Kristin Chenoweth made a huge impression as the ditzy girlfriend, Lily St. Regis, in the Disney version of Annie. She was absolutely fantastic. I can still hear her screeching, “But I ain’t the motherin’ type!”
Who knew that she’s a Christian, that bird so rare in New York City that it must be profiled in the Times? Well, she is and she’s peeved gays and Christians alike. She dares to be pro-Jesus and pro-Gay Marriage at the same time. It’s like she’s a Freak Show exhibit in the otherwise “normal”, sophisticated and gay Broadway Circus.
Am I overly sensitive? Or does it feel like the New York Times is racist Grandma at the dinner table, “We know this really great singer and dancer and actress but she’s” (pause for effect, loud conspiratorial whisper) ”CHRISTIAN.” [The table collectively gasps, scandalized.] Andrew Sullivan thinks Christianists are the new threat to humanity. Well, I think Christianism is the new, politically correct discrimination. Of course, antisemitism never goes out of style.
Kristin Chenoweth is also Aaron Sorkin’s ex-girlfriend and the obvious model for Harriet on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.
I don’t think you’re overly sensitive. The people that write for that publication live very isolated lives, as far as I can tell. Convervatives tend to not share religous or political beliefs with others, while we all know liberals love to spread their progressive religion. So, while it’s likely they know more conservatives than they think they do, they don’t really know them.
If you know what I mean.
Pro-Jesus and pro-Gay Marriage?
Reminds me of a Futurama quote: “There are some parts of the Bible I like and some parts of the Bible I DON’T like!” -from gay Noah’s ark
Though I suppose if you are pro-privatizing marriage, I guess the two can go hand in hand.
The sad fact is that the Left is largely ignorant of Christianity–and, indeed, Judaism–and has no idea of how very ‘liberal’ people of religion can be. They should really get out more.
It’s an easy choice for the Best People to make, you know.
Christianists generally support George Bush. So that’s a big point in favor of dissing them right there.
A bigger plus? Bust on a Christianist and right away they turn the other cheek. A muslim, now, well, he’ll just cut your head off over a cartoon.
It’s all about outcomes.
There you go.
My post isn’t about the rationality of her competing beliefs. That’s another topic altogether.
I was more amused by the tone of the piece: We can’t believe a really great artist is a crazy Jesus-believer, too! Those things never go together.
I was more impressed with the grace and introspection she showed in dealing with the Unhappy Lesbian set:
That must be some jump shot she has there.
Bingo. Nicely put, BTW.
Most pseudoLeftist discussions of social matters these days need only a trifle of search and replace to convert them into something eerily reminiscent of front-porch conversations over Lone Star beer (in steel cans, requiring an opener) circa, say, 1960, in my neck of the woods. This one is no exception.
They are basing insults and denigration (!) on a dismissive stereotype, the essence of bigotry. I’m not really sorry to say I mostly don’t find it very amusing. Nostalgic in a sad and depressing sort of way, rather.
I’ve been trying to call them on it. Since I don’t get much backup, perhaps I’m wrong.
Regards,
Ric
tw: appeared58. Yeah, that’d be about contemporary.
Ric, you’re dead right. It’s just that this is the correct type of bigotry, and it is held by the popular and important people in Ms. Chenoweth’s profession and in the world that the New York Times’ editors and publishers move.
This isn’t bigotry in their minds because bigotry comes from ignorance, and they are not ignorant. They all know (see “groupthink”) that Christians who actually assert their religion are just one box of Ohio Blue Tips away from burning a cross and going after blacks, gays, and Jews with tar, feathers and rope.
Because everybody knows that devout Christians are all a combination of Elmer Gantry and Bull Connor it is not bigotry to look down on them. Unless those Christians hold the same economic and political views they do, such as an Episcopal bishop, in which case it is perfectly fine for them to speak of Jesus.
Of course, they are wrong and ignorant, and even though you won’t see them ever publicly admit that, keep on with it, Ric.
