The Daily Detour

Join the first-ever TDD television challenge!

As I was going back through some of our TDD archives I realized that it has been about a year and a half since my last "Conversations with a Coffee Cup". (Has it been that long? You may recall that this particular TDD category centers around what I would say, if given the opportunity, to the various authors who have had their comments published on the side of Starbucks coffee cups.). That extended amount of time is not because I've stopped fueling my caffeinated addiction at Starbucks. It has more to do with the fact that I've basically been getting the same three cups for the last year or so, none of which warranted "conversation" from me. This latest cup hits closer to home than we may like, however. In Starbuck's "The Way I See It #51", author and radio talk show host, Michael Medved, writes,

Americans spend an average of 29 hours a week watching television - which means in a typical life span we devote 13 uninterrupted years to our TV sets! The biggest problem with mass media isn't low quality - it's high quantity. Cutting down just an hour a day would provide extra years of life - for music and family, exercise and reading, conversation and coffee.

Though I hate to admit it, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I love television. And had I been keeping statistics over the course of my adult life, I have spent countless hours basking in the soft blue glow of my special friend. (We weren't allowed to watch TV when I grew up, with one exception--my dad did make rare allowances for I.U. basketball games. Priorities, right? :) What have I missed in the interim? As someone once said, "I could have become a medical doctor, but there were too many good shows on television." :)

As I've said to audiences before, television in itself is not necessarily a bad thing--that is, unless it keeps up from engaging in better things. Even now, I've been putting off this post. And then I was challenged by the example of my good friend, George Hiller. On my recent trip to Atlanta, I noticed that one of George's resolutions for the year is to read 50 books. It seemed incredible to me (even as an avid reader) to think that anyone could accomplish such an audacious goal. But when I asked him about it, he said he had stopped watching television and was dedicating 2 hours a night to pursuing his reading goal. He is on track to achieve his resolution. Incredible and commendable!

In light of the pervasive influence of television in our lives, I am bringing you a challenge. Are you willing to go for a period of time without watching any television? Are you able to do it?

I understand that even suggesting something like this may be a bit difficult to consider. In fact, the last time I did this little experiment when I was pastoring at the church, I actually had a lady come up to me and candidly admit, "There is no way I can do that." But I can attest, as someone who has a love affair with television, that it is possible. (The last time I experimented with a television sabbatical, Jean and I kept it open-ended. Amazingly, we ended up without a TV for over 14 months!)

Here's my proposal for your consideration: I want to challenge all of us in the TDD community to go for only one week without watching any television, beginning Monday, March 9th through Sunday, March 15th. (To ease the impact of this experiment, we've realistically accounted for the upcoming March Madness :). The purpose of this experiment is to have you and your family use the time you would have spent watching TV doing other activities personally, and as a family. Less TV = more reading, more games, more time outside, more exercise, more family time, etc. I would contend that you will find the experiment to be surprisingly beneficial. (In fact, the last time I proposed this at the church, I heard back from a family whose son initially said good-naturedly, "I hate Pastor John!". But by the end of the week, he began to realize what a great experience it had turned out to be.)

Jean and I have talked about it and are planning to engage in this weeklong experiment. I hope you'll be willing to join us and see what positive effects happen in your own life and schedule. Take this as an opportunity to get re-calibrated. You won't regret it, I guarantee it. (We'll plan to debrief the week of March 16th to hear from those of you who choose to participate.) Are you ready for the challenge? Who's in? 

Is Starbucks "anti-God"?

That is the question World Net Daily posted back in May after a brouhaha ensued when a number of Starbucks customers intended to boycott the coffee giant for what they felt was an increasing number of "anti-God" messages on the side of their coffee cups. The messages are a part of "The Way I See It Campaign" in which Starbucks includes customer's comments intended to spark conversation about a variety of topics.

If you've been following The Daily Detour for awhile, you know these coffee commentaries have been the subject of my "Conversations with a Coffee Cup" series. That is why this particular controversy caught my attention, even after the fact. Apparently, a number of Christians were offended by the comments perceived to denigrate both God and various aspects of the Christian religion.

