There can be no compromise with the forces of secular humanism, no middle ground, no common values with those who are determined to turn our beloved America into a perpetual orgy of unbridled indecency, heresy, pluralistic social mandates and carnal instincts. There are those who would condemn us as "narrow-minded" for exercising our duty to speak out against fornicators, somdomites and baby-killing harlots, but we will not be deprived of our right and obligation to judge the nation and all within it by our standards, and force them with love to the one true and delightsome narrow path of righteousness.....
(Are you wanting to strangle me yet? I'm sure that some of you who know me are likely finding the ironing delicious, even though the message of outraged judgementalism reeks of both bile and gall (yes, I know they're synonyms). Oh, and choler as well. :P
At any rate, do take this piece of hijacked fundy-mail below to heart, and VOTE in November. Remember, they're full of passionate intensity -- even if they're bass-ackwards perverted in their haids -- and a bunch of determined fanatics will always prevail against rational souls who do nothing. So do something to try and fix that, 'kay?)
====================================================
AFA ActionAlert <contact@mail2.afamail.net> wrote:
From: "AFA ActionAlert" <contact@mail2.afamail.net>
To: K. Aurencz Zethmayr <aureantyev@yahoo.com>
Subject: What if the Liberals Win in November?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:59:00 -0500
Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
October 11, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
What if the Liberals Win in November?
Dear K.,
How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win. The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country. Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:
* Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
* A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.
* Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
* Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.
* Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.
* A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.
* An increase in taxes to push new social programs.
* Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.
* Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.
* We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.
Go Vote! Encourage Others To Do The Same.Sign up to stayed informed! Visit the American Family Association at http://www.afa.net/ today!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
 |
|
|
You are receiving this mailing because you participated in an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert. In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your subscription e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence. We do not divulge, nor make available to any third party, our subscription list. Your privacy is paramount to us! |
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 |
|
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Regarding the joint Madonna/Veggie Tales furor...
[expanded slightly from my comment at http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/09/madonna-crucified-veggie-tales-maimed.html The immediately-following is most of the text from the American Family Association's email alert regarding the editing of Veggie Tales.....check for bias and assumptions, of course, as it is rather full of those:
NBC: Bible Verses In Veggie Tales Offensive, But Not Madonna's Mockery Of The Crucifixion Of Christ
Dear K.,
NBC anti-Christian bigotry continues. This time NBC censored Bible verses and expressions of Christian love from the children's cartoon Veggie Tales being shown Saturday mornings on NBC.
NBC says comments such as "God made you special and He loves you very much" were offensive and censored them from the show.
In response to the outrage over the allegations that NBC was ordering the removal of any references to God and the Bible from the animated series, the network first issued a flat denial. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, NBC said they had to "clip off the beginning and ending tags, which are Bible verses, but they were also arguably the easiest cut to make."
The creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, said NBC's excuse for censoring the Bible verses was not true. Vischer said, "Well, that's kinda funny, because as the guy required to do all the editing, I know that statement is false...The show wasn't too long, it was too Christian. The show was already cut down to the proper length, so timing had nothing to do with it."
NBC then backpeddled: "NBC is committed to the positive messages and universal values of Veggie Tales. Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Evidently NBC considers not being truthful as one of their "universal values."
Vischer said had he known how much censorship NBC would exercise, he would not have signed on for the network deal.
Censored were comments such as: "Calm down. The Bible says we should love our enemies." And "the Bible says Samson got his strength from God. And God can give us strength, too."
NBC says using Bible verses or referring to God is offensive to some non-Christians. But NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians. (Please read the review.)
This will seem a strong statement, and it is: The real reason the religious content is being censored is that the networks are run by people who have an anti-Christian bias. I noticed this anti-Christian bigotry and spoke out against it over 25 years ago. I'm sorry if someone thinks that is too harsh, but I must speak the truth as God leads me to see the truth. [....] ]
Personally, I'm inclined to see this rather clearly as NBC's trying to reach the most people in a general way, without promoting either any particular religion or cluster of religions (i.e., those which would quote the Old Testament incessantly to substantiate even the most universal of moral and ethical values). Saved, unsaved, it's all hot air and torch-brandishing -- how people treat each other is more important than in whose name or with whose words they happen to do it.
With Veggie Tales, I can surmise that NBC's editors were trying to reach a broader audience for the positive material itself, regardless of the faith or lack thereof of potential viewers -- with Madonna, even though I personally tend to think she's a pretentious flake, the valid conflict going on here is whether NBC should allow her to be shown making a humanitarian point while utilizing a religiously-vested tableau. The concept of crucifixion of the innocent, though, is larger than the Christian mythos/dogma from which it arose, and so more people are likely to see the symbolic level of what is being meant than are likely to take it as being an attack on Christianity. Honestly, the most it could technically be is a misappropriation, and that presupposes that Christianity's events can be said to "belong" to a particular group instead of being, as Pope Benedict commented, an essential part of European heritage -- and therefore its mental/emotional language as well. It's already there and it's not going out of our heads as a meaningful scene, therefore it has a psychological currency that is not limited to those who take it literally.
The lovely Litharriel comments via IM, btw, that the AFA and its ilk can have their Veggie Tales pristinely uncut once they stop trying to dictate the terms of other people's artistic expression. They can't have their cake and eat it too, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (End of proverbial insert)
All in all, I think NBC is doing a commendable job so far of trying to keep the peace and not try to impose anything religiously-partisan upon its viewers. That doesn't mean expunging material, but making sure that that material is not a dictation of formal religious beliefs to those who may not share them.
NBC: Bible Verses In Veggie Tales Offensive, But Not Madonna's Mockery Of The Crucifixion Of Christ
Dear K.,
NBC anti-Christian bigotry continues. This time NBC censored Bible verses and expressions of Christian love from the children's cartoon Veggie Tales being shown Saturday mornings on NBC.
NBC says comments such as "God made you special and He loves you very much" were offensive and censored them from the show.
In response to the outrage over the allegations that NBC was ordering the removal of any references to God and the Bible from the animated series, the network first issued a flat denial. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, NBC said they had to "clip off the beginning and ending tags, which are Bible verses, but they were also arguably the easiest cut to make."
The creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, said NBC's excuse for censoring the Bible verses was not true. Vischer said, "Well, that's kinda funny, because as the guy required to do all the editing, I know that statement is false...The show wasn't too long, it was too Christian. The show was already cut down to the proper length, so timing had nothing to do with it."
NBC then backpeddled: "NBC is committed to the positive messages and universal values of Veggie Tales. Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Evidently NBC considers not being truthful as one of their "universal values."
Vischer said had he known how much censorship NBC would exercise, he would not have signed on for the network deal.
Censored were comments such as: "Calm down. The Bible says we should love our enemies." And "the Bible says Samson got his strength from God. And God can give us strength, too."
NBC says using Bible verses or referring to God is offensive to some non-Christians. But NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians. (Please read the review.)
This will seem a strong statement, and it is: The real reason the religious content is being censored is that the networks are run by people who have an anti-Christian bias. I noticed this anti-Christian bigotry and spoke out against it over 25 years ago. I'm sorry if someone thinks that is too harsh, but I must speak the truth as God leads me to see the truth. [....] ]
Personally, I'm inclined to see this rather clearly as NBC's trying to reach the most people in a general way, without promoting either any particular religion or cluster of religions (i.e., those which would quote the Old Testament incessantly to substantiate even the most universal of moral and ethical values). Saved, unsaved, it's all hot air and torch-brandishing -- how people treat each other is more important than in whose name or with whose words they happen to do it.
With Veggie Tales, I can surmise that NBC's editors were trying to reach a broader audience for the positive material itself, regardless of the faith or lack thereof of potential viewers -- with Madonna, even though I personally tend to think she's a pretentious flake, the valid conflict going on here is whether NBC should allow her to be shown making a humanitarian point while utilizing a religiously-vested tableau. The concept of crucifixion of the innocent, though, is larger than the Christian mythos/dogma from which it arose, and so more people are likely to see the symbolic level of what is being meant than are likely to take it as being an attack on Christianity. Honestly, the most it could technically be is a misappropriation, and that presupposes that Christianity's events can be said to "belong" to a particular group instead of being, as Pope Benedict commented, an essential part of European heritage -- and therefore its mental/emotional language as well. It's already there and it's not going out of our heads as a meaningful scene, therefore it has a psychological currency that is not limited to those who take it literally.
The lovely Litharriel comments via IM, btw, that the AFA and its ilk can have their Veggie Tales pristinely uncut once they stop trying to dictate the terms of other people's artistic expression. They can't have their cake and eat it too, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (End of proverbial insert)
All in all, I think NBC is doing a commendable job so far of trying to keep the peace and not try to impose anything religiously-partisan upon its viewers. That doesn't mean expunging material, but making sure that that material is not a dictation of formal religious beliefs to those who may not share them.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Attention, religioholics (and those oppressed by them)--we're working on a cure....
Which means another of my notorious online groups...>:) Religioholics Anonymous is opening its doors, to provide those addicted to the mindless worship of their faith with enlightenment as to the nature of reality:
No faith (or anti-faith) has a monopoly on fanaticism and atrocities and crimes against humanity; no faith is immune from the consequences of thinking itself above all others and justified in forcing its ways on all.
Here's what we got..........
Religioholics
[From the Latin religio, to bind together, + common suffix -holic, cf. alcoholic, addicted to alcohol--hence, those who are addicted to the pursuit of binding everyone together by hook or by crook, by force, deceit or constant mental/emotional pressure, in the belief that their own religion or philosophy is the sole absolute truth and thus ought to be made universal and enforced as such. A common mental disease, manifested in both violent and covertly manipulative forms. See also chronic proselytizers, zealots, fundamentalists, fanatics, and orthodoxy(esp. as opp. to heterodoxy)]
Recovery from religioholism is a long and often harrowing process of detachment from trying to dictate other people's lives and personal practise. The most severe cases, to be honest, either never recover atall or at most switch their allegiance to another absolutist structure of faith, whether theistic or atheistic, that must support them by claiming to be all-encompassing and infallible. Such people are never content with their own beliefs and values as lived by themselves, but demand that their whole families, communities, nations and even the whole world must follow the same way under penalty of censure, punishment, death and/or damnation.
O people of stiff necks and rigid doctrines, know that thine ancestral enemy thinks and acts and commits against others by even the same methods as thou...and therefore I ask thee, how art thou so very special in thy faith?
Let's explore a bit, shall we?