I had a chance to study the 1960 movie “Inherit the Wind” for a class that I was teaching on media history (alright, it was a Sunday School class but let’s not bring the hate!) I compared the scenes in the movie to the first person historical accounts of the Scopes trial. The movie clearly presented Christians as way loonier than the actual people who lived through that time. The filmmaker’s desire (despite a laughable beginning segment that asked the audience to “decide for yourselves.”) was to portray any and all Christians involved in Scopes as cartoonish, screeching idealogues. The truth, of course, was far more nuanced.
I believe that this film was the real beginning of the popular media’s very public campaign to marginalize people of faith, especially Christians. That’s not to say that there aren’t “crazy Christians” out there (thank you, Sorkin) but they represent such a tiny minority of the mass that the picture painted of Evangelicals or Fundamentalists or Traditional Catholics or choose-your-label has reached Dali like proportions.
I have been to youth retreats, Promise Keepers and religious conferences of all shapes and sizes. While the faith based ritualistic aspects get all of the press (because pictures of people with their eyes closes, hainds raised and swaying are scary,) the vast majority of people I’ve met are educated, intellegent and struggling to understand their faith and their place in the world. In other words, they are just people!
While I know that actus would like to see religion relegated to “entertainment” and Ardsgaine thinks faith is “unreason” and Christians are responsible for the world wide peace movement, most of us religious types seek knowledge, love a good debate and are surprisingly unjudgmental. We do, however, harbor a sort of resigned resentment to the media and others constantly carping at “clueless, bible thumping middle Americans” as the cause of most intolerance and ignorance in the world. We can expect to be compared to jihadists (remember Rosie?) or denigrated as myth mongers for even attempting to debate Creationism and Evolution (notice I wrote debate not impose!)
There are a lot of people out there in the academic and entertainment fields who delibrately hide their faith due to the stigma that is attached to its presentation. Many, like me, are tired of the on going perception that religious faith equals ignorance. I look around the world from Global Warming to Religion of Peace to Corporations are Evil and plainly see that “unreasonable faith” is not, as ric pointed out, the sole providence of the religiously faithful.
Hey, what about all those Krazy Kristian artists in all media that have worked in the last 1000 years? They mean nothing? Absurd.
I don’t know: She kinda seems like one of those “If you believe in everything, you’ll fall for anything” types to me. She is cute though.
I’d say you are being a tad overly sensitive, Melissa, because, except toward the editor’s choice of headline, there ain’t no “there” there. They didn’t choose her as a subject simply because of her religious convictions (which, actually, you’d be hard-pressed to find in the accompanying text). The article itself barely skirts her Christianity (“a collection of Christian power pop.”); instead chronicling a performer’s trajectory. Nothing I could pick from the article itself dealt with her faith. Hell, other than the “higher power” crap even touched on it.
It was an evenhanded article about a current Broadway star, nothing more. She says in the piece that, if she had it to do over, she wouldn’t have done “700 Club,” because–at least to this reader’s interpretation–Robertson’s Jesus ain’t her Jesus.
Yes, the headline can be readily perceived as “Imagine! There’s One in Our Club!” But in toto it’s just another fawning piece of “Arts & Leisure” section filler… in a word: pap. The author didn’t dwell on her religious convictions, so damning the entire pub for the sins of the headline editor is too quick to the “umbrage!” trigger.
Nothing to see here; move along.
TC,
Can you imagine this headline: She dances! She sings! She sleeps with women!
I mean, come on. While she has a great career and the article covers it, the metamessage is that it’s remarkable that a Jesus-lover 1) has talent and 2) actually exists in the New York milieu. She is remarkable (to the NY crowd) because she busts the supposed stereotype of close-minded, bigoted, no-talent Bible beaters.
Nevermind that few Christians fall into their narrow view. The vast majority of the U.S. population views themselves as Christian. They are, just by sheer numbers, a huge and therefore, diverse group–far more diverse than the insulular, lock-step NY crowd. And what is the portrayal of Christians in the U.S.? Actually, can you even find a portrayal?
Sure. Elmer Gantry, by Sinclair Lewis. The intelligentsia’s (and all of the little intellectualista wanna-bes) haven’t changed their opinion about Christians, especilly evangelical Christians, in a century: Small-minded, provincial, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, vicious, petty tyrants over the minds and souls of others.
