lawyer present).
11. Wrong in allowing those who appear before the court to have a translator when they do not speak English.
12. Wrong in addressing in firm terms lynching and other forms of public vigilantism.
13. Wrong in defining due processes that we all now value as part of our judicial system.
14. Wrong in defining slander and issuing other statements that affect the public safety of others, such as screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, as not protected free speech.

A host of other issues could be added to above list. While the modern strict-constructionist would distance himself/herself from issues on the list, by the very nature of their static view of justice, they are against each of the civil rights issues in the above list. If one is a strict-constructionist, one cannot pick and choose what rulings are judicial activist rulings were appropriate or not appropriate.

Even though the courts may issues rulings with which I do not agree, I am pleased that our judicial system recognizes that society progresses and evolves and that laws need to be understood afresh within that changing context. Though we hold our Founding Fathers in respect, a dynamic view of the judiciary recognizes that their views and writings are not divine writ. They may have been insightful, but they did not envision our contemporary society with its plethora of issues, nor are their views without flaws that subsequent generations have had to address. They themselves understood this, which is why they build an amendment process into the Constitution. I am pleased with a dynamic posture of the judiciary, for a fixed view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not justice. A static posture is blind legalism which, as the decades pass, creates an unjust judicial system that lacks wisdom and fairness.

–the deacon

 

Foto Friday #8

The Impressionist

– the chaplain