A question about Steve Taylor's "Lifeboat"
John Watts
I am a fan of Steve Taylor, I have enjoyed his "Meltdown" and "I
Predict 1990" albums for quite a few years now. I just recently purchased
his album "On The Fritz". I love the album, but when it came to the song
"Lifeboat", I was deeply disturbed. It is obvious that Steve likes to use
heavy tongue-in-cheek humor, which is fine, but I've got the feeling he
just went too far this time. I've gotten completely away from secular
music because when I came across any worldly lyrics, it just didn't make
me feel good about the music. I have trouble enjoying life and music is
one thing I found that helps me let go. When I enjoy something, I'd rather
it not be a tribute to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Anyway, my point is,
this song left me with a very bad feeling. "Lifeboat" was obviously
tongue-in-cheek humor, but I didn't like the fact that these young
impressionable children were singing such racist lyrics - and seemingly
enjoying it. It would help me greatly if someone could just tell me that
these children where well informed (debriefed?) that those were not "nice"
views. Even if the song ended on a slightly more positive note. Maybe I've
just got to learn to trust. I'm just trying to enjoy the album fully. What
do you think about this song? I want to hear other people's opinions.
I read a few minutes ago in this newsgroup something D.J. Maxwell
wrote: "I did manage to get him [Steve Taylor] to autograph my original
release 'On the Fritz' CD, complete with some sage advice - 'skip track
8.'" I can't be sure (I haven't got the CD with me) but isn't "Lifeboat"
track 8?
-------------------------------- * * * *
John, Jan, Cocoa, and babies c/o * ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
John....@cdsmail.cdc.com ( ) =:) =:) =:) =:)
-------------------------------- =:)
John R Laplante
(I believe) now being taught in schools. It certainly is found in
the myth of 'there's-too-many-people-on-this-earth-with-limited-resources-
so-we-better-have-a-socialist-government-to-allocate-things-and-everyone-
stop-buying-things-and-let's-have-abortion-on-demand." Taylor's song
turns the issue back on such people: ok, if we do have 'too many people,'
let's get rid of those who say there are. On a related note, the song
says that if ethics are merely subjectively determined (noted in
the song by the idea that we can get rid of 'unproductive' members
of society) then what's to keep those who propogate such lies from
being treated badly themselves? Ethics becomes reduced to personal
preference and power. Taylor's early works were certainly sarcastic,
and some may prefer a more subtle approach, but I enjoyed them a lot,
though I would have preferred something other than Taylor-on-helium,
which is what "lifeboat" sounds like.
As to what message the children singing the song got, I don't know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
john r la plante /graduate student/ Dep't of Political Science /Ohio State U
jr...@osu.edu "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.
Djmaxwell
> I read a few minutes ago in this newsgroup something D.J. Maxwell
>wrote: "I did manage to get him [Steve Taylor] to autograph my original
>release 'On the Fritz' CD, complete with some sage advice - 'skip track
>8.'" I can't be sure (I haven't got the CD with me) but isn't "Lifeboat"
>track 8?
Yes, "Lifeboat" is track 8.
The context (which didn't make it onto the CD when he signed it) of the
comment was "for repeated listening enjoyment 'skip track 8.'" I
personally enjoy the song and the video that goes with it, however, it
does get old kinda fast. Hope this helps.
DJM <><
White Flame
and I asked around and found out that this "lifeboat" philosophy
is taught in Catholic caddycism (obviously spelled incorrectly).
I believe he's ripping on them.
White Flame
John Streck
Before this turns into a major barbecue of the Catholic church, the public
school system, and anyone else who teaches "values clarification," I
think it's worth remembering that Taylor takes the situation to a rather
absurd extreme. I have yet to hear of any curriculum set instructing six
year olds to toss grandma over the side if it becomes necessary. We can
argue about the specific examples and whether or not it's appropriate for
these various groups to attempt to teach ethics (and I'm not even sure how
much of this is still going on), but it seems to me that most of this
stuff was an attempt to get kids to think about issues of right and wrong
not to indoctrinate them into some anti-(evangelical) Christian philosophy.
As with most things, there were (and are) two sides to the issue (and
there are no doubt some Sunday School primers out there that could make
for some pretty scathing song lyrics as well).
john streck
jmst...@u.washington.edu
Christopher C Parks
>I was wondering about this, myself, when I first heard the song,
>and I asked around and found out that this "lifeboat" philosophy
>is taught in Catholic caddycism (obviously spelled incorrectly).
Catechism is the proper spelling. Nowadays it's referred to as CCD
(Confraternity of Christian Doctrine--an interesting bit of trivia you can
use to spice up slow parties <g>), or even Christian Formation.
But I never heard anything of the sort from my teachers. Ever. Really!
I have a question: where *do* people get their information about the Catholic
Church and what it teaches/believes? Obviously not from Catholics.
The kind of situational ethics in values clarification courses like the ones
satirized by Steve Taylor in "Lifeboat" is NOT approved or taught by the Roman
Catholic Church. It would be a complete violation of the Church's doctrines
of the sanctity of human life.
>I believe he's ripping on them.
>
If such nonsense *was* being taught, the Church would deserve all the
ripping it got.
