I finally got around to watching this “mock-umentary” a few weeks ago, and while there were a handful of amusing moments, on the whole, I found its tone, posture, and premise to be much more ridiculous than the “religious simpletons” that Bill Maher makes into easy targets.

The fundamental mistake that Maher makes is genre.  He mixes equal parts satire, documentary, and ardent agnosticism into this film, and what comes out of this haphazard concoction is an aimless, preachy attempt at social commentary that in the end shows Bill to be the ass that he is.

Now don’t get me wrong- abrasive, irreverent comedy in a documentary style (e.g. Borat) can be effective and even hilarious, but Religulous is neither.  Instead, Maher comes across as smug and condescending, and after a while I just wanted to crush his pea-brained arguments with my own brand of religious comedy- one which shows how vacuous and culturally bankrupt his alleged agnosticism really is.

Maher and his ilk are of the evangelistic agnostic variety, one which embraces the uncertainty of religion with a false humility.  Maher claims that “not knowing” is in fact the only certitude we have, but in fact his blatant antagonism towards the slightest hint of a religious propositional construction of reality shows his true colors.

Let’s be honest, Bill: you’re a wannabe-neo-atheist in the ranks of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, but in actuality you’re just a comedian and a hack who has taken his pathetic talk-show platform to new lows by badgering and editorializing simple folks with your distorted view of rational intelligence.  It must make you feel good to shoot fish in a barrel, especially since rather than appearing intellectually superior, you actually demonstrate what a propagandized simpleton you are, and maybe that’s okay since you clearly have some ego issues to work out.

Anyone can round up some crazies (of any religious or atheist variety) and mock them for their irrationality; the challenge is to do it as poorly as you have.  But thanks for the chuckles; I enjoyed them primarily at your expense.  Oh, and did I mention I downloaded a torrent of your movie illegally?  Oops.  Surely you can see the humor in that.

With the Deadly Viper controversy now in full swing (and a public statement from the authors/publisher forthcoming), I’ve been both encouraged and frustrated by the “dialogue” that is happening on numerous sites, blogs, forums, and so forth.  On one hand, if there’s anything I’ve learned from numerous encounters of the digital kind, it’s that genuine communication is very difficult through web media; it’s inherent limitations can be debilitating (not to mention all the weird posturing that happens through online anonymity).  But on the other hand, the technology exists and is certainly being used, so why not make the best of it and hope for actual exchanges that could cumulatively work towards engaging in civil discourse?

Anyway, from skimming the usual complaints and responses which have been fairly typical on this issue, here’s a list of thoughts off the top of my head:

1. Being a Christian does not give anyone a free pass to be ignorant.  Christianity does not automatically turn crap into roses; it does, however, compel us to mutual accountability and edification in the process of redeeming that crap and working towards justice.
2. Racism, racialization, and all its assorted goodies of destruction are real.  It doesn’t matter how nice you are or what good intentions you have, or how many exotic foods you’ve tried.  Nor does it matter how many people of color told you it was okay to tell those jokes.  The social construction of race is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and certainly the corporate media culture that we consume.
3. Talking about race among Christians is essential: not because we should rub guilt in people’s faces or swing the power in the other direction, but because it is, for better or worse, an integral part of our worldview, and we must address it.  Pretending we should all be colorblind is a destructive myth that dehumanizes the diverse beauty and particularity of all human cultures.
4. As we talk about race, we have to consider power, social position, and historical context.  This conversation does not take place on a blank slate of society; quite to the contrary, race has indelibly marked the construction of the modern world, and again, being Christian cannot erase or dismiss this reality.
5. Christians who care about race have to move past appearances and fear of the politically correct.  This is not fundamentally about quotas, media stereotypes, or social perception.  It is about listening to and embracing the stories, personhood, and experiences of real people who have experienced genuine pain and suffering.
6. It’s okay to be angry about race, as long as that anger is channeled in a constructive direction.  The idea that Christians shouldn’t get angry is like suggesting that Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood is reality; if you’re not angry about something, then you’re either living in a bubble of cardigan sweaters and singing puppets, or you’re just not being honest.
7. The best way to have this conversation is not on a blog, but in person and in community with others.  A well written blog post can never do what an honest human encounter can- let’s work towards those personal engagements at every opportunity.

Speaking of which, Quest’s annual Faith and Race Depth Class is currently underway, and the upcoming Skin Deep Conference is next week.  Great local opportunities to engage.

Maybe I’ve just had a long day, or perhaps I’ve had one too many race conversations in the last week, but whatever it is, I’m really not feeling the love for Zondervan right now, and I’m especially perturbed by this ridiculous book that shamelessly exploits pseudo-Asian “kung-fu-karate-ninja-chinaman” stereotypes to push a marketing agenda- and it’s all Christian, of course!

Now in fairness to the authors (ignorant as they appear to be of the offensive nature of the book), I realize this exploitation is not intentional (oh, it hardly ever is), and that there’s surely good intentions in the content of the book.  But you know what they say about good intentions (how can this be put delicately?)- the path to hell is paved with them.