This is going to be rather like 'stupid human tricks'....posting news and discussion of the ideological idiocy that people descend to once they think their creed in superior to everyone else's and ought to be in control. It's tragic. It's age-old and ongoing. But day by day, mind by mind and soul by soul, we can work together for a cure.
-
No faith (or anti-faith) has a monopoly on fanaticism and atrocities and crimes against humanity; no faith is immune from the consequences of thinking itself above all others and justified in forcing its ways on all.
Here's what we got..........
Religioholics
[From the Latin religio, to bind together, + common suffix -holic, cf. alcoholic, addicted to alcohol--hence, those who are addicted to the pursuit of binding everyone together by hook or by crook, by force, deceit or constant mental/emotional pressure, in the belief that their own religion or philosophy is the sole absolute truth and thus ought to be made universal and enforced as such. A common mental disease, manifested in both violent and covertly manipulative forms. See also chronic proselytizers, zealots, fundamentalists, fanatics, and orthodoxy(esp. as opp. to heterodoxy)]
Recovery from religioholism is a long and often harrowing process of detachment from trying to dictate other people's lives and personal practise. The most severe cases, to be honest, either never recover atall or at most switch their allegiance to another absolutist structure of faith, whether theistic or atheistic, that must support them by claiming to be all-encompassing and infallible. Such people are never content with their own beliefs and values as lived by themselves, but demand that their whole families, communities, nations and even the whole world must follow the same way under penalty of censure, punishment, death and/or damnation.
O people of stiff necks and rigid doctrines, know that thine ancestral enemy thinks and acts and commits against others by even the same methods as thou...and therefore I ask thee, how art thou so very special in thy faith?
Let's explore a bit, shall we?
This is going to be rather like 'stupid human tricks'....posting news and discussion of the ideological idiocy that people descend to once they think their creed in superior to everyone else's and ought to be in control. It's tragic. It's age-old and ongoing. But day by day, mind by mind and soul by soul, we can work together for a cure.
-
Yep, I made me up a new word.......
Credocide --
[lit., "belief-killing", from the Latin credo, lit., I believe (root of the now-general religious term "creed") + -cide < caedere, to cut down, kill.]
The acute act or ongoing process of eliminating unfavoured/deviant beliefs/attitudes (and the persons who practice them without actual harm/insult to others) through persecution, violence, murder, expulsion, specialized discriminatory legislation, censorship, brainwashing/'re-education' or any other means other than that of rational and open civil discourse. Engaged in historically by most major religions (whether they'll officially admit it or not) and by all movements typically characterized as cults or totalitarianisms. The predominant unwritten and unprosecuted crime against the human intellect and spirit, committed or attempted by many without knowledge of what they do or why, driven only by that primal urge to remake the world of others in one's own image, regardless of whether or not it happens to be in their own best interests.
Very similar to genocide, but a helluva lot harder to prove in existing courts of law......
Some prime conspicuous examples: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests and forced conversions of the Americas, the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and the gulags, China's Cultural Revolution, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Scientology, the Bush II administration.....feel free to add on your own example or elaboration of intolerant absolutist philosophy/religion that will admit no honest challenge.
[lit., "belief-killing", from the Latin credo, lit., I believe (root of the now-general religious term "creed") + -cide < caedere, to cut down, kill.]
The acute act or ongoing process of eliminating unfavoured/deviant beliefs/attitudes (and the persons who practice them without actual harm/insult to others) through persecution, violence, murder, expulsion, specialized discriminatory legislation, censorship, brainwashing/'re-education' or any other means other than that of rational and open civil discourse. Engaged in historically by most major religions (whether they'll officially admit it or not) and by all movements typically characterized as cults or totalitarianisms. The predominant unwritten and unprosecuted crime against the human intellect and spirit, committed or attempted by many without knowledge of what they do or why, driven only by that primal urge to remake the world of others in one's own image, regardless of whether or not it happens to be in their own best interests.
Very similar to genocide, but a helluva lot harder to prove in existing courts of law......
Some prime conspicuous examples: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests and forced conversions of the Americas, the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and the gulags, China's Cultural Revolution, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Scientology, the Bush II administration.....feel free to add on your own example or elaboration of intolerant absolutist philosophy/religion that will admit no honest challenge.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Posts re the latest religious firestorm, again....
[Collected posts I've made in my newsgroup hyperlucidity over this situation]
==================================================
Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:16 pm
Actually, the central idea of this is the first and only intelligent/enlightened thing he's said since I've heard of him --and now people are getting upset, when it wasn't about rolling back the right to abortions, or repealing same-sex marriage in Canada, but the central fallacy of all absolute religions? Of course, he doesn't quite get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- but shouldn't that be the place to start the criticism on any humanistic grounds, not with the incident of it being taken as an insult against one religion that actually does have people doing stupidly theofanatical things in the present day?
Here's the Fox fulltext -- and the AP story below that's the one found on Yahoo News from yesterday. The Fox story paraphrased but did not quote directly what he said (not quite fair and balanced), and the upshot of what he said happens to be the one thing that all religions should be taking into account. Perhaps they omitted it because it strikes a potential blow at the feet of American forcible theocracy?
--Aurey
P.S.--I suspect that some Orthodox and other Eastern Christians will be rather put out over both the pat citing of the text as "obscure[and] medieval" and of the assumption of the Pope as being "the highest cleric in Christianity." Sounds like a whole lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.......and just rarin' for another go at the whole Crusade/jihad exercise at overgeneralization and prejudice. Doesn't anyone study the history of religions anymore?
(Religious Leaders Across Mideast Rage Against Pope's Comments on Islam)
(Muslim leaders condemn Pope's speech, want apology)
_______________________________
Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:35 am
I'm not saying he's any less bad than they are either -- but whether he meant it or not, what he said himself (i.e., not just quoting Palaeologos, who was a medieval Byzantine) ought to be given weight...again, whether he likes the full import of it or not. That's what he ought to be challenged on, though -- the Catholic Church's own record of spreading the faith by the sword, and the necessity of all faiths (and philosophies) forever recanting and refusing that method of literal "ideological warfare". It's what we need, no matter who happens to say it .I don't downplay how bad Stalin and Hitler were either, but they said a lot of insightful things about what they were doing and how they read the hearts and minds of people to do it. I'd rather understand and respond to their words logically than censure (or censor) them. Not to mention that I have no fondness for catering to the thin-skinnedness of any religion, no matter how militant.
Aurey
______________________________
[This is where I posted the post closely previous to this one, with bulleted observations]
_____________________________
Date: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 am
Okay, here's some context for the actual attitude that was being taken here through the speech, and the entire transcript (located under the American spelling of the title) can be read here:http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748 ....So, that's what he was trying to say--that he thinks the field of reason should and must re-embrace theology as a natural study, rather than relegating it to the realm of the utterly subjective.
Which is not too far from my own views, but then I still would have to resist the trend (which I can't imagine him not supporting) to consider religion to be mandated by (supposed) logical proof, as it seems his direction must inevitably be if he is opposed to the 'subjective' diversity of beliefs and practices. Because A, it might or might not be actually "true" as allegedly proven (choose your premises carefully), and B, even if something is true, if it harms no one to believe/practise otherwise or in a different version at the surface, then why press the issue? It is far more important for people to interact decently as fellow humans than to agree on the same exact creed, and I think a good deal more attention in the philosophical vein, since it's been brought up, ought to be re-addressed to the subject of ethics and responsible social interaction with others as equal beings.
--Aurey
==================================================
Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:16 pm
Actually, the central idea of this is the first and only intelligent/enlightened thing he's said since I've heard of him --and now people are getting upset, when it wasn't about rolling back the right to abortions, or repealing same-sex marriage in Canada, but the central fallacy of all absolute religions? Of course, he doesn't quite get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- but shouldn't that be the place to start the criticism on any humanistic grounds, not with the incident of it being taken as an insult against one religion that actually does have people doing stupidly theofanatical things in the present day?
Here's the Fox fulltext -- and the AP story below that's the one found on Yahoo News from yesterday. The Fox story paraphrased but did not quote directly what he said (not quite fair and balanced), and the upshot of what he said happens to be the one thing that all religions should be taking into account. Perhaps they omitted it because it strikes a potential blow at the feet of American forcible theocracy?
--Aurey
P.S.--I suspect that some Orthodox and other Eastern Christians will be rather put out over both the pat citing of the text as "obscure[and] medieval" and of the assumption of the Pope as being "the highest cleric in Christianity." Sounds like a whole lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.......and just rarin' for another go at the whole Crusade/jihad exercise at overgeneralization and prejudice. Doesn't anyone study the history of religions anymore?
(Religious Leaders Across Mideast Rage Against Pope's Comments on Islam)
(Muslim leaders condemn Pope's speech, want apology)
_______________________________
Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:35 am
I'm not saying he's any less bad than they are either -- but whether he meant it or not, what he said himself (i.e., not just quoting Palaeologos, who was a medieval Byzantine) ought to be given weight...again, whether he likes the full import of it or not. That's what he ought to be challenged on, though -- the Catholic Church's own record of spreading the faith by the sword, and the necessity of all faiths (and philosophies) forever recanting and refusing that method of literal "ideological warfare". It's what we need, no matter who happens to say it .I don't downplay how bad Stalin and Hitler were either, but they said a lot of insightful things about what they were doing and how they read the hearts and minds of people to do it. I'd rather understand and respond to their words logically than censure (or censor) them. Not to mention that I have no fondness for catering to the thin-skinnedness of any religion, no matter how militant.
Aurey
______________________________
[This is where I posted the post closely previous to this one, with bulleted observations]
_____________________________
Date: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 am
Okay, here's some context for the actual attitude that was being taken here through the speech, and the entire transcript (located under the American spelling of the title) can be read here:http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748 ....So, that's what he was trying to say--that he thinks the field of reason should and must re-embrace theology as a natural study, rather than relegating it to the realm of the utterly subjective.
Which is not too far from my own views, but then I still would have to resist the trend (which I can't imagine him not supporting) to consider religion to be mandated by (supposed) logical proof, as it seems his direction must inevitably be if he is opposed to the 'subjective' diversity of beliefs and practices. Because A, it might or might not be actually "true" as allegedly proven (choose your premises carefully), and B, even if something is true, if it harms no one to believe/practise otherwise or in a different version at the surface, then why press the issue? It is far more important for people to interact decently as fellow humans than to agree on the same exact creed, and I think a good deal more attention in the philosophical vein, since it's been brought up, ought to be re-addressed to the subject of ethics and responsible social interaction with others as equal beings.
--Aurey
Whose side am I on?--what a question to ask....
