Farcry4 Part 58 Culture wars
Welcome to Himalaya a place with beatuiful rivers, mountain and nature lives with the birds singing. Also includes predators, civel war and a crazy person who seem to have loved a mother, all...
By: Alyssa Sundale
Go here to see the original:
Farcry4 Part 58 Culture wars - Video
A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars - Andrew Hartman
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015, Andrew Hartman presented at Spring Arbor University about his new book, A WAR FOR THE SOUL OF AMERICA: A HISTORY OF THE CULTURE ...
By: Spring Arbor U
More here:
A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars - Andrew Hartman - Video
March 13, 2015|1:02 pm
As a child growing up in a Southern Baptist church, I learned my place in American culture through rapture movies. These filmsbased on a pop-dispensationalist reading of prophecypictured a time when the church would be suddenly ripped from the earth, sailing through the air to be with the invisible (to the viewer) Jesus Christ. These films would always then picture the panic of those who were "left behind" and depict the societal chaos that would emerge once the "salt and light" of the culture had disappeared. We never considered that if such a rapture were to happen, American culture might be relieved to be rid of us.
Historian Rick Perlstein notes the "culture wars" that ignited in the 1960s and 1970s were really about dueling secular prophecy charts. "What one side saw as liberation, the other side saw as apocalypse," and vice-versa, he writes. It's hard to argue with his thesis. The scenes of LSD-intoxicated college students frolicking nude in the mud of the Woodstock Festival in New York would seem horrifying to the salt-of-the-earth folk in Middle America for whom "the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" would seem like a threat. At the same time, Merle Haggard's counter-revolutionary anthem would have the same effect, in reverse. The words, "We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee," must seem like hell, if you're in Woodstock.
From Majority to Minority
The problem with American Christianity is that we always assumed there were more of "us" than there were of "them." And we were sometimes confused about who we meant when we said "us."
The idea of the church as part of a "moral majority" was not started, or ended, by the political movement by that name. The idea was that most Americans shared common goals with Christianity, at least at the level of morality. This perception was helped along by the fact that it was, at least in some ways, true. Most Americans did identify with Christianity, and the goods of Christianity such as churchgoing and moral self-restraint were approved of by the culture as means toward molding good citizens, the kind who could withstand the ravages of the frontier or the challenges of global Communism. Mainstream American culture did aspire to at least the ideal of many of the things the Christian church talked about: healthy marriages, stable families, and strong communities bound together by prayer.
'God and Country' or 'Christ and Him Crucified'?
Politically and socially speaking, this is what a group is supposed to do: to attach itself to a broad coalition and to speak as part of a majority. The problem was that, from the beginning, Christian values were always more popular than the Christian gospel in American culture. That's why one could speak with great acclaim, in almost any era of the nation's history, of "God and country," but then create cultural distance as soon as one mentioned "Christ and him crucified." God was always welcome in American culture as the deity charged with blessing America. But the God who must be approached through the mediation of the blood of Christ was much more difficult to set to patriotic music or to "amen" in a prayer at the Rotary Club.
Now, however, it is increasingly clear that American culture doesn't just reject the particularities of orthodox, evangelical Christianity but also rejects key aspects of "traditional values." This is seen politically in the way that the "wedge issues" of the "culture wars," which once benefited social conservatives, now benefit moral libertariansfrom questions of sexuality to drug laws to public expressions of religion to the definition of the family. Turns out, they do smoke marijuana in Muskogee.
Path Forward
Read more from the original source:
Left Behind In America: Following Christ After the Culture Wars
FarCry 4 - Ep 31 - Culture Wars
NB! There is some foul language in this series, so if you are underaged, and not allowed to watch this kind of game, please don #39;t! 🙂 Far Cry 4 is a game i #39;v...
By: Flamebeur92
See more here:
FarCry 4 - Ep 31 - Culture Wars - Video
Hello, dear reader, and welcome to The Kerfuffler! I'm your host, fantasy writer, essayist, and mad tweeter, Saladin Ahmed. Every other week I'll be looking at America's seemingly endless culture wars playing out online, tracing their fault lines, and wading hip-deep into comment sections so you don't have to.
My first dispatch comes from the war-torn realm of book publishing.
The internet has been abuzz recently with debates over reading lists and reading habits. Writer K. Tempest Bradford caused a bit of a stir when she challenged readers to stop reading straight white cisgendered male authors for a year. Sunili Govinnage generated her share of outrage when she reported on her year spent deliberately not reading white authors. And in late 2014, the phenomenally successful #WeNeedDiverseBooks campaign took Tumblr and Twitter by storm, sparking a conversation about which books get published and read, and which don't, and what these choices are doing to children's literature.
Many of the responses generated by these articles and initiatives have been supportive even from those white male authors 'targeted' for exclusion. Neil Gaiman, whose novel American Gods appears crossed out in red at the top of Bradford's piece, told "anyone hoping for outrage" that he thought Bradford's suggestion was "great":
Bestselling author John Scalzi tweeted similar support:
Meanwhile, Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snicket) responded to criticism of his self-described racist jokes at the National Book Awards ceremony last year. Instead of doubling down, he met the criticism with that rarest of things: a sincere apology, backed by a donation of more than $100,000 to We Need Diverse Books.
Not all responses have been so generous, of course. The comments on Govinnage's piece are rife with cries of 'reverse racism!' (a thing that, it must be noted, does not actually exist). Those commenting on Bradford's story went so far as to call her reading challenge "intolerant, censorious, and an obstruction of the free exchange of ideas that is essential to freedom itself." Bradford was subjected to a slew of remarkably bilious attacks on Twitter and elsewhere. Inevitably the right-wing blogosphere had its say too, with writers like the conservative scifi/fantasy author and GamerGate favorite Larry Correia comparing "SJWs" like Bradford to wait for it neo-Nazi skinheads.
So...is this a zero-sum game? Are the calls to exclude straight white male authors from reading lists the latest example of politically correct thought policing gone mad? Must one spend an entire year ignoring great books by white men in order to be a 'good ally?'
View original post here:
The Great Internet Debate Over Not Reading White Men