U2 debates: How long must we sing this song?

August 19, 2004 By

bonofamily2000Since the headline and photo give away basic subject, it would be hard to turn this into a “guess who this is” trivia game. So the following quotes are from Bono, the often inspiring and often infuriating (and he would agree with both terms) lead singer of U2.

But we can still have some fun with this. So the game is to name the time frame of the following quotations.

On the improvisational nature of songwriting:

“I was so restrained in trying to express myself that I had to resort to another language, to a way somebody else had expressed it a long time ago in a Gregorian chant. Hence, the Latin. And that’s the way it ended up. It ended up in Latin because I couldn’t find the kind of English words to say what I needed to say. I still have trouble talking about it.”

There’s more. What about the foundation of the band’s lyrics?

“I’ve spent most of my life avoiding labels. I don’t intend to adopt one now. . . . I like to think people feel it. They just don’t want to allow themselves to feel it. I mean, everybody feels it. Everybody.

“I can’t accept a belief that I just came out of gas, you know? That we as a race just exploded into existence. I can’t believe that, and I don’t think others can, really. Maybe they can accept it on a sort of ‘thin’ level, but not really deep down. Deep down, everybody is aware. . . .

“Things around can shock us into a realization of what is going down. When we look at the starvation, when you think that a third of the population of this earth is starving and crying out in hunger. I don’t think you can sort of smile and say, ‘I know. Well, we’re the jolly human race. We’re all very nice, really.’

“I mean, we’re not. People have got to see what is going on.”

Now let’s do the same thing with another set of quotations. Can you identify the time frame for these?

“Feelings are stronger than ideas or words in a song. . . . You can have 1,000 ideas, but unless you capture an emotion, it’s an essay. I’m always writing speeches or articles for causes I believe in. That’s probably what I would have done if I wasn’t in music, but that’s not songwriting. . . . Songwriting comes from a different place. Music is the language of the spirit. I think ideas and words are our excuse as songwriters to allow our heart or our spirit to run free. That’s when magic happens.”

And here are two more clips from the same context.

“I was always interested in the character of David in the Bible because he was such a screw-up. It’s a great amusement to me that the people God chose to use in the Scriptures were all liars, cheaters, adulterers, murderers. . . . In the Psalms, David questions God, ‘Where are you when I need you?’ Blues has this sort of honesty that gospel music doesn’t have. Gospel music is the stuff of faith. It tells you about where you are going. The blues tells you where you are. God is much more interested in the blues because you get that honesty.”

“You know, songwriting really is a mysterious process . . . because we’re asking people to expose themselves. It’s like open heart surgery in some way. You’re looking for real, raw emotions, and you don’t find that by sticking to the rules.”

OK, ready for some answers? The second set of quotations are from a remarkable Los Angeles Times feature story by the veteran rock writer Robert Hilburn. The article is available for those registered with the newspaper’s Calendar section or by clicking here, which takes you to a U2 fan site.

I call this interview remarkable for two reasons.

First, it offers some wonderful insights into the WAY the members of U2 write and arrange their music, even if it is fairly vague about why they write their music and the origins of some of its content. For example, it’s a bit vague to note that there are “spiritually tinged themes” that are woven through much of the U2 canon. Anyone who has read a few U2 interviews knows that “Where the Streets Have No Name” is not just a song about, as Hilburn puts it, a “vision of a world free of religious and racial divide.” I also thing that there was more to the work of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and, thus, the song “Pride (In the Name of Love)” and a salute to a doctrine of nonviolence. I think its pretty easy to parse Bono’s “one man betrayed with a kiss” reference.

That said, the article might have a few religious ghosts dancing between the lines, but there are enough clear and accurate references for most readers to know what is going on.

The second thing that amazed me is the degree to which Bono and company’s remarks in the Hilburn article echo what they were saying earlier in their career.

Which brings us to the first set of quotations. I cannot give you a URL for that article, because the World Wide Web did not exist in the spring of 1982, when a van full of young musicians from Ireland rolled on the campus of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. These quotes are from a “Backbeat” column I did in the local News-Gazette way back then.

