Response to Sean's "Why are Abortions and Contraception an Issue?"

http://smc305christblog.blogspot.ca/2012/04/why-are-abortion-and-contraception.html?showComment=1334024388862#c7668876741391247187


Hello Sean, 


I found your views on abortion to be quite intriguing and the question of “Why are abortion and contraception an issue?” really made me want to look into the answer. Although you do make some valid points about how abortion is legal in Canada and so they have technically “won”, there is still a lot of controversy around the topic of abortion. 


What is Human?

Within your blog entry you stated that fetus' are not considered human, but the question remains as to who considers what is human? When is an embryo developed enough to be considered a life worth keeping? This is a very difficult question and people debate this issues all of time- some say that as soon as the female egg is fertilized, that embryo is alive and it is a living thing. Others believe that further down the stages of pregnancy, when the fetus has developed little fingers and toes, it is officially human. This is central to debate of abortion.


The US population is Split on Abortion
Contrary to your beliefs, I do not think abortion is a black or white issue, it is difficult to be either pro-choice or pro-life. This is why abortion remains to be taboo in popular culture and within society. The population within the US continues to have split positions on the issue of abortion.  According to Gallup's 2011 update on U.S. abortion attitudes, attitudes are almost split 50/50, with pro-choice having only 4% more of the population's support.1 Clearly, there is a significant divide in the attitudes of the American people. In Canada, however, 52% of those polled consider themselves pro-choice, while 27% are pro-life, and another 23% either unresponsive, or neither, according to Ekospolitics.ca.2 In comparison between pro-life and pro-choice, there is an obvious gap with a large majority of pro-choicers, but many were unresponsive so I would not really call Canada an extremely liberal state just yet. Although Canada is more open to the issues of abortion compared to the US, most television shows broadcasted in Canada are American productions, therefore the topic of abortion will remain taboo until it is accepted. 

Morality of Abortion: Majority Say it is Morally Wrong
Another interesting finding that the Gallup poll had uncovered is the question of morality and the percentage of Americans who find abortion to be a morally acceptable or unacceptable issue. According to poll, 51% of American's view abortion as morally wrong, while only 39% view it as morally acceptable (the article does not account for the missing 10%).1 With relation to these findings, it is clear that although individuals are more open to the pro-choice ideas, they still consider abortion to be a moral issue. This could also be a significant indicator of the continuous taboo of abortion in American culture. 

Why Do Christians have More Abortions?
To take the issue of abortion a little further, I would like to think about an interesting statistic brought up in lecture- Christians and Anglicans have more abortions in the US than any other religious affiliation. There are obviously many reasons why women have abortions; "3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner".3 In regards to Christians, however, and their strong pro-life values, it is interesting to see that a majority of abortions are preformed on Christians themselves.
I believe that a major reason for the high rate of abortions within Christians is the Christian idea of premarital sex being sinful and shameful behaviour. Within the Christian tradition, premarital sex is seen as sinful action and that intercourse is to be left until after marriage. But according to Centre for Disease and Control, in 2007, 84% of abortions were preformed on unmarried women.4  If a Christian unmarried women does decide to have unprotected sex before marriage and becomes pregnant, it becomes an extremely difficult situation, where the woman is crossed between the shame of having sex before marriage and the moral implications of abortion. Many women are influenced by their religious values and in order to disclose themselves from being known for having premarital sex, they decide to abort the fetus. It is clear, with the high number of abortions being preformed on Christian women that women value other areas of their values and lifestyles over pro-life Christian ideologies. 

Abortion continues to be a sensitive issue within North America, in which abortion continues to be a split issue within the US population and within Christian women and men between abortion and child bearing before marriage. Although abortions are legalized in Canada, I would not say they have “won” over pro-life activists because their voices are still apparent in many parts of the world. As stated earlier, the taboo will not be removed until there is a more prominent pro-choice ideology in America. 