-
It might possibly seem from some of my posts recently that I'm standing up for the Pope as the "good guy" against a wave of hypersensitive Muslim fanatics. This is not precisely true, seeing as I consider him personally to be a scant few degrees more rational in civilized behaviour and intellectual detachment from his topic -- and those are only surface characteristics, easily assumed by the most rabid fundamentalist of any stripe with sufficient knowledge and practice.
The one stance within his speech that badly needs due recognition is that religion ought to have a sense of reason, instead of assuming itself (pardon my language) sacrosanct and the rational disciplines accounting it all subjective delusion and neurological imprinting. Unfortunately, his idea of religion and social doctrine is hardly rational nor humane enough for me, so I consider him a poor choice to be making that point.
But then you have the religious insult factor, and it becomes apparent that some people are completely unwilling to be rational with their religion and allow that it might have factors that show it in a bad light -- instead, they merely make those flaws the more apparent by jumping to conclusions and violence. Pope Benedict may have studied more about Islam than any pontiff before him, but it's a fair bet that over well 90% of the Muslims who are/have been railing against him are completely uninformed about his position relative to both the U.S. and to the (split) history of Christianity overall, which I've been trying to give some insight on lately. A well-educated man who addresses a gathering of peers and students is probably not expecting to be taken literally-and-skewedly by those outside who have no basis in that academic discipline, but due to the constant technological publicity of our world it is possible to become outraged over secondhand remarks far more quickly than one would have had time to absorb the entire presentation in person.
Which is why I tend to ignore most of the hype and outrage around socio-political gaffes until I can take them in context with the event and preferably get to the original source material (like I said, I found the link to that actual speech and posted it here). To react to mere words without as much perspective as possible on where they came from is ill-educated and at the mercy of whatever opinion-framer wants to set their agenda by the hypersensitivity of others......but what we see clearly here is that a majority of the people on this earth are far more keen on burning the finger in effigy than seeing where it was pointing at the moment of taken affront.
That is, at the idea that it is inherently irrational to enforce faith by violence, and thus against the nature of divinity itself. A better and wiser man would have said far more than that; a more practical and prudent man would have said far less. Personally, I'm inclined to see some truth in the (trying to remember name) supposed prophecy regarding the scheduled Popes before the Antichrist shows up....remember, this was going around a lot online before the papal election? 'Benedict' was one of the implied names -- it means "speaking well/goodness", like a 'benediction' is a blessing -- but going together with an ultimately ineffectual stance against the tide of negative events. In this case, the extreme intellectual sophistication of Cardinal Ratzinger, and his eloquence in favour of traditionalist doctrine and the purity of the Roman Catholic Church, are no defense nor immunity from being a doormat/assistant (however you wanna look at it) to the rising tide of terminal extremism sweeping the globe. Personally, considering his former office (and his known views)....well, let's just say I haven't not been expecting it....:-
Of course, he could just be asking for it, trying to start another Crusade.....um, yeah, who the hell deliberately goes around picking fights with Muslims unless they've got 'em in high-security/no-media confinement? Personally, I don't think that the present Pope is quite so much of an self-motivated martyr for that (otherwise why retain the Swiss Guard and the bulletproof Popemobile?), though I'm fairly sure that he thought he would be helping things in some positive fashion by advocating religious rationality as opposed to religious irrationality. The problem is, that only works when there's a bridge of communication between you and your intended audience. There may have been one between him and the audience in the room, but there was (consequently?) none between him and the millions of Muslims who only got the bit that quoted about Islam being "evil and inhuman".
[Note: Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos was unable to be reached for comment on his own research and perspective regarding Islam and the prior condition of the Arabic culture within which it arose. His statements must therefore be taken as coming from a relatively contemporary and personal experience of the religion's effects on/surrounding the Byzantine Empire of the 15th century.]
For the record--I do not trust the Pope in any degree, nor do I agree with any of his signature/endorsed policies that have come out of the Vatican. I am not now nor have I ever been (in this life at least) a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though I'm related to quite a few of them and went to a Catholic school for first grade. But I do believe that irrational religions are dangerous (as are those that hide behind a pretense of rationality), and that it is far better to have an intelligent and civil dialogue with those of other beliefs than to berate, harass, socially and legally discriminate, tax and stigmatize, torture, brainwash and kill in the name of any god or the absence thereof.
[Admittedly, that can and should be said far more clearly and explicitly than it was....but hell, how much circumspection can you expect from the supreme leader of one of the oldest and most absolutist denominations in the world? Expect chauvinism and condescension from a pope -- that way you won't be disappointed when the status quo remains unchanged or becomes regressively entrenched.]
But anyhow, anyone in these days who has a significant problem with that above concept probably hasn't thought very much about the state of this world -- or else they are willing to destroy it and the rest of humanity for the sake of what they think will be heavenly favour in the world to come.
[Gee, won't they be surprised.....]
It might possibly seem from some of my posts recently that I'm standing up for the Pope as the "good guy" against a wave of hypersensitive Muslim fanatics. This is not precisely true, seeing as I consider him personally to be a scant few degrees more rational in civilized behaviour and intellectual detachment from his topic -- and those are only surface characteristics, easily assumed by the most rabid fundamentalist of any stripe with sufficient knowledge and practice.
The one stance within his speech that badly needs due recognition is that religion ought to have a sense of reason, instead of assuming itself (pardon my language) sacrosanct and the rational disciplines accounting it all subjective delusion and neurological imprinting. Unfortunately, his idea of religion and social doctrine is hardly rational nor humane enough for me, so I consider him a poor choice to be making that point.
But then you have the religious insult factor, and it becomes apparent that some people are completely unwilling to be rational with their religion and allow that it might have factors that show it in a bad light -- instead, they merely make those flaws the more apparent by jumping to conclusions and violence. Pope Benedict may have studied more about Islam than any pontiff before him, but it's a fair bet that over well 90% of the Muslims who are/have been railing against him are completely uninformed about his position relative to both the U.S. and to the (split) history of Christianity overall, which I've been trying to give some insight on lately. A well-educated man who addresses a gathering of peers and students is probably not expecting to be taken literally-and-skewedly by those outside who have no basis in that academic discipline, but due to the constant technological publicity of our world it is possible to become outraged over secondhand remarks far more quickly than one would have had time to absorb the entire presentation in person.
Which is why I tend to ignore most of the hype and outrage around socio-political gaffes until I can take them in context with the event and preferably get to the original source material (like I said, I found the link to that actual speech and posted it here). To react to mere words without as much perspective as possible on where they came from is ill-educated and at the mercy of whatever opinion-framer wants to set their agenda by the hypersensitivity of others......but what we see clearly here is that a majority of the people on this earth are far more keen on burning the finger in effigy than seeing where it was pointing at the moment of taken affront.
That is, at the idea that it is inherently irrational to enforce faith by violence, and thus against the nature of divinity itself. A better and wiser man would have said far more than that; a more practical and prudent man would have said far less. Personally, I'm inclined to see some truth in the (trying to remember name) supposed prophecy regarding the scheduled Popes before the Antichrist shows up....remember, this was going around a lot online before the papal election? 'Benedict' was one of the implied names -- it means "speaking well/goodness", like a 'benediction' is a blessing -- but going together with an ultimately ineffectual stance against the tide of negative events. In this case, the extreme intellectual sophistication of Cardinal Ratzinger, and his eloquence in favour of traditionalist doctrine and the purity of the Roman Catholic Church, are no defense nor immunity from being a doormat/assistant (however you wanna look at it) to the rising tide of terminal extremism sweeping the globe. Personally, considering his former office (and his known views)....well, let's just say I haven't not been expecting it....:-
Of course, he could just be asking for it, trying to start another Crusade.....um, yeah, who the hell deliberately goes around picking fights with Muslims unless they've got 'em in high-security/no-media confinement? Personally, I don't think that the present Pope is quite so much of an self-motivated martyr for that (otherwise why retain the Swiss Guard and the bulletproof Popemobile?), though I'm fairly sure that he thought he would be helping things in some positive fashion by advocating religious rationality as opposed to religious irrationality. The problem is, that only works when there's a bridge of communication between you and your intended audience. There may have been one between him and the audience in the room, but there was (consequently?) none between him and the millions of Muslims who only got the bit that quoted about Islam being "evil and inhuman".
[Note: Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos was unable to be reached for comment on his own research and perspective regarding Islam and the prior condition of the Arabic culture within which it arose. His statements must therefore be taken as coming from a relatively contemporary and personal experience of the religion's effects on/surrounding the Byzantine Empire of the 15th century.]
For the record--I do not trust the Pope in any degree, nor do I agree with any of his signature/endorsed policies that have come out of the Vatican. I am not now nor have I ever been (in this life at least) a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though I'm related to quite a few of them and went to a Catholic school for first grade. But I do believe that irrational religions are dangerous (as are those that hide behind a pretense of rationality), and that it is far better to have an intelligent and civil dialogue with those of other beliefs than to berate, harass, socially and legally discriminate, tax and stigmatize, torture, brainwash and kill in the name of any god or the absence thereof.
[Admittedly, that can and should be said far more clearly and explicitly than it was....but hell, how much circumspection can you expect from the supreme leader of one of the oldest and most absolutist denominations in the world? Expect chauvinism and condescension from a pope -- that way you won't be disappointed when the status quo remains unchanged or becomes regressively entrenched.]
But anyhow, anyone in these days who has a significant problem with that above concept probably hasn't thought very much about the state of this world -- or else they are willing to destroy it and the rest of humanity for the sake of what they think will be heavenly favour in the world to come.
[Gee, won't they be surprised.....]
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Observer's notes from a pseudo-religious debacle....
Some perceived assumptions and between-the-lines observations here:
* Despite the fact that Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity and is hardly agreed with by all others, the Pope is being assumed as the head of Christianity so far as this debate goes, and most Muslims who do not know (hell, why should they bother?) the history of Christianity assume that he speaks for far more people than he actually does.
* It is also being assumed (hmm, possibly because it's been harped upon so much by evangelical Christian conservatives?) that the United States itself is an inherently Christian nation and that that is the essence of its apparent bias against Islamic nations and entities.
* From points one and two, it is also being assumed that the Pope has connection with the United States (its administration) in terms of influence and agenda, even though that is only the case in terms of social mores and prejudices that are already shared by the vast majority of Muslims and all of "traditional" Islamic cultures.
* The first three points, taken together, imply a Christian crusade being led by the United States against Islam as a whole, with the Pope as the clerical leader/figurehead/spokeperson.