I have mixed feelings about this boycott effort by the concerned Christians. On the one hand, I can empathize with their feelings of offense at this effort to undermine God and Christianity. Like any person with deeply held convictions, even a perceived slight is met with considerable resistance. However, we also live in a culture that fosters dissent and antithetical perspectives. That is the beauty of the free speech idea. We may not always agree with others, but they should have the freedom to express their opinions, just as we enjoy a similar freedom to express our Christian beliefs. To erode that foundational element of our culture will create an environment where dissenting opinions are suppressed. And ultimately, what is left is nothing more than coerced propoganda by those in power. Need evidence? Take a close look at any state university in this great country of ours.

Knowledge as salvation?

While traveling in Canada a couple of weeks ago I happened across an interesting perspective on knowledge on the side of my coffee cup. In Starbuck's "The Way I See It #248", Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, writes,

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Wikis give us a place where anyone who is kind, thoughtful and intelligent can come and join us in building a better and more rational world.

As an educator, I certainly recognize the value of knowledge. But it's important to read between the lines to see the underlying worldview being conveyed by Mr. Wales. What he's saying, in so many words, is that it is through knowledge that we have the possibility of "salvation" for humanity. The assumption is that knowledge (procured through rational scientific discovery) inherently produces progress. This is not a new contention. In fact, it was believed by those standing on the threshold of the 20th century that the achievements of the coming century would bear witness to the humanistic dream of "building a better and more rational world." If there was anything holding humanity back from the culmination of that visionary utopia, it was only our unrealized potential.

Ironically, however, the corpse-littered reality of history weaves a tragic tale that has many of the humanistic progressives still scratching their heads, asking "What went wrong?" Be it communism, socialism, nazism, or a whole smorgasbord of other "isms", the 20th century proved to be one of the bloodiest and most violent in the human history--at a point in which our enlightened knowledge was supposed to chart a different course.

Knowledge is the path to salvation when God is eliminated from the human experience. And it must be that way for those who have rejected the notion of God. Without a transcendent Creator, we humans become our own highest being in the universe. And if there is no salvation outside of ourselves, then we must find salvation within ourselves. (Side Note: I've always found it strangely ironic that those who claim enlightened, open-mind thought often tend to be the ones who do not believe in any kind of transcendent reality. Their established parameters, bounded by scientific inquiry alone, limit even the possibility of anything beyond the natural world. How "open-minded" is that really? And more importantly, what if they're wrong? Another post for another time I suppose...)

"Aaah," we say. "But this time it will be different, because we've learned from the experiences and mistakes of the past." Perhaps...but if that misguided thinking were really true, then why does the world seem to be getter worse and not better. I'll bet it has less to do with the need for more enlightenment and more to do with the sinful reality of the fallen human condition. Because, at the end of the day, no matter how knowledgeable I might be, I still can't will myself to consistently live my life the way I know I should (no matter what Tony Robbins might suggest to me). Why is that?

UPDATE: In a recent column, Cal Thomas provides a cursory look at the difference between a utopian dream in theory and the tragic pursuit of that dream in reality.

Are conservatives more pessimistic?

According to syndicated columnist, George Will, we are. And we should not shy away from that mentality.

In "The Way I See It #258", George Will writes,

Because true conservatives are pessimists, they are happier than liberals, for three reasons. First, pessimists are rarely surprised. Second, when they are wrong they are delighted to be so. Third, pessimists do not put their faith in princes—in government. They understand that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. Happiness is an activity; it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

You decide...is he on to something?

Hell as a figment of our imagination?

I had my usual one-sided conversation with Bishop Carlton Pearson this past Tuesday. He is best known for his controversial theological teaching, "The Gospel of Inclusion." Unfortunately, I wasn't actually speaking with him directly (though I would have liked to), but was reflecting on what I might say in response to his comments on the side of my Starbucks coffee cup in "The Way I See It #250",

In reality, hell is not such an intention of God as it is an invention of man. God is love and people are precious. Authentic truth is not so much taught or learned as it is remembered. Somewhere in your pre-incarnate consciousness you were loved absolutely because you were. Loved absolutely, and in reality, you still are! Remember who you are!

Of his entire statement it is first sentence that prompted my pondering. In truth, I agree with a part of it--the idea that hell is not an intention of God. Here I part company with some of my more Calvinistic friends who hold the idea that God has already pre-ordained certain people to salvation. One of the understandable critiques of that position is that if God has already intended some to go to heaven, then He has correspondingly intended some to go to hell. It is difficult to reconcile this idea with the apostle Peter's statement that God is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). God does not send anyone to hell any more than a federal judge arbitrarily sends me to prison. Certainly the option of prison is always available to me, but my residency there is conditional on whether I violate the established law. In this sense, I chart my own course in life; it is not automatically determined for me.

