Recently, I participated in a discussion of T.S. Eliot’s “Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” Amid our close reading, hesitant commentary, and prolonged silences, one of my peers interjected, “This is ridiculous. I don’t see any point to studying this!” Although such a statement struck the soul of this student of literature, it is nevertheless understandable. Despite the difficulty, however, poetry edifies our lives without our knowing such minutia as the difference between metaphor and metonymy. Even for the amateur reader, poetry bestows at least three palpable benefits.

First, poetry breaks us out of our linguistic ruts. This last term I had the chance to assist in a Shakespeare seminar. I was fascinated by the ways in which the students’ writing and speech changed over the course of the semester. It did not necessarily become better or worse, but there was a palpable difference. This is important because in a world wherein functionality and efficiency often dictate our actions, it helps to encounter new ways of thinking and speaking about ideas. For example, instead of asking the pressing question, “why do emo kids wear black?” ask, “wherefore this nighted color?” The latter is clearly an exaggeration; nevertheless, yet enhancing the expression expands our perspective.

In addition, poetry can make us speak more precisely. The ability to express complex ideas with elegance and exactitude is a mark of good poetry. In doing so, we become more intentional. For example, there is Eliot’s commentary on the Christian life, “a condition of complete simplicity costing not less than everything.” Good poetry like this is possessed of inevitability, wherein every element seems to fit exactly the way it should. In reading it, we can learn be intentional with our words as well. Language is a gift, words have real meaning and power, and we who speak should learn to use them well. By reading poetry’s novel expressions, its nuance and concern for precision, we cultivate the habit of carefully considering our words. The benefits of such a habit seem obvious if we consider the outcome of being able to more perfectly communicate in areas of life like prayer, relationships, and work environments.

 Finally, poetry shows us that we can create beauty in our speech. With something as regular as speaking, we have an opportunity to frequently experience something lovely if we but learn the skill. We should learn from Vaughan, who saw eternity “like a great ring of pure and endless light,” stand with Frost in woods “lovely, dark, and deep,” or contemplate with Dante “the love that moves the sun and the furthest stars.” Reading and hearing poetry teaches us how different sequences of words produce an effect, and how to wield the unique gift of language to create beauty.

Poetry provides us proximity with something sublime, a loveliness of language that cannot help but make us lovelier, if only we have the temerity to be transformed.

The news media treats the family as though it were an obstacle to political success.  Attentive readers well know that the recent affairs of Attorney General Spitzer, Senator Ensign, and Governor Mark Sanford have been assessed primarily with regard to the negative ramifications of the sex act on the offending party’s political career.   Take the coverage of Governor Mark Sanford.  According to the news, Gov. Sanford has disgraced his party by committing adultery.

In a widely e-mailed column from the New York Times, liberal Gail Collins advised Gov. Sanford on behalf of “us all” that his problem was not his womanizing but his failure to leave a contact phone number so that “we” could reach him.  She followed that tasteless advice by suggesting that “perhaps the party has been too strict about the no-girlfriends-while-running-for-president rule. If they don’t drop it, pretty soon the youngest contender will be 75.”  Notice, Sanford’s error is not familial, not one of breaking the marital covenant, but political. If the Republicans would only cast aside their outdated expectations of fidelity within the family, their political problems would be solved.  Evidently, Ms. Collins assumes that we the voters do not care about the integrity of the family unit.

On the same day that Ms. Collins balked at the notion that Republicans ought to insist on fidelity and integrity within the family, the New York Times also ran a story about the tragic destruction of the family unit in Africa.  As many as 50 million children are orphaned as a result of disease or warfare in Africa.  Their problem is the same as ours: the disintegration of the family. These children are left without the care and support families provide, and thus are malnourished and unprotected.  Evidently, we are to care about the integrity of the family unit after all.

It might seem like I am comparing apples and oranges here.  After all, one story is talking about abuses of power by people in office while the other story is talking about tragedy resulting from uncontrollable disease and warfare.  However, to argue this only proves my point – the news has conflicting ideas about the importance of the family.  As the Times demonstrates, it’s easy to care about the problem of families in Africa while choosing to be flippant about the problems of the family unit at home.  Regardless of how the family disintegrates, a society without its fundamental building block is in dire straits – see Africa as exhibit A.  It’s time the news industry helped its buyers see how the problems of Sanford and Africa are related.