* The repeated demands for a personal apology from the Pope, taking into account his perceived standing as the highest cleric in Christendom, are in actuality a call for symbolic capitulation by one religion to another.
* This wave of demands is being backed by the threat and actuality of anti-Christian violence, regardless of denomination or solidarity with the Pope's supposed anti-Islam bias.
* This reaction, seeing as it has not been tempered with any calls to buck Koranic literality and repudiate the concept of external jihad (i.e., 'fighting the good fight' against others instead of within oneself), only reinforces the original observation of Emperor Manuel Palaeologos that Islam has an irrational bent towards spreading the faith by the sword.
* This is not to say that Christianity has not had a similar bent throughout its official span as a state-recognized/adopted religion, but it is well worth noticing that Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire) after the great schism was not part of this historical trend of conquering and enforced conversion, but on the contrary bore the attacks of the Crusaders from the West under the orders/permission of the Pope, who had not exactly made it clear that the inhabitants of Constantinople at that time were of the same essential faith......(oops, his bad)...
* Greek religion/philosophy (whether Pagan or Christian or otherwise) has always had a tendency to debate rather than just enforce its beliefs, and to merely consider those who could not accept them as being intellectually benighted (believe me, I've read enough Orthodox apologetics to have ample proof of this--they far prefer the art of intellectual/psychological argument to that of brute ecclesiastical force, and this is part of a general East-West split as well in terms of ideological extremes).
It's the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant alike) that have had the most pronounced trends to violence in spreading and enforcing their beliefs upon others. This said, it is a bit deceptive (though intentionally mild?) that Pope Benedict would choose a Byzantine source rather than a Latin one to introduce his point of violence being unjustified in the cause of faith.
* To put words in the mouths of those who feel justified in threatening violence against all who mention the historical (and recent) violence done in the name of Islam, I need only quote Curly Howard: "Hey!--I resemble that remark!!"
* Islam was originated in a reaction against the prior establishment (and cultural status/stability) of Judaism and Christianity. It may have had some 'angelic'/supernatural inspiration, but there is no logical way that it can claim any greater revelation without having addressed in its own scriptures the real and central theological concerns of those religions as they stood at that point in time. If one is to assume possession of an "insider's perspective" on divine matters, then one must also have that same perspective and knowledge of how things are going among believers on earth to warrant a new prophet and a new message. Without sufficient evidence that Mohammed (through Gabriel as cited) had accurate knowledge of the theological premises that Jews and Christians were actually operating under in their pre-existing belief/practice, there is no logical reason why they should accept that his was any better message than that which they already had. One can clearly argue that Jesus understood his own religious upbringing and culture well enough to see where it was failing "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but the most that one can logically see in Mohammed's own personal motives is a desire for cultural solidarity among his own people, together with an implied oneupsmanship towards the established Jewish and Christian cultures. It is no surprise that they tended to resist his claims; it is no surprise that (given their own 'Abrahamic' tendency towards zealotry and no compromise) there has been perpetual strife wherever people take any of these religions too seriously in intolerance of others and their own beliefs. Put two or three of them together, and one gets either a mutual massacre or a pan-monotheistic theocratical regime against all others. I'm not sure which option strikes me as the lesser of two evils, but at least with the first you actually have a chance of the meek inheriting the earth once the fanatics are done killing each other.
* I believe (as do most sane people, I think) that any religion that thinks it justified to kill others if they don't convert to it or adhere to its social mores is morally wrong. And regarding the difference between a social more and an actual crime, there are only a limited amount of things that one can consider as unequivocal crimes against others, and it's better to stick to the here and now (and already-born) in terms of determining what those offenses are so far as explicit law, rather than expanding/maintaining the list of assumed offences (according to sentiment and scriptural interpretation) without providing a clear and rationally-undeniable argument for each one's universal validity. This applies to all beliefs that want to expand their beliefs/practices into the general sphere of conduct -- they have to prove that whatever they want to forbid is actually and consistently a source of harm to all, regardless of whether it's done willingly or not. I.e., it should require an objective proof and not merely an emotional/scriptural one, if it's to be accepted as an objective and universal standard of restriction.
* If Pope Benedict should be called to task and made to apologize for anything in this particular case, it's for the many many instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has spread and maintained itself through the use of violence, harassment, censure & silencing, destruction, torture and execution. To this date, the Spanish Inquisition itself is officially conceded only as an unfortunate footnote and misunderstanding, rather than one of the most determined and aggressive acts of genocide (actually, I think I'll use the apter term "credocide"...) in history. That is the missing part of his speech, in terms of having any moral standing from which to speak. One cannot honestly attack the faults of another religion without admitting where they have been shared by one's own, and Palaeologos was likely in a far better position to make such a statement as he did than Pope Benedict would have been to declare it in his own right.
* End point, though, he didn't say it himself, he only used it to make the more general point that no religion is justified in using violence to perpetuate itself. Admittedly, he could and should have gone further in terms of applying that dictum, but nowhere did he say anything that could be construed as an essential insult to Islam. Even the original statement was not against Islam in itself so much as the negative methods that it took in establishing itself as a new religion among others, when it could (theoretically) have simply stuck to the essentials of polite religious practice as generally understood, and not started out as such a militant and conversion-intent force that was set on sweeping all others out of the way in this present world and establishing itself as a total all-encompassing theocracy. Even Judaism was originally tribal-territorially limited in its aspirations, and Christianity was assumed to be an underdog of spiritual integrity without temporal ambitions up until the point when it was adopted by Emperor Constantine as his state religion, and then officially mandated as such in AD 380. That's about 350 years from its founding until its being used as a rationale for oppressing/coercing those of other faiths (with a lot of persecution experienced in between), whereas Mohammed wrote the precepts of external jihad into the Medina-era hadiths without much ado or delay. Some might say he was jumping the gun just a tad, if he wanted Islam to be known as (as some have loudly asserted it) a religion of peace and tolerance. Some might say that he just wanted to get as quickly as possible to the position of worldly rule/influence that it had taken both Jews and Christians centuries of endurance and longsuffering to get to in any appreciable degree. Either way, he didn't really go about it very wisely, so far as foreseeing (surely the Archangel could have told him this?) a future in which many religions including his own would be split and diversified and spread over all lands to deal with each other as best they could, and in which any religious injuction to violence against others would be an inevitable liability to the faith should it be taken seriously/literally. It is the tragedy of all religions with large bodies of sacred scriptures and codes, that they tend to cling to the letter (or assumed letter) of those things like children instead of understanding their spirit, and take a long time to evolve with their world and find maturity in the greater social reality that cannot be pinned under one creed or observance.
Or even the utter lack thereof, as some would gladly have it. There's as little justification for destroying religions wholesale as there is for enforcing them absolutely -- the best thing to do for all concerned is just to admit that no one can claim to be justified by their own faith & scriptures in forcing their ways on all. No one, no matter who, because the civil law (in order to be called civil, one might think) should always be wider than the sum scope of the religions within its jurisdiction. Not narrower, not restricting them down to the most conservative end of common practise. If it "threatens" your personal beliefs to not be able to threaten and bully and legislate others into following your own prejudices (or letting you practise them without any liability), then either you've got a weak belief or a rather faulty religion to believe in.
And no doubt I could expand on those last few paragraphs a good deal, but that's for other blogposts and such. In general, though, I think that everyone in the center of this is suffering from a widespread lack of understanding (or responsible explanation) of history, and that most are suffering (whether they'll ever admit it or not) from an unfortunate tendency to jump to vehemently outraged conclusions.
Is the concept of jihad against all "infidels" something that peaceable and civilized Muslims really ought to be defending as part-and-parcel of their religion's honour?--now there's a good question.
Not that anyone's actually going to dare to ask it, of course....
___________________________________________
===========================================
Articles of recent provenance regarding this situation:
Pope stops short of apology to Muslims (Yahoo/AP)
Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar (Daily Telegraph)
God is not to be second-guessed (Daily Telegraph)
Excerpt: [...Pope Benedict did not claim, and does not believe, that Islam is wicked. On the contrary, he has made a closer study of the Koran than any previous pontiff. As he said yesterday, he acknowledges that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians.
His point, rather, was that the spread of religion through coercion is indefensible. Some Muslims share this view, and some do not. But the Pope unquestionably raised an important point, as may be inferred from the reaction to his words: insulted by the suggestion that their religion was violent, thousands of young men took to the streets to threaten violence.
The awkward truth is that all three Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, urge intolerance on their followers. The Old Testament is every bit as hard on those who go whoring after other gods as is the Koran.
Here is the Book of Judges: "Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars" (2:2). And here is the Koran: "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" (47:4). In practice, of course, the followers of the monotheistic faiths do not generally do these things....]
What the pope said (Daily Telegraph) --actual /official statements made thus far
_____________________________________________________
=====================================================
[All death threats/etc. will be read and responded to logically. Which incidentally comes from the Greek word/concept logos, which some understand to be the guiding principle of reason and justice and balance in the universe.......]
* Despite the fact that Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity and is hardly agreed with by all others, the Pope is being assumed as the head of Christianity so far as this debate goes, and most Muslims who do not know (hell, why should they bother?) the history of Christianity assume that he speaks for far more people than he actually does.
* It is also being assumed (hmm, possibly because it's been harped upon so much by evangelical Christian conservatives?) that the United States itself is an inherently Christian nation and that that is the essence of its apparent bias against Islamic nations and entities.
* From points one and two, it is also being assumed that the Pope has connection with the United States (its administration) in terms of influence and agenda, even though that is only the case in terms of social mores and prejudices that are already shared by the vast majority of Muslims and all of "traditional" Islamic cultures.
* The first three points, taken together, imply a Christian crusade being led by the United States against Islam as a whole, with the Pope as the clerical leader/figurehead/spokeperson.
* The repeated demands for a personal apology from the Pope, taking into account his perceived standing as the highest cleric in Christendom, are in actuality a call for symbolic capitulation by one religion to another.
* This wave of demands is being backed by the threat and actuality of anti-Christian violence, regardless of denomination or solidarity with the Pope's supposed anti-Islam bias.
* This reaction, seeing as it has not been tempered with any calls to buck Koranic literality and repudiate the concept of external jihad (i.e., 'fighting the good fight' against others instead of within oneself), only reinforces the original observation of Emperor Manuel Palaeologos that Islam has an irrational bent towards spreading the faith by the sword.
