Red Mosquito

Varis wrote:I like that Christianity and big fat J's aren't mutually exclusive, as some would have us believe. I am not particularly religious, as such, however I certainly have Faith (and I'm not just talking about the fact that I own the album by The Cure).

Part of my personal belief/faith system requires that I act when need warrants. Too many people sit on their hands in this world.

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I think the really clear emphasis here is also on engagement, even if he's mostly starting with religious stuff. The issue is not that religion is bad or stupid (Getaway, I agree is an overly simplistic anti-religious screed, and not that interesting as a result). It's a song about using the certainty that can come with religion, or the ways in which religion can offer you a theodicy that absolves you of responsibility to take action, that is the issue. And that is not an overly simplistic sentiment nor part of a standard anti-religious screed.

I know I am in the minority -- or, perhaps, singlehandedly am the minority -- of religious people on RM, so perhaps being on the bad end of Eddie's ranting has left me feeling a little sensitive, but as such I'm also pretty confident in saying that most religions (assuming he is talking about Christian religions, which -- judging from the picture of the rosary on the single artwork -- seems reasonable) simply don't do this. I can't think of any religion that teaches, "God has this under control, so feel free to sit back and do nothing while horror unfolds around you." To the contrary, this would be considered in many churches a "sin of omission," and really has nothing to do with the idea of "theodicy," a concept which "seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists." Believing that a reason for the presence of grave, unspeakable evil in the world may exist on a level that transcends our human understanding is not diametrically opposed to the idea of still being obligated to acting within our scope of human understanding to stop it, and I don't think many religions teach otherwise. So if this is Eddie's purpose with this song, then my original point that he conveniently disregards the finer points of the ideas he rails against simply because to acknowledge them would stand in the way of his precious outrage is right on. He takes "we could will it to the skies/or we could something else" and makes a false dichotomy out of it, when realistically most religions encourage if not demand that we do both.

Of course, I don't think what he's doing with this song is anywhere near that thoughtful. Mainly I think it's just a poorly executed rant against something that pisses him off -- specifically, institutional authority which dares propose external guidelines by which one might live one's life which don't happen to jibe with his own. Perhaps this is just the punk aesthetic. But I have no fondness for the punk aesthetic, and as a fifty-year old guy who has previously expressed similar sentiments with a great deal more tact, I think he comes off sounding -- as I said -- petulant and moronic.

Kevin, I don't always agree with your takes on songs, or whathaveyou, but I agree 100% with this post (well, all except the fact that I enjoy listening to MYM from time to time). I specifically agree with your takes on the Christian church's expectation for its followers to not only raise up prayers but to also take action. This truth is close to always ignored by the general public and even more so by those with a particular distaste for Christianity.

FYI, you are not he only religious person on RM. I may not be very active in my person faith at his point in my life, but I grew up in a strongly conservative Christian household. I was taught strong traditional moral values. I've spent 20+ years as an active church attender. I've even been the host of a home church. I've raised my kids to put faith in God and Jesus. I've struggled with my personal faith from a young age, but as a group, I've found the Christians that I know to be genuinely good people, that have shown more care and compassion to me than any other group of people. While the far left preach tolerance they seem to habitually omit Christians when applying their creed.

I'm thrilled to hear that this has been your experience. It has certainly not been mine.

That has been true for me. I know it clearly isn't that way for everyone. Obviously there are bad seeds, that is true for any large group of people. I don't blame the religion though, when bad people claim to be Christians or say they are just following God, and proceed to knowingly and willingly do things that hurt others for their personal gain, whatever that may be. To me, that person is just an asshole, and the religion has been raped by a person that never cared for it to begin with.

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:But I also don't think there's anything upsetting or pretentious or whatever about the lyrics to Off He Goes.

Neither do I.

However, and admitting I'd never given the lyrics a great deal of thought before now, I'm sympathetic to Kevin's view on Mind Your Manners.