Where I disagree with Bishop Pearson is his contention that hell is an invention of man. Certainly, the notion of hell is understandably repugnant, and I can empathize with those who would wish to abandon the concept altogether. I would love to believe there is no hell, because I care very deeply for the eternal destination of many of my closest friends and family members. But, like anything, simply choosing to suspend one's belief about something, does not necessarily eliminate it as reality.

I've often wondered, what would be the motivation for such an invention? If it is so repulsive in the first place, and if the Bible is nothing more than a man-made creation anyway, why invent such an notion to begin with. Why not make heaven available to all, regardless of one's spiritual condition? I understand my skeptic friends' contention that the invention of hell is merely a means to keep the mindless masses fettered to some illusion of eternal damnation in order to exert power over them. However, that is a bit difficult to swallow, because it assumes the masses are as ignorant as the skeptics would have us believe, that somehow there is this small minority of people who have found the truth, much like Morpheus and his fellow renegades did concerning the matrix.

The Bible refers to hell as a real place. So, our issue with it ultimately concerns our view of Scripture. Is the Bible true? If not, then we must also question every other aspect of Scripture. And certainly, there are people who do just that. But if we question the veracity of Scripture, however, what is our criteria for determining which parts of it are/aren't true? I questioned a skeptic friend of mine about this once as we conversed about the Bible's specific statements about hell. He too had abandoned a belief in hell, but when pressed, did not have an adequate answer has to how he filtered out the true parts of Scripture. He chose not to believe in hell not because of any reasoned rationale, but simply because he didn't like the idea of such a place.

With all do respect to his own spiritual journey, that is an intellectual cop out. Christian or not, we all must contend with the Bible if for no other reason than it exists and that it claims to be the very Word of God. We may wrestle with its Truth and ultimately choose to reject it. So be it. But, our reasons for rejecting it better have more substance than arbitrary whims of personal preference. Because the converse is also true, if it indeed proves to be the revealed Word of God, then we must contend with its content, even the content we may find distasteful, and accordingly conform our lives to its directives.

Social consequences of Darwinian evolution (part 2)

In yesterday's post, Mr. David Quammen had his say about the merits of Intelligent Design (ID). While his suggestion borders on being mildly amusing, the significance of the cultural clash that underlies the Darwinian and Christian worldviews should not be underestimated.

My Friday morning Starbucks coffee essentially struck up the counter conversation to Mr. Quammen's dismissal of ID by raising the social implications of Darwinian evolution. As biologist and author, Dr. Jonathan Wells, states in "The Way I See It #224",

Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

Renowned evolutionary biologist and ardent atheist, Richard Dawkins, famously stated that Darwinian evolution "makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." While some may believe it is possible to be intellectually fulfilled with atheism, Darwinian theory makes it extremely difficult to be a morally grounded atheist. For if indeed evolution is responsible for all aspects of life, then its most fervent proponents must reconcile evolution's physical explanations with its social implications.

Dr. Wells correctly contends that the cultural consequences of Darwinian theory have had devastating implications for humanity. A brief look at the historical record confirms the tragic atrocities left in the wake of the natural selecton principle with Darwinian theory. If natural selection is indeed a guiding principle in the universe, why do we embrace animal rights or protecting the disabled? Moreover, why shouldn't we pursue eugenics, racism, and abortion? And why are we so quick to condemn Hitler's pursuit of the perfect human race? Was he not simply following the logical implications of his underlying Darwinian philosophy? It is difficult to make a case to the contrary. (For more on this idea, see the previous TDD post regarding the dignity of human beings.)

The reason Mr. Quammen's and Dr. Wells' perspectives stand in contrast to one another has to do with an ultimate question: Who's in control of the human experience? Is it programmed to run along the evolutionary course of natural selection, or is there some force external to humans that determines our purpose in life?