Now hear me out: I’m not reigning down some eschatological condemnation on Mike and Jud (the two white male evangelical authors)- it is just an idiom after all.  But I do take issue with both the presentation and the content of the book- because as Marshall McLuhan continues to remind us, we often cannot separate the medium and the message.

When people read (as it says on page 24 of the book) that the “short stature and native speed of the Thai people” makes them “vicious karate experts” (talk about some culture confusion), and this is combined with the “sneaky ninja” clipart, all couched in nice evangelical language, they naturally assume that each of these racially loaded stereotypes is harmless and normative.  And were it not for the fact that I actually know the difference between Thailand and Japan, maybe this wouldn’t seem like a big deal.

But the problem goes deeper than geography: this cultural insensitivity is merely symptomatic of evangelicalism’s larger issues- namely, that it is domesticated within white America’s racialized view of Christianity, which apparently has no problem with the widespread orientalisms that mischaracterize diverse Asians and Asian-Americans as either martial arts masters, chinese food delivery boys, or exotic dragon ladies.  As others have already noted, this whole thing is like the Rickshaw Rally debacle all over again.

Thankfully, Angry Asian Man and Professor Soong-Chan Rah are already all over this.  But sadly, I can already hear Zondervan’s apologetic press release: “our focus group included orientals who took no offense at the kung fu images and themes… and by the way, we like sushi and have adopted asian babies.  Therefore, we understand diversity.”

The bottom line is that you KNOW this kind of racialized exploitation wouldn’t fly with some stereotypes of other ethnic groups (you know which ones I’m talking about), so why is it okay to mock the Asians?  Because we’re affluent, assimilated, and passive?  I don’t actually know any martial arts, but if I happen to come across this book display somewhere, I’m going kung-fu crazy on its ass, right on the spot.

Even though we didn’t let him eat any of the candy, Jonas really enjoyed his first Halloween trick-or-treating experience.  How often do you get to wear a turtle suit and walk around collecting free candy?

Chris is both mom and Mandarin tutor, and here she’s going through Jonas’ growing vocabulary, which mostly includes family members, animals, and vehicles at this point.  You know, just the important stuff.

We hit the streets of the Columbia City business district first, and every block was packed with people, including many of the usual suspects: cute kids, hipster parents, and several of our friends and neighbors from the ‘hood.

Afterwards, we met up with Jonas’ new friend and neighbor, who also speaks Mandarin!  Kids these days… adorable and bilingual!  Remarkable.

It’s interesting to me that in a place as “progressive” and “free-thinking” as Seattle, there is still a considerable amount of controversy and indecision over Washington State’s Referendum 71, which would re-confirm the expansion of domestic partnership rights to equal those of marriage.

You know you’ve caught the nation’s attention when Colbert Nation starts making fun of Washington state.  Though predictable in his sarcasm, Colbert is hilarious, and in the spirit of the Daily Show, his observations are both comedic and cutting.  This is news satire at its best.

In a random conversation the other day, someone asked me if there was a “Christian way to vote” on Referendum 71.  I responded with something that was surely confusing, but I more or less said “no, but yes.”  No, there’s not a singularly definitive way that either scripture, historic orthodoxy, or the traditions of the church could say with absolute certainty that “this is a clear cut Christian understanding of Referendum 71.”  Is anything in Christianity that binary?

But the answer is also “yes,” in that Christianity should and does in fact inform our understanding of the complex ethics involved with legislation, sexuality, and justice.  And though there is always a personal and communal act of discernment in that process, I also think that there are some fundamentally Christian considerations that should shape our understanding as we seek to “engage the culture” as (hopefully) thoughtful, gracious, compassionate people.

First, Christians need to table their assumptions that we live in a theologically-oriented culture.  Propositions about God, sin, the bible, and so on have no weight or relevance in a pluralistic, post-Christendom society (and that’s mostly the Church’s own fault by the way).  This doesn’t mean that Christians should abandon all attempts to “vote their values,” but it does mean that Christians need to learn to translate their values into a language that is actually meaningful in a post-Christian culture.  Learning to develop a constructive, conciliatory lexicon for meaningful cultural engagement is so basic, but so crucial.  We hardly ever get there.

Second, once people are equipped to actually engage in civil discourse, Christians are desperately in need of a more robust and nuanced theology of sexual identity, and perhaps more importantly, sexual ethics.  Does granting basic civil rights to domestic partnerships really damage a societal institution like marriage, or does it merely offend the theological sensibilities of traditionalists?  Do the benefits afforded to marginalized people groups (LGBTs, seniors, etc.) actually have positive implications, and could it be construed as a reflection of our cultural priorities to grant equality in basic privileges like filing joint tax returns, sharing insurance policies, and allowing hospital visitation?

At a very basic level, we also need to ask who “owns” the definition of “marriage.”  In a society governed by constitutional separation of church and state, and one that further grants marriages legal status through the recognition of state governments, is the church “within its rights” to stake a claim on defining marriage?  These are complex questions, and they deserve thoughtful consideration and constructive conversations, not polarizing mischaracterizations of conservatives and liberals.