>White Flame
>
--chris
"I'm not a Catholic Theologian, but I play one on the Usenet."
will Maycroft
In a previous article, jmst...@u.washington.edu (John Streck) says:
>Before this turns into a major barbecue of the xxxxxxxxxxxxx, the public
>school system, and anyone else who teaches "values clarification," I
>think it's worth remembering that Taylor takes the situation to a rather
>absurd extreme. I have yet to hear of any curriculum set instructing six
>year olds to toss grandma over the side if it becomes necessary. We can
>argue about the specific examples and whether or not it's appropriate for
>these various groups to attempt to teach ethics (and I'm not even sure how
>much of this is still going on), but it seems to me that most of this
>stuff was an attempt to get kids to think about issues of right and wrong
>not to indoctrinate them into some anti-(evangelical) Christian philosophy.
>
I agree that it's not worth flaming about, but we might want to spend
some time thinking about the way it's taught. When we had to play the
equivalent of lifeboat in high school (or flunk the semester), we weren't
allowed the option of self-sacrifice.
______-============-_____
====/ wil...@prairienet.org \====
\=========-------------=========/
--
David Wang
Oh boy, it's hard to believe how much anti-catholicism is out there! I hope
no one seriously believes that the Catholic Cathechism promotes racism etc.
In fact, on that album is a song called "To Forgive" which seems to be
complimenting the Pope on forgiving the man who tried to assassinate him.
Let's all work together to bring Christ's message to the world regardless of
denomination. This type of division only serves to fracture the Body of Christ
to which we all belong!
Dave Wang
dw...@sail.uwaterloo.ca
Barry Moss
>ho...@cpchq.cpc.gmeds.com (White Flame) writes:
>>I was wondering about this, myself, when I first heard the song,
>>and I asked around and found out that this "lifeboat" philosophy
>>is taught in Catholic caddycism (obviously spelled incorrectly).
>>I believe he's ripping on them.
>Before this turns into a major barbecue of the Catholic church, the public
>school system, and anyone else who teaches "values clarification," I
>think it's worth remembering that Taylor takes the situation to a rather
>absurd extreme. I have yet to hear of any curriculum set instructing six
>year olds to toss grandma over the side if it becomes necessary.
Actually I remember having to go through a similar exercise in my grade 10
Social Studies class, except that instead of a life boat it was a bomb shelter
and we had to decide who we would allow in based on the assumption that they
would possibly all that remained of the human race. My teacher seemed to disagree
with my decision to let in the just past middle aged Jewish Rabbi...
>We can argue about the specific examples and whether or not it's appropriate for
>these various groups to attempt to teach ethics (and I'm not even sure how
>much of this is still going on), but it seems to me that most of this
>stuff was an attempt to get kids to think about issues of right and wrong
>not to indoctrinate them into some anti-(evangelical) Christian philosophy.
While I don't think the exercise was meant as anti-Christian, it was definitely
designed to promote a particular view of right and wrong, i.e. that some lives
are worth more than others rather than that all lives are equally valuable.
Barry Moss
--
Barry Moss | Phone: (604) 241-6148
Motorola: Wireless Data Group, | Fax: (604) 241-6042
11411 Number Five Road | Member: Royal Philatelic Society of Canada
Richmond, BC, Canada V7A 4Z3 | Disclaimer: My opinions, not Motorola's.
Dale Schouten
>Actually I remember having to go through a similar exercise in my grade 10
>Social Studies class, except that instead of a life boat it was a bomb shelter
>and we had to decide who we would allow in based on the assumption that they
>would possibly all that remained of the human race. My teacher seemed to disagree
>with my decision to let in the just past middle aged Jewish Rabbi...
Odd, I always thought this was one of those `no wrong answer' exercises,
intended to get you to think about your value system, and why you
would do things this way or that way. Strange for a teacher to disagree
with one of the students about a choice.
Me I'd have saved the bass players (and maybe a guitarist), but that's
another matter.
Dale Schouten
scho...@uiuc.edu
Troy Carpenter
John Watts <John....@cdsmail.cdc.com> wrote:
[Question about LifeBoat ommitted]
There are two parts to this song. The first part is the problem with teaching
Values Clarification in school (As many people have pointed out, this IS
done, myself having to do it at least twice in my academic career). Racisim
is not the point in this game, but social status and who is better, and is
emphasized by the doctor having perfect teeth. It's not that the doctor is
WHITE, it's that he's a DOCTOR and that somehow makes him more valuable to
the people on the boat. (I would throw out Joan Collins, myself)
The second part is that the kids learn their lesson so well, that they
recogzize that the teacher did not fit the standards of who is fit for
society. They say that she is old and smelly. As an exaggerated extension of
what they learned, they throw her out the window to rid society of her.
So one moral is that you may as well trust people over 30, because you will
be over 30 someday. (a bit of sarcastic humor)
Troy Carpenter
Bell-Northern Research
Atlanta, Georgia
tr...@bnr.ca
"You're so open minded that your brain leaked out" - Steve Taylor
*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best thing in life costs exactly that <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*
Tom Moellering
Christopher C Parks <cc...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>In article <325rd5$7...@caee012.elec.mid.gmeds.com> ho...@cpchq.cpc.gmeds.com writes:
>>I was wondering about this, myself, when I first heard the song,
>>and I asked around and found out that this "lifeboat" philosophy
>>is taught in Catholic caddycism (obviously spelled incorrectly).
>
>Catechism is the proper spelling. Nowadays it's referred to as CCD
>(Confraternity of Christian Doctrine--an interesting bit of trivia you can
>use to spice up slow parties <g>), or even Christian Formation.
