Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Pagan copyeditor ("Will edit for Dragonsblood," maybe?)

Tricia Ferguson, whose Pragmatic Existentialist blog link I have attached, challenged me to write about the common practice of using a fish symbol or the word "Christian" on your business card, your business sign, or your advertising. So far I've only seen Christians flaunting their religious leanings, which was also her observation; and this makes it seem that advertising your Christianity is meant as reassurance that you will both follow the Golden Rule and charge humble-carpenter-like fees.

But let's turn it around a moment: Would the word "Catholic" or "Muslim" or "Jewish" in a business's marketing make you more or less apt to choose that advertiser? How about "Pagan"? How about "Mormon"? How about "Atheist"?

I submit that religion is properly marketed only in a religion-oriented context. On the Churches page of your local weekly paper, for example — though I wouldn't expect most said weeklies to respond with anything but civil thanks when you pay for the ad, at least here in Christian Church-heavy Azle. In an ad offering pulpit supply, or ritual robes, or hymnals or religious instruction: in those places it's necessary and indeed, desired information. But where else is it appropriate?

And is it really any kind of guarantee of goodness? Of course not. Think of Bob Jones, and then think of all the religious right-wing figures who've wound up sobbing apologies and promising repentance on prime-time news.

From a strictly business standpoint, I think it's best to keep religion private; you never know who will see your marketing, and not everyone thinks like you do about your religion. Personally, unless the person using religion in marketing is a minister or runs a religious educational entity, I take the inclusion of symbols of Christianity as an indication that I should avoid that business. For one thing, that person is unlikely (based on a lifetime of experience) to embrace my paganism. For another, I don't want to be "saved," which Christians are obligated to do to nonbelievers and heathens if they want to get to heaven. And finally, I've done business with such people, and every single time I've been disappointed or disgusted. I see the symbols and the word as a warning that some kind of con or misrepresentation is likely.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Thank Goodness!

Blessed be!

Real Racism: The Mediavore's Knee-jerk Outrage

Fantasy Talking Head With Brain, to caller: Don Imus has been charged with racism so often he's almost as tied to the word as Al Sharpton. Why do you think that's happened?

Caller: Well, what color is he?

FTHWB: Well, duh, Imus is white and wears a cowboy hat.

Caller: Well, there you go. Now we know.

FTHWB: Res ipsa loquitur, huh?

Caller: Boy, howdy ...

***

If Al Sharpton hates racism so much, why isn't he stamping it out where it's deepest? He could start with himself, if he weren't too busy setting himself up to be The Great Equalizer or maybe Vice Miracle.

The talking heads on CNN have once again loaned America's news-watching time to the Rev. Al Sharpton, enabling the attention-hungry racist icon's insatiable limelight addiction. Once again CNN and, to a lesser extent, other networks, in their insatiable greed for bloodthirsty, even incendiary and therefore loyal viewers, unleash Al Sharpton to fulminate and shake his fist. And once again, Sharpton is being allowed and even encouraged to sully Don Imus' name and endanger his livelihood — by attacking Imus' right to the freedom of speech.

This is so sick. Honestly, it looks like a strikebreaking B movie writer thought it up, just to resettle Sharpton more deeply into his homemade Holy White PC Vigilante frame (gold, poster size, adorned with signed wallet photos of Don King, Rosa Parks and Marjoe Gortner).

I think the reason more Americans haven't figured this out is that most of us don't listen to gangsta rap. We hear Sharpton and what Imus said (and didn't say), but the networks can't play what the black rap stars are saying about white people. Consequently, we don't know what a new rap slang word means until it gets into street circulation, like "nappy-headed" and "ho". And if we use it, all of a sudden it's an insult. We are not allowed to say something because only blacks can use that word — like only whites used to be able to use certain water fountains: as if letting "whitey's" lips touch it would befoul it, somehow make it unusable.

The way Sharpton acts, he's operating on some false assumptions. One of them is that only white people can be charged with racism: I wonder how he would react if a class action civil rights discrimination suit were brought against him and/or the CNN producer that keeps him on the air? Or just "Theft of valuable enjoyment and broadcast time"? Come to think of it, CNN is culpable. Cable subscribers pay for journalism, but we are not getting it: For balance the story should present an equally well-known white person speaking against Sharpton's endless, unhelpful consumption of the networks' news time — and reminding us that every American has both the right to Free Speech and the right to change the channel!


It used to be Jesse Jackson, remember? But he didn't get nearly this picky, and I don't recall his being so quick to get into the media. He basically just snapped to the Clintons' side as if spring-loaded anytime there was a catastrophe they could blame on Republicans, and then he said whatever and whenever the Clintons decided he should. In his own inimitable style, of course. Sharpton is different.

Sharpton appears to think that he is defending all African-Americans' inviolable right to not be offended by other people's free speech. For one thing, of course, he's not the spokesman, and for another that's a nonexistent, impossible right; but the image is solidifying. But he goes further: since the First Amendment is still in force, he can only wail loudly that whatever the offender said should be punished — and he can only do that because, ironically, the very people who should be most alert to encroachments on our freedom of speech and of the press pay him to.

Their currency is what he loves most: His name and image in millions of Americans' living rooms, many white. The attention — and the invaluable assistance — of the world's media. Free publicity. The ability to climb a ladder in a valley and call that the moral high ground because it's on CNN. And the positioning to use his credentials to incite race rioting and call it preaching.

Reverend Sharpton, minister to thyself: WWJD? RTFM*.

I think Sharpton and CNN both need to be called sharply to task. They are acting racist, but in such a blatant way that the fact is ignored — and they never bring his assault on the First Amendment up as the chilling news it is. I think it is racist that he is given my time to cast such stones at broadcasting professional whites while black rappers are becoming multimillionaires by spewing out hatred and threats that are far more racist than anything Don Imus ever dreamed. And I think that it is blatant racism, not to mention illegal discrimination, to attack only whites for using the exact words that blacks themselves first used. Apparently, you can only be called a racist if you're white, but you can only practice racism openly if you're black.

What America needs is for Don Imus to sue Al Sharpton for harassment and stalking and win big. And maybe that class action suit would be great backup — and an excellent reason for the networks to reinvest in journalists.

*Phrase (C) 1998 elan communications (T-shirt design)