Without boring you with the whole interview, just let me say that they worked on songs (according to my soundcheck notes) the same way back then that they do now. There are quotes — 22 years apart — on the “garage band” style of their rehearsals and the basic big, broad rock themes of their instrumental work. There are the same kinds of references to wanting to cover subjects larger than, as Bono told me way back then, the turf covered by a band such as REO Speedwagon. Note the hunger quotation in the 1982 interview, when the singer only a few years away from being a teenager.

And one final fascinating tidbit from Hilburn. Love him or hate him, Bono has been shaped by his Christian conversion in the context of a Charismatic — with a big C — house church. References to spiritual gifts (speaking with the “tongue of angels”) are scattered through the years. He freely admits that he has some of the strengths and many of the weaknesses of this rather freewheeling branch of modern Christianity.

Thus, Hilburn offers this strange description of the origins of some U2 lyrics.

Bono’s improvisation in the studio often starts with him just muttering sounds that seem to fit the flow of the music being created — “Bono-eze,” his bandmates call it.

“When Bono starts going through his Bono-eze, it can change what we’re playing and take the song in a different direction,” Mullen says. “If he’s doing something very intense, it might not even be what he’s saying, but the way he’s behaving, the way he’s throwing the microphone around. The energy and intensity helps shape the song.”

Long, long ago, U2 had to record the October album in a matter of days after Bono lost (or someone stole) his omnipresent notebook in which he writes down his song lyrics and other music-related thoughts. So the singer stood at the microphone, prayed and then sang whatever came into his heart and mind — even if the words came out in Latin.

It appears that this may have evolved into “Bono-ese.” Either that, or Hilburn is not used to interviewing Charismatic Christians. It sounds to me like U2 is, to a remarkable degree, the same band, wrestling with its angels and demons.

Whatever. Hilburn’s article is must reading for anyone interested in U2, pop music, songwriting or “all of the above.”

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Music

Yo, city dudes, you got punk'd!

August 18, 2004 By

amish_castWriting last Friday in The Wall Street Journal, sociologist Donald B. Kraybill suggested an entertaining alternative to Amish in the City:

If we want real TV reality, though, why not take five TV executives and put them in an Amish family for a week and let the cameras roll as they bake some apple pies, sew some shirts, haul some manure, pull some weeds, drive some horses and try to decide which end of a cow to milk?

It turns out, though, that the Hollywood dealmaker who conceived the series has more experience with the unadorned life than any of us may have guessed. Heather Havrilesky of Salon interviews producer Jon Kroll, who mentions that he “grew up in a Northern California commune without television or telephones or electricity.”

Havrilesky follows up:

Was there pressure to stay in your community?

Not the kind of pressure that the Amish face. It was presented to me that, “You’re welcome to stay and do this sort of New Age homesteading thing that we’re doing. You don’t have to leave.” And after living like that for 10 years, I really had itchy feet. I wanted to get out there, just like some of the Amish on the show. I mean, the Amish kids who were selected are the ones who actively wanted to pursue more experiences before making their decision.

The UPN series charmed most TV critics during previews in late July, and has marched on to fairly good ratings.

Philip Kennicott of The Washington Post, after the obligatory reference to the Amish as “fundamentalist,” shows a good understanding of the show’s winning formula:

The fear, among some groups that worry about the depiction of religion and the treatment of rural people on television, was that this show would mock and demean its Amish characters. It clearly strives not to do so, at least overtly. The producers use a basic reversal of values to insulate themselves from the charge of exploiting the Amish. Instead, they exploit every cliche of urban vanity and inanity. The city kids are dull, rude, intellectually closed-minded and hypocritical. Next to them, the Amish are delightful. They have a strange, hard-to-place but winning quality: It’s called maturity.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Radio & TV

The nonexistent further news coverage of "Choice Chick"

August 17, 2004 By

pat_robertson_blowoutI wanted to open this little post with a fresh piece of “Choice Chick” art, but I could not find any online.