It was always amazing when one of my philosophy professors (talk about a group out of touch with Christianity) found out I was a devout Catholic (one step worse than a Christian in most circles!). They just couldn’t believe an “A” student was a believer.
OK, Michelle, you just go right ahead and point out where in that article–not the headline–your thesis exists
You want an “I mean, come on!” moment? It’s you sputtering that “metamessage” crap.
“it’s remarkable that a Jesus-lover 1) has talent and 2) actually exists in the New York milieu. She is remarkable (to the NY crowd) because she busts the supposed stereotype of close-minded, bigoted, no-talent Bible beaters.”
WHERE? WHERE IN THE ARTICLE IS THAT EVER EVINCED?
Toots (pardon; I need to get snide), you’re just making stuff up. If you knew NYC, I might–might!–cut you a smidgen of slack for that kind of bigoted smack. I feel you wouldn’t recognize the heart of the Apple until and unless it bit you. But lemme tell you: Manhattan AIN’T THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
Here’s a ghoulish little exercise:
1)”How many FDNY/NYPD guys who died 9-11-01 were residents of Manhattan?”
2)”How many funerals you attended?”
Pretty much none, I believe, on your part, Mellissa.
So don’t tell me you got anything figured out.
Anyway…
As Jeff has written right here on this site (to wildly paraphrase): “who are YOU to try to interpret what is plainly stated? Why should I believe your twisting of the text to fit your polemic?”
The article’s writer barely mentioned her religion; the headline contained your entire rant’s launching pad.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
TC,
Be obtuse if you must. Name call, if you like. The article praised her, that’s literally true. But the whole thing smacked of a backhanded compliment:
She’s great, for a Christian.
It reminds me of the statements about some blacks, LaShawn Barber has talked about this, “She’s so articulate.” The implication, of course, is that most black people are inarticulate.
Just like most Christians are uncreative rubes.
I’ll grant you, it’s subtle. But the stereotype is pervasive and it’s annoying–especially coming from so-called multiculturalists who are anything but.
Melissa, do you think the article might have read in a similar way if she was Jewish or a non-exploding type Muslim?
Maybe the half-baked welding of themes in the piece has less to do with Christianity per se than it does an awkwardness with religion in general.
I see it differently.
I see it as the NY Times touting her as THEIR kind of Christian (if of course you MUST be one).
One that:
a) Trashes the 700 Club
b) Supports Gay Marriage.
Essentially they are holding her up as the Christian and other Christians (if you MUST be one) should be emulating.
In other words, it’s typical NY Times garbage:
Propaganda wrapped up as a news story.
Again I would ask, Ms.Subtlety, point out to us unwashed proles where where we are supposed look to glean this, in your mind’s light, obvious anti-Christian indictment, in the article’s actual text.
Bark at the moon to your voice’s hoarseness, but the sin is not committed, unless feverishly read from spaces ‘between the lines.’ Where, other than the headline, where do you base your thesis?”
And I, fairly, cannot be considered to have resorted to “name calling” in my previous entry. After all, I’d resisted just typing “you’re a brainless schmuck” as my original retort.
I thought this was the idea behind Sullivan’s usage of ‘Christianist’ and ‘Christianism’, to distinguish between a political movement using Christian symbolism, a-la Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family, and people like Kristin Chenoweth who are simply religious.
I doubt therefore Sullivan would call Chenoweth a Christianist.
Pat Roberson may be a Christian and a Christianist.
Orthodox Islam is a political movement, so I don’t use the term ‘Islamist’.
Ah yes, that sort of restraint was quite popular back in kindergarten.
Thank-you for bringing back the memories, but why not put the papier mache bazooka down and give Melissa the apology you so clearly owe her?
Why not use your real name, potzer? Also, explain what, in your fever dream, I need to apologize for.
Currently, you… mookie, are the only one my hand has officially insulted. Go get the boss of this joint and deconstruct everything I’ve scribbled and I dare you to find where I committed some sort of verbiage crime that requires a kowtow.
Take a pill, sparky, yer scarin’ the neighbors…
TC:
Yeah blah blah blah I insulted inside guy very sorry yawn.