>
>But I never heard anything of the sort from my teachers. Ever. Really!
>
>I have a question: where *do* people get their information about the Catholic
>Church and what it teaches/believes? Obviously not from Catholics.
Well, my opinion on this subject is that Catholicism is such a wide-spread
thing, that it just has a lot of variance in its actual applications worldwide.
I for one really did experience the LifeBoat scenario teaching (it was
called Fallout Shelter, but exactly the same ideas/decisions) in Catholic
Parish School of Religion classes. I went every Thursday night and now really
wish they would have spent the time introducing me to the person of Jesus
Christ. But then again, nothing will grab your attention like the conviction
of guilt; until then you probably aren't really ready to pay attention anyway.
So as an answer to your question: I got my information from BEING a Catholic
for 16 years.
On the other hand, please don't misinterpret this clarification as a
total condemnation of Catholicism. Just a datapoint. Draw your own
conclusions and leave me with mine. ;-)
>The kind of situational ethics in values clarification courses like the ones
>satirized by Steve Taylor in "Lifeboat" is NOT approved or taught by the Roman
>Catholic Church. It would be a complete violation of the Church's doctrines
>of the sanctity of human life.
I don't see values clarification as that: it makes you decide what you would
do. As Mark Heard said on a cut on Second Hand: "What kind of friend am I
when the musical chairs get down to one?" It causes you to examine what
you put first. Obviously, if misused in a classroom scenario, you could
be trying to tell kids that certain values are wrong and certain values
are right. But if all you are trying to do is to get people to admit to
themselves what their own values are, something we as human beings are
pretty adept at ignoring, and also hopefully pointing out any inconsistencies,
thats a good thing in my book.
Tom Moellering (tmoe...@spd.dsccc.com) (214-519-2942)
**** DSC's address, *my* opinions. ****
Christopher C Parks
writes:
>[snip]
>Well, my opinion on this subject is that Catholicism is such a wide-spread
>thing, that it just has a lot of variance in its actual applications
worldwide.
Quite true.
>
>I for one really did experience the LifeBoat scenario teaching (it was
>called Fallout Shelter, but exactly the same ideas/decisions) in Catholic
>Parish School of Religion classes. I went every Thursday night and now really
>wish they would have spent the time introducing me to the person of Jesus
>Christ. But then again, nothing will grab your attention like the conviction
>of guilt; until then you probably aren't really ready to pay attention anyway.
>
I felt the same way. The difference between us is that once I was
introduced, I decided to remain Catholic.
>So as an answer to your question: I got my information from BEING a Catholic
>for 16 years.
>
>On the other hand, please don't misinterpret this clarification as a
>total condemnation of Catholicism. Just a datapoint. Draw your own
>conclusions and leave me with mine. ;-)
>
You don't post to this group under the nom do net of White Flame, do you?
I didn't think so....
Seriously, I am prepared to respect your experience. The main point of my
question was to point out that there is a lot of stuff said about Catholicism
that is said in ignorance. I refrain from making blanket statements about the
beliefs of a lot of other Christian denominations for the simple reason that I
don't know exactly what their doctrines are on this point or that point.
As you speak from actual experience, I don't have a problem with what you say.
>>The kind of situational ethics in values clarification courses like the ones
>>satirized by Steve Taylor in "Lifeboat" is NOT approved or taught by the
Roman
>>Catholic Church. It would be a complete violation of the Church's doctrines
>>of the sanctity of human life.
>
>I don't see values clarification as that: it makes you decide what you would
>do.
You'll get no argument from me on that score. Reread my posting: my
objection was to an extreme form of values clarification as satirized by
Steve Taylor. John Streck pointed out that the concepts as presented in the
song are probably comically exaggerated for the purposes of satire.
> As Mark Heard said on a cut on Second Hand: "What kind of friend am I
>when the musical chairs get down to one?" It causes you to examine what
>you put first. Obviously, if misused in a classroom scenario, you could
>be trying to tell kids that certain values are wrong and certain values
>are right. But if all you are trying to do is to get people to admit to
>themselves what their own values are, something we as human beings are
>pretty adept at ignoring, and also hopefully pointing out any inconsistencies,
>thats a good thing in my book.
>
Mine too. My objection was to the implication that the Catholic Church
teaches as doctrine the kinds of ideas which provoked Taylor's satire.
>Tom Moellering (tmoe...@spd.dsccc.com) (214-519-2942)
> **** DSC's address, *my* opinions. ****
Pax?
-chris
John Streck
>I don't see values clarification as that: it makes you decide what you would
>do. As Mark Heard said on a cut on Second Hand: "What kind of friend am I
>when the musical chairs get down to one?" It causes you to examine what
>you put first. Obviously, if misused in a classroom scenario, you could
>be trying to tell kids that certain values are wrong and certain values
>are right. But if all you are trying to do is to get people to admit to
>themselves what their own values are, something we as human beings are
>pretty adept at ignoring, and also hopefully pointing out any inconsistencies,
>thats a good thing in my book.
Thanks, Tom, for making the point I was trying to illustrate. You said it
much better than I did. It's good to see you back.
john streck
jmst...@u.washington.edu
will Maycroft
In a previous article, scho...@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten) says:
>In article <328b9m$2...@petra.mdd.comm.mot.com> mo...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Barry Moss) writes:
>
>>would possibly all that remained of the human race. My teacher seemed to disagree
>>with my decision to let in the just past middle aged Jewish Rabbi...