Which is kind of the point of the post, now that I think of it. A Catch-22.

Thus, I had to make do with Pat Robertson. What does he have to do with “Choice Chick”? Not much, but anyone who pays attention to media coverage of this kind knows that a photo or cartoon of Pat Robertson is always appropriate with any story on religion, politics or whatever. Ditto for Jerry Falwell. Also note the web site address in the image. Please address fan mail to that site, not us.

But you remember “Choice Chick.” This is the hip political cartoon from the non-partisan Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the cartoon that attacks President Bush, John Ashcroft, Rick Santorum and other Republican leaders by name. This is interesting, of course, because some would say that it goes beyond the issue-only commentary that is supposed to be the stock in trade of these kinds of non-partisan groups.

At the moment, the religious left is raising questions about the issue-oriented work of people on the religious right and linking this to questions about tax laws. Watch for news about people actually taping sermons in conservative churches, capturing prayers and other controversial forms of speech that cross the line and endorse “Christian candidates.” Also watch for more coverage of the “I Vote Values” campaign to register voters in churches and other controversial locations.

But, apparently, we are not going to see mainstream coverage of “Choice Chick.” Sure, the world of conservative blogs has gone crazy with this. And, Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel has mentioned the cartoon, without linking it to the tax debates.

A new animated, pro-choice ad sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund features a feminist super-heroine, “Choice Chick,” who rails against Bush as the “evil menace” and his “evil army of judgebots” for chipping away at women’s rights.

“Choice Chick” will save the day, with the help of sidekicks John Kerry and John Edwards, and of course, your generous contribution.

That’s all folks. It’s your basic column on Bush bashing and, of course, we here at GetReligion.org are only interested in news coverage of those who are bashing Bush for reasons of biblical literalism and stuff like that. This is rather ho hum, not a new Creeping Fundamentalism entry.

But am I alone in wondering why the tax questions about “Choice Chick” are not drawing serious coverage? Think of it as a breaking story on the “Da Vinci Vote” front lines. Has anyone else seen a good story on the tax implications of this subject? Or of the churches? Churches on the left or the right?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Social Issues

Red churches, blue churches, smart churches, dumb churches

August 16, 2004 By

red-churchOver the weekend, I ran into an amazing pair of articles on the Newsweek home page that really left me pondering this question: Has anyone in that newsroom ever heard of people like Martin Marty and James Davison Hunter?

Without a hint that others have been writing about this topic for, oh, a decade or so, Newsweek ran a commentary by Melinda Henneberger entitled “Red and Blue Churches: Is religion more influenced by our politics than the other way around?” For GetReligion.org readers, this ought to sound like a major-league echo chamber. If not, click here or here.

Or even better, go get yourself an old, used copy of “Culture Wars” by James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia and read up on the ongoing divide between the progressives (truth is personal, experiental and evolving) and the orthodox (truth is transcendent, revealed and eternal).

In her quest for red and blue churches, Henneberger visits Advent Evangelical Lutheran Church in the appropriately named Zionsville, Ind. It does not appear that the reporter understands that this is a conservative congregation in a more progressive denomination, even if the word “Evangelical” is in the title. So there is a layer of irony missing.

But the people in these pews are not interested in the religious views of John Kerry, since they believe his stands on basic issues of Christian morality clash with his newly adopted faith-friendly soundbites. You end up with comments like this:

Gala Wurdeman, wife of the assistant pastor at the fast-growing suburban church, said President George W. Bush’s faith is very important to her “because my faith is important to me.” But of Kerry’s beliefs, she said wryly, “I think I have a pretty good idea” already.

Another church member, Marilyn Mesh, said that in fact, she was infuriated when Kerry “started off quoting the Bible” at a local campaign appearance she saw on television. (“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord,” Kerry had said, quoting from the Psalms.) “I thought, “Oh, that sounds sacrilegious to me,” Mesh said, “speaking these words as if he were a prophet … I know his voting record is very liberal and to me that does not jibe with a profession of faith.”

