Response to "Violence in Sport: Necessary?"

This is a response to jlazaga’s post at: http://faithisourmedium.blogspot.com/2012/03/violence-in-sports-necessary.html#!/2012/03/violence-in-sports-necessary.html

Jlazaga argues that violence in hockey serves a number of functions which include selling tickets and meeting coach's expectations, yet the potential for careers to end too early makes violence something that needs to be reevaluated. I definitely agree with the fact that violence in professional hockey could be greatly restrained and that the dangers of these “mini-boxing fights” outweigh any entertainment purposes. However, I disagree with the contention that violence in hockey is considered ‘necessary’ especially given the current context. Similarly, I believe that there are a number of factors contributing to changing attitudes in respect to fighting in hockey.  

Jlazaga maintains that violence fulfills an important function in ensuring tickets are sold. The example of how the NHL All-Star Game and the Olympics prove that a lack of violence cannot sell is inaccurate. I believe both greatly illustrate that tickets are sold out in seconds even WITHOUT the promise of dirty hits and fighting. Although the tolerance for violence is very low at these hockey events, anyone trying to buy tickets will be met with long waiting lines, crashing ticket sites and insane scalper prices. I believe that the potential for change is definitely there! Hockey sells regardless of violence.

There is definitely a declining toleration for violence in the NHL. Strategies for reducing violence are newly instituted. Anchors for Sportsnet and TSN subject every hit to great discussion rather than simply sloughing it off as just another moment in the game. We are seeing players get more severe criticism for these dangerous and blindsided hits that have serious effects.

In addition, having been to a few games I do realize that fans can get easily riled up during a “good” fight. But I also notice that they are more enthralled with the game when their team scores a great goal or lets in an easy one from the opposition. Fans do not “need” the lure of violence for the ACC to be sold out. A deep emotional connection (as corny as that sounds) is what gets tickets sold.

Are these players being celebrated for their ability to throw down?

Similarly, I do not think violence plays a huge role in furthering careers. Sure Tie Domi was known for his ability to absolutely annihilate an opposing player but who are the players you can name off the top of your head right now? Crosby, Stamkos, Price, Malkin, etc; players famous for their stick handling and ridiculous point values rather than for dominating the leader board for “number of times gloves were dropped”.  

The last point I want to stress is that I think the time for change in the NHL is upon us. After seeing how a NHL “god” like Crosby had his season shortened (and almost had his career ended) because of a dirty hit, serves an important function in swaying opinions on hockey violence. The NHL is about HOCKEY. If the best cannot play because they were concussed so badly, what is the point of celebrating the sport in a professional league? I think greater actions may soon be taken to protect what is ultimately at stake here; the love of the game.

This certainly ties together last week and this week's lectures pretty well!

The Nation's Weekly Mass: Hockey Night in Canada

My friends and I are creatures of habit. If you needed to find any one of us on a Saturday night, you would only need to search the table in front of the large television screen at the local sports restaurant. It is our own weekly ritual. No matter what is going on, it is a guarantee that a familiar face will be sitting at that wobbly and sticky table that has had one too many Coke’s spilt across it. So when we discussed the relationship between religion and sports in class, I began to see this interaction in a very personal light. Enjoying these Saturday night face-offs parallels the experiences of Sunday mass. You sit amongst a congregation of worshipers, you all listen to Don Cherry’s weekly sermon and no matter how many times the Leafs lost that week (or in the last decade), you never lose hope. Just as you do not need a Stanley Cup to substantiate your devotion to the Leafs, you do not need proof of God to believe his work.

During lecture this week, the relationship between the economics of sport and its religiosity was brought into question. It was argued that any religious meaning conveyed through sport was distorted by the unbalanced business workings behind these national leagues. How can the religious experience inside and outside of sport be legitimate when it is fuelled by capitalistic interest? I think if we reserve our study of how sport functions AS religion to an analysis of its economic workings, we cannot fully appreciate how positive values are perpetuated through participating and watching. Now, I am not saying that I support the outrageous amounts of money placed on player’s heads nor do I support the unnecessary amount of violence (comments which I am saving for my next blog post), but I do want to establish that sport serves an important function as religion.