Sure. I'm sympathetic insofar as Kevin Davis is a super intelligent and well spoken dude. So I take what he says very seriously and I try to empathize with his POV. Absolutely.

But listening to the song again and again over the last half hour, I just... simply... respectfully... disagree.

Doesn't mean what KD or PHAT or anyone else says isn't valid.

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I think the really clear emphasis here is also on engagement, even if he's mostly starting with religious stuff. The issue is not that religion is bad or stupid (Getaway, I agree is an overly simplistic anti-religious screed, and not that interesting as a result). It's a song about using the certainty that can come with religion, or the ways in which religion can offer you a theodicy that absolves you of responsibility to take action, that is the issue. And that is not an overly simplistic sentiment nor part of a standard anti-religious screed.

I know I am in the minority -- or, perhaps, singlehandedly am the minority -- of religious people on RM, so perhaps being on the bad end of Eddie's ranting has left me feeling a little sensitive, but as such I'm also pretty confident in saying that most religions (assuming he is talking about Christian religions, which -- judging from the picture of the rosary on the single artwork -- seems reasonable) simply don't do this. I can't think of any religion that teaches, "God has this under control, so feel free to sit back and do nothing while horror unfolds around you." To the contrary, this would be considered in many churches a "sin of omission," and really has nothing to do with the idea of "theodicy," a concept which "seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists." Believing that a reason for the presence of grave, unspeakable evil in the world may exist on a level that transcends our human understanding is not diametrically opposed to the idea of still being obligated to acting within our scope of human understanding to stop it, and I don't think many religions teach otherwise. So if this is Eddie's purpose with this song, then my original point that he conveniently disregards the finer points of the ideas he rails against simply because to acknowledge them would stand in the way of his precious outrage is right on. He takes "we could will it to the skies/or we could something else" and makes a false dichotomy out of it, when realistically most religions encourage if not demand that we do both.

Of course, I don't think what he's doing with this song is anywhere near that thoughtful. Mainly I think it's just a poorly executed rant against something that pisses him off -- specifically, institutional authority which dares propose external guidelines by which one might live one's life which don't happen to jibe with his own. Perhaps this is just the punk aesthetic. But I have no fondness for the punk aesthetic, and as a fifty-year old guy who has previously expressed similar sentiments with a great deal more tact, I think he comes off sounding -- as I said -- petulant and moronic.

Kevin, I don't always agree with your takes on songs, or whathaveyou, but I agree 100% with this post (well, all except the fact that I enjoy listening to MYM from time to time). I specifically agree with your takes on the Christian church's expectation for its followers to not only raise up prayers but to also take action. This truth is close to always ignored by the general public and even more so by those with a particular distaste for Christianity.

FYI, you are not he only religious person on RM. I may not be very active in my person faith at his point in my life, but I grew up in a strongly conservative Christian household. I was taught strong traditional moral values. I've spent 20+ years as an active church attender. I've even been the host of a home church. I've raised my kids to put faith in God and Jesus. I've struggled with my personal faith from a young age, but as a group, I've found the Christians that I know to be genuinely good people, that have shown more care and compassion to me than any other group of people. While the far left preach tolerance they seem to habitually omit Christians when applying their creed.

I'm thrilled to hear that this has been your experience. It has certainly not been mine.

That has been true for me. I know it clearly isn't that way for everyone. Obviously there are bad seeds, that is true for any large group of people. I don't blame the religion though, when bad people claim to be Christians or say they are just following God, and proceed to knowingly and willingly do things that hurt others for their personal gain, whatever that may be. To me, that person is just an asshole, and the religion has been raped by a person that never cared for it to begin with.

I totally get that. And it's probably more true than untrue. But it's been my experience as well that there are plenty of "respectable" Christians who are flat out dangerous. Also, there's something inherent in the religion that, again in my experience, let's folks off the hook -- or allows for a strong element (whether it's a misunderstanding or not) of 'welp, it's God's will.' It's easy to buck-pass and let-slide in that kind of construct.