* This is not to say that Christianity has not had a similar bent throughout its official span as a state-recognized/adopted religion, but it is well worth noticing that Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire) after the great schism was not part of this historical trend of conquering and enforced conversion, but on the contrary bore the attacks of the Crusaders from the West under the orders/permission of the Pope, who had not exactly made it clear that the inhabitants of Constantinople at that time were of the same essential faith......(oops, his bad)...
* Greek religion/philosophy (whether Pagan or Christian or otherwise) has always had a tendency to debate rather than just enforce its beliefs, and to merely consider those who could not accept them as being intellectually benighted (believe me, I've read enough Orthodox apologetics to have ample proof of this--they far prefer the art of intellectual/psychological argument to that of brute ecclesiastical force, and this is part of a general East-West split as well in terms of ideological extremes).
It's the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant alike) that have had the most pronounced trends to violence in spreading and enforcing their beliefs upon others. This said, it is a bit deceptive (though intentionally mild?) that Pope Benedict would choose a Byzantine source rather than a Latin one to introduce his point of violence being unjustified in the cause of faith.
* To put words in the mouths of those who feel justified in threatening violence against all who mention the historical (and recent) violence done in the name of Islam, I need only quote Curly Howard: "Hey!--I resemble that remark!!"
* Islam was originated in a reaction against the prior establishment (and cultural status/stability) of Judaism and Christianity. It may have had some 'angelic'/supernatural inspiration, but there is no logical way that it can claim any greater revelation without having addressed in its own scriptures the real and central theological concerns of those religions as they stood at that point in time. If one is to assume possession of an "insider's perspective" on divine matters, then one must also have that same perspective and knowledge of how things are going among believers on earth to warrant a new prophet and a new message. Without sufficient evidence that Mohammed (through Gabriel as cited) had accurate knowledge of the theological premises that Jews and Christians were actually operating under in their pre-existing belief/practice, there is no logical reason why they should accept that his was any better message than that which they already had. One can clearly argue that Jesus understood his own religious upbringing and culture well enough to see where it was failing "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but the most that one can logically see in Mohammed's own personal motives is a desire for cultural solidarity among his own people, together with an implied oneupsmanship towards the established Jewish and Christian cultures. It is no surprise that they tended to resist his claims; it is no surprise that (given their own 'Abrahamic' tendency towards zealotry and no compromise) there has been perpetual strife wherever people take any of these religions too seriously in intolerance of others and their own beliefs. Put two or three of them together, and one gets either a mutual massacre or a pan-monotheistic theocratical regime against all others. I'm not sure which option strikes me as the lesser of two evils, but at least with the first you actually have a chance of the meek inheriting the earth once the fanatics are done killing each other.
* I believe (as do most sane people, I think) that any religion that thinks it justified to kill others if they don't convert to it or adhere to its social mores is morally wrong. And regarding the difference between a social more and an actual crime, there are only a limited amount of things that one can consider as unequivocal crimes against others, and it's better to stick to the here and now (and already-born) in terms of determining what those offenses are so far as explicit law, rather than expanding/maintaining the list of assumed offences (according to sentiment and scriptural interpretation) without providing a clear and rationally-undeniable argument for each one's universal validity. This applies to all beliefs that want to expand their beliefs/practices into the general sphere of conduct -- they have to prove that whatever they want to forbid is actually and consistently a source of harm to all, regardless of whether it's done willingly or not. I.e., it should require an objective proof and not merely an emotional/scriptural one, if it's to be accepted as an objective and universal standard of restriction.
* If Pope Benedict should be called to task and made to apologize for anything in this particular case, it's for the many many instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has spread and maintained itself through the use of violence, harassment, censure & silencing, destruction, torture and execution. To this date, the Spanish Inquisition itself is officially conceded only as an unfortunate footnote and misunderstanding, rather than one of the most determined and aggressive acts of genocide (actually, I think I'll use the apter term "credocide"...) in history. That is the missing part of his speech, in terms of having any moral standing from which to speak. One cannot honestly attack the faults of another religion without admitting where they have been shared by one's own, and Palaeologos was likely in a far better position to make such a statement as he did than Pope Benedict would have been to declare it in his own right.
* End point, though, he didn't say it himself, he only used it to make the more general point that no religion is justified in using violence to perpetuate itself. Admittedly, he could and should have gone further in terms of applying that dictum, but nowhere did he say anything that could be construed as an essential insult to Islam. Even the original statement was not against Islam in itself so much as the negative methods that it took in establishing itself as a new religion among others, when it could (theoretically) have simply stuck to the essentials of polite religious practice as generally understood, and not started out as such a militant and conversion-intent force that was set on sweeping all others out of the way in this present world and establishing itself as a total all-encompassing theocracy. Even Judaism was originally tribal-territorially limited in its aspirations, and Christianity was assumed to be an underdog of spiritual integrity without temporal ambitions up until the point when it was adopted by Emperor Constantine as his state religion, and then officially mandated as such in AD 380. That's about 350 years from its founding until its being used as a rationale for oppressing/coercing those of other faiths (with a lot of persecution experienced in between), whereas Mohammed wrote the precepts of external jihad into the Medina-era hadiths without much ado or delay. Some might say he was jumping the gun just a tad, if he wanted Islam to be known as (as some have loudly asserted it) a religion of peace and tolerance. Some might say that he just wanted to get as quickly as possible to the position of worldly rule/influence that it had taken both Jews and Christians centuries of endurance and longsuffering to get to in any appreciable degree. Either way, he didn't really go about it very wisely, so far as foreseeing (surely the Archangel could have told him this?) a future in which many religions including his own would be split and diversified and spread over all lands to deal with each other as best they could, and in which any religious injuction to violence against others would be an inevitable liability to the faith should it be taken seriously/literally. It is the tragedy of all religions with large bodies of sacred scriptures and codes, that they tend to cling to the letter (or assumed letter) of those things like children instead of understanding their spirit, and take a long time to evolve with their world and find maturity in the greater social reality that cannot be pinned under one creed or observance.
Or even the utter lack thereof, as some would gladly have it. There's as little justification for destroying religions wholesale as there is for enforcing them absolutely -- the best thing to do for all concerned is just to admit that no one can claim to be justified by their own faith & scriptures in forcing their ways on all. No one, no matter who, because the civil law (in order to be called civil, one might think) should always be wider than the sum scope of the religions within its jurisdiction. Not narrower, not restricting them down to the most conservative end of common practise. If it "threatens" your personal beliefs to not be able to threaten and bully and legislate others into following your own prejudices (or letting you practise them without any liability), then either you've got a weak belief or a rather faulty religion to believe in.
And no doubt I could expand on those last few paragraphs a good deal, but that's for other blogposts and such. In general, though, I think that everyone in the center of this is suffering from a widespread lack of understanding (or responsible explanation) of history, and that most are suffering (whether they'll ever admit it or not) from an unfortunate tendency to jump to vehemently outraged conclusions.
Is the concept of jihad against all "infidels" something that peaceable and civilized Muslims really ought to be defending as part-and-parcel of their religion's honour?--now there's a good question.
Not that anyone's actually going to dare to ask it, of course....
___________________________________________
===========================================
Articles of recent provenance regarding this situation:
Pope stops short of apology to Muslims (Yahoo/AP)
Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar (Daily Telegraph)
God is not to be second-guessed (Daily Telegraph)
Excerpt: [...Pope Benedict did not claim, and does not believe, that Islam is wicked. On the contrary, he has made a closer study of the Koran than any previous pontiff. As he said yesterday, he acknowledges that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians.
His point, rather, was that the spread of religion through coercion is indefensible. Some Muslims share this view, and some do not. But the Pope unquestionably raised an important point, as may be inferred from the reaction to his words: insulted by the suggestion that their religion was violent, thousands of young men took to the streets to threaten violence.
The awkward truth is that all three Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, urge intolerance on their followers. The Old Testament is every bit as hard on those who go whoring after other gods as is the Koran.
Here is the Book of Judges: "Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars" (2:2). And here is the Koran: "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" (47:4). In practice, of course, the followers of the monotheistic faiths do not generally do these things....]
What the pope said (Daily Telegraph) --actual /official statements made thus far
_____________________________________________________
=====================================================
[All death threats/etc. will be read and responded to logically. Which incidentally comes from the Greek word/concept logos, which some understand to be the guiding principle of reason and justice and balance in the universe.......]
Bad form, old W....very bad form.....
===============================================================
Negotiations on terror legislation snag
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 13, 9:37 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_22
Negotiations on terror legislation snag
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 13, 9:37 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_22
===============================================================
Okay....so, is this so hard to understand, or just to prioritize properly? (I know, I know, you can't expect people to have human consciences anymore, not when national security's at stake...)
If you say that you have a right to treat your enemy captives without Geneva Convention regulations as guideline, then what reason do your enemies have to use any restraint whatsoever when they capture any of your guys? These things were established for a reason of mutual self-protection, not just some imagined namby-pambyism of "being nice to the prisoners"....and honestly, unless you've either been through a POW/torture situation yourself or read/seen and felt a damn visceral lot of the subject, you're not entitled to make decisions that may wind up putting your troops in that kind of unbridled jeopardy. Especially when you're dealing with people who behead journalists and and stone homosexuals....oh wait, that's one ideal ya got in common there, isn't it...?
Commander-in-chief, my ass...the man and the minions/handlers about him have no sense of valuing the lives of their fellow Americans, if they think that selectively ignoring treatment standards is going to make anyone inside or fighting for this country any safer....
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Song lyrics: "Spin" (geez, guess what inspired it...)
Here's a little something I had almost completely written by the end of a certain day (exact dates below)--the melody's really great but I haven't yet got an digital audio clip to upload.
Spin
This is the way of the world—the swift reaction of the hive;
This is the way of the world: no foe be left alive…
so the word’s given to us from above.
And you don’t know how—you don’t know how to see...
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll make their move, and play their part for all posterity.
This is the way of the world—this is the way it all must be.
This is the way of the world—so we can sleep at night in ignorance serene,
while the fools run the show above our heads.
They don’t know how—-they don’t know how to see.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll weave their web, and make damn sure they never have to learn.
This is the way of the world: put pride above humanity—-
and try to rule all the world; don’t heed the clamoring of us who see too far,
with disasters envisioned in our heads...
...while you hold the teeth of dragons in your hands;
while our future’s burning in the desert sands...
It must be seen in the end-—it must be learned before we fall,
what every day must defend: that every life is accountable to all—
that this world can’t be run above our heads…
Do I know how?...Do I know how to see?
Give me a tragedy--throw it stark and real before my eyes…
Give me a tragedy, and let it show what lies behind those walls of yesterday.