As someone who has always been involved in sports and other group activities, I have experienced the discipline and devotion that develops. There are many non-contact sports that provide people with the opportunity to enjoy these spiritual opportunities in which they encounter patience, temperance, respect, and different forms of love. We cannot rule out the important function sport serves in recreating religious experiences and teaching religious values simply because of the economics of national leagues. To the individual, sports provide the opportunity to enjoy a form of spirituality that they may not have otherwise been able to understand.

Response to "Christian Apps"

This is a response to Valdy’s post which can be found at: http://theinternetisthemessiah.blogspot.com/2012/03/christian-apps-theres-app-for-that.html

Valdy was really clever in identifying the use of religion in apps for smart phones. The ability of these applications to penetrate popular culture is truly phenomenal.  Can anyone deny the popularity and notoriety of “Angry Birds” (didn’t they make a movie about this game?) Like our class discussion on music and religion, Valdy argues that it is difficult to discern if organizations are being authentic and sincere when producing religious products within the context of a capitalist culture.

 I was watching television the other night when one commercial really caught my attention. As I was drifting off during an unusually long commercial break, an ad came on for a Christian dating site. “Christian Mingle” is advertised as being a site used to “Find God’s Match for You™”. Like any good eHarmony commercial, the Christian Mingle advertisement featured happy, attractive, heterosexual couples under perfect lighting, as a commentator emphasized the amazing powers of the site. I do believe that dating sites have become a frequentlyreferenced aspect of popular culture.

(To any 90210 fans: when I was looking for a picture to place in this blog post I came across this ad... Recognize someone? The "Christian single" in this picture happens to be Michael Steger who plays Navid on the new series of 90210)

When I looked up the website the first thing that caught my attention was that it was free to join. Unlike most dating sites, payment with registration was not needed. From its initial appearance, it did appear as though there was a heavy emphasis placed on the importance of religion in compatibility. However, when I noticed that they trademarked their slogan, ““Find God’s Match for You™”, I was reminded of Valdy’s post and how he questioned whether organizations can sincerely integrate religion in their products when they exist in a capitalist-consumer culture. Despite the fact that the service was free to join (unlike the apps Valdy discussed), religion could be still be employed for incoming generating purposes.

As I scrolled past the image of the happy couple on the webpage, I noticed they had a section dedicated to “Investor Relations”. This led to a page that had revenue calculated for every quarter that the website was in operation. Evidently, this organization has a great deal of interest in gaining investors, signing deals with advertisers and generating profit. I think Valdy is warranted in questioning if products that integrate religion and pop culture are purely authentic. In this case it is clear that critics would be suspicious of how Christianity is incoporated into popular culture as a means of participating in capitalist society. Do you really think the primary aim of this site is to link Christian singles or was it just a really great business concept directed at a large consumer group?

Christian Karaoke

An artist’s authenticity and sincerity are always questioned. Whether it is in regards to their identity, actions or statements, celebrities are never free from scrutiny. This is even truer for artists who identify themselves as Christians, incorporate Christianity in their music or practice religion in their day-to-day lives. Critics always seem to perceive a separation between what an artist says or does and what they actually intend.

The topic of this week’s lecture really questions something we do quite naturally. Why DO we think some artists are more sincere and authentic than others when they allow their Christian beliefs to influence their music? Why does Amy Grant integrate religion in music in a more acceptable manner than Lady Gaga?

My immediate response to these questions was that the artist’s identity must have some determinative influence on how their music is received. In order to demonstrate that the musician actually influences how others perceive the integration of religion in their music, I want to contrast two songs by well-known artists. Although this comparison may seem a little absurd, Carrie Underwood’s “Jesus Take the Wheel” and Lil Wayne’s “Pray to the Lord” have very strong parallels yet are viewed differently.

“Jesus Take the Wheel” (Carrie Underwood)
“It was still getting colder when she made it to the shoulder
And the car came to a stop
She cried when she saw that baby in the backseat sleeping like a rock
And for the first time in a long time
She bowed her head to pray
She said I'm sorry for the way
I've been living my life
I know I've got to change
So from now on tonight

Jesus take the wheel
Take it from my hands
Cause I can't do this on my own
I'm letting go
So give me one more chance
To save me from this road I'm on
Jesus take the wheel”

“Pray to the Lord” (Lil Wayne)

“Before I sleep
I pray to the lord my soul to keep
And if I shall die before I awake
I pray to the lord, my soul to take
For goodness sake

