Your diatribe reminds me of the comments I heard from my elders regarding rock music in the 60’s. Please don’t have a heart attack. I hope you are not advocating censorship.
I’m not all that much into new country, mostly because it all sounds the damn same (like it has been said…too syrupy). I’m a rock and roller through and through. However, I do enjoy the classic tear-in-your-beer country music (George Jones, Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, etc) and there certainly wasn’t as much reference to God in those songs (Cash aside)…just a lot of alcohol and womanizing and being poor as all hell (sorta like my life 
). Who knows…maybe someday the traditionalists will come back and knock this pseudo-country shit off and make everyone miserable again 
I honestly don’t see the connection. Elaborate, please. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I often am,) but weren’t your elders’ objections based on moralistic grounds? My diatribe was not. It was based on the fact that I object to the demonization of all atheists (and for that matter, drug users) for no purpose other than to either spread a sappy, feel-good, Christian booster shot, or to make a buck. That’s all. I don’t buy the argument that the parents’ atheism was merely a factual tidbit, and was unimportant to the theme of the song, for the simple reason that it would be fluff, and could therefore have been left out. So why wasn’t it left out?
The parents’ atheism was crucial to the song – I was suggesting that it was not the reason they were drug addicts or abusive parents, but merely a third flaw in them. The parents’ lack of religious faith left no room for religious instruction of their daughter, which allows the story to conclude with the daughter knowing the face of Jesus, even though she’d never heard of Him before.
It is certainly possible for ostensibly Christian parents to be abusive to children – although I would contend that truly Christian parents would not be – just as it’s clearly possible for atheist parents to be loving and devoted.
I was merely arguing against the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
- Rick
Nah, I think it’s pretty clear that their lack of faith is the reason behind this whole mess - it neatly bookends the entire song and, as you said, faith is the entire point. The entire first verse proclaims their godlessness… and the rest comes after. This follows pattern for country songs.
The rest of it is pure, unadulterated glurge. Bleh.
Esprix
Gak! I haven’t heard that song, but I’ve faced that kind of sickening glurge in my email before. I don’t mind religious music per se. Even though I am unashamedly atheist, I have about 5 different Amy Grant albums simply because I really like her voice.
The one song that really annoys me is that “One Voice was Heard” song by Billy Gilmore. This kid sings about how bad it sucks here on earth, and how all these voices are lifted up in prayer. Then he sees a kid stop his bike and throw a pistol into the river, and he considers this to be evidence that his prayer was heard. Hello!!??!? I have asked half a dozen people what they would think if they saw someone throwing a pistol in the river. None of them thought it represented a youth who has eschewed his violent ways. Every single one of them came to the conclusion I would have: He’s getting rid of a murder weapon! Besides which, the whole idea that God only pays attention to one voice out the thousands clamoring for help isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of him.
I believe the message in “One Voice” was that all the voices crying out for help meld into one single call (“Please help us, God!”) not that only one person’s prayer is heard. I have the CD; the kid’s voice is pretty good, and I think his phrasing is much better than you see in most underage singers. I like the melody of that particular song a lot. I do have a certain degree of free-floating resentment at the Christian glurgey overtones. It makes me feel better to think the kid with the gun is ditching a weapon used in the commission of a crime, actually–it changes the song from saccarine to delightfully subversive. I think that shall be my interpretation of the song from now on, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise.
I mean I don’t care if somebody wants to watch homosexuals and hear people talking about being homosexuals but can’t they do it on a homosexual station and not on a hetrosexual one. I mean the nerve of them trying to flaunt their homosexual behavior on me when I am not a homosexual.
Turn about is fair play is it not?
WB sits back and waits for the _ _ _ _ to hit the fan.
This exchange baffled me for a few moments, because Ivy kept referring to “public radio stations” and Jodi answered with a reference to “commercial radio.” Then I realized that maybe Ivy didn’t know that a “public radio station,” like public TV, is a station that operates without the support of commercial advertising. (Ostensibly, anyway. Underwriting statements have gotten a lot more commercial in recent years.)
Anyway, stuff like that is exactly the reason I don’t listen to the radio anymore. In the car I will listen to classical or jazz, but if I want popular music, I’ll listen to CDs.
It would be, if you had two brain cells to rub together. As you don’t, it’s not. Now go away.
Esprix
I think, Bill, it should be “Stop putting the willfully, pridefully, irredeemably ignorant on my message board dedicated to fighting ignorance!”
*Originally posted by Esprix *
Is that the best you can up with loser?
Wow, that was so Christian, I’m staggered. :rolleyes:
You know, Bill, you wouldn’t be so intolerable if you were simply a bad Christian. (At least to the extent that I understand fundamentalism, which having been one and being the son-in-law of some, I do.) And you really are a bad Christian. You can’t even be remotely bothered to live by the ideals you claim to believe in. (Hey, have you met Stoidela?)
No, it goes beyond that–you’re simply a bad human being. You’re immature, willfully and proudly ignorant, and almost pathologically afraid of learning anything. You have a complete inability to see more than one side of an issue. I daresay you’re rarely even able to understand your own side.
There are burn victims around the country who could use your skin. Since you’re just wasting it by inhabiting it, why don’t you do the right thing and donate it?