This is the way of the world—-but we can bend it by our sight.
This is the way of the world—-ours to make wrong or right.
Dare we hope—dare we pray
that truth be found...that truth be found...?
Dare we hope—dare we pray that truth be found.
–words and music by K. Aurencz Zethmayr—(9/11/01—10/11/02)
Spin
This is the way of the world—the swift reaction of the hive;
This is the way of the world: no foe be left alive…
so the word’s given to us from above.
And you don’t know how—you don’t know how to see...
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll make their move, and play their part for all posterity.
This is the way of the world—this is the way it all must be.
This is the way of the world—so we can sleep at night in ignorance serene,
while the fools run the show above our heads.
They don’t know how—-they don’t know how to see.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll weave their web, and make damn sure they never have to learn.
This is the way of the world: put pride above humanity—-
and try to rule all the world; don’t heed the clamoring of us who see too far,
with disasters envisioned in our heads...
...while you hold the teeth of dragons in your hands;
while our future’s burning in the desert sands...
It must be seen in the end-—it must be learned before we fall,
what every day must defend: that every life is accountable to all—
that this world can’t be run above our heads…
Do I know how?...Do I know how to see?
Give me a tragedy--throw it stark and real before my eyes…
Give me a tragedy, and let it show what lies behind those walls of yesterday.
This is the way of the world—-but we can bend it by our sight.
This is the way of the world—-ours to make wrong or right.
Dare we hope—dare we pray
that truth be found...that truth be found...?
Dare we hope—dare we pray that truth be found.
–words and music by K. Aurencz Zethmayr—(9/11/01—10/11/02)
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Just to piss off anyone who's been taking sides in the recent fiasco....
NOBODY'S GETTING A COOKIE, DAMMIT!!! NO COOKIES FOR YOU!!!
*growls*
Okay.....so I've been watching the headlines online these past couple of nights, and I see both Israel and Hezbollah claiming victory for their side (typical swaggering ideological crap, you know...)...anyhow, it occured to me that what is really needed from the U.S. and the rest of the civilized international community is a resounding and definite statement that Israel and Hezbollah have both LOST.
Lost because they couldn't control themselves from getting down in the bloody mud and sand, and in doing so lost the respect of every decent nation that can express itself. Neither side has won, and neither side deserved to "win" over the dead bodies and shattered homes of both sides' civilians. If governments and ideological military bodies are going to act like spoiled and violent children, then they ought to be responded to as such, with no quibbling about any victory involved. Let there be no pretending that this was a "justified" war, or that either organization (though one be an official national military and the other regarded as a "terrorist" movement) can claim the moral high ground. There is no such thing to be claimed, not until civil diplomatic dialogue regains its priority over armed conflict as a preferred (and encouraged) choice of action.
In other words, "You've both been very naughty and you shan't have any bragging rights over it. It takes two to tangle, and you just haven't learned shite, it seems. So grow up, dammit, or the next time we'll all swat you both on the arse...."
And by the way, Israel, cut out that damn 'G-d-is-our-realtor' spiel and grow some humanistic credibility for dealing with other nations. If you want them to recognize you, then you have to recognize that they've called this place home for a good long uninterrupted time *without* being transplanted in to fill out some Manifest Destiny. Even the Arabs in World War I fought for their own nationalism, rather than having it arranged by fiat as an entitlement deal. Learn to co-exist with the sovereignty of other nations (as certain entities and faiths must also learn to deal with it and not deny or bully), or you will most assuredly someday be destroyed by that unallayed hostility and offensive defensiveness. Deal with it. Grow up. Stop leaning on other countries' resources and sway, because it only heightens the going impression that Israel has no power nor foundation without the armaments and funds and influence of the U.S. to hold it in position in the Middle East. Such an arrangement also implies that Israel has no honour of its own....and if no one can honestly defend your name without having a stake and agenda of their own in you, then I ask you truly, what does that amount to?
Hmmf. If only it could be said so, and taken to heart. If only the U.S. had a moral standing of its own from which to speak, instead of only the power and the sway. But dammitall, it needs to be said and it needs to be heard, because these are times when no one -- no one -- can claim an absolute justification for what they do. No country, no regime, no religion, no political party, no person alive can take their ideology to an extreme and expect to escape the consequences of their deeds by the strength of some fervent belief. Balance will out, and the extremists, all of them, will meet the harvest of their actions whether they like it or not. Hold back the absolutists -- and curtail and undermine their braggings at every turn, every side -- and perhaps there is some chance that they will turn aside from being all of them wrong, to reach a higher plane of human decency and what we call civilization.
Anyone think that'd make a viable political platform....? I think I'd call it, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword -- Paradise not included."
[also posted at http://aureantes.livejournal.com/52127.html and as original reply at hyperlucidity....]
*growls*
Okay.....so I've been watching the headlines online these past couple of nights, and I see both Israel and Hezbollah claiming victory for their side (typical swaggering ideological crap, you know...)...anyhow, it occured to me that what is really needed from the U.S. and the rest of the civilized international community is a resounding and definite statement that Israel and Hezbollah have both LOST.
Lost because they couldn't control themselves from getting down in the bloody mud and sand, and in doing so lost the respect of every decent nation that can express itself. Neither side has won, and neither side deserved to "win" over the dead bodies and shattered homes of both sides' civilians. If governments and ideological military bodies are going to act like spoiled and violent children, then they ought to be responded to as such, with no quibbling about any victory involved. Let there be no pretending that this was a "justified" war, or that either organization (though one be an official national military and the other regarded as a "terrorist" movement) can claim the moral high ground. There is no such thing to be claimed, not until civil diplomatic dialogue regains its priority over armed conflict as a preferred (and encouraged) choice of action.
In other words, "You've both been very naughty and you shan't have any bragging rights over it. It takes two to tangle, and you just haven't learned shite, it seems. So grow up, dammit, or the next time we'll all swat you both on the arse...."
And by the way, Israel, cut out that damn 'G-d-is-our-realtor' spiel and grow some humanistic credibility for dealing with other nations. If you want them to recognize you, then you have to recognize that they've called this place home for a good long uninterrupted time *without* being transplanted in to fill out some Manifest Destiny. Even the Arabs in World War I fought for their own nationalism, rather than having it arranged by fiat as an entitlement deal. Learn to co-exist with the sovereignty of other nations (as certain entities and faiths must also learn to deal with it and not deny or bully), or you will most assuredly someday be destroyed by that unallayed hostility and offensive defensiveness. Deal with it. Grow up. Stop leaning on other countries' resources and sway, because it only heightens the going impression that Israel has no power nor foundation without the armaments and funds and influence of the U.S. to hold it in position in the Middle East. Such an arrangement also implies that Israel has no honour of its own....and if no one can honestly defend your name without having a stake and agenda of their own in you, then I ask you truly, what does that amount to?
Hmmf. If only it could be said so, and taken to heart. If only the U.S. had a moral standing of its own from which to speak, instead of only the power and the sway. But dammitall, it needs to be said and it needs to be heard, because these are times when no one -- no one -- can claim an absolute justification for what they do. No country, no regime, no religion, no political party, no person alive can take their ideology to an extreme and expect to escape the consequences of their deeds by the strength of some fervent belief. Balance will out, and the extremists, all of them, will meet the harvest of their actions whether they like it or not. Hold back the absolutists -- and curtail and undermine their braggings at every turn, every side -- and perhaps there is some chance that they will turn aside from being all of them wrong, to reach a higher plane of human decency and what we call civilization.
Anyone think that'd make a viable political platform....? I think I'd call it, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword -- Paradise not included."
[also posted at http://aureantes.livejournal.com/52127.html and as original reply at hyperlucidity....]
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
=Admit No Impediments=
The price of societal evolution is eternal vigilance...
Especially seeing as the more vocal among the moral conservatives have made it their objective to keep bringing up that ethical atrocity known as the Federal Marriage Amendment each and every year until they manage to push it through Congress through sheer force of public annoyance...(do they think that'll actually work?)...
Well, I'm glad it got stopped, this time. But, despite my thanks to the senators who voted it down, whatever their personal leanings on the issue, I know that there needs to be a lot more work, not just in defending against the assaults of reactionaries but in truly rallying the forces of the progressive and humane among us -- not in half-hearted demurrals of authority to permanently forbid -- which is in itself illogical to an extreme when dealing with the evolution of legal rights and liberties -- but in bringing forward all the many reasons to allow and to expand the civil (i.e., secular, and general for all cases) definition of marriage IN full name and dignity. And this is a fight for visibility that has to start without delay, without resting on our vicarious and tenuous laurels just 'cause Bush and his cohort haven't succeeded yet in remaking the U.S. Constitution in their own theocratical image.
Last I heard, June was GLBT Pride Month, and the Religious Wrong has now mounted and failed its 'Tet Offensive' against the festal observance. So this year, all the rest of this month, let's make all those celebrations count as demonstrations, all our declarations as manifestos of a....a more-perfect ideal of union, more perfect because more inclusive and more true to ourselves and to every individual. Let the churches and synagogues and mosques and temples forbid whomever they will to be "married" according to their own rites and definitions and venues, but in a pluralistic nation the civil law should always be larger in spirit then the mainstream religious establishments -- otherwise its very existence becomes redundant, and the state effectively sanctions all the prejudices of the religions to whom it surrenders the reins of general law and its interpretation.
"Marriage" is not a word that belongs to the churches and the televangelists, to the Vatican or to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Orthodox Synod or to any assembly of religious authority -- and to let them define it and withhold it is an act of discrimination in itself on the part of those too cowed to assert that the law must serve the structural needs of all citizens, not just those of a particular faith (or similarity of faith), regardless of biological sex or social gender. The general law that serves for all must not discriminate against some merely on the basis of "moral majority", whether real or merely assumed by silence or suspension of verdict. We 've gone through that before as a country -- and don't you think we should have learned by now that legalized social discrimination doesn't work, won't last against inevitable social change, and wastes the true moral capital of the nation on hatred and paranoid defensiveness?
Marriage, as I see it pragmatically, is a civilly and legally-recognized bond of mutual (assumedly romantic) attraction to the point of choosing to share one's household, daily life and destiny with another individual, with or without the intent or ability to bear and/or raise children (even though blood/disease testing for a marriage license does presuppose intent to breed). By existing requirements, it is a contract entered into by consenting adults ("human" is presupposed and supported by the rest) of sound mind, of their own free and uncoerced will and without either one's intent to deceive the other. And really, that's all that needs to be defined about it as perpetually-standing rules, because those are the basic requirements of any stable and legal consensual relationship. To pin it down any further than that, particularly within the Constitution, is to make it an impedence to human reality, both for the future and right now (since time and affections have not been standing still and waiting for legal permission to proceed). And at the moment, I doubt you could find, on average, any more determined and devoted 'marriages' than the unions which now exist and persist and navigate their survival without benefit of the name that they fully deserve.