References:


1. Saad, Lydia. "Americans Still Split Along "Pro-Choice," "Pro-Life" Lines". Gallup Politics. May 3, 2011. Accessed on April 9, 2012.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx


2. "Canadians Decisively Pro-choice On Abortion". Ekospolitics. Ottawa: April 11, 2010. Accessed on April 9, 2012. http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/04/canadians-decisively-pro-choice-on-abortion-april-1-2010/


3. "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States". Guttmacher Institute. August 2011. Accessed on April 9, 2012. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


4."Abortion Surveillance".  Centres for Disease and Control. Feb 25, 2011. Accessed on April 5, 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w

Secularized Apocalypse: "The Day After Tomorrow"

"The Day After Tomorrow" is a classic example of a secular apocalypse film. A secular apocalypse, according to lecture, is an apocalypse made by the actions of humans, either a single individual or an entire society. Secular apocalypses have no Divine supernatural being that causes the destruction, rather it is a result of human action. The fiction film "The Day after Tomorrow" describes future events of the Earth as a result of global warming. Obviously, the events displayed within the film are very exaggerated- a giant tsunami  that washes away New York, a tornado in the middle of Los Angeles, and an ice age that covers North America in a thick sheet of snow-but the lessons for society within the film are quite clear. The film follows Jack Hall played by Dennis Quad, as he tries to save his son Sam Hall, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, and his group  of friends and other survivors, from the natural disasters occurring in New York City. Throughout the film, Jack and Sam struggle to withstand the forces of nature, but eventually manage to stay alive until the weather settles and they walk out into the world, which seems to be experiencing a new ice age. 


This film portrays many elements discussed within Ostwalt “Movies and the Apocalypse” whereby the author discusses secularized apocalypticism in film and its contrasting themes and elements compared to traditional apocalypse stories. By exploring religious ideas, such as the apocalypse, secularized films that have no religious references at all, still function religiously by imparting an ideology of the end of time (Ostwalt, 2003). 



One particular point that Ostwalt makes with regards to the elements of secularized apocalypses is that they draw from contemporary science fiction . This means that modern evil no longer comes in the form of a beast but a form that current society finds as an issue. Within “The Day After Tomorrow”, the beast is global warming and the end of the world is forced onto them not by a supernatural being but by a realistic issue in our current world. Today, apocalyptic stories are based on events that audiences can relate to. Although the events in “The Day after Tomorrow” are exaggerated, global warming does cause a potential threat to a large portion of humanity- either through water scarcity, natural disasters, or reduced biodiversity- which makes it an appropriate apocalyptic issue. 


Another commonality between Ostwalt's argument and “The Day after Tomorrow” is his argument that the end comes from human stupidity and greed. This removes the influence of the Divine and, instead, examines the role of humanity developing their own future. As a film based on global warming, a result of fossil fuel emissions due to human consumption and production, “The Day After Tomorrow” is a clear example of Ostwalt's argument: the end of the world as a result of human negligence, not of God's will. 


The final correlation between Ostwalt's argument and “The Day After Tomorrow”, is his argument that within secular apocalypses, humans are able to survive the end of disaster. According to Ostwalt “human ingenuity, scientific adaptations, and heroism allow humanity to survive” (Ostwalt, 2003).  Within the film, Jack, his son Sam, and the group Sam had been stranded with, manage to survive the disaster and the film ends with them walking out into the new world. In the final scene, the group exits the library and walks onto the snow covered ground. This leaves the ending rather open, not knowing who else has survived and how the group will be able to continue to survive in the current ice age. Although the continuation is unknown, their survival demonstrates how humanity was able to overcome an apocalypse-“saviors from destruction"- unlike evangelic apocalypse films where humans are powerless.


It is clear that there are many contrasting themes between evangelic apocalypses and secularized apocalypses, and Ostwalt's reading does an effective job of explaining these themes. 




References
Ostwalt, Conrad. “Movies and the Apocalypse.” In Secular Steeples: Popular Culture And 
The Religious Imagination, 157-88. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003

Response to Chloe's "Eve: The Original Desperate Housewife?"

