Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Superbad · 03-05-2003, 11:44 AM

Public prayer fanatics borrow page from enemy's script

Quote:

This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer--vertical and horizontal. I don't have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.

To choose an example from football, when my team needs a field goal to win and I think, ''Please, dear God, let them make it!''--that is vertical prayer. When, before the game, a group of fans joins hands and ''voluntarily'' recites the Lord's Prayer--that is horizontal prayer. It serves one of two purposes: to encourage me to join them, or to make me feel excluded.

Godless Dave · 03-05-2003, 11:49 AM

How come a film critic has a better understanding of the constitution than our president, our attorney general, and all of our senators?

Don't answer that. I'm depressed enough as it is.

Melkor · 03-05-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
How come a film critic has a better understanding of the constitution than our president, our attorney general, and all of our senators?

My offhand guess would be because he's actually read it and supports it.

Psycho Economist · 03-05-2003, 01:04 PM

The whole piece is beautiful.

Now if only I had someone to forward it to...

crazyfingers · 03-05-2003, 01:24 PM

That's an excellent piece.

Alludium Fozdex · 03-05-2003, 02:01 PM

Indeed, Ebert has penned a fine chunk of verbiage.

Don't be surprised if an unfortunate "accident" befalls him...

Grumpy · 03-05-2003, 02:10 PM

Methinks the Sun-Times will be clobbered into never allowing Ebert to publish outside of the movie pages -- assuming he's kept on staff after this.

I must say, he goes even further than I would:

Quote:

Our attorney general, John Ashcroft, is theoretically responsible for enforcing the separation of church and state. He violates his oath of office daily by getting down on his knees in his government office every morning and welcoming federal employees to join him in ''voluntary'' prayer on carpets paid for by the taxpayers.

There's nothing unconstitutional about a man praying in an office, government or otherwise. Forcing, er, strongly suggesting that subordinates join him is certainly tacky (to say the least), but adults can take care of themselves. (Unless Ebert is arguing that religious pressure in the workplace is a type of harassment.)

Corwin · 03-05-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

(Unless Ebert is arguing that religious pressure in the workplace is a type of harassment.)

News flash: It is.

Zar · 03-05-2003, 03:22 PM

My impression is that Ebert is an intelligent man who is quite well read. He is a dying breed of movie critic -- a true cinephile -- while most of the other critics we normally encounter are just there to say what they think a certain demographic wants to hear. They are relay stations of received opinion, not active critics.

I don't always agree with Ebert's reviews, but he is undeniably a genuine human being and a thoughtful person who spends quite a bit of time pondering the human condition. Since film, at its best, is almost always about seriously considering the human condition in myriad ways, it does not surprise me that a film critic can achieve a substantial level of nuanced opinion about the subject. Not only does he carefully watch the films, but he researches their historical backgrounds in production and story line. He is exposed to a vast amount of "mind-space" that most people don't care to explore (just like many people can't tolerate a film that is too different from what they expect or too far outside their comfort zone.) People who think movies are only "Die Hard" and "How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days" (they are definitely more by far) might find this hard to accept. But the best of them probably resemble literary critics in sophistication.

The idea that a guy like Ebert would not be expected to pen an eloquent opinion on something that is not about a movie is symptomatic, I think, of our suffocating "specialist" culture. It seems like no one has the confidence to think for themselves anymore and rely only on what the "experts" say, even if it doesn't pass the common sense test.

In the same way that Ebert is a dying breed of movie critic, he may also be a dying breed of citizen.

xstvn · 03-05-2003, 06:39 PM

I remember a few years ago Roger Ebert was a guest on the Michael Medved radio show.
(For those not familiar with Medved, he is a movie critic, author , religious nut and general right wing loon)

Ebert was on there to talk about movies and that they did for awhile. Then Medved said that all the highest grossing movies are all rated G or PG, so why, he asked, do they still make rated R movies? Hollywood is anti-family , they have no morals, they have an agenda etc...he went on and on.

And then...

And then Roger Ebert proceeded to absolutely rip Medved a new asshole up one side and down the other like I have never heard , leaving Medved sputtering and ..oh we have to go to a commercial break....back from the break ...more SLAP SLAP SLAP from Ebert. It's rare to hear a talk show host get put in their place so completely.

Ebert has never been asked back to the Michael Medved show.

Before I heard that show Ebert was just the fat guy. Since then I have read a few articles of his on politics and current events and always respect his opinion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2003, 11:49 AM	#2
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	How come a film critic has a better understanding of the constitution than our president, our attorney general, and all of our senators? Don't answer that. I'm depressed enough as it is.

03-05-2003, 01:04 PM	#4
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	The whole piece is beautiful. Now if only I had someone to forward it to...

03-05-2003, 01:24 PM	#5
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	That's an excellent piece.

03-05-2003, 02:01 PM	#6
Alludium Fozdex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Planet X, hiding from Duck Dodgers Posts: 1,691	Indeed, Ebert has penned a fine chunk of verbiage. Don't be surprised if an unfortunate "accident" befalls him...

03-05-2003, 03:22 PM	#9
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	My impression is that Ebert is an intelligent man who is quite well read. He is a dying breed of movie critic -- a true cinephile -- while most of the other critics we normally encounter are just there to say what they think a certain demographic wants to hear. They are relay stations of received opinion, not active critics. I don't always agree with Ebert's reviews, but he is undeniably a genuine human being and a thoughtful person who spends quite a bit of time pondering the human condition. Since film, at its best, is almost always about seriously considering the human condition in myriad ways, it does not surprise me that a film critic can achieve a substantial level of nuanced opinion about the subject. Not only does he carefully watch the films, but he researches their historical backgrounds in production and story line. He is exposed to a vast amount of "mind-space" that most people don't care to explore (just like many people can't tolerate a film that is too different from what they expect or too far outside their comfort zone.) People who think movies are only "Die Hard" and "How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days" (they are definitely more by far) might find this hard to accept. But the best of them probably resemble literary critics in sophistication. The idea that a guy like Ebert would not be expected to pen an eloquent opinion on something that is not about a movie is symptomatic, I think, of our suffocating "specialist" culture. It seems like no one has the confidence to think for themselves anymore and rely only on what the "experts" say, even if it doesn't pass the common sense test. In the same way that Ebert is a dying breed of movie critic, he may also be a dying breed of citizen.

03-05-2003, 06:39 PM	#10
xstvn Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: WA state Posts: 261	I remember a few years ago Roger Ebert was a guest on the Michael Medved radio show. (For those not familiar with Medved, he is a movie critic, author , religious nut and general right wing loon) Ebert was on there to talk about movies and that they did for awhile. Then Medved said that all the highest grossing movies are all rated G or PG, so why, he asked, do they still make rated R movies? Hollywood is anti-family , they have no morals, they have an agenda etc...he went on and on. And then... And then Roger Ebert proceeded to absolutely rip Medved a new asshole up one side and down the other like I have never heard , leaving Medved sputtering and ..oh we have to go to a commercial break....back from the break ...more SLAP SLAP SLAP from Ebert. It's rare to hear a talk show host get put in their place so completely. Ebert has never been asked back to the Michael Medved show. Before I heard that show Ebert was just the fat guy. Since then I have read a few articles of his on politics and current events and always respect his opinion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.