It will not be a surprise that the Newsweek reporter attends a blue church. It is also not all that surprising that it is a blue Catholic church, in a blue Catholic stronghold, with an enthusiastically blue Catholic priest who believes that it is wrong for his church to enforce its doctrines at the level of its own sacraments. That sounds like this:

In America in 2004 there are very definitely Red State churches, like theirs, and Blue State churches, like my Roman Catholic parish in Georgetown, where John Kerry, who lives in the neighborhood, received communion not long ago.

blue_churchA priest there who announced at a later mass that Kerry had been given communion at the church received a hearty ovation, amid the controversy over whether pro-choice lawmakers are entitled to receive the
sacraments. (I would like to believe the applause was not for the candidate, but for the principle that no one should be turned away from the communion rail.)

The article contains a variety of other interesting details, such as the progressive true believer who mildly stuns the reporter why his pronouncement that conservative Christians scare him more than anti-American terrorists. Henneberger quips: “Not me; I’ll take the roomful of Biblical literalists every single time.”

But the big idea seems a bit vague. She does not seem to grasp that the red vs. blue pew phenomenon is rooted in concrete Christian teachings about our culture’s hottest political issues. Like I said, there seems to be little recognition that this is an old story, one dissected by some fine commentators on both the left and the right.

Perhaps it is hard to see this reality when the worldview of the publication is — dare I suggest — so closely aligned with one side of the debate?

For a shockingly blunt statement relevant to this claim, check out the conclusion of the Eleanor Clift commentary in the same Newsweek online package — the one with the headline “Faith vs. Reason.” Honest, that’s the headline. It ends with this statement, which sweeps aside volumes of competing data and dogma on some of the most complex issues of our time.

The Republican message is don’t vote for Kerry because he supports abortion rights. Kerry thinks abortion is wrong, but he’s not going to impose his religious beliefs on the country. Bush on the other hand has turned his religious beliefs about embryonic stem cells into public policy.

Voters have the choice between a president who governs by belief and a challenger who puts his faith in rational decisionmaking.

So there. In addition to red churches and blue churches, there are also smart churches and dumb churches and, apparently, some major voices at Newsweek have certainly decided which churches are which.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Politics

Many gods, but no saints in Costas commentary?

August 14, 2004 By

I didn’t have a chance to watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympics last night. People in South Florida were more interested in the Weather Channel, to be honest.

So I cannot comment on the following letter from a reader, which was — for lack of a better location — sent to the comments page on the coven and state commentary. It’s worth pulling out front, because we are interested in what readers see in the media — really, really interested. You guys have more eyes and mice than we do.

As a bias disclaimer, I must note that I am a major fan of Bob Costas. I have cruised the WWW a bit this morning and have found no other references to the possibility of religious ghosts in the Athens rites. I would post a link to the Dallas Morning News review of the broadcast, but I am on a Mac right now and the Dallas site is very Apple-phobic, or at least the browser Safari. I wonder what that is all about. (I got a different browser running and got that Dallas link.)

I digress. Here is the letter. By the way, the nickname is “tmatt.” Gotta watch those case-sensitive style issues.

TMatt — I’m putting this here for lack of anywhere else i can think of to put it, along with your meme of “ghosts”: i may be overreacting, but on the Olympic opening ceremonies broadcast, there was not a single odd bit of trivia Bob Costas did not share, nor an attention getting variation from the US norm that did not earn his explanation (it’s still going on in the living room, as i type this).

But when all the “Saint Blank” countries came first in the alphabet, no note of why that would be; in the parade of the millenia, his only significant silence was during the delightful live action ikons as they passed — he muttered, to Katie’s counterpoint, something about the Byzantine era, and may have mumbled the word “church” once (i’d have to see a transcript).

