Rush Limbaugh Explains the True Meaning of Thanksgiving

It is late, but I recently became aware of Rush Limbaugh’s rant on President Obama’s Thanksgiving expression of respect and gratitude to the Native Americans.

The article below contains Mr. Limbaugh’s comments:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/25/2010-11-25_rush_limbaugh_slams_president_barack_obamas_thanksgiving_declaration_thanking_na.html?obref=obinsite

Mr. Limbaugh seems to deny that the European Pilgrims were in any way imperfect or that the Native Americans were/are in any way admirable. After calling President Obama’s expression of appreciation to the Native Americans as a “wildly distorted” view of the historical significance of the holiday, Mr. Limbaugh summed up his own beliefs about Thanksgiving. He explained that the “true story of Thanksgiving is how socialism failed.” He added that “the Indians didn't teach us capitalism" and "we shared our bounty with them… because we first failed as socialists."

How nice of Mr. Limbaugh to set us straight. Previously, I had always believed the point of Thanksgiving was for us to express gratitude to our omnipotent, loving and every-faithful God for the gifts he has bestowed upon us.

Philippians 4:6

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

Colossians 4:2

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving.

What Would Jesus Buy? (2007) (Troubled by the Style of the Film)

Although I agree with the substantive concerns of the film and I’m generally glad that a film was made to focus attention on the problems of commercialization and materialism, the style of the film was problematic to me.

What Would Jesus Buy? is described as a documentary. It purports to follow a man named Reverend Billy and his choir as they essentially go on a mission trip across the country. Reverend Billy speaks in an exaggerated preachy Southern drawl reminiscent of people like Jimmy Swaggart. Reverend Billy is a white man with a big bleached pompadour hairstyle and outdated, flamboyant attire. He resembles a blonde Elvis in the King’s later years. Reverend Billy is shown to exorcise people by putting his hand on their heads and pushing back in a dramatic fashion. His effect is like something from an SNL skit lampooning Southern Evangelical preachers. In watching the film, I half expected Lorne Michaels to appear at some point.

Similarly, the members of the Church of Stop Shopping Gospel Choir have a caricaturist style. Despite their message of anti-consumerism, they have elaborate matching long robes. They have rehearsed choreography to accompany their singing. And they flail about enthusiastically in (mock?) rapture when Reverend Billy preaches.

I try to be a good sport, and I think laughter is a gift. Satire can be helpful; it helps us see faults that we might not otherwise see. As a result, I’m certainly not opposed to poking fun at Christians. We should all laugh at ourselves from time to time. None of us should ever take ourselves too seriously. And it is insightful for us to see ourselves as others do.

But What Would Jesus Buy? goes beyond poking fun. The film blurs the lines between reality and satire. In watching the film, it is not clear whether Reverend Billy is a street preacher with sincere Christian faith or a mocking performance artist with a social conscience. It is also not clear if the “Church of Stop Shopping” is an actual religious congregation or the stage name of a group of performance artists who are trying to make a political statement.

The film includes footage of Reverend Billy and the choir in several churches. They seem to be leading a worship service, but the reaction of the folks in the pews was telling. The cameras show several with big, dopey grins. They appeared to be audience members enjoying a funny show, not religious worshippers. As a result, religion seems to be the butt of a joke. I’m not sure how that squares with the purported message of Reverend Billy. If the point of the crusade is to save Christmas, why is that goal of any importance if religion is merely a joke? A broader year-long crusade against materialism would make more sense.

Other scenes in the film are even more troubling. At one point, Reverend Billy speaks to several devout members of an African American church. He represents to them that he is a pastor of the Church of Stop-Shopping. They have a serious dialogue, but Billy seems to be taking advantage of their goodwill and hospitality. If he is a street performer mocking Christians, it seems rather mean-spirited to have represented himself as an actual Christian pastor. That portion of the film had a Borat-esque quality.

In another scene, Reverend Billy and the choir take their proselytizing/protest/show to a Wal-mart where they attempt to exorcise the store. After they are thrown out of the store, but while they are still lingering in the parking lot, Reverend Billy purports to baptize an infant of loving parents who are receptive to his message. A Christian baptism is a meaningful, sacred religious ritual, but in my opinion it was ridiculed by Reverend Billy’s spectacle in a sacrilegious way.

In the end, I appreciated the message and consciousness raising of What Would Jesus Buy? However, I was very disappointed by the disrespectful way the message was delivered.

Luke 18:32 (New King James Version)

For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.

What Would Jesus Buy? (2007) (Agreement with the Film’s Basic Premise)

The title of this documentary is a play on the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” That phrase was coined a number of years back as a quick guide to help Christians discern the right choices to make in various situations. It was particularly embraced by Christian youth who wore “WWJD” wristbands, but the phrase became popular more widely in Christian circles.