>
>Odd, I always thought this was one of those `no wrong answer' exercises,
>intended to get you to think about your value system, and why you
>would do things this way or that way. Strange for a teacher to disagree
>with one of the students about a choice.
>
We were graded on the values we displayed when we played this "game".
I got a D because I insisted that my character (some kind of paper
pusher) didn't deserve to survive and I willingly allowed the others to
throw me out. The teacher didn't like the way I threw my life away.
Maybe I would have gotten an A if I had picked up my chair and threaten
to beat the hell out of the first one who tried to get rid of me....
John Anthony Quintanilla
I grew up Catholic, I certainly don't remember anything like values
clarification in the catechism. However, a friend of mine my freshman
year heard "Lifeboat," and he didn't know what the big deal was...
that was the kind of thing he heard a lot in the schools as a kid.
Scaary.
John Quintanilla
jo...@flagstaff.princeton.edu
"I may be a captain by rank, but I never wanted to be anything else
but an engineer."
-- Scotty, "Relics"
White Flame
of an uprising! :) Anyway, I'm not condemning Catholics
or anything. We went over this discussion in 10th grade,
I think, (wow, that was actually 4 years ago! time flies....)
and I was talking to some of the guys in my class, and they
said that they had to go through this "game" in catechism (sic! :),
so I'm not just making this up. I just thought that this must
be the reason that Steve Taylor wrote this song.
But, personally, I don't believe that the Lifeboat exercise is
that good of a thing. As a Christian (and it really annoys me
when people spell it "xian"!!), we are to love all people, to
the point that we should give our lives for them, no matter
how much they mean to society. In the latest Karate newsletter
that I got, it told a story of an old Chinese man, walking
along a beach, upon which the tide had deposited thousands of dying
starfish during the high tide. The old man was picking up
starfish, one at a time, and throwing them back into the water,
so they could live. A boy, who was also taking a walk on the
beach, was watching the old man throwing starfish back, one by
one, and said "Why are you doing this? You'll never save all
of those thousands of starfish. The few you throw in won't
make a difference." In response, the old man picked up another
starfish, held it up for the boy to see, threw it back into its
watery home, and said "It made a difference to that one."
White Flame
Chris Reuter
John Anthony Quintanilla <jo...@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>In article <325rd5$7...@caee012.elec.mid.gmeds.com> ho...@cpchq.cpc.gmeds.com writes:
According to the interview footage in "Videoworks", Taylor got the idea from
grade-school, where his class was taught values clarification.
(sorry for the 2 layers of follow-up; the previous article expired before
I could get to it.)
--Chris
Mr. Noise
Sir Calahart <lav...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Let me just make a quick comment on the "Values Clarification"
>curriculi that have made their way into our public elementary schools.
[...much deleted, but a hearty, "right on!"...]
> Secondly, in the `script' that the teacher is given as a closer to the
>lesson it says something very simmilar to, "Now that you have examined
>these situattions and clarified your values, it is important that you
>follow them. It's not important whether your values are the same as your
>friends or your teachers, or your parents, what's important is that you
>believe in them and never compromise them." (I don't have the exact
>wording, but that *is* the exact sentiment)
Ain't that funny? Isn't the importance of not comprimising one's
values ITSELF a value? Hmmn...
> And finally, the teacher is instructed never to allow religion to enter
>into the discussion.
[...]
A group of us went through this with a teacher in high school. She
had assigned a friend's class a "Lifeboat" type esssay where they were
to describe which 5 of 10 people they would choose to save. My friend
wrote an essay in which she explained that, as Christians, they would
not choose to kill another person for the "common good," and completed
the essay by giving a narrative account of their thoughts and prayers
as they died. The teacher refused to accept the assignment. (As I
recall, several of us, studnets, former students, and parents,
reasoned with her about it and she changed her mind.)
Of course, the idea that these "values clarification" assignments
serve to clarify the students' own values isn't even right, as there
are subtle but well-understood parameters that force the student to
make certain choices and not others, as the above example illustrates.
--
Mr. Noise <mrn...@econs.umass.edu> Sea of Noise +1-203-886-1441
UMASS-Amherst 8^>= "Shop as usual & avoid panic buying."
Remember: If codes are outlawed, only outlaws will have codes.
Troy Piper
: I have seen some of the teachers manuals associated with these lessons
:and I can tell you a bit about it based upon experience. First, the
:teacher is instructed *never* to comment on their own values or say what
:they would do, nor should they comment on the validity of a students
:position. (to offer an extreeme example: Johnny says, "I don't think it's
:wrong to kill people. We're just like, big animals anyway, right?" The
:best the teacher could hope to say, following the guidelines in the
:teacher's manual, is "Really? Well, what do the rest of you think?" and
:then **pray** that there's a bold child who knows something about right
:and wrong that will speak out against Johnnny's oppinion.)
The first mistake you made is trying to analyze this song for
anything but a drasticaly sarcistic position oin a subject
to get a person to think about what is really happening.