Which, really, is a far more a disgrace to the factions of society that are intent on enforcing their moral discrimination than to the demographic cluster that they're warring against so fervently....actually, I feel like putting that in even stronger words. So here goes:
The "sanctity of marriage", if one is particularly fond of using that term as a point of distinction, is currently and ironically best exemplified among those that some dare to refer to as "anathema", "abomination", "immoral" and other vehement epithets that fit distinctly ill with their speakers' own assumption of any positive moral or spiritual authority whatsoever, whether on this earth or beyond it.
There. Those that judge, expect to be judged yourselves, and by your fruits shall ye be known. I.e., if you're well-known for stoning your fruits and committing like actions, you're in some really deep trouble. And meanwhile the stone which the builders rejected, the same shall become the head of the corner....and seriously, people, any self-respecting Messiah would be ashamed to associate with these so-called "people of faith", much less condone them attaching his name to their vain and reprehensible crusades.
Especially seeing as the more vocal among the moral conservatives have made it their objective to keep bringing up that ethical atrocity known as the Federal Marriage Amendment each and every year until they manage to push it through Congress through sheer force of public annoyance...(do they think that'll actually work?)...
Well, I'm glad it got stopped, this time. But, despite my thanks to the senators who voted it down, whatever their personal leanings on the issue, I know that there needs to be a lot more work, not just in defending against the assaults of reactionaries but in truly rallying the forces of the progressive and humane among us -- not in half-hearted demurrals of authority to permanently forbid -- which is in itself illogical to an extreme when dealing with the evolution of legal rights and liberties -- but in bringing forward all the many reasons to allow and to expand the civil (i.e., secular, and general for all cases) definition of marriage IN full name and dignity. And this is a fight for visibility that has to start without delay, without resting on our vicarious and tenuous laurels just 'cause Bush and his cohort haven't succeeded yet in remaking the U.S. Constitution in their own theocratical image.
Last I heard, June was GLBT Pride Month, and the Religious Wrong has now mounted and failed its 'Tet Offensive' against the festal observance. So this year, all the rest of this month, let's make all those celebrations count as demonstrations, all our declarations as manifestos of a....a more-perfect ideal of union, more perfect because more inclusive and more true to ourselves and to every individual. Let the churches and synagogues and mosques and temples forbid whomever they will to be "married" according to their own rites and definitions and venues, but in a pluralistic nation the civil law should always be larger in spirit then the mainstream religious establishments -- otherwise its very existence becomes redundant, and the state effectively sanctions all the prejudices of the religions to whom it surrenders the reins of general law and its interpretation.
"Marriage" is not a word that belongs to the churches and the televangelists, to the Vatican or to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Orthodox Synod or to any assembly of religious authority -- and to let them define it and withhold it is an act of discrimination in itself on the part of those too cowed to assert that the law must serve the structural needs of all citizens, not just those of a particular faith (or similarity of faith), regardless of biological sex or social gender. The general law that serves for all must not discriminate against some merely on the basis of "moral majority", whether real or merely assumed by silence or suspension of verdict. We 've gone through that before as a country -- and don't you think we should have learned by now that legalized social discrimination doesn't work, won't last against inevitable social change, and wastes the true moral capital of the nation on hatred and paranoid defensiveness?
Marriage, as I see it pragmatically, is a civilly and legally-recognized bond of mutual (assumedly romantic) attraction to the point of choosing to share one's household, daily life and destiny with another individual, with or without the intent or ability to bear and/or raise children (even though blood/disease testing for a marriage license does presuppose intent to breed). By existing requirements, it is a contract entered into by consenting adults ("human" is presupposed and supported by the rest) of sound mind, of their own free and uncoerced will and without either one's intent to deceive the other. And really, that's all that needs to be defined about it as perpetually-standing rules, because those are the basic requirements of any stable and legal consensual relationship. To pin it down any further than that, particularly within the Constitution, is to make it an impedence to human reality, both for the future and right now (since time and affections have not been standing still and waiting for legal permission to proceed). And at the moment, I doubt you could find, on average, any more determined and devoted 'marriages' than the unions which now exist and persist and navigate their survival without benefit of the name that they fully deserve.
Which, really, is a far more a disgrace to the factions of society that are intent on enforcing their moral discrimination than to the demographic cluster that they're warring against so fervently....actually, I feel like putting that in even stronger words. So here goes:
The "sanctity of marriage", if one is particularly fond of using that term as a point of distinction, is currently and ironically best exemplified among those that some dare to refer to as "anathema", "abomination", "immoral" and other vehement epithets that fit distinctly ill with their speakers' own assumption of any positive moral or spiritual authority whatsoever, whether on this earth or beyond it.
There. Those that judge, expect to be judged yourselves, and by your fruits shall ye be known. I.e., if you're well-known for stoning your fruits and committing like actions, you're in some really deep trouble. And meanwhile the stone which the builders rejected, the same shall become the head of the corner....and seriously, people, any self-respecting Messiah would be ashamed to associate with these so-called "people of faith", much less condone them attaching his name to their vain and reprehensible crusades.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Re: "There is a Bomb in Gilead...and Hitler's giving medals...."
Um, yeah...ya know what else I realized about this shite? It means
that Roe vs. Wade is going to be overturned within the next two
years, or as soon as a poster-child case can be found. All this
release of "federal guidelines" is intended to pave the way so that
there can be no strong-enough objection to prevent rolling back
abortion rights completely (well, unless you can afford anything and
everything--as usual).
There will be no exceptions allowed for a mother's health ("See,
we're taking care of that--we simply assume that everyone's
pregnant, so no one has an excuse"), for financial hardship ("Well,
didn't you plan.../:)...?") or for rape/incest ("She's healthy
enough, she can certainly carry the baby to term and then get it
out of her life and forget about it"). Hell, why should it matter
anyhow? "Your Honour, she was pre-pregnant anyways when I followed
her home..." Baby-first thinking, all the way down the line.
Seriously, people--any comprehensive social program meant to produce
healthier live babies has to take into account both sides and
emphasize better health overall, whether for healthy breeding or --
*gasp*-- for one's own health as an individual. As a well-informed
teenager, and as an adult legally capable of making one's own
personal decisions without undue interference. Any set of public-
health policies that pointedly ignores that in favour of such a lump
reproductive classification can hardly be described as a step forward
for 'women's health', no matter what officials and healthcare
providers say. It's merely a cushion of benign concern to cover
their asses as they prepare to march the U.S. backwards in time.
[Linkto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperlucidity/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR20060/51500875.html
http://aureantesrealm.blogspot.com/2006/05/there-is-bomb-in-gilead-and-hitlers.html (aka previous blogpost)]
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
There is a Bomb in Gilead--and Hitler's giving medals...
Apparently this news didn't have a chance to register on my headline-radar from the other weekend, seeing as I was out of state visiting my fiancee....yeah, and she's pissed about it too. Shocked, appalled and both of us growling mad. Just for the record, we don't plan on having any children, though it seems that the conscious and deliberate intent of adults means approximately nada these days....
What I'm referring to, of course is this:
Forever Pregnant
Guidelines: Treat Nearly All Women as Pre-Pregnant
By January W. Payne
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page HE01
New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.
Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.
While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, experts say it's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.
[..Statistics on infant mortality and low prenatal health conditions...yeah, that's a big problem for a supposedly-developed country, not denying that...]
Preconception care should be delivered by any doctor a patient sees -- from her primary care physician to her gynecologist. It involves developing a "reproductive health plan" that details if and when children are planned, said Janis Biermann, a report co-author and vice president for education and health promotion at the March of Dimes.
[....Okay, here comes the really really pressuring part, though---]
Experts acknowledge that women with no plans to get pregnant in the near future may resist preconception care.
"We know that women -- unless you're actively planning [a pregnancy], . . . she doesn't want to talk about it," Biermann said. So clinicians must find a "way to do this and not scare women," by promoting preconception care as part of standard women's health care, she said.
Ahhhh, right....."standard women's health care." Would you pray tell me then, how does one get out of standard women's health care and all its prying questions and assumptions? Is it not enough to state your intentions to abstain from breeding?--must one have a complete sterilization to be considered exempt from the new healthy-baby agenda? And what about lesbians?--now that we have a 'gayby boom', will they be taken seriously if they say their form of birth-control is "not sleeping with men"? Are clearly masculine women and even pre-op (or non-op, non-hormones) transgendered men going to be embarrassed by their doctors treating them like every other biological woman, just 'cause they're theoretically able to conceive?
And what about the other side of the equation--biological men of an age to be sowing their wild oats and spreading sperm?--you don't see them mentioned in this little pack of guidelines, even though they provide half the genetic material and generally a good deal of the initiative behind every pregnancy, planned or (inevitably) unplanned. Shouldn't every teenager post-puberty and up be treated as a potential father/sperm-donor whose health should be kept in optimal stud condition, and his lifestyle habits and disease risks evaluated in respect to his breeding potential?--or would that be some kind of a personal intrusion? Even if that sort of treatment and questioning made for greater awareness and self-control and "planning" on their part as to the whole baby-making thang?
Look, people -- I'm not against having healthier babies (it's a lot better for making healthy adults, afterall), and ironically enough I'd been recently posting to one of my groups (post reproduced earlier here) on the need for better prenatal heath -- but for both parents-to-be in every case. Meaning that everyone ought to take care of themselves the best way possible for their intentions, whether to breed or not to breed. That's the way it ought to be, and that's the way for people to be responsible adults and handle their own affairs. I don't think that the government has any right leveling a mass assumption of 'pre-pregnancy" on teenage girls and women, and I think that it's a step backwards towards paternalism over women's bodies and restriction of their lives on behalf on their reproductive potential...which we've had workplace issues over before.
