<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Adama v. Adama</title>
	<atom:link href="http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/</link>
	<description>Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:37:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not About the Coffee &#171; Ὁι Λόγοι</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/#comment-974</link>
		<dc:creator>Not About the Coffee &#171; Ὁι Λόγοι</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=3723#comment-974</guid>
		<description>[...] who portrayed the original Starbuck (Dirk Benedict) has a problem with this portrayal (hat tip to Donald McClarey); and not just that - he sees it as a sign of a deep flaw in the entirety of the new series. It is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] who portrayed the original Starbuck (Dirk Benedict) has a problem with this portrayal (hat tip to Donald McClarey); and not just that &#8211; he sees it as a sign of a deep flaw in the entirety of the new series. It is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Van Cleve</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/#comment-973</link>
		<dc:creator>David Van Cleve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=3723#comment-973</guid>
		<description>&quot;It’s not “Amish” to say that what passes for entertainment now would have been totally inadmissible to the clergy and most laypeople fifty years ago. We had moral continuity for centuries and now it’s gone.&quot;

From where I sit -and given the general direction of this reply- Matt is seeing things fairly clearly.  Well spoken.

My best friend is a nominal Catholic (his mother practiced, he never did) and seemingly obsessed with &quot;BG 2.0&quot;.  As I liked the original as a child I thought I&#039;d give the new series a chance, and joined my friend to watch up to the second season, but I won&#039;t watch beyond that point.  Among other issues I have with the new series there&#039;s simply too much moral relativism, too much violence, and too much sexuality on display for me to find much redeeming about its story arc.  Naturally, my friend thinks I&#039;m taking my moral objections too seriously while I on the other hand wonder how any practicing Catholic could do anything else!

As opposed to the original series &quot;2.0&quot; is nothing I&#039;d show my fiancee, much less any children we might one day have.

Still, I will thank you for this humorous and thought-provoking entry!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It’s not “Amish” to say that what passes for entertainment now would have been totally inadmissible to the clergy and most laypeople fifty years ago. We had moral continuity for centuries and now it’s gone.&#8221;</p>
<p>From where I sit -and given the general direction of this reply- Matt is seeing things fairly clearly.  Well spoken.</p>
<p>My best friend is a nominal Catholic (his mother practiced, he never did) and seemingly obsessed with &#8220;BG 2.0&#8243;.  As I liked the original as a child I thought I&#8217;d give the new series a chance, and joined my friend to watch up to the second season, but I won&#8217;t watch beyond that point.  Among other issues I have with the new series there&#8217;s simply too much moral relativism, too much violence, and too much sexuality on display for me to find much redeeming about its story arc.  Naturally, my friend thinks I&#8217;m taking my moral objections too seriously while I on the other hand wonder how any practicing Catholic could do anything else!</p>
<p>As opposed to the original series &#8220;2.0&#8243; is nothing I&#8217;d show my fiancee, much less any children we might one day have.</p>
<p>Still, I will thank you for this humorous and thought-provoking entry!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald R. McClarey</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/#comment-972</link>
		<dc:creator>Donald R. McClarey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=3723#comment-972</guid>
		<description>&quot;Whether your approach works for you or not remains subjective and some might say indistinguishable from the mainstream view (”don’t look at it if you don’t like it”). &quot;

The truly foolish might say that.


&quot;Can definitions really change that much?&quot;

The definitions haven&#039;t changed at all, but the people have.  Where there was moral consensus, we now have moral anarchy.  When I first started my legal career, I was shocked by how many marriages were ending in divorce.  Now I am shocked by how many couples have several children, are now breaking up, and have never been married at all.  I am also seeing more parternity cases where not even a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship had been established, but rather a few incidents of &quot;hooking up&quot; resulted in a child.