As a result of this background, when I originally heard of this film, I thought it would be an examination of ethical shopping choices. I assumed there might be a focus on human rights of workers and the destruction of our environment due to practices employed in manufacturing many retail products. What Would Jesus Buy? does touch on those themes, but it is certainly not the main focus of the film. Instead, the film follows “Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping Gospel Choir” as they go on a cross-country bus tour before Christmas to warn Americans of the pitfalls of consumerism and to “save Christmas from the Shopocalypse.”

The film was produced by Morgan Spurlock, who is better known for his assault on fast food in the documentary Super Size Me. I liked Super Size Me. In a simultaneously informative and comical way, the film examined a serious problem in our country: the disastrous effects of overconsumption of large portions of very unhealthy “fast food.” The film raised our consciousness while making us laugh. I’m down with that.

Similarly, I generally liked What Would Jesus Buy? As expressed in previous blog posts this year and last, I too have been disappointed and repulsed at the commercial exploitation of this important religious holiday. Christmas has been taken over by marketers in an effort to induce us to overindulge in material consumption. The irony of course is that the exploited holiday is the celebration of the birth of a man who taught us to not focus on material things, but to instead put our attention and energy into more lasting concerns. For that reason, I appreciate the basic concern of What Would Jesus Buy? It points out that Christmas shopping is really just emblematic of our culture’s wider year-long materialism and overconsumption, which the film equates (comically) to a religion unto itself. The filmmakers flag that this focus reduces us to worshipping material things. The film points out that on average Americans spend about 1 hour each week on spiritual pursuits, but about 5 hours each week shopping.

What Would Jesus Buy? explores the notion that Christmas is a marketing coup. Marketers have succeeded in equating childhood love with having material things. The film examines the myth of Santa, noting that parents go to extreme lengths to hide from their kids the fact that toys actually come from stores and do not have a magical origin. It is mentioned that other countries prohibit marketing to kids, but by contrast American kids absorb large numbers of hours of advertising each week and spend significantly less time in meaningful dialogue with their parents. The film mentions that child psychologists say that young children lack the developmental ability to distinguish between entertainment and advertising such that they are particularly receptive to marketing pitches. To illustrate these points, the film also interviews children who discuss the intense peer pressures of having the “right” brand labels on their belongings and the “right” clothes at school. The film also includes interviews with parents who are obsessed with giving their kids “quality” brand name presents, and having their kids celebrate Christmas with a slew of gifts. The film discusses the repercussions of such attitudes, including the financial vulnerability of overextended credit and the exploitation of workers in the developing world due to “big box” stores that emphasize an abundance of cheap merchandise.

Romans 1:25 (New Century Version)

They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshiped and served what had been created instead of the God who created those things, who should be praised forever. Amen.

Veggie Tales

The prior post made several references to Veggie Tales. For the uninitiated, some explanation might be helpful.

Veggie Tales is a series of animated Christian-themed cartoons where all the main characters are vegetables. Veggie Tales is one of the series created by Big Idea, a company whose mission is to “enhance the spiritual and moral fabric of society through creative media.” The Veggie Tales series began in the 1990s with videos sold primarily in Christian book stores. As they took off in popularity, they became available in larger chains like Wal-Mart and Target. The Veggie Tales shows are now shown on the Qubo channel, and NBC includes them in their Saturday morning cartoon line-up.

The main characters include Bob the Tomato, Larry the Cucumber, Archibald Asparagus and Junior Asparagus. (Madame Blueberry is also a reoccurring character, but no one seems to mind that she—and Bob—are technically fruits, not vegetables.) The plots of each of the shows involve a moral issue. Biblical characters and bible verses are incorporated in fun ways. For example, the Old Testament story of Joseph was updated into a Western called The Ballad of Little Joe. The title character ends up slinging sarsaparilla for a saloon owner after his jealous brothers throw him off their ranch and sell him into slavery. In Josh and the Big Wall, the story of Joshua and the fall of Jericho is retold with snooty French peas who throw grape slushees at the Israelites from their perch on top of the walls of the town.

The stories incorporate catchy songs with modern touches. One of our family’s favorites is “Belly Button” by the Boyz in the Sink—who seem to have a striking resemblance to N’Sync. The song melodramatically conveys a squash’s wrenching admission to his girlfriend that he doesn’t have a belly button.

The characters in Veggie Tales are loveable but imperfect. Archibald is elitist, Bob is often impatient, and Larry is frankly a bit dim. But they are each trying their best to do right and often try to improve their behavior when shown the error of their ways.

Our kids have seen most of the videos, and adore them. Several years ago, I took our older child to a live Veggie Tales concert/show when the tour came to our town. The concert was held in a local mega-church, and the concert began with a prayer by the host congregation’s children’s minister. It was impressive to sneak a peek to see every little head bowed with eyes closed in prayerful concentration. Then the show opened with a few of the main characters coming on stage to sing a familiar song from the videos. The first character on stage was Bob the Tomato. Hundreds if not thousands of little voices shrieked “Bob!!!!” in a manner that was reminiscent of the Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan.