: Secondly, in the `script' that the teacher is given as a closer to the
:lesson it says something very simmilar to, "Now that you have examined
:these situattions and clarified your values, it is important that you
:follow them. It's not important whether your values are the same as your
:friends or your teachers, or your parents, what's important is that you
:believe in them and never compromise them." (I don't have the exact
:wording, but that *is* the exact sentiment)
I think the words go something more like "Values Carification
is where your little minds decide whos lives are worth living
and whos lives are worth ahemm not living." I think that is the
EXACT QUOTE. I have no idea how you came up w/the conclusion you
did out of this quote.
: And finally, the teacher is instructed never to allow religion to enter
:into the discussion.
Do you mean in the song or in life ?
: Don't you see the danger in all this? We are, routinely, telling
:children that they have absolute authority over their own lives, thus
:reinforcing the World's message that they don't need parrents, they don't
:need teachers, and they *certainly* don't need God.
NOW I think I know where you are going. The song does a lt better
job of explaining this than you just did. You sure went a
long ways to make a point. I would have just said
"WE NEED GOD BACK IN OUR SCHOOLES AGAIN!!!!!!!"
:--
: From the Knight Who Says, "NYAAH!"
: Sir Calahart
: aka - Matt Lavery
: lav...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
--
- E.W.
-
- Death and taxes, Political scams, Bill collectores who'll snag
- you if they can, A leak in the ceiling, Rush hour jams, I'll
- say it again no matter where I go or when, EVERYBODY
- understands the blues... Glenn Kaiser.
- WWW Mosaic page.....http://www.cs.uidaho.edu/~piper
Troy Carpenter
Troy Piper <pipe...@cs.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>Sir Calahart (lav...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: Secondly, in the `script' that the teacher is given as a closer to the
>:lesson it says something very simmilar to, "Now that you have examined
>:these situattions and clarified your values, it is important that you
>:follow them. It's not important whether your values are the same as your
>:friends or your teachers, or your parents, what's important is that you
>:believe in them and never compromise them." (I don't have the exact
>:wording, but that *is* the exact sentiment)
>
>
> I think the words go something more like "Values Carification
> is where your little minds decide whos lives are worth living
> and whos lives are worth ahemm not living." I think that is the
> EXACT QUOTE. I have no idea how you came up w/the conclusion you
> did out of this quote.
I think you misunderstood what the person is talking about. The quote is not
from the song, but from a school lesson plan which illustrates that the
"lifeboat" scenario does happen in schools.
>
>: And finally, the teacher is instructed never to allow religion to enter
>:into the discussion.
>
> Do you mean in the song or in life ?
In life (see above).
>
>: Don't you see the danger in all this? We are, routinely, telling
>:children that they have absolute authority over their own lives, thus
>:reinforcing the World's message that they don't need parrents, they don't
>:need teachers, and they *certainly* don't need God.
>
> NOW I think I know where you are going. The song does a lt better
> job of explaining this than you just did. You sure went a
> long ways to make a point. I would have just said
>
> "WE NEED GOD BACK IN OUR SCHOOLES AGAIN!!!!!!!"
^^^^^^^^
Looks like we need spelling lessons in schools again. (Sorry, that was set
up perfectly, couldn't resist!) Right, like I've never spelled anything wrong
in my life...In the test I had to take for high school graduation, I got
everything right, except spelling. I missed 3 of the 4 questions in that
area. They were nice enough to let me pass...
Sir Calahart
: A group of us went through this with a teacher in high school. She
: had assigned a friend's class a "Lifeboat" type esssay where they were
: to describe which 5 of 10 people they would choose to save. My friend
: wrote an essay in which she explained that, as Christians, they would
: not choose to kill another person for the "common good," and completed
: the essay by giving a narrative account of their thoughts and prayers
: as they died. The teacher refused to accept the assignment. (As I
: recall, several of us, studnets, former students, and parents,
: reasoned with her about it and she changed her mind.)
One of our youth group kids had a similar experience. Her assignment
was to write a short story in which she sold her soul to the devil in
exchange for something she really wanted and then later tricked the
devil somehow, getting her sould back in addition to what she wanted from
him in the first place.
Well, as can be expected, she was uncomfortable with the assignment.
She couldn't articulate exactly why, but I'll tell you what upset me
about it: First of all, an assignment like this forces kids to entertain
the idea that they can somehow `play' with evil and, through their *own*
craftyness, escape from the consequences. It teaches that actions really
don't have consequesnces and that satan can be beaten by human strength.
But, of course, to most it seems like a simple writing assignment. Purely
innocent.
Well, she refused to do the assignment as it was. She wrote that Satan
appeared to her one night, offering all these wonderous things: Fame,
fortune, power, etc. But she refused him saying that nothing was worth
exchanging for her salvation. And when he persisted, she called upon God
who, of course, defeated the devil and sent him running.
Once again, the teacher refused to accept the assignment claiming that
the directions weren't followed and that the story was an affront to the
teacher's authority (let's just make an issue out of it, why don't we?).
When we threatened to make a media event of the conflict (it's great to
have a Christian owned and opperated network affiliate in the area), the
teacher coalessed and accepted the assignment.
That felt *good*! :)
Ted Martin
on r.m.c but this time I inadvertently read it and can't help but respond.
>In article <33j050$8...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> Sir Calahart writes:
>
> Well, as can be expected, she was uncomfortable with the assignment.
I find this to be a non sequitor. I don't find it at all "expected" that a
Christian youth should find an exercise in imaginative writing "uncomfortable."