Also, the Christians I know (and I grew up in fucking Kansas for crying out loud, so I know a TON -- myself included until age 18) tend to be the least pliable and most judgemental people I know. Again, that's a gross generalization. I know a lot that are loving and brilliant people, too (my best male friend on this planet is a great Christian who embodies all the things you're talking about and virtually NONE of the things I'm talking about). But the organized aspect of the religion has always felt terribly poisonous to me. And that's backed up by an overwhelming fear and ignorance (look no further than someone like Pat Robertson and his words about Yoga which I posted in the Strat/Yoga thread earlier today). But, again, that's not an absolute truth. Just one account of one person's overall experience.

I'm glad that your experience has been different. That gives me hope. That makes me feel like my experience outside the norm. And I hope that's true.

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I think the really clear emphasis here is also on engagement, even if he's mostly starting with religious stuff. The issue is not that religion is bad or stupid (Getaway, I agree is an overly simplistic anti-religious screed, and not that interesting as a result). It's a song about using the certainty that can come with religion, or the ways in which religion can offer you a theodicy that absolves you of responsibility to take action, that is the issue. And that is not an overly simplistic sentiment nor part of a standard anti-religious screed.

I know I am in the minority -- or, perhaps, singlehandedly am the minority -- of religious people on RM, so perhaps being on the bad end of Eddie's ranting has left me feeling a little sensitive, but as such I'm also pretty confident in saying that most religions (assuming he is talking about Christian religions, which -- judging from the picture of the rosary on the single artwork -- seems reasonable) simply don't do this. I can't think of any religion that teaches, "God has this under control, so feel free to sit back and do nothing while horror unfolds around you." To the contrary, this would be considered in many churches a "sin of omission," and really has nothing to do with the idea of "theodicy," a concept which "seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists." Believing that a reason for the presence of grave, unspeakable evil in the world may exist on a level that transcends our human understanding is not diametrically opposed to the idea of still being obligated to acting within our scope of human understanding to stop it, and I don't think many religions teach otherwise. So if this is Eddie's purpose with this song, then my original point that he conveniently disregards the finer points of the ideas he rails against simply because to acknowledge them would stand in the way of his precious outrage is right on. He takes "we could will it to the skies/or we could something else" and makes a false dichotomy out of it, when realistically most religions encourage if not demand that we do both.

Of course, I don't think what he's doing with this song is anywhere near that thoughtful. Mainly I think it's just a poorly executed rant against something that pisses him off -- specifically, institutional authority which dares propose external guidelines by which one might live one's life which don't happen to jibe with his own. Perhaps this is just the punk aesthetic. But I have no fondness for the punk aesthetic, and as a fifty-year old guy who has previously expressed similar sentiments with a great deal more tact, I think he comes off sounding -- as I said -- petulant and moronic.

Kevin, I don't always agree with your takes on songs, or whathaveyou, but I agree 100% with this post (well, all except the fact that I enjoy listening to MYM from time to time). I specifically agree with your takes on the Christian church's expectation for its followers to not only raise up prayers but to also take action. This truth is close to always ignored by the general public and even more so by those with a particular distaste for Christianity.

FYI, you are not he only religious person on RM. I may not be very active in my person faith at his point in my life, but I grew up in a strongly conservative Christian household. I was taught strong traditional moral values. I've spent 20+ years as an active church attender. I've even been the host of a home church. I've raised my kids to put faith in God and Jesus. I've struggled with my personal faith from a young age, but as a group, I've found the Christians that I know to be genuinely good people, that have shown more care and compassion to me than any other group of people. While the far left preach tolerance they seem to habitually omit Christians when applying their creed.

I'm thrilled to hear that this has been your experience. It has certainly not been mine.

