Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Moonbow

It hadn't been the longest day at work, but it had been long enough. I'm driving home from work at 10pm, the open sunroof shearing a wisp of spring breeze from the rushing air to blow lightly through the cabin, which ruffles my hair amidst the soft glow of dash lights and picture-perfect moonlight. We crest the top of the hill and I take my foot off the gas, coasting the last half-mile home. It's late, and I'm tired, but it's a beautiful spring night.

I turn left into the driveway and get out to open the gate, and as I swing the iron frames clear of the driveway I cast a glance skywards and the sight stops me cold in my tracks.

It is a beautiful night. Unusually so, and this one's worth sharing before I go to bed. I pull into the garage, pull the key, and step into the house. "Hey, everyone - it's a nice moon tonight. Come out and have a look!"

Shining stars and motes of mist gather in audience. A formal audience in the celestial court is an unexpected event full of anticipation and trepidation. Through the eons, the greater denizens of the heavens have been known for their constancy of manner, tracing solemn, dignified paths through the sky. The Queen in her full radiance would dominate the sky, but as is her habit, she changes the strength of her presence night by night. Queen she may be, but the sky is for stars, and as often as not, she leaves the serene night to the sound of their voices. But a formal audience requires a fullness of bearing, and tonight, she shines brightly indeed.

My brother and parents wander past the yawning garage door and tilt their heads toward the sky, bathed in the brightness of a full moon. It's a misty evening, but there's so much light that we can see all the trees and foliage in the yard surrounding the driveway, make out the edges of individual maple leaves and the profile of individual needles of home-grown rosemary. The darkness of night holds few mysteries tonight, as the light makes even the sides of the hills surrounding our house distinct and discernible.

The Queen speaks softly in a voice full of power. Her words fly to the ends of heaven and earth, commanding attention with gentle authority. Whereas the light of the daytime King, glorious but domineering, claims the entire firmament for himself, the queen's voice is not so opaque. Hers allows all to be seen, whilst still allowing all to be heard. When the King holds court, the stars have no voice. The Queen, being a better listener, finds that a clearer, calmer brilliance suits her needs better. The court gathers around her, settling with dignity and decorum. In a quiet ceremony blessed with order and dignity, the shining mists and the lordly stars gather in attendance at a deferential distance about the Queen, forming a perfect circle of twinkling light, unmoving, yet breathing deeply with life.

A thin fog hangs in the air high above our heads, drifting across the sky at a pace vigorous enough to see with night-adapted eyes. Too thin to form true clouds, it flows like a slow current of steam across the sky at a pace somewhere between lazy and daydreamy. Most striking, however, is the perfect circle of glowing light hovering about moon like an enormous halo stretching halfway across the sky. At first it just seems to hang suspended in the heavens just beneath the moon, still and unmoving. As our eyes continue to adapt to the night sky, we start to see that the glowing haze, appearing motionless at first, actually seems to cast off slow curls of vapor, almost like wafting across dry ice. Though the rest of the sky glows faintly with starlight and drifting, moon-brushed fog, the sky within the halo is a deep expanse of perfect, crystalline darkness, interrupted only by the blazing moon in perfect relief at its exact center. Even the stars within shine less brightly than those outside the halo. Mom coos with delight while my brother purses his lips in amused puzzlement. My dad glances back at me with a knowing smile, probably wondering if my hazy recollection of physics has figured out where the enormous, dazzling halo is coming from.

The exciteable, miniscule sprites drift and coast about with great relative speed in a great crowd huddled around the Queen's forum. Caught up in the regal spectacle of the event, they roil about with nervous energy, straining to catch every word, see every motion. Most of the stars, the lesser lords of the sky, hover in their usual places, fully capable and content to participate from their own serene perches. A few stars move within the forum, whispering to the Queen and amongst themselves, keeping order, and briefing the Queen and one another on tonight's agenda. They also maintain the peace; for all her love and understanding, the Queen's forum remains a sacred space and the stars ensure that it remains orderly and clear.