Intelligent design presupposes a designer of some kind. And design speaks to intent. If there is a designer that is responsible for the universe and our place in it, then what was the original intent of that designer? If, however, there is no design as Mr. Quammen suggests, then there is also no designer. This means there is nothing beyond our own human experience to whom we must answer, no one to whom we are held accountable. We become our highest moral authority. In theory, everyone then has equal say concerning the difficult life-and-death moral decisions facing us. In practice, however, the answer to "Who decides who lives and dies?" is the person or group who holds the most power. But then, would Darwin's "survival of the fittest" principle have it any other way?

Intelligent design and Chukwa, the giant turtle (part 1)

Even with my regular Starbucks habit, it is rare that I come across two cups in conversation with one another. This week it happened, so this post and tomorrow's post bring that conversation to light in the two contrasting views on evolution I found on the side of my white chocolate mistos.

Wednesday morning's coffee cup had the following comment written by author, David Quammen. In "The Way I See It #220", he said:

Evolution as described by Charles Darwin is a scientific theory, abundantly reconfirmed, explaining physical phenomena by physical causes. Intelligent Design is a faith-based initiative in rhetorical argument. Should we teach I.D. in America’s public schools? Yes, let’s do – not as science, but alongside other spiritual beliefs, such as Islam, Zorastrianism and the Hindu idea that Earth rests on Chukwa, the giant turtle.

What is most telling about Mr. Quammen's quote is his obvious assumption that the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is simply "creationism in disguise," and thus, it can be essentially dismissed as such. This convenient buzz-phrase is a common misconception held by many in our culture. Ironically, however, the scientists at Discovery Institute (the secular think-tank primarily responsible for the development and cultural advancement of ID theory) ardently contend that ID is indeed a scientific theory, and not a "faith-based initiative" as detractors like Mr. Quammen would suggest. Intelligent Design theory advances the idea that there is evidence to suggest that certain aspects of the universe "are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Those at Discovery Institute are careful to distinguish between the theory of ID and any claims as to the identity of who (or what) that intelligent cause might be. As they clearly state, "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text." This is a critical distinction that every thoughtful Christian should remember and articulate in conversations about ID. Simply put, there is a compelling difference between an implication of a theory and the theory itself.

Despite the prevailing voices in our culture denouncing ID theory as true science, most people do not fully understand the nature and origin of ID theory. While ID proponents have been judicious in their careful distinction between design and the designer, over-eager Christians have not, and as a result, have muddied the waters of this cultural conversation. In their zeal to secure scientific validation for the Genesis creation account, they have too-quickly bridged the gap between ID theory and its implications so as to inadvertently thwart the establishment of ID as a legitimate scientific theory.

And that is why people like Mr. Quammen can promote culturally-accepted misnomers about ID without question or critique. As long as ID is relegated to the same category as Chukwa the giant turtle, it will never be taken seriously. At the very least, we should teach the ID theory in a display of academic freedom to allow our students a better understanding of what the origins controversy is all about. (Of course, there are those within the scientific community who readily dismiss the ID controversy, vainly suggesting it unnecessary, because evolutionary theory has already been firmly established. To which one might ask these purported free thinkers, "If evolution is so firmly established, why the need to so flippantly dismiss contrary theories versus just meeting them head-on? Aah well, another post for another time...)

In the meantime, it's imperative that earnest Christians better educate themselves in order to effectively and winsomely provide a credible voice to the culture on the pressing concerns of our day. It is never too late to turn the tide of public opinion on ID or any other cultural issue. But we must be judicious in our approach. To put our mouths in gear before we've engaged our minds provides all the evidence one needs to suspect that maybe we're not so intelligently designed after all.

UPDATE: To keep you up-to-date on the latest happenings within the Intelligent Design movement, subscribe to Discovery Institute's monthly e-newsletter, Nota Bene, and hear from those on the frontlines of this scientific movement.

The tragic necessity of violence

Here at The Daily Detour I want to try to be mindful of your busy life and thus, present short, thoughtful posts that facilitate easier consumption within your daily routine. But at times there comes an occasion that deserves greater elaboration. Today's post falls into that category, so I hope you'll take a few extra minutes to consider not only the arguments being put forth here, but most importantly, the implications of those ideas for our lives and our future.

Today's post is dedicated to all of our military men and women serving in so many thankless capacities and remote locations whose noble sacrifices make it possible for the rest of us to enjoy the liberty inherent to this Republic (including our freedom to blog).