I’ve mentioned in previous blogs our family’s general dislike of television. It is a disdain that many Christian families share. I think that is the primary reason for the phenomenal success of the Veggie Tales. In a video format, parents don’t have to worry about interruptions by inappropriate commercials. And the shows themselves are fun and have positive themes. The motto of Big Idea is “Sunday morning values with Saturday morning fun.” That is a winning combo for many families.

In relatively conservative circles, a lot of folks talk about the “Culture Wars,” but my sense is that many on the left don’t understand or appreciate what that phrase means or how it resonates with so many. Indeed, I have to admit that before I became a parent, I had a vague sense that those who spoke of “Culture Wars” were paranoid nuts. Until I became responsible for sheltering little ones from inappropriate content, I never had a sense there was really a problem with mainstream entertainment. But thinking about popular culture through the eyes of children opened my mind to the potential impact of such influences on little ones who don’t have the type of filters that older folks do. Based on my present appreciation of the problem, I think that the Veggie Tales phenomenon is emblematic of the Culture Wars, but is beneath the radar of many on the secular left.

www.veggietales.com

Matthew 19:13-15 (Contemporary English Version)

Some people brought their children to Jesus, so that he could place his hands on them and pray for them. His disciples told the people to stop bothering him. But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and don't try to stop them! People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom." After Jesus had placed his hands on the children, he left.

Sojourners Blog & Colbert’s Satire of Justice Scalia

The Sojourners website features a blog called “God’s Politics.” It has a variety of short articles not published in the magazine. I enjoy reading it when I have time.

The link below this paragraph pulls up a post from the “God’s Politics” blog that discusses Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent remarks at oral arguments in the Salazar v. Buono case, and contains a clip of Stephen Colbert’s very funny satire of those same remarks.

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/10/16/video-colbert-on-the-cross/

For those unfamiliar with the Salazar case and/or the legal issues raise by the case, a little background may be helpful.

The United States Constitution is our nation’s most fundamental legal authority. Adopted in 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(emphasis added) This one compact provision contains several distinct guarantees, but the first is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause” because it prohibits the establishment of a national religion or even the preference of one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was enacted due to our Founding Fathers’ rejection of the European tradition of churches that were officially sanctioned by the government. Membership in the state church was typically required to hold government posts, and was often a pragmatic necessity for acceptance and advancement in civil society. During the Colonial era, the Church of England had been imposed as the official church of the colonies. The Founding Fathers thought that approach to religion was unwise. They preferred freedom of conscience and freedom of religion instead of a state-sponsored religion. (Indeed, many social scientists point out that in societies where religion is free from government meddling, religion tends to flourish most, but where religion is supported or endorsed by the state, religious devotion tends to be much weaker.) Additional information about the Establishment Clause can be found at the link below this paragraph.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

The issue of religious symbols on government property has generated a number of court cases over the years. The First Amendment guarantee of the “free exercise” of religion ensures that churches and individuals can display religious symbols on their own property. However, the Establishment Clause prohibits such displays on government property (e.g., courts, parks, etc.) because such displays are an implicit endorsement of a particular religion. The link below this paragraph provides more information about the legal issues in such cases.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/religioussymbols.htm

The Salazar case involves a challenge to the presence of a Latin cross about six feet tall on the top of a prominent rock outcropping on federally-owned land in the Mojave National Preserve in California. The case was brought in 2001 by Frank Buono, an observant Catholic who displays a Latin cross in his own home. Mr. Buono has served his country through out his life; he is a veteran and a retired employee of the National Park Service. He brought the suit because he objected to the implicit governmental endorsement of one religion by allowing the erection of a prominent religious symbol on government property. While the case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a war memorial to honor World War I veterans. Additional information about the Salazar case can be found at the link below.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/41247prs20091007.html

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Salazar case. At that time, Justice Scalia made several comments that seemed to diminish the religious significance of the cross and insinuate that the cross was merely a secular symbol. The Sojourners “God’s Politics” blog post above criticizes Justice’s Scalia’s comments and includes Stephen Colbert’s comical satire of Scalia’s denial of the religious symbolism of the cross.

Parenthetically, in interviews, Colbert has professed to be a man of faith. He is a practicing Catholic and has taught Sunday School.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060820014908/http:/www.timeout.com/newyork/DetailsAr.do?file=hotseat/506/506.hotseat.html
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_09-23-2007/AStephen_Colbert

John 19:17-18, 30, 20:11-16 (New American Standard Bible)


They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.

Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).

1 Corinthians 1:17 (New American Standard Bible)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.



Colossians 1:20-22 (New American Standard Bible)

And through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.