You know Pldennison you can kiss off too. I try to to turn the other cheek but after a while I get pissed off to. Esprix is constantly ragging on me and taking a pot shot at Christians at every chance he gets because he is hacked off that Bible condems his sexual preference. So he decides he going to attack Christianity anyway he can. I don’t know why some of you take for him I think he sounds like a little spoiled snotty little rich brat that thinks he is smart(who knows maybe he is rich and pays you). Anyway, I’m pissed and don’t feeling like typing anymore so y’all enjoy the fact y’all pushed over the top.
Oh, please - if we’re going to hijack, don’t let it be for him. There are plenty of other Pit threads.
Esprix
Oh, baloney. I could as easily point out that Ben rags on you too, but you don’t get in his shit because he’s straight. You seem to have a real problem with Esprix, because he’s gay, and Jodi, because she’s an attorney.
I stand by my statements–you are a bad human being. And, based on your track record and the general perception here of your ability to speak English and perform
basic reasoning, I would be exceedingly careful about who I characterize as “thinks he is smart.” Esprix demonstrates that he is smart on a daily basis. You, on the other hand, do little but show what a dolt you are. And the sad part is that people have tried to help you. They’ve encouraged you to read some books, check your spelling, preview your posts, and so on, and so on, and so on. They’ve pointed out to you again and again that the very mission of The Straight Dope is to eradicate ignorance. And do you respect them enough to take them seriously? No. You revel in your continued ignorance. You have such contempt for the opinions of your peers here that you dismiss them out of hand.
Frankly, I’d trade ten of you for a single Esprix on any day of the week. In fact, the SD representatives of the Gay Agenda are, by and large, worth any number of Wildest Bill’s that you care to offer. Hell, I’ll even take a couple more Jodis.
If you’re serious about this – well, I’m not saying that I know a guy, but I might know a guy who knows a guy. 
Wowsers. :eek: Next thing you know we’ll be holding hands.
Wildest Bill,
I’m going to ignore the hijack your comments seemed to have caused, and deal with your actual post, which leads me to think you may have misunderstood the OP.
Esprix doesn't seem to be complaining that many country music singers are Christian, or even that they sing Christian themed songs (In fact, he mentioned his normal response when they do. He usually either skips that track on the CD or changes the radio station.) From what I've understood from the OP, those songs, while he doesn't like them, don't upset him to the extent that this song does. So, why does this song make him so upset? He stated several reasons in the post.
- It suggests that Christians are inherently moral and non-Christians are inherently immoral.
- It suggests that her parents in dying, got what they deserved for being so evil and non-Christian.
- It suggests that all people are “naturally” Christian…that people are born knowing Christianity is right
- It suggests that converting people to Christianity is a good thing
and finally - The song is poorly written and overly emotional.
Now, let’s apply those standards to a song (or TV show, or film, etc.) involving homosexuality. I’d like to ask you to find me a song, or any piece of art that:
- Suggests that homosexuals are inherently moral and heterosexuals are inherently immoral.
- Suggests that heterosexuals, because of that status, deserve to die
- Suggests that all people are “naturally” homosexual.
- Suggests that “converting” people to homosexuality is a good thing
and - Is poorly written and overly emotional.
If you find a song that does that, than your objection to it would be equivalent to Esprix’s objection to this song.
Also, for the record, I can’t find any posts where Esprix takes pot shots at Christians, as Christians, nor do I see him attacking Christianity. I’ve seen him disagreeing with some beliefs that some Christians hold, and also objecting to attempts to convert him or tell him he’s damned, all of which seems quite different than an attack on Christians or Christianity.
One more thing for the record. I have no knowledge of Esprix’s net worth, nor has he compensated me in any way for the writing of this post. (However, if he would be interested in doing so, I invite him to get in touch with me)
Uh, Esprix hasn’t taken any pot shots at me. And it isn’t like I’ve made a major secret of my Christianity. Nor has he taken any at RT Firefly, or Triskadecamus, or Navigator or Lauralee. P’raps there’s a pattern there?
And, by the way, since this thread is already well on its way to Cuba, let me note that “the Bible does not condemn his sexual preference.” On a strict literal reading, the Bible calls sin any sex acts he might indulge in based on his sexual preference, and in Romans Paul paints the picture of God punishing those who turn from him to worship idols with his “unnatural” sexual preference. (I have some strong remarks about that whole passage, since what Paul is describing does not fit the universal testimony of homosexually oriented people about themselves. You get the choice that 1. Every gay person is lying about why they are gay; 2. Paul is full of crap on the subject; or 3. Assuming at least some gay people to have some degree of honesty and Paul to be writing with some degree of inspiration, our interpretation of that passage as having anything to do with those who from puberty or before on have known themselves as gay is 100% wrong.)
What “condemns his sexual preference” is people who read the Bible, and use its strictures to judge others. There are passages about the results of doing that in the same Book, but they don’t seem to be as noticeable. In short, Bill, you are more than welcome to find the idea of two men getting it on as gross; that’s your privilege. But you are not supposed to be expounding it to them as though you were sinless and they were damned without recourse. And I know you know this.
To get this back on track, may I suggest for further debate a country song that even Esprix will not find objectionable, even though the chorus is structured as more or less a prayer: the Pirates of the Mississippi’s “Feed Jake”?