Vampires have always represented the dark side of sexuality. Their unending lust for blood parallels the human lust for flesh that, if unchecked by the confines of marriage, can be radically self-destructive. In the Twilight books, specifically beginning in New Moon, Bella is eager to engage in the most intimate expression of love with her soul-mate, Edward. But Edward is a true gentlemen, raised in an age long past, and refuses to have sex with Bella until they are married. One of his primary motivations, aside from his traditional upbringing, is the fact that he has taken human life in the past. He now feels that chastity is his last virtue. This highlights the fact that sexual purity is not only a virtue, but a virtue on par with refraining from murder. Edward Cullen is one of only a few role models who takes sexual purity seriously, and who actually embodies it in an attractive manner.

This is not to say the books are without fault. Despite the fact that Edward spends three and a half books trying to convince Bella not to become a vampire, she is turned anyway. And both she and the reader are glad of it. We are meant to envy the power, beauty and perpetual youth of these creatures. From the very beginning of the saga it is clear that these are not the monsters of classic lore, but heroes (despite Edward’s protests to the contrary). These vampires lack nothing that would make them envy normal human beings. Bella herself becomes even more beautiful and graceful than she was as a human. She is not affected by the problems normally associated with “newborn” vampires. In the Twilight universe, it would be folly for Bella to remain human.

Is this a good thing? Our culture idealizes unrealistic standards of beauty. A vampire bite may not be quite the same as plastic surgery, but the message is the same. And the vampires’ ability to live forever as teenagers reinforces the idealization of youth. Age-wrought wisdom is rarely sought after in our culture.

Still, these problems may not be so great. For example, the fact that even the evil vampires are beautiful suggests that outward beauty isn’t everything. Additionally, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, the desire to be immortal may actually be a strong intuitive apologetic for Christianity. These books will inevitably create a desire to cheat death. But as Christians, we believe that we have defeated death through Christ’s death and resurrection. Finally, even though Edward and Bella will be teenagers forever, they will continue to grow and learn. While Edward is a perpetual teenager on the outside, he is almost a century old on the inside, and his character often demonstrates the maturity that comes with age (as with, for example, his strong sexual ethic that we have already mentioned).

The Twilight saga embeds these elements in a powerful, dramatic narrative that captures the imagination. It’s no wonder, then, that they would meet with such success in a culture so deeply rooted in Western Christianity.

Finally we have a President that wants to actually protect wellness of citizens and immigrants. I am pleased to see your progress towards nationalized health care despite harsh criticism. Much of this criticism noticeably concerns money. What kind of person would put money above life?

You and I know that no one should have to die.

Yet even aside from that, money does not need to be a point of contention. There is a simple solution: Make us live in a healthier way through regulation and necessary coercion. Or, to put it in PR terms, ‘encourage’ wholesome living through ‘health standards’.

I was ecstatic to see the measures that you recently took with tobacco regulation. What a superb beginning for achieving a healthier America.

I suggest you now focus on caffeine. Think of it—young American children guzzle more espresso shots every year than they are (literally) able to count. Caffeine is always masked by syrups that entice our children. Greedy corporations like Starbucks, Peet’s, Monster, Red Bull, etc., need to be held accountable. American teenagers gain caffeine dependency before armpit hair. And it does not end there. These teenagers will become adults with stunted growth, arrhythmias, attention disorders, restless leg syndrome, and a variety of cancers all because of their caffeine intake. A university study has proven it.

As disastrous as I believe President Obama’s domestic policy to be, it pales when compared to his foreign policy with regard to the “elections” in Iran; a foreign policy that would be generously described as tepid, insincere, passionless, or even disinterested. 

Let me be clear: with regard to the sham elections and the violent fallout that has arisen as a result, the position of the Leader of the Free World should be a full-throated denouncing of the criminal tactics of Ahmadenijad and his ilk, and unwavering support of the protestors and a call for outside, neutral investigations and recount. 

Perhaps President Obama is simply nervous about inserting the full power of the US government into delicate and difficult circumstances.  Still, he has felt no compunction about telling Israel how it should handle the delicate situation in Gaza.  As we are some of Israel’s last allies, a scolding from our Commander-in-Chief is hardly the kind of support a nation under almost constant terrorist attack needs.  And his domestic policy would certainly suggest that there is little he believes the US government is unable to fix.  But that is for another post.