I wrote my will just the other week
And what's funny it was only one sheet
And I know there's only one me
But I hope I am everything my son be
I’m trying to live right stay on the drum beat
But I’m in the fast lane, in the front seat
I wonder will I lose control of the Mazerati
And hit some tree just being young me
Is there a heaven for G’s and soldiers?
I can’t go to hell… cause I’ll take over
I feel it approaching but I aint scared.
I made that bed and I should rest in peace.
Yea and every time I see the sunshine
I drop down and give thanks at least one time
Feeling like I’m living on the frontline”

Both songs are from the perspective of an individual who is struggling with their life course and seeking some form of spiritual guidance. The redemptive forces of faith are heavily present in both sets of lyrics. In “Jesus Take the Wheel” Carrie Underwood sings about needing faith and guidance after acknowledging regrets and poor choices. Lil Wayne similarly realizes his broken path and contemplates life after death. The themes of redemption and atonement are thread throughout both pieces. But the question remains; why is someone like Carrie Underwood commended for her ability to integrate these Christian notions in her music while Lil Wayne is viewed with more skepticism?

In class this question was answered by demonstrating the relationship between theatrics and profit. Some artists just incorporate a “shocking” depiction of Christianity to generate controversy while increasing CD sales. But is this really the only influencing factor? Carrie Underwood obviously has an interest in making sure people buy her albums. But why does this not make her an insincere person while Lil Wayne is cast with the bad reputation? They both want people to purchase their albums so should would they both be equally insincere in how they integrate Christianity in their craft? Apparently not. I believe it has a great deal to do with the artist himself. Both songs discuss the importance redemption and atonement and were placed on albums that the artists want sold. So how did “Take the Wheel” become a ‘crossover hit’ in top 40 music? Why did Lil Wayne’s song not become a “crossover hit” in the Christian genre?

Perhaps it’s the fact that Lil Wayne has “fear God” tattooed on his eyelids while Carrie Underwood flaunts porcelain skin and baby blue eyes, but these songs are received by audiences in completely different ways. Critics may just have a hard time believing that a convicted felon feels the same as a “girl-next-door” country singer when it comes to faith and religion. As a result, I believe that sincerity and authenticity have nothing to do with what an artist actually intends to say/do and more to do with what audiences believe about them.

Carrie Underood's "Jessus Take the Wheel"

Lil Wayne's "Pray to the Lord"

A Response to: “Dexter: A Murderous Angel?”

This is a response to Gianni B’s post. It can be found at:
http://livintechnico.blogspot.com/2012/02/dexter-murderous-angel.html

I really wanted to respond to Gianni’s blog post this week for two reasons:

(1)    I needed an excuse to praise his great taste in television shows. True Blood, Entourage, and Dexter? Each one different completely different yet all equally as awesome. And if people cannot admit to tuning in every Thursday night to the guidos of Jersey Shore than they have a slight problem telling the truth.

(2)    But on a more serious note, I wanted to respond to his discussion of Christianity on television which he placed in the context of the sixth season of Dexter.

To borrow the pun in his post, I have to say that there are only a few shows “I watch religiously”. So when I heard that the sixth season of Dexter would be heavily focused on religious themes, like Gianni, I was also a little suspicious and hesitant. I really questioned how well the show’s writers would be able to integrate these Christian overtones to the already super gruesome and explicit storyline. There is no doubt that from a Christian perspective Dexter’s “pastime” was morally wrong. As Gianni also saw, I was surprised and really intrigued by how skillfully the discussion of religion was incorporated into Dexter’s struggle to define the “good”.

 (I thought this was a funny clip to include for all those who are fans of both The Simpsons and Dexter)

 This season of Dexter was able to accomplish what shows like The Simpsons attempt to do through parody. The Flander’s provide a commentary on what it means to be Christian. Through different means, Dexter was also able use different characters to initiate a season-long debate about religion, faith and the good. This was really apparent in the juxtaposition of Brother Sam (the career criminal turned preacher) and Travis Marshall (the devout Catholic serial killer who uses the Bible to justify his horrible murders). The use of both characters this season showed a tension between how religion and faith can be used and what it means to the individual person. Dexter is left contemplating this as well as how his own religion fits into this context.