As a Church youth group leader, I feel quite "uncomfortable" with the notion
that your youth are somehow brainwashed to be so weak and so easily
challenged. Could it be that you've taught them that the public education
system is generally evil (humanistic? left-wing?) and that rendering unto
Caesar doesn't apply in this case?
> Well, she refused to do the assignment as it was. She wrote that Satan
>appeared to her one night, offering all these wonderous things: Fame,
>fortune, power, etc. But she refused him saying that nothing was worth
>exchanging for her salvation. And when he persisted, she called upon God
>who, of course, defeated the devil and sent him running.
Why "of course"? Is this the normal course in imaginative stories? And if it
is, then how can it be imaginative? If your youth had been a little more
imaginative (and a little less terrified by the evil otherness of non-
fundamentalists), she could still have gotten her message across by
being less literal minded (which was the purpose of the exercise in the
beginning).
> Once again, the teacher refused to accept the assignment claiming that
>the directions weren't followed and that the story was an affront to the
>teacher's authority (let's just make an issue out of it, why don't we?).
>When we threatened to make a media event of the conflict (it's great to
>have a Christian owned and opperated network affiliate in the area), the
>teacher coalessed and accepted the assignment.
>
> That felt *good*! :)
It "felt *good*" to blackmail some poor educator attempting to perform
his/her job? How disgusting! How completely un-Christ-like!
I feel distressed that instead of your youth taking the opportunity to
expand her imaginative and writing abilities, she was taught that blackmail
is a perfectly acceptable action for a Christian to take.
May the *Good* Lord some day appear to you,
Ted Martin.
J McA
> One of our youth group kids had a similar experience. Her assignment
>was to write a short story in which she sold her soul to the devil in
>exchange for something she really wanted and then later tricked the
>devil somehow, getting her sould back in addition to what she wanted from
>him in the first place.
Not to deny the validity of your argument, which I can understand. This
basic outline follows the plot of a classical piece of literature.
Maybe the assignment was to compare and/or expose the youth to classical
literature? Just pointing out that not everything need be made a
religious issure. Let me reiterate that I'm not denying your point, but
maybe you should consider other sides to the story.
Chill,
J McA
Dennis Stalnaker
: I usually attempt to ignore this non-musical (non-Christian IMHO) noise
: on r.m.c but this time I inadvertently read it and can't help but respond.
: >In article <33j050$8...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> Sir Calahart writes:
: > Well, as can be expected, she was uncomfortable with the assignment.
: I find this to be a non sequitor. I don't find it at all "expected" that a
: Christian youth should find an exercise in imaginative writing "uncomfortable."
: As a Church youth group leader, I feel quite "uncomfortable" with the notion
: that your youth are somehow brainwashed to be so weak and so easily
: challenged. Could it be that you've taught them that the public education
: system is generally evil (humanistic? left-wing?) and that rendering unto
: Caesar doesn't apply in this case?
You find the fact that this youth would not compromise her beliefs a sign
of weakness? What is your definiton of strength?
: >appeared to her one night, offering all these wonderous things: Fame,
: >fortune, power, etc. But she refused him saying that nothing was worth
: >exchanging for her salvation. And when he persisted, she called upon God
: >who, of course, defeated the devil and sent him running.
: Why "of course"? Is this the normal course in imaginative stories? And if it
: is, then how can it be imaginative? If your youth had been a little more
: imaginative (and a little less terrified by the evil otherness of non-
: fundamentalists), she could still have gotten her message across by
: being less literal minded (which was the purpose of the exercise in the
: beginning).
Why is it any less creative the way she did it than the way you think she
should have done it? Are you Gods gift to literature?
: > Once again, the teacher refused to accept the assignment claiming that
: >the directions weren't followed and that the story was an affront to the
: >teacher's authority (let's just make an issue out of it, why don't we?).
: >When we threatened to make a media event of the conflict (it's great to
: >have a Christian owned and opperated network affiliate in the area), the
: >teacher coalessed and accepted the assignment.
: > That felt *good*! :)
: It "felt *good*" to blackmail some poor educator attempting to perform
: his/her job? How disgusting! How completely un-Christ-like!
: I feel distressed that instead of your youth taking the opportunity to
: expand her imaginative and writing abilities, she was taught that blackmail
: is a perfectly acceptable action for a Christian to take.
Un-Christ-like to not compromise your beliefs? When Satan asked Jesus to
bow down did he say, "Well, ok, just a little bit..." No! I see your
point in saying that it was like blackmail, just like it would be
blackmail to tell a child that breaks a window that if he pays for it out
of his own allowance, that they won't get in trouble. There are other
ways to expand your creativity than to conforming to what a teacher asks...
: May the *Good* Lord some day appear to you, : Ted Martin.
--
Dennis Stalnaker | The worst thing that could ever happen to a person is
sol...@usa.net | for that person to be comfortable, because once you
Colorado Springs | are comfortable, you stop trying for somthing better.
Tim Witort
>I usually attempt to ignore this non-musical (non-Christian IMHO) noise
>on r.m.c but this time I inadvertently read it and can't help but respond.
>
>>In article <33j050$8...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> Sir Calahart writes:
>>
>> Well, as can be expected, she was uncomfortable with the assignment.
>
>that your youth are somehow brainwashed to be so weak and so easily
>challenged. Could it be that you've taught them that the public education
Yikes! (I love that word) Being discomforted by the requirement to
write about making a pact with satan is equivalent to being a
"brainwashed" youth?
