Going through the motions

[vovat]

My entry the other day led me to thinking about something that's been bothering me, and that's when followers of a certain religion try to force non-followers to play by their rules. For instance, cranky old religious radio host Harold Camping said something about how he thought the country was less Christian now than it was earlier in his life, and one of the examples he gave was how businesses used to close on Sundays. I could be wrong, but weren't they forced to do so at one point? That doesn't mean the business owners were good Christians (not that all Christians believe that you shouldn't work on Sunday anyway, but that's another matter entirely). The thing I have to wonder is what good they think it will do for people to follow the rules without actually believing. Some Christian denominations believe in salvation through faith alone, and others through faith combined with good works. But how many religious denominations are there where you can achieve salvation simply by following rules without knowing why, or having any belief in the actual tenets of the religion itself? A more significant issue involving this is the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing. Because certain members of some Christian denominations believe that homosexuality and polygamy are sinful, they think the government should outlaw these things even for people who DON'T believe that! Part of the beauty of separation of church and state is that, if your church isn't cool with gay marriage, it doesn't have to perform or recognize such marriages. But why should this carry over to people with different belief systems? Many denominations seem to think that anyone who doesn't believe the basic things that they believe is hellbound anyway. So what difference does it make whether that person chooses to marry someone of the same gender or work on Sundays while on Earth? Should they really be punished in life AND in the afterlife?

In more mundane matters, it turns out that my rental car has a CD player. That and the power locks will probably be the only things I'll miss when I get my own car back. While driving yesterday, I was listening to Camper Van Beethoven's New Roman Times, and digging "Might Makes Right" and the title track. I must say that I'm still not a big fan of "White Fluffy Clouds" or "Discotheque CVB," though. I think they both go on a little too long. The former is pretty good in the part that actually has lyrics, though.

On Tuesday's episode of American Idol, not only did we get the guy singing XTC, but also Paula Abdul telling someone with a silly voice that they should do cartoon voice work, giving Rugrats as an example. Simon Cowell then said something like, "So you're telling him to be a rat." I'm not even sure I can count how many things are wrong with that, but I can try:

1. Having a goofy voice doesn't mean you're cut out to be a voice actor.
2. Telling someone they sound like a cartoon character is pretty insulting anyway, and Paula is supposed to be the NICE one.
3. I'm pretty sure Rugrats is no longer on the air. Even on the off chance that it is, I'm sure they're not holding open auditions for new voice actors.
4. There aren't any rats on Rugrats (although, as bethje pointed out, Simon is actually pretty lucky not to be familiar with the show).

We also got Simon going on and on about how some girl sounded like a yowling cat, and making fun of someone's weight (not to her face, but in front of the camera). I'm usually fine with his criticisms, most of which are honest and deserved, but it annoys me when he concentrates on appearance. It's usually just with girls, but I also remember him telling Josh Gracin he should lose weight. I don't like Josh, but the guy was obviously in shape. I mean, he was a Marine! Simon has some serious issues in that respect. True, it's just a stupid TV show, but that kind of thing bothers me in general anyway.

Last night, Beth and I went to Friday's, where I got the three-course dinner. They're apparently REALLY strict with that special, not letting anyone get any dessert other than cheesecake. Fortunately, I like cheesecake, although I haven't actually eaten it yet. I was very full, so I asked for it in a box. As an appetizer, I got the fried mozzarella, which is subpar there. I mean, it tastes pretty good (it's kind of hard to mess up something that simple, after all), but it's better in pretty much any other restaurant that offers such a thing. I'm not sure whether the fact that Friday's gives you big rectangles instead of sticks is part of it. Probably not, but that's also kind of weird.

Today, I played Paper Mario for the first time in a while. I had reached Dry Dry Desert, which was pretty confusing, and I ended up consulting a walkthrough. The problem is, once I start using a walkthrough, I end up wanting to consult it for every minor difficulty I have in the game. Oh, well. The important thing is that I managed to defeat Tutankoopa, the boss of Dry Dry Ruins. I'm not sure when I'll get the chance to play the game again, but I'm hoping Forever Forest will be easier to navigate than the desert was.

This was kind of a long entry, wasn't it? I actually kind of like writing entries that deal with a lot of different topics, because there's more likely to be something that interests the readers than if I just stick to one thing. I have to wonder if it sometimes backfires, though, and people think, "This is too long! I'm not reading this!"