"It's a rainbow." Dad smiles and nods. "Uh-huh. A rainbow can appear as a perfect circle of refracted light; we usually only see part of it but if all the suspended moisture that's creating it is in view, you can see that the diffracted light come in from all angles. That's why you can see a full circle in the spray of a garden hose or from the window of an airplane. It looks like tonight, the moon is bright enough and fog in the air just right to catch and diffract the moonlight into, well, a moonbow." "And the sky inside the moonbow is darker than the sky outside, just like a rainbow. The white light that gets diffracted into a rainbow has had its path diverted from elsewhere in the sky; the thick band of light has to come from somewhere, so the part of the sky inside a rainbow seems darker because some of the light from within the rainbow is being bent away and concentrated into the rainbow."

"And that's why, if you look closely enough, you can see that the halo isn't perfectly white. One edge is just a tiny bit pink, and the other is just a tiny bit blue."

As the scene settles into focus, millions of small voices gather in chorus, singing and chanting their cares to the Queen. Kept civil and orderly by stars many times their brightness, they observe the decorum but begin to separate into bands of differing viewpoints, different concerns. White, worshipful throngs of vapors sing the skies’ praises as they rejoice in the grandeur of the audience itself. Millions more of skybound sprites cast billowing ripples of reddish light as they air grievances, urgent requests, or counterpoised defenses. They restrain their agitation in the presence of the Queen and the ever-watchful elder stars but cannot fully contain their anxiety and intensity, pushing their way to the edges of the forum’s halo in an effort to be heard. While each voice is too small to see, collectively their efforts ruffle the outer edge of the halo with the energy of a billion murmuring debates. The Queen stands in the center, observing them all as the throngs outside drift past in quiet observation. And we, standing on terra firma, gaze upward as the forum opens a great portal allowing us to peer far past the dome of the sky. It is as though heaven itself drew back a curtain of nebulae and light to reveal an expanse of dark, beautiful infinity, a vast and inverted chasm of crystal clear blackness. The sight beckons your perspective up and out of your body, soaring skyward to revel in unfettered freedom.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Entitlement


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/03/christian.movie.rating.ap/index.html

"House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and other lawmakers are demanding explanations after hearing complaints that the movie "Facing the Giants" was rated PG instead of G due to religious content.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence," Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman."


Christian themes? Or Christian dogma? Now, I don't know much about the movie itself. It really might be wholesome and innocuous and deserve a G rating. What bothers me is the sense of entitlement these congressional advocates seem to be bringing to the topic. Religion is powerful. Ideologically weighty. Religion is no less powerful a force in this world than nuclear weaponry. Can faith move mountains? Maybe. We know they can level them, that's for sure, and it disturbs me that people entrusted with such great responsibility seem to think that it's proper and desirable to wield the force of religion recklessly.

It seems to me that religion or lack thereof is an issue of deep significance in psychological and attitudinal development. It has to be a choice, if not by the adopter then by someone, somewhere, usually the one doing the childrearing. If it were truly the natural state of things then we'd be born religious and indoctrination (as opposed to education) of any kind would be redundant. And the manner in which a Christian is introduced to Christianity seems to have a lot of influence on how that person treats the rest of humanity. So yes, I'd say that religious themes *are* PG subject matter. No, more than that - there are religious themes that are undoubtedly R subject matter.

"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"

Uh. Rated G? The line was made famous to the country, not by a priest or scholar, but by an on-screen, fictional contract killer in the process of committing murder (who proceeded thereafter to wax contemplative about religious themes and his own life, not to mention Caine and Kung Fu *wince*). If the manner of introduction helps determine whether one uses religion to motivate performing acts of philanthropy or to rationalize the shooting of a medical practitioner with a high powered rifle through the window of his own house, then no shit - religious issues should not have carte blanche for a G rating! Religion is not harmless! It's *full* of power. Exposure to gratuitous sex and violence can shape an impressionable kid into a callous philanderer or wifebeater. Exposure to outrageous dogma can turn an impressionable kid into a cold-blooded terrorist, too. People wield guns and declare wars in the name of religion. Should "Left Behind" be rated G? Of course not. Oh, wait - it's because of the death and violence, right? Right. Like there wasn't any sex or violence - or murder, or betrayal, or idolatry, or incest, pillaging, plundering, invasion, slavery, conquering, warfare, or genocide - perpetrated by the protagonists and inheritors of the sacred books of the Old Testament.