>
>> Well, she refused to do the assignment as it was. She wrote that Satan
>>appeared to her one night, offering all these wonderous things: Fame,
>>fortune, power, etc. But she refused him saying that nothing was worth
>>exchanging for her salvation. And when he persisted, she called upon God
>>who, of course, defeated the devil and sent him running.
>
>Why "of course"? Is this the normal course in imaginative stories? And if it
>is, then how can it be imaginative?
Does being imaginative require that you defy the truth? You can still
be imaginative without betraying your beliefs. She believes that
God is stronger than satan and will always overcome him. Do you believe
otherwise?
>If your youth had been a little more
>imaginative (and a little less terrified by the evil otherness of non-
>fundamentalists), she could still have gotten her message across by
>being less literal minded (which was the purpose of the exercise in the
>beginning).
Obviously you read the original assignment, chatted with the teacher,
and read the story in question. :) Tell us more about how
unimaginative she was for standing by her faith - please quote
passages from the story she wrote. Seems her response was equally
"literal" as the assignment.
>May the *Good* Lord some day appear to you,
>Ted Martin.
Hmmm. So you personally know the poster as well? Not
only that - but you know that they have never met God.
What church are you a youth pastor at? Just curious.
-- Tim
--
\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ \_
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_\_ \_
\_ \_\_\_ \_ \_ \_ \_
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ ><_>
Ted Martin
>Yikes! (I love that word) Being discomforted by the requirement to
>write about making a pact with satan is equivalent to being a
>"brainwashed" youth?
>
Your ability to precis a paragraph is questionable. However, I do think
that if one has Christ on one's side, one should not be "discomforted"
about writing about any topic--if Christ be for us who can be against us.
Writing is not doing.
>Does being imaginative require that you defy the truth? You can still
>be imaginative without betraying your beliefs.
>
Exactly my point.
>Obviously you read the original assignment, chatted with the teacher,
>and read the story in question. :) Tell us more about how
>unimaginative she was for standing by her faith - please quote
>passages from the story she wrote. Seems her response was equally
>"literal" as the assignment.
>
Ah, YOU have read her response and the assignment. :-) (Even if you
have, given your trouble with reading my writing, I wouldn't be too confident
in your ability to report on them.)
She appears to have responded to a request for an imaginative piece
of writing as a request for a literal piece of deal-making with Satan.
Define literal. :-) Literary and literal are about as far apart as one can get.
>Hmmm. So you personally know the poster as well? Not
>only that - but you know that they have never met God.
>
What?!?!! I think there are a whole bunch of people who say Lord Lord,
but are lost. I think there are many people who read what they've been
taught to read rather than what is written in the Bible.
But I never suggested that the poster has "never met God." I only said
I hope that the *GOOD* Lord appears to him/her some day. Do you think
the student (or the poster) exhibited the Golden Rule in this case?
>What church are you a youth pastor at? Just curious.
>
Youth pastor? Who said anything about pastor? (Reading obviously isn't
a specialty of yours. (And, yes, it and writing are specialities of mine. :-)))
I'm a youth group leader at a Mennonite church.
Ted Martin
>Why is it any less creative the way she did it than the way you think she
>should have done it? Are you Gods gift to literature?
oooooh. What a creative response? (Do you believe in more than one God
or are you just illiterate? Are you using God in a blasphemous way or do
you really think that God gives gifts to branches of art?)
>Un-Christ-like to not compromise your beliefs? When Satan asked Jesus to
>bow down did he say, "Well, ok, just a little bit..." No!
Of course it is not un-Christ-like to compromise one's beliefs. But I find
it incomprehensible that WRITING about a recurring folk tale (even God
made a bet with Satan (see Job)) must be a compromise of one's beliefs.
>I see your
>point in saying that it was like blackmail, just like it would be
>blackmail to tell a child that breaks a window that if he pays for it out
>of his own allowance, that they won't get in trouble.
Complete non sequitor. Threatening to conduct a media witchhunt against
someone who disagrees with you unless they give you your way is more
like a parent who tells a child that he won't beat her if she doesn't
tell anyone about the rape the parent has just performed on her.
>There are other
>ways to expand your creativity than to conforming to what a teacher asks...
If I were you, I might reply, "Are you Gods gift [sic] to creativity?" :-)
Instead, I'll just say, "Obviously, but one of them is not by being a cult-
following automaton."
I'm beginning to feel like one of the Ack boys (you know, Shader and Meesh)
in the firey furnance. SIGH.
Tim Witort
>>In article <1994Aug26....@csustan.csustan.edu> Tim Witort writes:
>
>>Yikes! (I love that word) Being discomforted by the requirement to
>>write about making a pact with satan is equivalent to being a
>>"brainwashed" youth?
>>
>Your ability to precis a paragraph is questionable.
Ad hominem, poisoning the well. If you had included the paragraph
that I commented on, it was clear that you called this youth
group member "brainwashed" because of her discomfort with writing
the assignment.
> However, I do think
>that if one has Christ on one's side, one should not be "discomforted"
>about writing about any topic--if Christ be for us who can be against us.
>Writing is not doing.
For the most part, I agree. But be careful with your absolutes:
"any topic." By that, I should not feel discomfort about writing
about how to kidnap and kill children for fun, or about writing
a base pornographic novel.