That has been true for me. I know it clearly isn't that way for everyone. Obviously there are bad seeds, that is true for any large group of people. I don't blame the religion though, when bad people claim to be Christians or say they are just following God, and proceed to knowingly and willingly do things that hurt others for their personal gain, whatever that may be. To me, that person is just an asshole, and the religion has been raped by a person that never cared for it to begin with.

I totally get that. And it's probably more true than untrue. But it's been my experience as well that there are plenty of "respectable" Christians who are flat out dangerous. Also, there's something inherent in the religion that, again in my experience, let's folks off the hook -- or allows for a strong element (whether it's a misunderstanding or not) of 'welp, it's God's will.' It's easy to buck-pass and let-slide in that kind of construct.

Also, the Christians I know (and I grew up in fucking Kansas for crying out loud, so I know a TON -- myself included until age 18) tend to be the least pliable and most judgemental people I know. Again, that's a gross generalization. I know a lot that are loving and brilliant people, too (my best male friend on this planet is a great Christian who embodies all the things you're talking about and virtually NONE of the things I'm talking about). But the organized aspect of the religion has always felt terribly poisonous to me. And that's backed up by an overwhelming fear and ignorance (look no further than someone like Pat Robertson and his words about Yoga which I posted in the Strat/Yoga thread earlier today). But, again, that's not an absolute truth. Just one account of one person's overall experience.

I'm glad that your experience has been different. That gives me hope. That makes me feel like my experience outside the norm. And I hope that's true.

Hey man, I completely get and respect this too. I have already mentioned that I have always struggled with my faith. A lot of it has to do with similar experiences to what you describe.

Philosophically, I choose not to blame God for the mistakes people make. I tend to point the finger at the person making the mistake and those (if any) that are encouraging or enabling the behavior. People's personal choices are their own. I don't believe God controls our will. So therefor I can't blame God for people being selfish and often terrible little shits.

Emotionally, it is a lot harder to separate the behavior of an individual and the larger philosophy of the group he claims to represent. The two may be no more similar in their true ethos than north is to south in direction, yet the claim of the individual to be "Christian" still holds value to us on an emotional level. It's typically for reasons like these that people (including myself) struggle with their belief in God, when in reality we have just been hurt by people displaying behavior opposite to that of God's will.

Even though I believe these points to be true, I still struggle with belief and a healthy faith. I probably always will have that struggle, but that's okay because we also never stop learning.

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I think the really clear emphasis here is also on engagement, even if he's mostly starting with religious stuff. The issue is not that religion is bad or stupid (Getaway, I agree is an overly simplistic anti-religious screed, and not that interesting as a result). It's a song about using the certainty that can come with religion, or the ways in which religion can offer you a theodicy that absolves you of responsibility to take action, that is the issue. And that is not an overly simplistic sentiment nor part of a standard anti-religious screed.

I know I am in the minority -- or, perhaps, singlehandedly am the minority -- of religious people on RM, so perhaps being on the bad end of Eddie's ranting has left me feeling a little sensitive, but as such I'm also pretty confident in saying that most religions (assuming he is talking about Christian religions, which -- judging from the picture of the rosary on the single artwork -- seems reasonable) simply don't do this. I can't think of any religion that teaches, "God has this under control, so feel free to sit back and do nothing while horror unfolds around you." To the contrary, this would be considered in many churches a "sin of omission," and really has nothing to do with the idea of "theodicy," a concept which "seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists." Believing that a reason for the presence of grave, unspeakable evil in the world may exist on a level that transcends our human understanding is not diametrically opposed to the idea of still being obligated to acting within our scope of human understanding to stop it, and I don't think many religions teach otherwise. So if this is Eddie's purpose with this song, then my original point that he conveniently disregards the finer points of the ideas he rails against simply because to acknowledge them would stand in the way of his precious outrage is right on. He takes "we could will it to the skies/or we could something else" and makes a false dichotomy out of it, when realistically most religions encourage if not demand that we do both.