With all the hubub over the recent anniversary of the initial invasion of Iraq I feel it necessary to finally weigh in on a topic that most people find somewhat controversial. Interestingly, with the fading presence of the Greatest Generation, combined with Vietnam veterans reaching senior citizen age, the frame of reference for armed conflict for those in my own generation is severely limited. Aside from the recents wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the only other war of significance in our lifetime was the Persian Gulf War, a 100 day "skirmish" that could hardly be counted as an actual war.

The spate of war protests (and the lesser-known counterprotests) over the last couple of weeks served as my tipping point to weigh in on this subject. There are a number of people who have more extensive coverage on this, including Michelle Malkin and the good folks over at Little Green Footballs. But I wanted to add my 2-cents to the cause if only to help provide the "other perspective" not covered by the MSM. (WARNING: Some of the content may be offensive to some of our readers, so please proceed with caution.)

So often when we consider violence and the reality of armed conflict from a Christian perspective, many people quickly turn to Jesus' comments in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek as evidence that Jesus didn't endorse violence and neither should we. Interestingly, such theological commentaries on the subject fail to account for corresponding, yet antithetical, biblical passages like Romans 13 which outline the parameters of a God-ordained authority wielding the sword of punishment on the wrongdoer. Likewise, the Jesus in John 2:15 who "made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area...[who] scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables," is hardly the pacifistic picture painted in our Sunday Schools. As Philip Yancey suggests about Jesus, "How would telling people to be nice to one another get a man crucified? What government would execute Mister Rogers or Captain Kangaroo?"

NRO's Editor-at-large, Jonah Goldberg, provides a timely perspective on the place of violence in our modern world in his "The Way I See It #22":

Everywhere, unthinking mobs of "independent thinkers" wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question "enlightened" dogma. If "violence never solved anything," cops wouldn't have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it's better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don't settle them.

Goldberg's comments, while focusing generally on the theme of tired clichés, more specifically highlight the compelling issue that we must not automatically dismiss the necessity of violence. (For more, see his full interview with the Starbucks folks.)

So, is there a necessary place for violence in this contemporary culture? Against the backdrop of our current war in Iraq, with nightly reports of the increasing death tally, it is easy for us to lose sight of the big picture. In an excerpted email recently sent to The Daily Detour, Capt. Peter G. Ross, USNR, provides a very interesting perspective on our modern notions of warfare:

Only psychopaths like war, but only the intellectually infantile could think war is never the answer to any problem. While we use measured force liberally in Iraq, our current involvement could hardly be described as "war." The comparatively lengthy duration of our Iraq adventure is a function of our sensitivity to collateral damage and our mission to support a young, indigenous government still wobbly on its feet. If it were truly war, we could have reduced Iraq to a pile of broken cinder blocks, decimated the civilian population, set up an occupation government and enforced martial law on the survivors in two months. Does anyone remember Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima? Our current form of "kinder, gentler war" reduces blood shed but stretches the time to resolution. To the point we removed the Ba'athist, Hussein government, our casualties were less than two hundred. The subsequent casualties are the price paid in American blood to avoid shedding every drop of Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian blood. We are in uncharted territory which, by definition, obviates perfect navigation. Our purpose, replacing a tyrannical government (that terrorized a civilian population, attacked neighbors with WMD, conducted racial genocide and filled mass graves with the bodies of children), with government by the people, is a noble one. We may not succeed, but no American should be ashamed of our attempt to do so.

As Capt. Ross points out, we must not let the ongoing struggle in Iraq blind us to its proper historical context.

Likewise, Samuel P. Huntington's seminal book, The Clash of Civilizations, draws attention to the emerging global conflict which ruptured our lives on September 11th. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are in the defining struggle of this century.

Anyone who has ever disciplined a child understands that human beings left unrestrained are more naturally bent toward their sinful nature. Restraining a bully in the sandbox is one thing; quelling the nuclear ambitions of a tyrannical head of state is quite another.

In a world gripped by unspeakable evils, the hollow exhortations of peace prove unrealistic. True and lasting peace comes at a very high price. Thus, the tragic necessity of violence. For as Edmund Burke reminds us, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

It is easy for those who have never set foot on the battlefield to sit and poach our leaders and soldiers from a distance for decisions made and actions taken. Within the safe confines of our free society, it is ironic that the war protesters fail to appreciate the luxury they enjoy of belittling the very sacrifices that allow them such freedom of expression.