&quot;If the standards have fallen then presumably we need to restore them&quot;

Agreed.  I am all ears as to how you think we can go about doing that.  In the past such alterations in public taste have usually been acomplished through censorship, either voluntary such as the Catholic League of Decency, or through government action.  Of course these attempts to enforce standards of decency in public entertainment were effective because there was broad public agreement as to what the standards should be, and an entertainment company that crossed the line would pay a price with the general public.  Regrettably such a consensus as to standards in entertainment clearly no longer exist.  Now, any attempt at censorship, leaving aside all the current legal difficulties that would entail, would probably simply increase the money that the &quot;banned&quot; show would bring in.  Not to mention that the internet means that any censorship regime would probably make no sense anyway since even totalitarian states like the PRC have great difficulty controlling the internet.  So the censorship route is out the window.

The best alternative I can think of is for Christians to produce entertainment that does reflect Christian values and is entertaining.  Too often what passes for Christian entertainment one would be hard pressed to get people to watch even if they were paid.  The vast success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Passion of the Christ, and, to a lesser extent, the two Narnia films, does indicate that there is a strong market for well made and performed Christian entertainment.  We are aided also by the fact that most of the entertainment that does not present Christian values is often pretty poorly made and acted, this is not the case with the current Battlestar Galactica, and so Christian entertainment in order to beat out the competition, does not always have to be a masterpiece, but merely professional in both the peformances and the production.   One reason the culture is such a sewer is that Christians have not been active enough in providing alternatives, and this is a portion of the problem that can be addressed successfully if there is enough will, time and money.  In my experience Christians who wish to reform the culture usually have the will and time, but money often is the sticking point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Whether your approach works for you or not remains subjective and some might say indistinguishable from the mainstream view (”don’t look at it if you don’t like it”). &#8221;</p>
<p>The truly foolish might say that.</p>
<p>&#8220;Can definitions really change that much?&#8221;</p>
<p>The definitions haven&#8217;t changed at all, but the people have.  Where there was moral consensus, we now have moral anarchy.  When I first started my legal career, I was shocked by how many marriages were ending in divorce.  Now I am shocked by how many couples have several children, are now breaking up, and have never been married at all.  I am also seeing more parternity cases where not even a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship had been established, but rather a few incidents of &#8220;hooking up&#8221; resulted in a child.</p>
<p>&#8220;If the standards have fallen then presumably we need to restore them&#8221;</p>
<p>Agreed.  I am all ears as to how you think we can go about doing that.  In the past such alterations in public taste have usually been acomplished through censorship, either voluntary such as the Catholic League of Decency, or through government action.  Of course these attempts to enforce standards of decency in public entertainment were effective because there was broad public agreement as to what the standards should be, and an entertainment company that crossed the line would pay a price with the general public.  Regrettably such a consensus as to standards in entertainment clearly no longer exist.  Now, any attempt at censorship, leaving aside all the current legal difficulties that would entail, would probably simply increase the money that the &#8220;banned&#8221; show would bring in.  Not to mention that the internet means that any censorship regime would probably make no sense anyway since even totalitarian states like the PRC have great difficulty controlling the internet.  So the censorship route is out the window.</p>
<p>The best alternative I can think of is for Christians to produce entertainment that does reflect Christian values and is entertaining.  Too often what passes for Christian entertainment one would be hard pressed to get people to watch even if they were paid.  The vast success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Passion of the Christ, and, to a lesser extent, the two Narnia films, does indicate that there is a strong market for well made and performed Christian entertainment.  We are aided also by the fact that most of the entertainment that does not present Christian values is often pretty poorly made and acted, this is not the case with the current Battlestar Galactica, and so Christian entertainment in order to beat out the competition, does not always have to be a masterpiece, but merely professional in both the peformances and the production.   One reason the culture is such a sewer is that Christians have not been active enough in providing alternatives, and this is a portion of the problem that can be addressed successfully if there is enough will, time and money.  In my experience Christians who wish to reform the culture usually have the will and time, but money often is the sticking point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/#comment-971</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=3723#comment-971</guid>
		<description>Thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn’t want to be overly contentious, but I’m not sure it’s the answer I’m looking for. Whether your approach works for you or not remains subjective and some might say indistinguishable from the mainstream view (&quot;don&#039;t look at it if you don&#039;t like it&quot;). It’s not “Amish” to say that what passes for entertainment now would have been totally inadmissible to the clergy and most laypeople fifty years ago. We had moral continuity for centuries and now it&#039;s gone. Can definitions really change that much? Granted there are grey areas and room for prudential decisions. (Let’s avoid “puritanism” as a red herring.) But as I think you admit, there are excesses which no one should realistically be expected to grapple with. The problem is that today’s immorality is the rule and less easily avoided than an obscure piece of literature (e.g. Petronius) was in the past. If the standards have fallen then presumably we need to restore them rather than acquiesce to evil in the interests of aesthetic urbanity. On the other hand, if it means that we have to view lingerie displays and groping for the sake of some pulp sci fi show… well, that’s a bid of a hard sell for me, I admit! All said in charity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn’t want to be overly contentious, but I’m not sure it’s the answer I’m looking for. Whether your approach works for you or not remains subjective and some might say indistinguishable from the mainstream view (&#8220;don&#8217;t look at it if you don&#8217;t like it&#8221;). It’s not “Amish” to say that what passes for entertainment now would have been totally inadmissible to the clergy and most laypeople fifty years ago. We had moral continuity for centuries and now it&#8217;s gone. Can definitions really change that much? Granted there are grey areas and room for prudential decisions. (Let’s avoid “puritanism” as a red herring.) But as I think you admit, there are excesses which no one should realistically be expected to grapple with. The problem is that today’s immorality is the rule and less easily avoided than an obscure piece of literature (e.g. Petronius) was in the past. If the standards have fallen then presumably we need to restore them rather than acquiesce to evil in the interests of aesthetic urbanity. On the other hand, if it means that we have to view lingerie displays and groping for the sake of some pulp sci fi show… well, that’s a bid of a hard sell for me, I admit! All said in charity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald R. McClarey</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/#comment-970</link>
		<dc:creator>Donald R. McClarey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=3723#comment-970</guid>
		<description>&quot;How do you justify watching it? Is it for the entertainment value?&quot;