Yet for all of this, somehow the best we can manage when the democratic process is ignored in a state already on the edge of an international confrontation for its nuclear program, combined with its rampant anti-Semitism, and it’s support of multiple terrorist organizations, is this, “It is not productive, given the history of US and Iranian relations to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections.”

It remains unclear how stating that injustice is being done to an entire populace is “meddling” and apparently even President Obama’s own administration finds his inarticulate defense of free and fair elections to be less than appropriate.  While I recognize that care is necessary when dealing with the internal politics of any other nation, especially a nation such as Iran, I think it is ridiculous that any President would feel the need to tip-toe around publically denouncing the killing of political protestors, or the violent repression of a free election.  It is not redundant to state publically what we are for, and what we oppose, especially in a case such as this.  For the people of Iran, the powers that be all seem to have conspired against them; why should we flinch from demonstrating how different we are?

Perhaps we could forgive Mr. Obama; after all, this is only the second time in less than a year that the cause of freedom and liberty have been challenged while he had access to the largest microphone in the civilized world.  Or, perhaps the President is simply not comfortable being the spokesman for Freedom, Justice, and Liberty.  One begins to wonder exactly which basic principles of our society, if any, he is comfortable promoting.

First, it’s redundant.  Is there any doubt that anyone in Iran (much less, the world) knows whose side the Americans are on in this conflict?  A diverse population, young and old, rich and poor, clergy and laity, Persian and Arab, male and female, are uniting in peaceful protest in the streets of Iran’s major cities, marching in silence against corruption and violence in their electoral system.  The protests echo the footsteps on US-80 to Montgomery, and earlier ones to the sea at Dandi.  It is a movement that is growing exponentially by the day, with almost 3 million people reported at rallies today to mourn those murdered by the Basij for participating.  Is there even a chance that the world might question, especially in light of recent clashes with Ahmadenijad, what outcome American leaders favor?

Second, it would undermine the movement.  The election wasn’t about American-Iranian relations.  The protests don’t even represent a massive ideological divide in the Iranian electorate.  As many commentators have observed, Mousavi’s policies aren’t dramatically dissimilar to those of Ahmadenijad.  This movement is about political legitimacy.  Iran is an illiberal democracy, a system with the trappings and functions of a democratic state but without the guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties necessary to maintain a true democracy.  The Guardian Council decides who may or may not run for office, but the Iranian people expect that the elections themselves will be legitimately decided by the voters.

This election was obviously and audaciously rigged.  The movement is a genuine, grassroots rejection of the results by the electorate.  Already, the Iranian government is attempting to prove that the U.S. and Israel are behind the protests, to discredit this as genuine outrage on behalf of the citizens of Iran.  We must not lend aid to that attempt at propaganda.  We must not cut the legs out from under our brothers and sisters who refuse to be silenced.  Our speech would silence them in their own country.

Third, it would endanger the protesters.  Ahmadenijad was elected by the skin of his teeth in 2005.  His popularity has declined as he failed to make good on any of his campaign promises.  The only popularity he seems able to retain in the electorate is what he gets from being an outspoken opponent of the U.S.  The more we oppose him, the more powerful he gets.  Some analysts have even speculated that he would have no power at all in Iran if not for the Bush administration’s rhetoric.  The rhetoric was intended to call him out, but some argue that it merely gave him legitimacy within the country (especially since U.S. statements rarely distinguished Ahmadenijad from the rest of Iran).

If President Obama speaks out against Ahmadenijad and the Supreme Leader’s decision to ignore the will of the people, he will only help those in power cling to it more desperately.  It could allow the government to become more brutal in its attempts to suppress the protests, casting the violence in the language of struggle against U.S. imperialism.  We must protect those who are willing to lay down their lives for freedom.  Sometimes that means not saying things that make us feel better about ourselves.

What can we do instead?  This is a time for the people of America to act on behalf of their leaders.  If you’re not on twitter, sign up here. Follow #iranelection or #gr88 to find out what’s going on.  Change your location to Tehran and your time zone to GMT +3.30 to help confuse Iranian authorities who are trying to arrest protesters.  Visit this Guide to the Cyberwar site for more information on how to help (and not accidentally hurt) the Iranians’ fight for freedom.

And pray.  As our own Rachel Motte so elegantly said, the sons of Isaac pray for the sons of Ishmael, for we all come from the same father.