Hello Chloe,

I enjoyed your blog entry and I thought your insights on the depiction of Adam and Eve in the beginning credits were very interesting and something that I myself have never noticed. I would like to take the opening credits a step further and examine other scenes within it that I thought were very interesting as well.

When one watches the opening credits of Desperate Housewives closely, the gender roles and stereotypes are portrayed multiple times. The first gender role demonstrated within the opening credits (second to the scene discussed in Cloe's blog entry) is the Egyptian woman surrounded by numerous children. This clip clearly portrays women as the housewife, attending to the children. It also seems to suggest that women are primarily “baby-makers”, and that their role is to have these children and stay at home to care for them. This stereotype defines women as caregivers and nurtures, and not as independent, work-oriented individuals. Although it is a short clip, this stereotype is quickly understood and it allows the viewer to intake a range of information from the use of the stereotype.

The second stereotype is examined within the clip of American Gothic, in which the husband is seduced by a beautiful woman, and the average-looking wife is left sadden. This scene demonstrates the divided gender role of women;either angels or vixens, average or vivacious, housewives or party-girl. This stereotype of women, which was also mentioned in lecture, divides women as one or the one. Women are characterized by two opposite identities that have become a product of the media and the manner in which women characters are portrayed. Desperate Housewives has also taken this gender stereotype and have used it within the character of Bree Van de Kamp. In the beginning of Desperate Housewives, Bree was portrayed as the religious woman with strong Presbyterian values. In this current season, however, Bree has become a promiscuous woman who has completely forgotten her values and has begun to exhibit the other female identity. It is definitely interesting that a television show with such strong female characters still use this stereotype to define women.

The opening credits also seems to demonstrate progress in the role of women. In the scene described in the earlier paragraph, the wife is left sadden by her seemingly adulterous husband. In contrast however, one of the final scenes with the Roy Lichtenstein cartoon, shows a woman hitting her husband after some sort of altercation. This scene contrasts the earlier scene because it demonstrates a strong and powerful, willing to defend herself. This implies that women have begun to move away from their passive and nurturing roles, towards strong independence.

Although many of the clips demonstrate traditional female roles, it seems that by the end of the opening scene women begin to move away from these ideas. Perhaps the media is beginning to move away from these gendered identities and are beginning to portray women as they truly are. 

Response to ccandelario "Violence as Entertainment"

http://whatwouldchirstdo.blogspot.ca/2012/03/violence-as-entertainment.html 

Ccandelario,

It was very interesting to hear your thoughts on violence, and the final statement you made about nature vs. nurture is definitely intriguing and I would like it to examine further.

There is a common belief in society that violence is natural and that the natural world is filled with competition. Darwin's “survival of the fittest” is referenced everywhere, and this has become the norm. Animals are in constant competition for resources, mates, and space. In order to survive, one most be the strongest to fight-off between each other and between species. This theory has gone on to provide a basis for business competition. The violence seen in the animal kingdom is reason to believe that violence is a natural process and that individuals are naturally competitive and violent. 

The idea that violence and competition is a natural process, however, has been highly contested. As an environmental studies student, my courses have taught me many natural species that do not compete with one another, and instead, cooperate in order to attain common benefits. For example, a rhinoceros allows a particular bird species to eat insects off of its back. This cooperative dynamic (biologically called mutualism) ensures that the bird has food and the rhino is kept clean. Also, primates cooperate with one another by eating bugs off one another. As our closest natural relatives, the cooperation patterns in primates can provide some direction into our natural instincts as cooperators. According to Professor Allee, who frequently experiments with animals to test Darwin's “survival of the fittest” theory, he has come to conclude that " there is a general principle of automatic cooperation” and there are certain situations that only those animals that work together tend to survive[1]. Even the idea of “survival of the fittest” is argued to be widely misunderstood, and that the fittest does not always mean the most aggressive and violent, but can include the most clever or the most cooperative [2].