While we might abhor the despicable actions of those who express their twisted views of "patriotism" by burning American soldiers in effigy and defecating on American flags, it is the mysterious beauty of our enduring Republic which affords even these anarchists that privilege. Therefore, we grit our teeth and clench our fists at such desecration, remembering the voiceless ghosts of Russia's gulag and Cambodia's killing fields which speak to the even greater travesties wrought by the alternatives to freedom.

Is violence necessary? Sadly, the evils of the world make it so at times.

And so, I thank the Lord Almighty for the substitutionary sacrifices of those of you who willingly stand in harm's way on our behalf (and to your families who bear that unseen burden). It is because of you that we enjoy the freedoms we have, even the freedom shared by that forgettable sub-set of our culture who protest your efforts to afford us those freedoms. And I echo the comments made by Jules Crittenden who wrote of those who serve, "John Eade and all others, living or dead, where do we get such men? Why do we deserve them?" Why indeed. To those of you who stand courageously against the forces of evil in our world, thank you. We are not worthy of you.

Are we just animals in the forest?

Just a follow-up to yesterday's post... a very timely message on another Starbucks coffee cup caught my attention. It comes from Dr. Wesley J. Smith, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. He comments in "The Way I See It #127":

The morality of the 21^st century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human? Answer yes, and we have a chance of achieving universal human rights. Answer no, and it means that we are merely another animal in the forest.

Dr. Smith has touched on the crucial issue of our day, in terms of how we will chart the future of the human race. Darwinian evoution leaves little room for the inherent dignity of a human being. After all, we are merely an evolutionary product of our less-enlightened ancestors.

Many scientists argue that Christians have just fallen off the turnip truck when it comes to a scientific understanding of the world. However, to hold a position that is antagonistic toward evolutionary theory in particular is not necessarily to be anti-science. It goes much deeper than that, to the very heart of humanity. Who are we? Are we merely the natural product of random chance over billions of years, or is there an innate immeasurable value bestowed upon us by a transcendent Creator God?

If we are no more valuable than our bovine neighbors, then why not make human hamburgers at our next backyard barbecue? Or, as someone once suggested, if there is no difference between the eggs of a fish and those of a human embryo, why not serve up human caviar at our next dinner party?

The gravity of this modern reality should not be lost amid my attempts at facetious irony. For, whether we want to admit it or not, the propane is already being lit on the grill when it comes to the degradation of human life. We can refer to them as embryos, or fetuses, or just a blob of human goo, but such labels do not change the reality of the dangerous road upon which we find ourselves. The devaluing of any human life sows the seeds for the ultimate destruction of all human life.

This is to Dr. Smith's point, that there are inherent and necessary differences between animals and humans, which is why the animals don't run the asylum. After all, we don't pay money to go see humans locked up in zoos, or do we? The Human Zoo is more real than you think. Pick up your application today.

Celebrity Obsession

Being a self-proclaimed Starbucksaholic, I spend alot of time not only drinking their venti white chocolate mochas, but also reading the various missives that find their way to the side of the cup. They can be quite fascinating at times, but given that there is no ability to interact with the various armchair authors beyond the new thought(s) that may take root in the mind of the customer, what could be a dialogue is confined to a monologue only.

No longer. I've determined that one of the latest additions to The Daily Detour will be "Conversations With a Coffee Cup", a venue for responding to those comments written by other Starbucks customers. This new category will be confined to only those comments that find their way on to my cup of coffee (I will not be scrolling through the Starbucks website to find them.)

Below is a very interesting perspective that graced the side of my coffee yesterday. Donna Phillips, a freelance writer from Claremont, California says in "The Way I See It #192":

Many people lack a spiritual belief system and fill that void with obsessions about celebrities. The celebrities are raised to the rank of gods, and these earthly gods will always fail the expectations the masses have set for them. The cycle runs thusly: adoration turns to obsession, obsession turns to disappointment, and from disappointment it is just a short emotional jump to contempt.

In light of last Friday's post about the recent death of Anna Nicole Smith, Ms. Phillips hits on an elemental reality of our culture--celebrity obsession. When we elevate Hollywood gods and goddesses we reveal where our true worship lies. The question is, why the obsession? What is that spiritual void we seek to fill by living vicariously through the exploits of the rich and famous? Is there a deeper longing whose fulfillment we are desperately craving?