In the same way that I justify reading the Satyricon by Petronious, to learn.  I find the soft porn moments intensely annoying and not at all erotic, just as I find the ultra violence more sickening than exciting.  The problem that has developed in our society is that many aspects of the culture are of questionable morality or intensely immoral.  To avoid it entirely on tv, in movies, the internet, in books, etc, would be to adopt an amish way of life as it comes to the culture.  I do not criticize Christians who adopt that approach, but it is not the path I have chosen.  When I find some aspect of the culture that I believe has something to teach me, I decide whether the good that I am exposing myself to, justifies the intermingled bad.  It&#039;s hard to draw lines, and I wish our culture was not such an open sewer, but it is the interaction I have chosen with our culture for the present.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;How do you justify watching it? Is it for the entertainment value?&#8221;</p>
<p>In the same way that I justify reading the Satyricon by Petronious, to learn.  I find the soft porn moments intensely annoying and not at all erotic, just as I find the ultra violence more sickening than exciting.  The problem that has developed in our society is that many aspects of the culture are of questionable morality or intensely immoral.  To avoid it entirely on tv, in movies, the internet, in books, etc, would be to adopt an amish way of life as it comes to the culture.  I do not criticize Christians who adopt that approach, but it is not the path I have chosen.  When I find some aspect of the culture that I believe has something to teach me, I decide whether the good that I am exposing myself to, justifies the intermingled bad.  It&#8217;s hard to draw lines, and I wish our culture was not such an open sewer, but it is the interaction I have chosen with our culture for the present.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jasmine</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/20/adama-v-adama/#comment-969</link>
		<dc:creator>Jasmine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:34:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=3723#comment-969</guid>
		<description>The only thing I would take exception to is the &quot;sour grapes&quot; comment. It skews where the article is coming from - using the new show *only* as a jumping off point for the state of television (and society) as a whole. The whole &quot;career peak&quot; thing comes from the fact that he chose parenthood (gasp!) over acting, something to be applauded and which is too often overlooked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only thing I would take exception to is the &#8220;sour grapes&#8221; comment. It skews where the article is coming from &#8211; using the new show *only* as a jumping off point for the state of television (and society) as a whole. The whole &#8220;career peak&#8221; thing comes from the fact that he chose parenthood (gasp!) over acting, something to be applauded and which is too often overlooked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