Clearly, the question of nature vs nurture when it comes to violence is a complicated, yet enticing, question. As you pointed out in your article, increased media violence has not caused increases in violence in society and with the evidence I have provided, cooperation is actually a natural component of the animal kingdom and that violence is not particularly the only natural way. It seems as though violence is neither culturally nor naturally developed. Perhaps, violence and cooperation are both natural but as a result of laws and regulations, we have learned to become more civilized. We have moved more towards our cooperative nature and away from violence. I would not, however, claim that violence is our sole natural instinct because it is evident that cooperation is possible.

[1] Thomsen, Arnold; Allee, W. C. (Apr. 1925. Dec. 1964). Review of "Social Life of Animals". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 34. 3: 411-413.

[2] Le Page, Michael. "Evolution myths: 'Survival of the fittest' justifies 'everyone for themselves'." New Scientist. April 16, 2008. Retrieved on March 19, 2012. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves.html

Angels in the Outfield: Christianity in a Film about Sports!

Angels in the Outfield (1994) is a lovely Disney film about a young orphan boy named Roger who prays to Heaven that his favourite team, the California Angels, will come up from last place after his father sarcastically tells him that they will become a family again when the Angels win the pennant. As a young hopeful boy, he believes him and begins to pray for his team in hopes that his faith will bring his team to victory, and his family back together again.

As a film that mixes Christian faith and sports, I feel that this is an interesting movie to discuss with regards to the convergence of religion and sports.

Religion and Sports within the Film

Right from the start of the film, the themes of faith and Catholicism becomes a major theme. In fact, the first line of the movie, said by PJ (Roger's orphan friend) is, “Roger, do you believe in heaven?” With Roger responding “I guess...”. As the film progresses, religious themes become more intermingled with sports when Roger prays that his favourite team will win the championship, not only because of his father's commitment, but because they are his favourite team. By praying for his sports team, Roger represents an entire society of sports fans. These individuals are strongly connected to their favourite teams and they use their faith and spirituality to support their teams. The ritual of prayer is a very spiritual act in the Christian community. This film demonstrates that sports have become so important to people that the spiritual actions are being used for non-tradition intentions.

Religious function in Sports

This film also puts forth the idea of sports emulating the social function of religion. At the beginning of the film, Roger is a lonely young boy without a family, and he relies on sports to provide him with some sort of belonging. As the film progresses, and his gift of seeing Angels becomes known by the coach and the team, Roger is welcome by the California Angels and they treat as though he is a part of the team. To take this idea of community and family even further, the coach of the California Angels adopts Roger, making the theme of family and collectivity even clearer. This literal community-building in the film demonstrates the wider connection individuals have with sports teams. Individuals feel they are a part of the team, and the collective excitement, as Eric Bain-Selbo explains, exudes a temporary notion of intense community [1].

I would argue that this film demonstrates that sports and religion has developed an interesting relationship, whereby sports has become such an important component in many people's lives that religion and sports have become equal. Interestingly enough, religion has accepted this correlation and association. Society is mixing religious rituals with sports, while sports have begun to take on many of the functions of religion.

[1] Bain-Selbo, Eric.“Ecstasy, Joy, and Sorrow: The Religious Experience of Southern College Football.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 20 (2008), 13p

Response to Andreia De Freitas "Good for you, good for me, good for everyone!"

http://smc305ohmyblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/good-for-you-good-for-me-good-for.html

Andreia,

Your post entitled "good for me, good for you, good for everyone" was very enlightening and I strongly agree with many of your points that you had mentioned.

Right from the beginning of lecture, it was clear that many individuals did not like Justin Bieber even though they really knew nothing about him. They had a preconceived notion that since he is only 18 years old, he is just a music industry product that large corporations have exploited in order to make billions of dollars. His authenticity is definitely something that many question, and rightfully so. But is it right to discredit his good deeds just because he is a kid? As you mentioned in your blog post, many other celebrities have been extremely generous in supporting charities and many are not questioned for their motives.

