I've seen this pop up over the years in different outlets:
It's of some men's choir from the bygone days of Hollywood, but around the time I was a youngster. The individuals are, back row left to right: Kent McCord and Martin Milner (from the very pro-police show Adam 12 - a childhood favorite of mine), Charles Nelson Reilly (who my mom liked, but knew even then that he walked on the other side of the fence in terms of sexuality), and Ed Asner, not exactly your hard rightwing radical. Front row is Glenn Ford, next to him Redd Foxx, a racy fellow who obviously was not white, Jack Carter (a comedian I know little about), and the always awesome Ernest Borgnine. Sitting are John Wayne, a well known leftwing communist, and Howard Cosell, known in my day as the most hated man in America (for reasons I never could fathom).
I looked at that and thought about the unthinking diversity of people and ideals in the photo. They were singing together having a grand old time with much joy and laughter. Did it dawn on Foxx to chafe at all the racism and white skin around him? Did Wayne seem offended at Reilly, since if my mom guessed it, the ultra pro-American conservative Wayne couldn't have been in the dark? Was Asner and his leftwing sensitivities bothered by two actors in a very pro-police television show? And who is Jack Carter?
These things I wondered as I looked at this photo and couldn't help but smile.
Then I thought of today, and the growing number of young people who see America from when this picture was taken as an extension of some 400 year old racist Nazi state. A country awash in bigotry and homophobia and misogyny and racism. A nationwide gas chamber with hippy music. Young Americans taught to divide everyone into groups and hate and condemn and hate some more. Young Americans taught that Americans have ever and always been driven by only the most evil motivations conceivable.
And things like this are compounded by not just the radicals, but ones willing to accept the premise to some degree or another.
I recall deacon and film critic Steven Greydanus, and his laments over the racist undertones of the Rocky franchise. When pressed, he said the obvious problem was that of Stallone being the heroic white guy beating up on black guys. When it was pointed out Rocky also beat up on at least one white guy, and was beaten up by black guys, it still didn't matter. I pointed out that Stallone wrote the part for himself (in one of Hollywood's most beloved rags to riches stories), and he just happened to be white. If there were no blacks at all in a 1976 boxing movie, do you think people would have said nothing? Otherwise, what was he to do, give up his dreams for the person with the proper skin color because he had the misfortune of being white? At that point Deacon Greydanus said other parts could have had the proper skin colors represented. Perhaps scratch Burgess Meredith with the wrong skin color and replace him with an actor having the right skin color for the part of Mickey. And this was written by the good deacon unironically.
Think of that. A nationally known Catholic deacon and film critic and he couldn't not see divisions, racism, and bigotry simply because of the skin colors in a beloved franchise. And more than that, he said with almost casual ease that removing a person from a part due to the wrong skin color is a perfectly reasonably solution.
Is it any wonder that young people today hate each other, our nation, our society, our religious foundations? That they divide everyone into groups and condemn and hate accordingly? That they judge and perpetually condemn our culture, values, principles, laws or everything and everyone associated with the world around them? The people insisting they're just trying to get to the truth accept a perspective that would have been asinine fifty years ago. At least if the picture above has anything to say about the majority opinion back then.
Yes, it's entirely possible that we live in the most self-righteously judgmental, close minded, intolerant and hypocritical age in many a moon. We don't even hold back. Assume the worst, judge without mercy, condemn and eradicate. Execute judgment and apply slippery standards based on convenience and intolerance in the name of diversity.
None of these things are acceptable for a person with common sense, much less acceptable for a Christian. Going along with it, or finding lame reasons to justify it in the name of some Christian virtue, is even worse. For as often as not, failure to call out the obvious comes from a lack of courage to stand up to it, while donning a Jesus mask in the hope of making it look good.
Rocky was a squirrel. Who's this "Stallone" guy?
ReplyDeleteThat would be Bullwinkle. :D
DeleteOh, yeah! "The Last Angry Moose!" https://youtu.be/H3h1J48tdXY?list=PL1iNgyQwPRL17COstgDCFqk2AF2Loe1Wv&t=55
DeleteThey don't make deacons like they used to. Looks to me like the revival of the diaconate was a mistake, for the most part. Just another layer of dumbass clergymen misleading the faithful about the nature of Christianity. --- G. Poulin
DeleteTo be fair to deacons... it’s probably not being a deacon so much as having a wide platform. In the past your platform was going to be fairly limited to your location, and only a very few might find a bigger audience than that. But with social media, I think people’s platforms can potentially get too big for their abilities to handle them well. Especially when you mix in the X factors of branding and monetizing said platforms. We are all familiar with the temptations social media presents, and none of us are immune. But it has to be harder to step away if you start to rely on immediate responses/affirmations of your thoughts and opinions and/or monetary considerations.
DeleteThat's a good point. However, let me relate something that happened in my diocese some years ago. About a dozen candidates for the diaconate were given a test on their knowledge of the Bible. Not a particularly hard test, but they all flunked it. They were all ordained anyway. One wishes for a clergy with a better grasp of the fundamentals of Christianity. That doesn't seem to be a priority in our Church. --- G. Poulin
DeleteI can't speak to deacons in general. I think with Deacon Greydanus it is a factor of the circles he runs in, his broad base, his connection to the film industry, and his increasingly left leaning sympathies. The worst the Left becomes, the worse his dealing with people who don't fall in line becomes. And his willingness to accept pretty much all media narratives accordingly. Which is a shame. He was not that way in the old days.
DeleteI couldn’t agree with you more. You are right on the money! Totally disappointed w Greydanus.
ReplyDeleteMe too. As I've said, he wasn't like this all those ages ago. Even if you disagreed with him, he could engage and have a good discussion. It's just not that way now, and the things he endorses are things I believe he wouldn't have come close to back in the day.
Delete