Small items, but glaring to me in how Bob seems to assume that the only trivia too trivial to tell is faith-oriented, and the only gods worth mentioning are carved in marble with colonnades around them. Or maybe i just can’t stand Costas’ commentary.

Peace. And enjoy the Olympics! (And i’ll keep watching for Terry’s ghosts!)

Posted by: Jeff | August 13, 2004 09:59 PM

I will keep looking around a see if I can catch some kind of replay in the next day or so. Please use this post as a chance to share what you are seeing, or not seeing. If there is a show transcript out there, please nab the URL for us.

UPDATE: Did anyone else hear the reference to Athena as the “patron saint” of Athens?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Sports

Julia Child's eclectic worldview

August 14, 2004 By

julia_and_paul_childIn the hundreds of obituaries and tributes published today about Julia Child (pictured with her late husband, Paul), there’s little indication about her beliefs, though The New York Times drops some hints:

Mrs. Child was a breast cancer survivor, a cat lover, a fervent advocate of Planned Parenthood and an unabashed sensualist with a sly sense of humor. One year she and her husband sent out Valentine’s cards with a photograph of them together in the bathtub in Paris. One of her last projects was to be a memoir of her years in France.

. . . To the end, Mrs. Child maintained her image as the ultimate bon vivant, a California girl with easy French tastes. Whenever she was asked what her guilty pleasures were, she responded: “I don’t have any guilt.”

Those details suggest a nominal Episcopalian, maybe a Unitarian who would prefer a sumptuous breakfast at home to another topical discussion at coffee hour.

But then, digging back to the June 2000 issue of Esquire, there’s this:

I hate organized religion. I think you have to love thy neighbor as thyself. I think you have to pick your own God and be true to him. I always say “him” rather than “her.” Maybe it’s because of my generation, but I don’t like the idea of a female God. I see God as a benevolent male. Tears mess up your makeup.

. . . I don’t believe in heaven. I think when we die we just go back to the great ball of energy that makes up the universe.

Hell only exists on earth, when you’ve made mistakes and you’re paying for them.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: People

A dose of cynicism at this blog? No way

August 13, 2004 By

As I await hurricane reports and loss of my DSL, let me pause to respond to a letter that gently accuses me of cynicism in my post yesterday on the separation of coven and state.

Let’s go straight to the comments section:

Could it be that tmatt is just trying to gin up a little spurious contoversy by waving some red meat at the right? And if so, then how does this fit into the stated purpose of this blog?

Also, another interesting question has been asked. How does the United States manage to have Baptist chaplains in the military, when Baptists are about as fragmented and “free church” as one can get?

Indeed, I thought of the Baptist analogy. That’s why I used the “free church” analogy in the first place. But there are some Baptist structures at this point, some seminaries and powerful people with whom the state can negotiate. At this point, there is no similar pagan establishment of this kind.

And what does this whole topic have to do with the stated purpose of this blog?

That’s easy. First of all, I really did want to praise the original source story. We are here to praise good work on the religion beat, as well as poke at the coverage that we think is lacking. Honest.

Second, this coven and state thing is not a joke. It is an emerging issue in church-state law. The government is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of religious points of view. You can look it up.

The political right will have to deal with that and will struggle to do so. Just as the cultural left stuggles with the same concept. On what basis does the state fund the work of, let’s say, Episcopal institutions that sound neo-Unitarian, but not fund the work of charismatic Episcopal ministries that sound neo-Pentecostal?

And it is also true that the high court has truly knocked away key props that held up what used to known as Western thought. As Charles Colson noted, we can’t have the “mystery of the universe” as a legal standard when it comes time to create stop signs and traffic laws. But where did that absolute standard come from, other than insurance costs and injuries?

This is a valid story. Just watch.

So I was sincere in the original post. The topic is not going away.

“Cosmo” also asked about the funding of this blog.

As I said back at the beginning, GetReligion was born as part of the wider journalism projects linked to my work as Senior Fellow for Journalism at the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities. In particular, you might want to check out the information at the Best Semester site about the Summer Institute for Journalism.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Social Issues

Separation of coven and state? Wait just a minute

August 12, 2004 By

wiccanOK, let’s stop and think about this.