>>Obviously you read the original assignment, chatted with the teacher,
>>and read the story in question. :) Tell us more about how
>>unimaginative she was for standing by her faith - please quote
>>passages from the story she wrote. Seems her response was equally
>>"literal" as the assignment.
>>
>Ah, YOU have read her response and the assignment. :-) (Even if you
>have, given your trouble with reading my writing, I wouldn't be too confident
>in your ability to report on them.)
More ad hominem (I was looking for a smiley). I never made
a judgement on the content of what she wrote, but YOU did.
And how do you know that she is unimaginative if you did
not read what she wrote?
>She appears to have responded to a request for an imaginative piece
>of writing as a request for a literal piece of deal-making with Satan.
???? You think she responded as if she were actually being asked
to make a deal with satan?
>>Hmmm. So you personally know the poster as well? Not
>>only that - but you know that they have never met God.
>>
>What?!?!! I think there are a whole bunch of people who say Lord Lord,
>but are lost. [SNIP]
>But I never suggested that the poster has "never met God." I only said
>I hope that the *GOOD* Lord appears to him/her some day.
Which DOES subtly and self-righteously imply that that the
*GOOD* Lord has never appeared to them.
>Do you think
>the student (or the poster) exhibited the Golden Rule in this case?
Not my place to say.
>>What church are you a youth pastor at? Just curious.
>>
>Youth pastor? Who said anything about pastor? (Reading obviously isn't
>a specialty of yours. (And, yes, it and writing are specialities of mine. :-)))
I see a pattern emerging here: "You don't know how to read!!! You
don't know how to write!!! But I DO!" In most churches (not
yours obviously) a "youth group leader" is also called a youth
pastor even if they are not ordained. Forgive me for this
atrocious mistake. Why so defensive? :)
>I'm a youth group leader at a Mennonite church.
Most of my wife's family comes from a Mennonite background.
In which "sect" is your church?
Sir Calahart
: Of course it is not un-Christ-like to compromise one's beliefs. But I find
: it incomprehensible that WRITING about a recurring folk tale (even God
: made a bet with Satan (see Job)) must be a compromise of one's beliefs.
Having not been in the classroom myself, I can't tell you precisely
what went on or how the assignment was presented, but I can tell you that
she was very uncomfortable with the assignment as she was asked to place
*herself* in this position, rather than a *character* of her own making
(a subtle but important diferance, to her as well as to me).
As for the `recurring folk tale' argument, I must simply ask: So what?
There are lots of things, past, present, and future, that are integral
parts of society and its underlying culture that I want no part of. In
such cases, I choose to separate myself from those elements. That's why I
listen to Christian music (and subsequently, why I am in this newsgroup).
I wholeheartedly support her decision, and I am proud of her for standing
her ground.
Incedentally, I would refer you to chapter 14 of Paul's letter to the
Romans where he discusses the fact that many things which are not sin in
and of themselves, are counted as sin when they `cause your brother to
stumble'. Perhaps there is nothing so wrong with the assignment, as you
have stated, but the compromise would have been a stumbling block for
this young lady, and as such, she was right to refuse.
: Complete non sequitor. Threatening to conduct a media witchhunt against
: someone who disagrees with you unless they give you your way is more
: like a parent who tells a child that he won't beat her if she doesn't
: tell anyone about the rape the parent has just performed on her.
I fail to see the parallel. The masses seem to have forgotten that the
media is their for their own use as much as anyone else's. Litterally
since the invention of Gutenberg's Printing Press, people have been
strategically using the media to advance their own causes, noble or
otherwise. The first newspapers were printed by politicians who wanted to
increase their odds of winning the desired seat. And, they are still
being used to similar ends every day (let none of you fool yourselves
into thinking that the men and women of any news organization are bold
crusaders for the cause of truth).
Your analogy is right on, though applied incorectly. In this case, the
student was the child who had been violated, but she did the honorable
thing: She told.
- Sir Calahart
Sir Calahart
: However, I do think
: that if one has Christ on one's side, one should not be "discomforted"
: about writing about any topic--if Christ be for us who can be against us.
: Writing is not doing.
I will certainly pass your sentiments on the the writers and readers of
alt.sex.*. I'm sure that they will be please to know that you approve of
their stories of graphic pedophilia, and bestiality, and rape, and
necrophilia. After all, writing is not doing, right?
No, I will quote Jesus Himself, who said in Matthew 15, "What goes into
a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth,
*that* is what makes him unclean." (asteriks not in the orriginal text :)
Christ goes on to tell us that our words (writings?) come from the
overflow of our hearts, and that is why these can make us unclean. (I
encourage you to read the first 20 verses of this chapter. They speak to
this point beautifully.)
Jesus speaks of our spoken words, but I would also aply them to our
written ones. You see, it was simply not in this young girls heart to
betray God like that, and thus, she couldn't write about it. I admire her
for that.
- Sir Calahart
Merrill Brick
: Of course it is not un-Christ-like to compromise one's beliefs.
snag. If a double negative equals a positive, then does it follow
logically that the above statement is actually saying that it IS
Christ-like to compromise one's beliefs? Just a thought.
JessRae
says that he based the song on a game he had to play in elementary
school--he's not ripping on the Catholic church.
JessRae
"If they call it a crutch then you walk with pride"
--Steve Taylor, "Harder to Believe
than Not to"