Free to Censor?

Roland S. Martin recently wrote an op. ed. piece for CNN in which he chastises Lifeway Christian Bookstores for removing an edition of GospelToday magazine that featured a cover of women ministers, from its shelves because the Southern Baptist Convention, with whom Lifeway is affiliated, has officially sided with the school of thought that scriptures indicate that only men can be ordained ministers.

My main problems with Lifeway's actions are this:

1. They did not give the magazine any warning. The polite thing to do would have been to issued some sort of statement to GospelToday saying, "We are sorry but our views on women in the pulpit have led us to pull this particular edition of your magazine from our shelves, etc. etc." You get the idea. But they took the measures without warning or any contact.
2. Pulling the magazines in such a secretive way also pretty much hindered the possibility of a healthy discussion of the issue. Roland Martin puts in his 2¢ on the issue, but it is sort of awkward and ill-placed. It is not a forum for healthy discussion on the topic. And when a topic is shrouded in an unhealthy controversy such as this, healthy and educational debate becomes nearly impossible.

See Earlier for Cross Application: A Kingdom Divided

Not News

Senator Hillary Clinton narrowly won the New Hampshire primaries.

President George W. Bush began a Mid-East tour.

Violence is ripping apart the once peaceful country of Kenya.

White women across America are being kidnapped and butchered.

This is not a blog post about what should and shouldn't be considered newsworthy. I am one of those who believes that a couple of fluff pieces in a sea of death and politics and war can help to boost the morale of those who would become jaded by the dark world we live in. I think reading about the exploits of the rich and famous can relax someone's mind when in the middle of trying to decide what to do to help their working class family, help their country, help their community...

...but can we please heed the little Southern boy's cry and leave Britney alone? I am admittedly part of the problem. I have enjoyed watching the train wreck that is her life. But isn't it a bit disgusting the way we will exploit human beings (the way I am doing even now by blogging about her) who are the in the midst of great emotional and mental turmoil? And we write apologetics for it, justify it, "She's begging for the attention" or "Well, that's the price you pay for fame." It's one thing to have a little less privacy and another to have your problems fueled and intensified, scrutinized by the egging-ons of a world watching from the comfort of their own homes, thumbs pointed downward, waiting for you to finally meet your bloody end.

No, she is not innocent...but her children are. Maybe if we stop paying attention to her, she can start paying attention to the things that matter most.

Memo: In Sweeping Policy Change, AP Alerts Staff Britney Is Now 'A Big Deal

To Cherish and Embarrass

I must admit that I am probably late to this party. I was just watching Wildest Wedding Show Moments 2 when they showed a clip of a scene that a friend of mine had told me about.

We had been talking about public marriage proposals. For the most part, I think they're sweet. I think it'd be awesome for a guy to propose to me at a baseball game, for instance. But only if it had been clearly established that we planned on getting married. The idea of turning down a marriage proposal is almost as painful as the idea of having my marriage proposal rejected. Now imagine being proposed to by someone who you don't want to marry in front of thousands of people? What do you do? Do you say yes to spare that person the embarrassment, or do you follow your heart and say no?

Now, I've found that the clip I saw on TV was a hoax, but the below clip seems to have actually happened. (And it seems to have happened just a couple of months after the hoax. Bad timeline on my part? Life imitating art? Or another hoax? Suspicious, but still outrageous.)