Charity and goodness should not be associated with authenticity. From what I had understood from Corona's article, authenticity is associated with ones persona and whether the way they are presenting themselves is true. Celebrities can easily fake their persona and therefore be inauthentic, but can one “fake” charity? Does charity and goodness not provide the same benefits whether the person is authentic or not? Whether an individual does something good in order to gain positive publicity should not be criticized too harshly. Charity provides positive outcomes, and one must look beyond the person who is providing the charity and towards those who are receiving it.

I also believe that most individuals would do charitable acts if they had the opportunity to be involved. I do not believe that any individual, especially a young boy who has had so much good fortune in his short life and with a strong Christian background, would be unwilling to give back to those less fortunate. As a Christian, Justin Bieber's generosity should not be criticized for these are core values of the Christian tradition. People need to be less critical of the charitable acts of celebrities and see that people can be generous without ulterior motives. Or maybe I am being too naïve...  

Bieber vs Adele; Celebrities in a Hypermodern World

Within Victor Corona's Memory, Monsters, and Lady Gaga, Corona argues that our current hypermodern society requires celebrities to exude unique and spectacular characteristics in order to sustain longevity and public devotion (Corona, 2007). As Lady Gaga as his example, Corona claims that societal devotion requires more than a captivating voice and that survival in the “collective memory” requires close ties to the populous through Twitter and Facebook (Corona, 2007). In this blog entry, I am going to examine his argument with reference to two highly successful musicians of our time; Justin Bieber and Adele. Justin Bieber is a clear example of Corona's hypermodern celebrity who uses social media to sustain a huge following within society while Adele is the exact opposite, becoming hugely successful without the use of social media and spectacle.

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber's career started with social media where he posted a video of himself singing on Youtube. His video quickly received millions of views and the attention of Scooter Braun who signed Justin to Raymond Braun Media Group [1]. Right from the start, social media was a part of Justin's success. Today, Justin Bieber has 18,110,625 twitter followers, and tweets an average of 20+ a day[2]! He constantly replies and re-tweets fan messages on twitter, and is constantly posting messages and videos on Facebook with 40.8 million “likes” [3]. In regards to Justin Bieber and his spectacle, his concerts are filled with media and visual interest whereby young fans are constantly entertained.  With Justin's huge fanbase, cleverly called “beliebers”- interesting that both Lady Gaga and Bieber have a name for their fanbase- and his multiple  American Music Awards and Grammy nominations, Justin is a clear example of a successful artist who has utilized social media in order to sustain devotion[4].

Adele

Adele, born on May 5, 1988, is an English recording artist and songwriter and has become an enormous name in the music industry. Adele has sold over 17 million copies of her most recent album 21 and has won 8 Grammy's for both of her number-one albums, 19 and 21 [5]. In contrast to both Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, Adele has been able to sustain social devotion without the constant use of social media and without spectacle. Currently, Adele has only 4,520,906 twitter followers, which is a third of Justin Bieber's total followers, and she has tweeted a total of 140 times, with a mere average of 3 tweets per month [6]. Adele does have a Facebook page, however, the posts are impersonal and promotional. In regards to Adele's minimal spectacular nature, her aesthetic and concerts are simplistic with minimal media displays, and her entire appeal is solely on her musical talent. Although Adele does not utilize social media and spectacle, her apparent success through album sales and Grammy wins, demonstrates that she has been able to sustain longevity within the music industry. In fact, Adele has sold 1.4 million more copies of 21 than Lady Gaga's Born this Way record[7]. Clearly, Adele has a huge fan base.

It is clear with the examination of Justin Bieber and Adele that Victor Corona's argument does provide some truth to the current societal needs of social solidarity and the use of social media to sustain devotion with the example of Justin Bieber, but he fails to acknowledge the success of artists who are not spectacular in nature and are not in constant use of social mediums like Adele. I disagree with Corona's claims that societal devotion requires more than a captivating voice and that survival requires close ties to populous through Twitter and Facebook.