Comments

[3x1minus1.livejournal.com]

wow, that american idol rugrats thing sounds really really famliar. it wasn't a clip from last year, was it? if not, i feel like they went through a similar exchange before, because i remember thinking similar thoughts (re: rats). weird.

[bethje.livejournal.com]

You're right. She did make the same comment to someone last year (a girl, I think?), and then Simon made the same rat comment. Their comments are in re-runs or something. {g}

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I think Paula mentioned some other cartoons besides Rugrats last year. She probably specifically mentioned Rugrats this time specifically to bait Simon.

[arfies.livejournal.com]

As I recall, Simon didn't seem to have that trouble with Ruben, and he WON. Pfft. What a double standard.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that always seemed really inconsistent to me, too.

[slfcllednowhere.livejournal.com]

I think the Christians aren't so much concerned with whether other people are going to Hell or not as they are worried about being offended by someone flagrantly violating their beliefs. It's about them having to be aware of you doing whatever it is and be bothered by it, not what will happen to you. Or something.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I think it's more a fear that if you're exposed to certain things that means you will automatically start accepting those things as right. It's a lack of faith in people's ability to make up their own minds. They fear that their children will become horrible people if exposed to anything that isn't what they believe. *sigh* of course it doesn't work this way. Their children end up revolting against them anyway, and it's not because they were exposed to these things, it's because their parents REPRESSED them so much....

[vovat.livejournal.com]

It always bothers me when people seem to think that faith through ignorance is the best kind. Wouldn't someone generally be a better follower of their religion if they actually had evaluated other ones and found that that one made the most sense, rather than if it was simply all they knew?

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

The way I've always said it is thus: believing exactly what your parents or other authority figures tell you to believe isn't faith in God, it's faith in that authority figure. Believing something because you feel a flash of Truth when you hear it, now, that's Faith, that's the Holy Spirit talking to you. Now it's YOUR faith, not somebody else's. To tell the truth, my own faith got significantly stronger once I went to college and was exposed to many different ways of thinking-- then I had to make a case for why I believed what I believed, and suddenly I believed it all the more. Then other people I knew went to Christian colleges and came out totally NOT believing anymore.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess that ties into the whole thing about some people feeling like they need their religion to be constantly validated, which makes me wonder whether they're as strong in their faith as they claim to be.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

There's this show on now called something like "Rugrats All Grown Up," which is the characters from Rugrats in middle school. My brother was watching it the other day. Kind of scary-- their voices were much more normal coming from babies for some reason. But I don't know if the original is still on, or if they're still making new ones.

Yeah, long, multithemed entries. I'm the sort of person who reads everything unless I'm in a hurry or something (and in that case I tend to skip community posts before I'll skip someone I actually know), but I wonder if people read long ones, too. Sometimes I'll make cuts with theme titles, but then if I do cuts I'm afraid people won't bother to follow them and they'll be more likely to read if I just write it all out long; and then I'll write about several things and ONE of those things will be on my mind a lot but everyone will respond to something else instead... weirdness.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

and then I'll write about several things and ONE of those things will be on my mind a lot but everyone will respond to something else instead... weirdness.

That always happens to me, too. I'd rather have someone reply to a minor point in a post than not to reply at all, though.

[majellen.livejournal.com]

I hate "American Idol" for many reasons. That Simon Cowell is an arrogant bastard is one of them. Other reasons:
1. It's a popularity contest, not a talent contest.
2. It takes up 2 nights of quality "prime time" TV time, when it could probably be done with one. Do we REALLY have the inability to wait until NEXT WEEK to find out who was voted off? Couldn't they just start off next week's show with that?
3. They drag it out FOREVER. I watched ONE season and I was able to tell you who the top three were on the first show.
4. I haven't been impressed with the work of any of the so-called "Idols" since they left the show, leading me to number 5,
5. If they were that good, they wouldn't need to get on Idol to make their big break.
6. The way they pick a "theme" for the week and make everyone sing to that theme. I want to hear ORIGINAL works, not an entire show of badly mangled Springsteen, altered to fit their vocal range.
7. They are congratulated every time they do something even the tiniest bit original, then everyone else does it the next week.

On another note - I think businesses should still have one day of the week that they HAVE to be closed. We're losing our family values, as a society. Having a day off might do us some good. Seeing the other members of your family tend to reinforce things like being a good person.