Of course, I don't think what he's doing with this song is anywhere near that thoughtful. Mainly I think it's just a poorly executed rant against something that pisses him off -- specifically, institutional authority which dares propose external guidelines by which one might live one's life which don't happen to jibe with his own. Perhaps this is just the punk aesthetic. But I have no fondness for the punk aesthetic, and as a fifty-year old guy who has previously expressed similar sentiments with a great deal more tact, I think he comes off sounding -- as I said -- petulant and moronic.

Kevin, I don't always agree with your takes on songs, or whathaveyou, but I agree 100% with this post (well, all except the fact that I enjoy listening to MYM from time to time). I specifically agree with your takes on the Christian church's expectation for its followers to not only raise up prayers but to also take action. This truth is close to always ignored by the general public and even more so by those with a particular distaste for Christianity.

FYI, you are not he only religious person on RM. I may not be very active in my person faith at his point in my life, but I grew up in a strongly conservative Christian household. I was taught strong traditional moral values. I've spent 20+ years as an active church attender. I've even been the host of a home church. I've raised my kids to put faith in God and Jesus. I've struggled with my personal faith from a young age, but as a group, I've found the Christians that I know to be genuinely good people, that have shown more care and compassion to me than any other group of people. While the far left preach tolerance they seem to habitually omit Christians when applying their creed.

I'm thrilled to hear that this has been your experience. It has certainly not been mine.

That has been true for me. I know it clearly isn't that way for everyone. Obviously there are bad seeds, that is true for any large group of people. I don't blame the religion though, when bad people claim to be Christians or say they are just following God, and proceed to knowingly and willingly do things that hurt others for their personal gain, whatever that may be. To me, that person is just an asshole, and the religion has been raped by a person that never cared for it to begin with.

I totally get that. And it's probably more true than untrue. But it's been my experience as well that there are plenty of "respectable" Christians who are flat out dangerous. Also, there's something inherent in the religion that, again in my experience, let's folks off the hook -- or allows for a strong element (whether it's a misunderstanding or not) of 'welp, it's God's will.' It's easy to buck-pass and let-slide in that kind of construct.

Also, the Christians I know (and I grew up in fucking Kansas for crying out loud, so I know a TON -- myself included until age 18) tend to be the least pliable and most judgemental people I know. Again, that's a gross generalization. I know a lot that are loving and brilliant people, too (my best male friend on this planet is a great Christian who embodies all the things you're talking about and virtually NONE of the things I'm talking about). But the organized aspect of the religion has always felt terribly poisonous to me. And that's backed up by an overwhelming fear and ignorance (look no further than someone like Pat Robertson and his words about Yoga which I posted in the Strat/Yoga thread earlier today). But, again, that's not an absolute truth. Just one account of one person's overall experience.

I'm glad that your experience has been different. That gives me hope. That makes me feel like my experience outside the norm. And I hope that's true.

Hey man, I completely get and respect this too. I have already mentioned that I have always struggled with my faith. A lot of it has to do with similar experiences to what you describe.

Philosophically, I choose not to blame God for the mistakes people make. I tend to point the finger at the person making the mistake and those (if any) that are encouraging or enabling the behavior. People's personal choices are their own. I don't believe God controls our will. So therefor I can't blame God for people being selfish and often terrible little shits.

Emotionally, it is a lot harder to separate the behavior of an individual and the larger philosophy of the group he claims to represent. The two may be no more similar in their true ethos than north is to south in direction, yet the claim of the individual to be "Christian" still holds value to us on an emotional level. It's typically for reasons like these that people (including myself) struggle with their belief in God, when in reality we have just been hurt by people displaying behavior opposite to that of God's will.

Even though I believe these points to be true, I still struggle with belief and a healthy faith. I probably always will have that struggle, but that's okay because we also never stop learning.

Damn, this is a great, great, lovely post. Thanks, PHAT.

theplatypus wrote:I kind of feel like the conversation reached a natural resolution.

