Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"America is facing a most serious situation regarding its popular music. Welfare workers tell us that never in the history of our land have there been such immoral conditions among our young people, and in the surveys made by many organizations regarding these conditions, the blame is laid on jazz music … Never before have such outrageous dances been permitted in private as well as public ballrooms, and never has there been used for the accompaniment of the dance such a strange combination of tone and rhythm as that produced by the dance orchestras of today." ~ Anne Shaw Faulkner 1921
After talking about it a bit I pulled up a video of AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" - the music of my rebellious and inglorious youth. Naturally, it disgusted them thoroughly, and they asked not to finish the video. I gladly complied.
I just looked it up on youtube. It is a bunch of guys standing on a stage playing.
Meh. I'm not of the "pop culture corrupts our youth" school. I'm no fan of pop culture, never really have been, but as far as child rearing goes, I will lean towards open dialogue and discussion about what media is consumed over censorship (my wee ones are very wee, so I am still at the "watch the show together and talk about it" stage). IMO, mindfulness about what we are listening to or watching or consuming beats mindlessly consuming or willfully avoiding. YMMV.
Why is it either/or? Certainly dialogue and discussion are good things, and I'll be the last one to argue with you about that. But shouldn't a parent also consider the effect that media - in both content and form - can have on the moral, spiritual, and intellectual development of children?
Who said they have no exposure to it? There's a difference between exposure and immersion. Those who are immersed in pop culture have a diminished ability to evaluate it objectively.
A couple of years ago I called my oldest teens into my office for a discussion of music. They are outstanding musicians themselves. We have brought them up on classical and folk music primarily, but with some selective music from contemporary genres. Some of their friends listen to rock music, and the subject had come up in family conversations. After talking about it a bit I pulled up a video of AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" - the music of my rebellious and inglorious youth. Naturally, it disgusted them thoroughly, and they asked not to finish the video. I gladly complied.
That's a normal, healthy, human response to something like "Highway to Hell" - revulsion and disgust. But if this kind of rubbish becomes a regular diet, as it is for millions of young people today, you lose the ability to discern its evil. So, I'm all for exposure, but not immersion. Some things are best kept at a distance.
Well then I certainly hope you don't let them listen to Richard Wagner, Igor Stravinsky, John Adams, pretty much all jazz from the 20's 30's and 40's, Spohr, Mozart. All considered vulgar and offensive in their day.
So, then in conclusion, going to the parade would have been "immersion" versus "exposure".
Mmhmm.
No. We would have survived the parade. Avoiding immersion is a matter of degree, and that means avoiding overexposure without some compelling reason. The better elements of the parade just weren't compelling enough to override the negatives this time around.
Why is it either/or? Certainly dialogue and discussion are good things, and I'll be the last one to argue with you about that. But shouldn't a parent also consider the effect that media - in both content and form - can have on the moral, spiritual, and intellectual development of children?
Sure, I think thoughtful parenting is a good thing. IMO, parents who heavily censor tend to overestimate the impact that media and pop culture has, though, and in some cases may actually foster a fascination with a taboo and an atmosphere of rebellion. I think there's a difference between being a thoughtful consumer of culture and the two poles of avoiding it altogether or trying to emulate it like it's reality.
A couple of years ago I called my oldest teens into my office for a discussion of music. They are outstanding musicians themselves. We have brought them up on classical and folk music primarily, but with some selective music from contemporary genres. Some of their friends listen to rock music, and the subject had come up in family conversations. After talking about it a bit I pulled up a video of AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" - the music of my rebellious and inglorious youth. Naturally, it disgusted them thoroughly, and they asked not to finish the video. I gladly complied.
"Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" ought to be our National Anthem.
While I agree with you that the church has no moral high ground, I wonder what the very limited infallibility of the pope has to do with it?
Essentially everything. The idea of infallibility did not come to pass until the First Vatican Council in 1870. From that point on it was used as the basis for all decisions regarding the faith including any ex cathedra changes the pope wished to institute. This created an even more deeply secretive and covert operation within the church where the leadership was bound in the most Byzantine mindset possible. The pope spoke directly for God on all matters of faith and morality. As such, the pope was beyond question and perfect in all matters, including morality. This had led to a near destruction of any democratic machinations within the church. US bishops years ago appealed to then Cardinal Ratzinger about the abuses that were taking place and what must be done. Ratzinger did nothing but cover it up in an attempt to preserve the church's image.
Now that Ratzinger is pope, the soldiers are lining up to defend him against accusations that he knew, that the Vatican has always known and that he covered it up either under orders from then Pope John Paul II or on his own accord. Archbishop Dolan is now coming out and comparing the pope with Jesus saying he is, "now suffering some of the same unjust accusations, shouts of the mob, and scourging at the pillar,” and “being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo.”
The pope is infallible in all matters of morality and speaks for God when it comes to running matters of the church. If the pope covered up the abuse then he therefore must have been doing God's will, correct? If he did not follow "God's will" in doing so, then he is not infallible. Hence, the quandary the church faces that I feel will ultimately bring it down. Either God condoned the abusing of these children and ordered His Church to cover it up or the cornerstone of Catholic dogma related to papal infallibility is false. If it is false, then many of the traditions of the church will be reduced to nothing but false worship.
Oh drats. I didn't realize there was a Degrees of Avoiding Immersion chapter in your novel/handbook.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