In What’s so Great about Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza tries to answer these and other popular secular works with an accurate and objective description of Christianity, its history, its role in Western culture, and its relevance to modern readers.  His book isn’t perfect - one simply cannot do all this well in only three hundred pages - but it is nonetheless a useful tool for both Christians and secularists.

D’Souza, a former White House domestic policy analyst and author of five New York Times bestsellers, presents a detailed and easy-to-read description of the ways in which Christianity has been and will continue to be integral to the development of the West.  He aims to describe Christianity in a way that is accessible to even the most secular audience, and he largely succeeds.  His descriptions of Christian traditions and beliefs are easily accessible and mostly accurate.  He doesn’t take Christianity for granted, but tries to examine its claims objectively.  If atheists don’t feel like they’ve been treated fairly when they read this book, they can’t blame D’Souza.

D’Souza’s work is useful not only for curious atheists but also for Christians who want to brush up on their apologetics skills.  Of particularly interest are the sections in which he debunks popular historical myths that cast Christianity in a negative light.

D’Souza offers a very hopeful view of the future of Christianity, arguing that secularism is quickly waning, and that Christianity will eventually enjoy a wide-spread societal triumph. The United States, he argues, is at the forefront of modernity, and should thus be the most secular nation in the Western world.  Instead, he says, it is the most religious Western nation, and traditional churches are growing as liberal denominations shrink.  Since Europe generally mimics the US over time, even the most secular European nations will eventually follow our lead.  While not everyone will agree with the details of his optimistic analysis, he is right to assert that the Church will never die out.

The book, as I said, is not perfect.  It is only a little over three hundred pages long, so it is understandably simplistic in parts and all-to-brief in others.  This is inevitable; however, it is regrettable that the author did not take more time to explain certain points of view that differ from his own.  This is particularly true in the science sections of the book, where his own pro-evolution views dominate the discussion more than in any other place in the text.  The Church is a big place, and Christians are a varied lot.  We disagree with each other on many issues, and science is no exception.  D’Souza is entitled to his own views, but in this book there is some danger that readers will mistakenly think his views represent those of the Church at large.

While no one book (besides the Bible!) can adequately bridge the gap between Christians and atheists, D’Souza’s book is a useful starting place for productive dialogue - the sort of dialogue in which neither side has it too easy.

The shock many Christians reveal upon meeting lifelong celibates largely because we have assumed, along with the world around us, that the most important aspect of life is sex. We attempt to Christianize this warped idea by maintaining that sex is meant for marriage, but do not challenge the underlying assumptions concerning the place of sex in the life of a human being. Slapping a ‘wait until marriage’ sticker on sexual behavior is hardly a robust Christian response to the complexities of human sexuality

This impoverished view of sexuality damages our Christian singles. Many Christian girls are taught two things about marriage: first, that they should only marry Christian men, and second, that they will eventually marry. It is a very rare church that presents lifelong celibacy as an option. Yet women outnumber men in the Western church by a significant margin, making it statistically impossible for all Christian women to marry the sort of men they were raised to find. Christian singles are left wondering whether something is wrong with them, and feeling as though they are cut off from the full Christian life. Bitterness and despair are a constant danger for singles unless a robust Christian understanding of sexuality is embraced.

Too many people assume that someone who does not marry is either struggling with a sexual problem, or is something of a sexless being. Simply because one does not have sex does not mean that one is not a sexual being: a woman is still very much a woman, even if she never experiences intercourse with a man. A man is still a man whether he ever sleeps with a woman or not.

Lifelong celibacy has long been a important part of Christianity. There are many stories of virgin martyrs from the Roman persecutions, and the practice of lifelong virginity has never been limited to monasteries and convents. One of the great of Christian writers, Saint Augustine, devoted an entire book to the subject. His excellent work On Holy Virginity can be found in several print editions, and online here.

The 1954 papal encyclical Sacra Virginitas sets forward a very clear vision of Christian celibacy. Though not an authoritative source for all Christians, it is a concise portrayal of Christian celibacy:

We take up this way of life precisely to be able to devote ourselves more freely to divine things to attain heaven more surely, and with skillful efforts to lead others more readily to the kingdom of heaven. Those therefore, who do not marry because of exaggerated self-interest, or because, as Augustine says, they shun the burdens of marriage or because like Pharisees they proudly flaunt their physical integrity, an attitude which has been condemned by the Council of Gangra lest men and women renounce marriage as though it were something despicable instead of because virginity is something beautiful and holy, — none of these can claim for themselves the honor of Christian virginity. … This then is the primary purpose, this the central idea of Christian virginity: to aim only at the divine, to turn thereto the whole mind and soul; to want to please God in everything, to think of Him continually, to consecrate body and soul completely to Him.”