Spoiler: show

stip wrote: Until the current pope the Catholic Church spent decades downplaying the social gospel elements of Christianity

Perhaps this type of comment is a good example of why songs like "MYM" feel so bogus to me -- with all due respect to your academic credentials (and really I suppose I have no idea what you do with your weekends), at some point having atheists and scholars and rock stars explain to me "what the church does" begins to feel, well, kind of like me telling you what it's like to work in an institution of higher learning despite the fact that I haven't set foot on a campus in 7 years. "The Catholic Church" is an institution, no more capable in itself of "downplaying the social elements of Christianity" than "RM" is capable of issuing an opinion on a Pearl Jam album. Whatever broad generalizations non-churchgoers cobble together out of news articles and academic studies, I think the majority of people who are in and engaged with these parishes on a day-to-day basis would probably argue that your quote above is bogus and misinformed, that getting out into the world and impacting their communities in a positive way has been a cornerstone of the faith long before whatever public face Pope Francis has made efforts to put on it. No doubt Pope Francis is up-playing those things, probably not absent the hope that people who do cobble together broad generalizations out of news stories and academic studies will have something more positive to base said generalizations on, but ultimately what he's doing is not new.

I realize that "MYM" does not aim to address these issues in complex detail, and that's fine -- it's a rock song, and it shouldn't have to. I also realize that the way the world perceives an institution the size -- and therefore with the influence -- of the Catholic Church is not unimportant, and is something that people involved with the institution should care about. However, as LV says, the song absolutely does not single out these individual clusters of people (i.e. the microscopic minority of politicians who would use the rapture as a reason to shrug off global warming) in any explicit way; if what you're arguing is that Eddie's message in the song is that religion is basically fine except for these select few people who manage to misconstrue it, then I would contend you haven't been paying attention elsewhere. There's something to be said for taking the song on its own merits (which in my eyes is still plenty on which to draw this same conclusion), but unfortunately for Eddie he has 20 years' worth of rants looming on the periphery of any song he writes of a political or religious nature. We know who he is and what he means at this point.

You're okay with M.Y.T.H. Is belief in the game control that keeps us in our boxes of fear?

No, I think that is an equally awful lyric. It's in a song that I find a sight better, and which I think gives a bit more to chew on, and those things go a long way. But "boxes of fear" is about the corniest language Eddie could have possibly used in that context.

To be clear, I do not mean to expect unreasonable things from a song like "MYM." But I would hope similarly that it does not seem unreasonable to speak up when I feel like a group I identify with is being condescendingly reduced to a cliche by a jaded, arrogant rock star with an active bias against this group. I admire Eddie as a musician but I have long thought his ability to address these kinds of issues left a great deal to be desired. "MYM" is the latest stop on the train.

Kevin Davis wrote:

theplatypus wrote:I kind of feel like the conversation reached a natural resolution.

Golly, now I feel bad posting 4 more paragraphs of babble about this.

Here, I'll spoiler it -- somehow that makes the whole thing feel...gentler:

Spoiler: show

stip wrote: Until the current pope the Catholic Church spent decades downplaying the social gospel elements of Christianity

Perhaps this type of comment is a good example of why songs like "MYM" feel so bogus to me -- with all due respect to your academic credentials (and really I suppose I have no idea what you do with your weekends), at some point having atheists and scholars and rock stars explain to me "what the church does" begins to feel, well, kind of like me telling you what it's like to work in an institution of higher learning despite the fact that I haven't set foot on a campus in 7 years. "The Catholic Church" is an institution, no more capable in itself of "downplaying the social elements of Christianity" than "RM" is capable of issuing an opinion on a Pearl Jam album.