The U.S. Supreme Court — in its “mystery passage” in Planned Parenthood v. Casey — declared that at the “heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they found under the compulsion of the state.`

So if this is the case, what set of universal standards or laws might U.S. military officials cite in order to limit the religious rights of witches, druids, wizards and other pagan folk? I mean, if tax dollars can fund Episcopal chaplains, why not witches? Hey, why not witches who are also Episcopalians? Wait, that’s another story.

I bring this up because reporter Randy Myers of the Contra Costa Times is on to something with his story entitled “Wiccan servicepeople fight for freedom, for foreigners and within the military.” I find this especially interesting because of the ongoing struggles within the ranks of military chaplains to limit the free speech of born-again chaplains, Pentecostal chaplains and others who refuse to go along with the many-roads-to-one-god-or-gods approach to faith.

Yes, it’s that GetReligion.org favorite again — trying to do fair coverage of free speech that many find offensive. This story is just getting started. Myers sets the scene:

Wiccans represent a small fraction of the military, roughly 1,500 among 1.4 million active personnel, but the Pentagon wants to accommodate their faith. The military trains chaplains to meet the religious needs of all service members without compromising their own religious beliefs, said Col. Richard Hum, executive director of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board at the Defense Department. …

Wiccans said that some chaplains were trying to convert them and that commanding officers made it difficult to practice. … Wiccans also have been pressuring the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow a Wiccan emblem, most likely the pentacle, for armed forces burial headstones or markers. Mike Nacincik of Veterans Affairs, said the department authorizes 38 emblems, including one for atheists, but none for Wiccans.

Myers notes that Wiccans serve in nearly all military branches, with their leaders saying that some pagans are reaching the top ranks of the armed services. The Air Force attracts the most pagans in uniform, with 1,552. The Marines have 68. The Navy doesn’t report numbers and the Army — so far — claims to have no Wiccan soldiers.

The whole scene is very complicated and hard to handle, in terms of public relations.

The Air Force recognized the religious categories of Pagan, Gardnerian Wiccan, Seax Wiccan, Dianic Wiccan, Shaman and Druid in 2000. Many bases now have circles and hold services. Dog tags can also identify a serviceperson as Wiccan. Wiccans had their first chaplain-service in 1997 at the Army’s Fort Hood in Texas. … The department’s bureaucratic hurdles include a written request from the recognized head of the organization, a list of national officers and a membership tally.

See the problem? Military officials cannot figure out who is in charge. Pagans are, to put it in historic terms, a very “free church” flock of believers. It’s a freelance, free-flowing scene with no set creeds or hierarchies. Look at it this way: Where does the military turn to find trained, licensed Wiccan chaplains? What constitutes orthodoxy?

But it’s natural for this story to emerge, since we are in period of explosive growth for alternative forms of “spirituality,” as opposed to established, institutionalized religious traditions. It is also impossible for the highest courts — or even the principalities and powers in Hollywood — to suggest that one form of superstition is better or worse than another.

As I put it in a column a few years ago about a pagan-parenting leader named Kristin Madden:

In Hollywood, this is the age of “Sabrina the Teenage Witch,” “Practical Magic,” “Charmed” and “The Craft.” Oprah Winfrey is leading Middle America in prayers to the spirit of the universe and covens can be found in many liberal Christian seminaries. Pentagon debates about pagan chaplains, naked worship and sacred daggers offer the first glimpses of another constitutional issue — the separation of coven and state in the age of faith-based initiatives.

Remember this. We’re all out there together in uncharted legal territory, trying to define the mystery of the universe. And one more thing, there is only one certainty: Nothing is forbidden except to forbid.

So who is to say that tax-payer funds cannot be used to carve pentangles on grave stones in Arlington National Cemetery and other sacred civil religion sites?

This would make a really interesting question in a presidental debate this fall. You think?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Social Issues