I agree with Gianni when he says that this was a helpful example of how Christianity is still closely connected to most forms of popular culture. He argues that incorporating religion helps to open the mind of viewers who are reluctant see Christianity used in popular culture. While this is a good point, I think the use of Christianity in television serves a more interpretative and functional role. Using Christianity in this form of pop culture helps to create a form of debate. Like this season of Dexter, he was able to question his notions of the “good” and “right” in different ways (religiously and in his own serial-killer-ly way). In general, Christianity in television helps to frame various everyday and moral questions in the context of a discussion where different perspective can be explored.

Keeping up with the Christ-dashians

Before writing this blog post I tried listing every metaphor that could be applied to my relationship with television. I could not complete the task because it simply became way too extensive. I think that speaks to how television (at least in my case) has become such a constant. Whether feeding my crime-show addiction with a Criminal Minds marathon, letting my mind turn to mush watching the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, foaming at the mouth to the Food Network, being lulled into the disillusionment of infomercials or simply having the comfort of background noise, the television is a constant and unfaltering companion. Like a person, it can be a source of comfort, conversation, argument, escape, education and much more.

Like the lecture regarding the use of Christ in films, the depiction of Christians on television also appears to be the result of great interpretation. Christian teachings, narratives and characters, are widely used to stimulate discussion within shows. Whether virtues are subtly conveyed or images are explicitly shown, Christianity is ever-present on the silver screen yet in highly subjective ways. The use of Christianity written into the characters and dialogues of shows is dependent on the discretion and objectives of screenwriters, editors, directors and others.    

Television shows like The Simpsons and 19 Kids and Counting paint Christian families, such as the Flanders and the Duggars, as extremists living as close to Scripture as they can. By depicting this lifestyle, producers are able to stimulate discussions regarding how faith is practiced.

Other shows like the recent controversial hit The Borgias attempt to expose the tension between the virtues promoted by the Catholic church and their own inability to resist the temptations of lust, wealth, and power (with a great deal of creative license).

In addition, a soon-to-be-airing ABC series is already under fire because of its title. GCB also known as “Good Christian [insert THE not so nice ‘B’ word here]” chronicles the lives of so-called “proper” Church-going ladies as they tempt men, backstab each other, and plot against “thy” neighbors.

All of these shows depict Christians, Christianity and Christian values in completely different ways. Whether it is placed in the context of a drama, comedy or even a reality show, religion is still closely tied to this form of popular culture. As shown above, it is sometimes featured in ways that is contradictory to what it purports to serve yet that is a part of the heavily interpretative use of religion in television. Many of the shows listed above are new series, demonstrating how the use of Christianity on the silver screen is still thriving.   

Response to "Superman Jesus"

This is a reply to Felicia P’s response to my earlier post. Both posts can be found:
Felicia P’s Post: http://305upinflames.blogspot.com/2012/02/superman-jesus.html
My Post: http://gospelaccordingtobuddychrist.blogspot.com/2012/02/jesus-ill-be-back.html

I really wanted to reply to Felicia P’s response to my earlier post from this week. The last argument she made by “playing Devil’s advocate” for Koslovic was really interesting and I feel like it is a great starting point for further discussion. Felicia and I both agreed on a number of issues apparent in Koslovic’s argument. The deficiencies of his extensive list as well as the issues that stem from it were our points of agreement. However, Felicia proposes an innovative answer to my question about why people would look for a Christ figure in many famous film protagonists through the use of such broad characteristics as those used by Koslovic. Felicia responded to this question by stating that Christ figures make it easier for individuals to connect with Jesus through a more relatable form. 

However, this raises some questions. I find her point easy to agree with because often our most favorite movies demonstrate some form of good conquering forces of evil. These famous heroes tend to have the most complex and tumultuous missions which make the stories so appealing. Relating them to Jesus seems natural and easy because of his own similar path.

 

Felicia’s statement “it allows audiences to be associated with their own ‘real-life Jesus’” really struck me. Maybe it isn’t so much actually Jesus that we are looking for in these characters but some indication that a hero’s struggle will always be validated by some other form of good. Perhaps we try to find this “Christ figure” because Jesus himself has the greatest hero we could ever recognize. At their bare bones, I feel like hero stories all follow from the same structure. Notions of courage, self-sacrifice, goodness, responsibility, love and peace have the potential to be in all great hero narratives. Jesus may just be the most recognizable hero which is why we feel the need to see him reflected in other protagonists. This may sound negative but maybe because he is chronologically first, he becomes the standard to which we compare other supposed “Christ figures” in film.