This view of Christian celibacy holds true whether one is single by choice or by circumstance; even those who are single by circumstance can devote that singleness “to the kingdom.” Singleness, approached in a truly Christian way, is not a negation or a privation, but a positive good. The Christian single is an icon of the Church as she waits for Christ the Bridgegroom in purity, just as the married couple are an icon of the Church united with Christ.

Christian singles need the respect of their married Christian brothers and sisters. They are not children, nor are they permanent babysitters. While it is good to see older couples take young married couples under their wings, it is regrettable that few people take the time to help young singles, who need just as much guidance in the early years of adulthood.

Singles understand that there are things about love and relationships that they will never experience first-hand. If singleness is a positive vision, and not a privation, then singles need full integration into the Christian community to be fully human–and the Christian community needs the full integration of singles to be a truly Christian community.

In fact, until the election, hopes were high that this could be one such moment.

Khatami, hero of the young reformers, announced his bid for the presidency in February.  In March, partly due to opposition from authorities and partly due to his belief that long-time friend and fellow reformist Mir-Houssein Mousavi stood a better chance of unseating Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, he stepped aside.

For a few weeks, it seemed Khatami made the winning move.  Mousavi trounced Ahmadenijad in the country’s first televised presidential debates.  The youth of Iran flocked to him, especially young voters in urban areas who thirst for change.  The streets were full of green-clad supporters, all rallying for Mousavi.  For a moment, I hoped that it could happen.

Then came yesterday’s “official” tally: Ahmadenijad won by 63% to Mousavi’s 34%.  Those in power didn’t even see fit to allow a run-off (as Iran’s system dictates when neither candidate takes more than a 50% majority in the first round).  It’s a blatant, arrogant attempt by Ahmadenijad and his fellow conservatives to maintain power.  It’s painfully obvious to the world… and to Mousavi’s supporters.  Only the next few days will tell if this could be the spark to ignite real change in Iran by the will of the people, or if this could, God forbid, turn into another Tiananmen Square.  Last night in Iran, Mousavi’s supporters burned tires and buildings, fought off riot police, and screamed for the world’s attention to call their masters to task.

What was the news media of the most powerful liberal democracy in the world doing at the time?

Fox News carried Mike Huckabee’s talk show.  His guests discussed Obama’s spending plan, and a few of them rapped badly (in form and substance) about current events.  CNN carried Campbell Brown’s talk show.  She hosted a debate on releasing Guantanamo Bay prisoners into the US and a round table discussion of whether Obama was effective, or merely popular.  MSNBC featured a documentary about human behavior that chronicled (but failed to analyze) the mass sexual assault committed during the Puerto Rican Parade in New York City in 2000, as well as a curious case of female convenience store robbers in Texas.  Headline News continued their gripping expose of the dangers of eating fast food.

The networks’ websites didn’t fare much better.  The two major news websites that carried the most detailed coverage of the Iranian elections were, of course, the BBC and, shockingly, the Huffington Post.

We no longer have a 24 hour news cycle.  We have 24 hour news programming.  Not one network broke into their prerecorded celebrity-hosted shows to report the alleged arrest of Mousavi and a number of other reformers.  Even their ever-present news tickers barely mentioned the controversy, only reporting the “official” results and vaguely mentioning unrest or protest.

Meanwhile, Iranians twittered the news.  Other sources verified the reports.  None of them, it seems, works for the self-proclaimed most reliable and immediate sources of news.  CNN even had the gall to run an ad for itself during Brown’s show, claiming to be the most immediate, relevant, reliable source of news.

We are in trouble.  If we don’t actively seek the news, it seems, we may find ourselves being amused to death, debating the importance of fans naming a poodle after Mike Huckabee or the spat between Sarah Palin and David Letterman, while fellow human beings who seek the freedoms these networks claim to promote are beaten in the streets for demanding that their votes be counted.  The question has long ceased to be “who’s watching the watchers?”  Now the question is “Who’s watching at all?”