Please, people. Religious themes include many mature subjects, and religions are as obsessed about the imposition of death, preservation of life, sex, and procreation as any other topic out there. Probably moreso. Every religion I can think of had plenty to say - nay, demand - about who could mate with whom, how, when, and where, and under what circumstances. So act like grownups, people, and be responsible enough to wear the label. Not that I necessarily think *this* movie demands a PG rating, but automatic entitlement to a G rating seems misplaced. The quoted Congressmen seem upset that the rating might prevent people from being exposed to Christian values. Oh, what, is there a First Amendment violation in assigning a movie a PG rating? It would be the first time I've heard anything about it. I've never known a PG rating to prevent anyone from seeing a movie. This is PG we're talking about! Not even PG-13! If anything, a PG rating respects the gravity of the issue, and how it should not be taught carelessly. To put it crudely, this is life-changing, life-shaping shit we're talking about. At least one family friend joined the Jehovah's Witnesses in college a few years after being introduced to Christianity by a well-meaning elder. She and the elder have had discussions since about how following the Jehovah's Witnesses is "not what she meant" by being a good Christian, and how "they don't teach God's word the way it's meant to be taught." The discussions, as far as I can tell, have been to no effect. The kid's still a Jehovah's Witness, and devotes all her time to that sect, and seems to think that all secular entertainment and any outward expression of joy - or even association with non-Christians - is a sin against God.


When it comes to learning about God, it's not all the same. It would be incorrect and unfair to paint all Christians with a single broad brush. I know my aunt and Pat Robertson are not on the same page. She tries to convert everyone she meets, sure, but my aunt would pray for the protection of all of God's children, devout or not, saved or not. She certainly doesn't invite God to destroy entire cities or states for the laws that they pass or strike down. Robertson wishes more death, suffering, and harm on the living, breathing, hard-working - even devout - citizens of the United States than Al Qaeda has ever managed to inflict on us to date, and that's already thousands upon thousands of murders. The same ideological underpinnings can give rise to an extraordinary range of beliefs - and subsequent actions and consequences - ranging from saintly benevolence to repugnant spite.

So if a movie purported to tell your child what he or she should understand about religious faith and values, shouldn't you be concerned? Newsflash for Congressman Blunt: PG stands for Parental Guidance, not "don't let the kids see it." Did you forget that? Wouldn't you like some input? Wouldn't you like the option to hope that the ratings system and theater administrators, even with all their faults and vacuous logic, might give you the chance to advise your kid what you think a relationship with God is all about? If Robertson, Osama bin Laden, Jesse Jackson, George Bush, Cotton Mather, King Henry VIII, David Duke, Pope Benedict, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Baker, King Saul, Ann Coulter, Mother Teresa, David Koresh, or Ayatollah Khomeni, brimming with charisma, authority, power, or fame, walked up to your child with a fistful of promises and lure of eternal life in the Kingdom of God, wouldn't you like the chance to tell your child what you thought of that person, good or bad, before he or she started talking?

"Johnny Walker Lindh, come here this instant! This is not how I raised you!"

Too late.



PostScript: Yes, I know there's an argument for the other side. We don't enforce G vs. PG ratings on books, even though I'm sure there are people out there who say we should. But nobody's going to stop a 7-year old from walking into a bookstore and buying a copy of the Bible, The Prince, Mein Kampf, or Neitschze's Finest Quotations. Making that observation, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms. But making the argument that a movie should never be rated PG for the mere fact that it discusses religious subjects seems as misguided as saying that a television show that depicts fantasy violence is more harmful than a religious text that explains why it's ok - or historically acceptable - to perpetrate actual violence on real people who aren't members of your religion. Which, of course, includes the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran. I'll also say that I've never personally known a PG rating to ever prevent anyone from buying a ticket and watching a movie. Maybe parents have more control in other states.