Of course it can. Is it a monolithic statement about what every single person believes? Of course not. But RM will declare a march madness winner, and you can make a pretty clear general statement that RM does not prefer Lighting Bolt as much as No Code even if I prefer the former. Churches are massive organizations. They have ruling bodies. They have councils that decide priorities and address theological issues. They determine what the broad focus of that organization is going to be, and what sorts of ideas it will choose to lend its weight to.

And these decisions and debates and priorities are well publicized and much discussed. You don't need to be a political scientist to be aware of the way congressional priorities would change depending on which party is in power. You don't even need to be an American citizen.

Whatever broad generalizations non-churchgoers cobble together out of news articles and academic studies, I think the majority of people who are in and engaged with these parishes on a day-to-day basis would probably argue that your quote above is bogus and misinformed, that getting out into the world and impacting their communities in a positive way has been a cornerstone of the faith long before whatever public face Pope Francis has made efforts to put on it.

No doubt. And I wouldn't claim otherwise.

No doubt Pope Francis is up-playing those things, probably not absent the hope that people who do cobble together broad generalizations out of news stories and academic studies will have something more positive to base said generalizations on, but ultimately what he's doing is not new.

No, but there is, I think, a greater emphasis in terms of the distribution of resources, attention, comparative theological importance that is significant. Priorities matter, and it's more than PR (not that this isn't important).

if what you're arguing is that Eddie's message in the song is that religion is basically fine except for these select few people who manage to misconstrue it, then I would contend you haven't been paying attention elsewhere.
There's something to be said for taking the song on its own merits (which in my eyes is still plenty on which to draw this same conclusion), but unfortunately for Eddie he has 20 years' worth of rants looming on the periphery of any song he writes of a political or religious nature. We know who he is and what he means at this point.

I think you're correct about Eddie's general take on this stuff. I said earlier in this thread that a song like Getaway isn't that interesting to me because it's basically a screed against religious fundamentalism (although it has an shockingly high amount of influence within our public policy so it's not like Eddie is fighting imaginary demons), and doesn't address it in a particularly interesting way. Mind Your Manners, and infallible, are really addressing the need for people to be engaged. They are attacks on complacency and the belief that our problems are too big for us to solve so why bother). The religious frame isn't that necessary, and it is far from the most interesting part of the song, which does
transcend its religious grounding. Eddie is saying something pretty interesting and pretty powerful (I think) in this song. The fact that he's been ham fisted about this elsewhere doesn't change that any more than No More undercuts Insignificance.

And does Eddie come out and say any of this directly? No. But Eddie has basically never been interesting when he comes out and directly says something. He usually has strong instincts, but he's at his best when he is intimating at something that the listener needs to tease out. That's no different here.

You're okay with M.Y.T.H. Is belief in the game control that keeps us in our boxes of fear?

No, I think that is an equally awful lyric. It's in a song that I find a sight better, and which I think gives a bit more to chew on, and those things go a long way. But "boxes of fear" is about the corniest language Eddie could have possibly used in that context.

Fair enough. I feel the same way about MYM. There's a lot going on underneath that speaks to the kinds of things I tend to grapple with today. The 'you don't need to have faith in god if you have faith in each other' message was something I worked out a while ago, and while I'm still an atheist, my reflexive hostility to religion was something I let go a long time ago as well. Too many of my heroes and mentors were religious for me to hold onto that.

To be clear, I do not mean to expect unreasonable things from a song like "MYM." But I would hope similarly that it does not seem unreasonable to speak up when I feel like a group I identify with is being condescendingly reduced to a cliche by a jaded, arrogant rock star with an active bias against this group. I admire Eddie as a musician but I have long thought his ability to address these kinds of issues left a great deal to be desired. "MYM" is the latest stop on the train.

Fair enough. Like I said, Getaway does nothing for me for that reason (i'm not a believer, but it's a bit too condescending and certainly doesn't say anything in a particularly memorable way), but I think you're a bit too surface with what MYM is trying to address.

stip wrote:that was all B. I was explicit in my desire to not be a quality mod on this issue