[onib.livejournal.com]

In response to number 5, I think I've actually heard Simon Cowell refer to American Idol as a contest for lazy people who would never make it to the public's eye if they actually had to work at it themselves. Quite the ringing endorsement.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

1. That's definitely true to a significant extent. I mean, there's nothing you can do about the people who call in are going to vote, but the judges even make a lot of comments and criticisms based more on appearance and likeability than actual singing ability.
2. You're right, but it IS Fox we're talking about. From their point of view, if it gets ratings, who cares if it makes sense?
5. I'm not totally sure about that. You can have talent coming out the wazoo, but without publicity, nobody will know. And publicity takes some business sense. That's not to say that I think going on the show is a good way to get publicity. I get the impression that the Idols get REALLY shitty contracts.

I think businesses should still have one day of the week that they HAVE to be closed. We're losing our family values, as a society.

I don't really see the connection here. I don't see our society as less moral today than it was in the past. Indeed, it's probably MORE moral in some ways. A lot of discriminatory policies have been lessened or eliminated in the past century or so, for instance. I'm not entirely sure what anyone means when they talk about "family values," but I would say that being against discrimination is a good value for anyone. Besides, I don't think it's the place of the government or private industry to regulate morality and values. And a lot of people don't really HAVE families (if you mean spouse and kids, that is).

I DO think it's quite possible that workaholism is on the rise in our society, and that might well cause many people who DO have spouses and kids to see them less than they otherwise would. Sometimes people work a lot of hours out of necessity (and it's often the case that having more people to support means having to do more work, which means seeing those people less often, so it's kind of a vicious circle). But other people work long hours simply because they WANT to, and I don't think the best solution to this (if you even consider it to be a problem) is to limit the amount of time they can work. They would need a personal motivation to change, not a mandate from above.

The other thing is that businesses being open every day doesn't necessarily mean employees WORK every day. A lot of businesses that ARE open every day (like, say, retail outlets) save money by hiring mostly part-time workers. I don't think anyone should be forced to work on a day when they feel they shouldn't, but I don't think people who DON'T have such feelings should be forbidden from working then if they so choose.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

But most places are not very nice about scheduling their part-time workers. Sure, it's part-time, but it's part time WHEN THEY TELL YOU TO BE THERE. Never mind if that's the only time you ever get to see your family or anything like that.

(Mind you, I don't have this problem. The Museum is really nice and flexible about scheduling. But other places, particularly for-profit ones, are not so flexible).

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wasn't really suggesting that businesses were particularly altruistic in scheduling. I mean, I quit at Kmart mostly because they WEREN'T very flexible in making up my schedules. And rich, powerful companies only hiring part-time workers is pretty cheap, since they usually do it just so they won't have to pay benefits, overtime, or what-have-you. (It's more understandable when the employers don't have much money themselves.) But I don't think forcing businesses to close one day every week would make them much more flexible. Being guaranteed one day off per week is nice, but what if it's a day that would be more convenient for someone to work than a day they actually ARE open?

[onib.livejournal.com]

One thing I've heard a lot of from Christians is a deep-held belief that God will strike down countries that do not hold to Christian beliefs. Thus, because they love America, they are doing their patriotic duty by forcing the ungodly to at least behave by Christian rules. This of course leads into your other point. I often find that Christians, while they would prefer that everyone believe and obey the rules that they do, will accept as a substitute that everyone at least follow their rules publicly and keep their "sinful natures" a secret.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

But going through the motions and following the rules doesn't necessarily indicate Christian belief, and you can't fool God by simply going through the motions, right? So would God really be that fond of a nation where people don't believe in Him, but follow Christian rules about marriage and work because they're forced to? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Besides, a fair number (perhaps the majority) of Christians think the entire world will be destroyed eventually anyway, so why is it so important to single out one particular country?

[onib.livejournal.com]

I don't really know. But Christians often believe that they are the salt that preserves the world. Other people may go to hell fot not believing, but at least they are forced to behave like they believe. Which is why most of Europe still refers to Americans as Puritanical. We're not that different in mind-set than we were 400 years ago. Also, even though the world's going to be destroyed eventually, they believe that the country not acting Christian will deny them the blessings of God until then.

Sometimes it all hurts my head.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

will accept as a substitute that everyone at least follow their rules publicly and keep their "sinful natures" a secret.

Because God so totally won't notice.

[onib.livejournal.com]

Totally. Not one bit. Nope.

Simon Cowell's reply in Sunday paper

[(Anonymous)]

Please show the article in the Sunday paper in which Simon Cowell replies that he doesn't think he's being mean. I had meant to read it but discarded my paper before doing so. Thanks.

Re: Simon Cowell's reply in Sunday paper

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I don't know which paper you're talking about, or, for that matter, which Sunday.