All I’m saying is judging by this thread you’ve been unfair to Melissa.
If you’ve got some sort of inside deal where it’s the height of cool to be a dickhead to someone acting reasonable, fair enough–I’m outside the loop and sincerely apologize.
p.s. Please don’t tel Massa’ Jeff I dun fukked up.
Themi?
A) You’re incoherent;
B) If “regular reader” qualifies as “inside guy,” well then! You are not a blithering git!
C) I’m STILL waiting for someone to show me The Road to Apologia I’m supposed to follow to get on the good side of these washmwomen’s dresses that I seem to have gotten a-knickered.
Mel Gibson? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Jim & Tammy Faye? Those are the faces of Christianity a lot of otherwise disinterested citizens see. “Bigoted”, “close-minded”, “hypocritical”, “idiots & assholes”, all those terms spring to mind. They’re certainly not representative of Christians in general, but with them in our faces you certainly can’t complain if some folks think they are representative.
Swen,
I agree about the faces of Christianity. Most of those disinterested citizens you speak of would still identify themselves as Christian.
When the Colorado church guy got yanked out of the closet, for everyone in my church it was: Who? But that’s just the point. Churches and the people who go to them aren’t this monolithic organism. And Jim and Tammy Faye were scoffed at by the Christian masses, too.
I should have been more specific. Outside of 7th Heaven and Touched by An Angel, which are overtly religious themed shows, there are no stereo-type busting Christians in TV (not that I watch much). They are either shrill, insufferable church ladies or hypocrites.
Most people who call themselves Christian are average people doing the best they can and struggling to find their way like anyone else.
Scape-Goat,
I got that, too. So, if she had not apologized for going on the 700 club or whatever, would she be in the loving embrace of the NYTs? No.
Thermistocles,
If she were Muslim, the article would have been even more effusive. The author would have gone one step further and waxed elephant about the “religion of peace” and how Islam frees women.
Even more effusive? I thought you were dismayed it wasn’t effusive enough about Christianity in the first place.
When you say a Muslim angle on the article would’ve talked about about Islam “freeing” women I respectfully disagree.
Granted there may be mainstream apologists for the constraints the religion places on women, but I seriously doubt any contend it liberates them.
Please cite if I’m mistaken.
Per your answer to SWEN:
But you seem to be drawing your ideas from this. In your scribble, you show that you baldfaced lie in a twisted attempt to make your point.
(HOW does one who “not that I watch much” so closely knows the TV scene?)
C’mon… you never watched “NUMB3RS”?
Yeah! They sure ain’t buying or selling your snake oil, Toots. And they’d probably bet against your–and LaShawn Barber’s–pinched version of God’s Son–as the idea of salvation.
Really, you responded to me! Right there, all alone, tells me you had not faith in your initial entry. What other excuse drew you so fast to defend your tenuous stance?
TV: Did you sleep on a barbed wire rack, gargle with Drano and give yourself a Clorox bleach enema? Why all the hate there Festus? Melissa may have insulted your sensabilities by her spin on the NYT story but she most certainly did not insult you. Which means that the following was uncalled for:
Whoa, dude! Why is it so personal? She doesn’t agree with your interpretation so you essentially call her a moron and clueless. When Them tries to rein you in, you turn on him like a wounded badger. Why all the hate? We’re just talkin’ here abouts.
You’ve shown your arrogance defending your “definitive” interpretation by becoming insulting! How dare melissa not agree with your enlightened view of the NYT piece. She should be verbally flogged for her disrespect of her better. Puh – leese.
Finally, the 9/11 comments are so off base as to be orbiting Uranus. Who granted you holy dispensation to judge others’ opinions of Manhattan or New York City in general. Until the day that the great High Poobah of Debate declares you King of All Discourse Bottom Line you get to make your argument like everybody else.
BTW: in case you’d like to turn on me with the 9/11 bullshit I lost 2 of my oldest friends on 9/11, which doesn’t make me any more qualified to comment than you or Nyuck Nyuck, the Intuit in Alaska.
Now because the subtle difference between passionate debate and puerile name calling is beyond the grasp of your imagination, let me help: The following is a bald faced personal insult: You Are A Dickhead!