Apart from the cultural implications, it is very clear to me that this polite new semi-mandate has one main goal in mind coming now from this administration...and that is neither to reduce unplanned pregnancies (how can it, if it only targets women?) nor infant mortality (joint genetics, quality of care and access to it are also high factors), but purely and simply to reduce abortions....directly, the ones done for reasons of threatening maternal health, but with more insidious effects on the whole area of sex and reproduction. To encourage every woman to think of herself as already pregnant in taking care of herself --contrary to the idea of encouraging planning-- sends the message that it's ultimately out of her control so she might as well prepare for it, that every pregnancy planned or not must be carried to term so long as she's healthy anyhow, and (this to men, eventually) that a woman taking good care of herself healthwise must automatically be a woman who is open to bearing children. Which really is a step backwards in terms of seeing the individual rather than just a vessel of fertility or not.....but hey, didn't Martin Luther say something about breeding being women's sole sanctifying purpose in life? Faith-based organizations will take note of this, believe me...
Oh.....plus it sends the usual double-standard message that it's okay for men to be overweight, unfit, undisciplined (and unattractive) schlubs with irresponsible diets and all the smoking and drinking they want, so long as they're healthy enough to have sex (and take a pill to get it up if they have to). Performance is everything, substance is nothing....and why should men have to worry about their future babies?
Meanwhile, I think that in a few years we'll be seeing exemplary mothers (for birthing, not for raising) presented with medals by the Fuehrer--sorry, President--for their services to the nation. Afterall, you need a lot of healthy young to raise for cannon-fodder in perpetual warfare and a military/police state, not to mention satisfying the growth needs of that great brazen idol known as The Economy.......
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
What I'm referring to, of course is this:
Forever Pregnant
Guidelines: Treat Nearly All Women as Pre-Pregnant
By January W. Payne
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page HE01
New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.
Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.
While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, experts say it's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.
[..Statistics on infant mortality and low prenatal health conditions...yeah, that's a big problem for a supposedly-developed country, not denying that...]
Preconception care should be delivered by any doctor a patient sees -- from her primary care physician to her gynecologist. It involves developing a "reproductive health plan" that details if and when children are planned, said Janis Biermann, a report co-author and vice president for education and health promotion at the March of Dimes.
[....Okay, here comes the really really pressuring part, though---]
Experts acknowledge that women with no plans to get pregnant in the near future may resist preconception care.
"We know that women -- unless you're actively planning [a pregnancy], . . . she doesn't want to talk about it," Biermann said. So clinicians must find a "way to do this and not scare women," by promoting preconception care as part of standard women's health care, she said.
Ahhhh, right....."standard women's health care." Would you pray tell me then, how does one get out of standard women's health care and all its prying questions and assumptions? Is it not enough to state your intentions to abstain from breeding?--must one have a complete sterilization to be considered exempt from the new healthy-baby agenda? And what about lesbians?--now that we have a 'gayby boom', will they be taken seriously if they say their form of birth-control is "not sleeping with men"? Are clearly masculine women and even pre-op (or non-op, non-hormones) transgendered men going to be embarrassed by their doctors treating them like every other biological woman, just 'cause they're theoretically able to conceive?
And what about the other side of the equation--biological men of an age to be sowing their wild oats and spreading sperm?--you don't see them mentioned in this little pack of guidelines, even though they provide half the genetic material and generally a good deal of the initiative behind every pregnancy, planned or (inevitably) unplanned. Shouldn't every teenager post-puberty and up be treated as a potential father/sperm-donor whose health should be kept in optimal stud condition, and his lifestyle habits and disease risks evaluated in respect to his breeding potential?--or would that be some kind of a personal intrusion? Even if that sort of treatment and questioning made for greater awareness and self-control and "planning" on their part as to the whole baby-making thang?
Look, people -- I'm not against having healthier babies (it's a lot better for making healthy adults, afterall), and ironically enough I'd been recently posting to one of my groups (post reproduced earlier here) on the need for better prenatal heath -- but for both parents-to-be in every case. Meaning that everyone ought to take care of themselves the best way possible for their intentions, whether to breed or not to breed. That's the way it ought to be, and that's the way for people to be responsible adults and handle their own affairs. I don't think that the government has any right leveling a mass assumption of 'pre-pregnancy" on teenage girls and women, and I think that it's a step backwards towards paternalism over women's bodies and restriction of their lives on behalf on their reproductive potential...which we've had workplace issues over before.
Apart from the cultural implications, it is very clear to me that this polite new semi-mandate has one main goal in mind coming now from this administration...and that is neither to reduce unplanned pregnancies (how can it, if it only targets women?) nor infant mortality (joint genetics, quality of care and access to it are also high factors), but purely and simply to reduce abortions....directly, the ones done for reasons of threatening maternal health, but with more insidious effects on the whole area of sex and reproduction. To encourage every woman to think of herself as already pregnant in taking care of herself --contrary to the idea of encouraging planning-- sends the message that it's ultimately out of her control so she might as well prepare for it, that every pregnancy planned or not must be carried to term so long as she's healthy anyhow, and (this to men, eventually) that a woman taking good care of herself healthwise must automatically be a woman who is open to bearing children. Which really is a step backwards in terms of seeing the individual rather than just a vessel of fertility or not.....but hey, didn't Martin Luther say something about breeding being women's sole sanctifying purpose in life? Faith-based organizations will take note of this, believe me...
Oh.....plus it sends the usual double-standard message that it's okay for men to be overweight, unfit, undisciplined (and unattractive) schlubs with irresponsible diets and all the smoking and drinking they want, so long as they're healthy enough to have sex (and take a pill to get it up if they have to). Performance is everything, substance is nothing....and why should men have to worry about their future babies?
Meanwhile, I think that in a few years we'll be seeing exemplary mothers (for birthing, not for raising) presented with medals by the Fuehrer--sorry, President--for their services to the nation. Afterall, you need a lot of healthy young to raise for cannon-fodder in perpetual warfare and a military/police state, not to mention satisfying the growth needs of that great brazen idol known as The Economy.......
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
And the point of punishing the media is what now?
Regarding the article cited below:
Congress Agrees to Raise Broadcast-Indecency Fines
Conference to Decide Maximum Penalty
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Okay, okay....to some this is a bigger issue than others, of course, especially if you've got young children of your own. No one's going to disagree that parents have a right to protect (or a duty to dissuade?) their children from broadcast material that's too ribald or sexual or violent for them -- but isn't that what all those religious and family-oriented channels are for, not to mention the hi-tech invention of the V-chip and the low-tech invention of being able to talk to your family in the first place about what gets watched? Doesn't having other people watching out for what your kids watch means they want to control what they see, regardless of your own choices or parental inertia or philosophy?
Not to mention keeping an eye on what other adults are allowed to see or hear....
I think the main question is what the definition of "indecency" is, and who is going to take it on themselves to establish a standard. With the penalties going this high, it's likely to eventually quash a lot more in the way of publically-broadcast material than just what most of us would agree is patently obscene or offensive....I mean, what about that controversial episode of "Postcards From Buster" that was pulled last year or so? It didn't have anything 'indecent' or 'adult' going on, but there was ire enough that a lesbian couple was shown as being 'normal' and human.
And admittedly, this is not referring to cable -- cable TV and satellite radio have argued the case well that not everyone has automatic access to them anyhow. As long as you have to subscribe to it and have the well-enough publicized option of blocking channels and ratings.....well, right, of course. Can't put a damper on paying customers....
But really, what's with the paternalism anyhow? What's with the constant protecting people against what they're likely as not to have seen already, or not be long in encountering? Since when has "realistic human behaviour" been something to be treated like a dirty little secret, when it's a dirty big reality of real life anyhow? Designated children's programming per se is already wholesome and mostly G-rated in content, and kids who have a list of established favourite shows are unlikely to veer off it (I know this from experience--other shows are just boring filler around the things you really want to watch). I'm not in favour of trashfests and tabloid-shows, mind you (most of which currently get by with bleeping out profanity and just being ambiently sleazyin their subjects), but I am worried that these heightened penalties will push more protective self-censorship of things that are only "indecent" if you're a member of the Religious Right with a moral axe to grind. So where's the official line going to be drawn when it comes to letting children (and people without cable/satellite?) be exposed to ideas and social realities that the official powers-that-be don't approve of airing on the (temporarily) open airwaves, and who's qualified to decide what things are best prohibited for the public good?
Congress Agrees to Raise Broadcast-Indecency Fines
Conference to Decide Maximum Penalty
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Okay, okay....to some this is a bigger issue than others, of course, especially if you've got young children of your own. No one's going to disagree that parents have a right to protect (or a duty to dissuade?) their children from broadcast material that's too ribald or sexual or violent for them -- but isn't that what all those religious and family-oriented channels are for, not to mention the hi-tech invention of the V-chip and the low-tech invention of being able to talk to your family in the first place about what gets watched? Doesn't having other people watching out for what your kids watch means they want to control what they see, regardless of your own choices or parental inertia or philosophy?
Not to mention keeping an eye on what other adults are allowed to see or hear....
I think the main question is what the definition of "indecency" is, and who is going to take it on themselves to establish a standard. With the penalties going this high, it's likely to eventually quash a lot more in the way of publically-broadcast material than just what most of us would agree is patently obscene or offensive....I mean, what about that controversial episode of "Postcards From Buster" that was pulled last year or so? It didn't have anything 'indecent' or 'adult' going on, but there was ire enough that a lesbian couple was shown as being 'normal' and human.
And admittedly, this is not referring to cable -- cable TV and satellite radio have argued the case well that not everyone has automatic access to them anyhow. As long as you have to subscribe to it and have the well-enough publicized option of blocking channels and ratings.....well, right, of course. Can't put a damper on paying customers....
But really, what's with the paternalism anyhow? What's with the constant protecting people against what they're likely as not to have seen already, or not be long in encountering? Since when has "realistic human behaviour" been something to be treated like a dirty little secret, when it's a dirty big reality of real life anyhow? Designated children's programming per se is already wholesome and mostly G-rated in content, and kids who have a list of established favourite shows are unlikely to veer off it (I know this from experience--other shows are just boring filler around the things you really want to watch). I'm not in favour of trashfests and tabloid-shows, mind you (most of which currently get by with bleeping out profanity and just being ambiently sleazyin their subjects), but I am worried that these heightened penalties will push more protective self-censorship of things that are only "indecent" if you're a member of the Religious Right with a moral axe to grind. So where's the official line going to be drawn when it comes to letting children (and people without cable/satellite?) be exposed to ideas and social realities that the official powers-that-be don't approve of airing on the (temporarily) open airwaves, and who's qualified to decide what things are best prohibited for the public good?
Ya callin' me an anti-humanist or somethin'?
Initial Subject: Re: "Animal rights camp to export terror" (Telegraph, UK)
Stimulus: "I'm all for treating animals well and getting rid of unnecessary torturous experiments, like cosmetics, but the truth is.. we do need animal testing for many medical problems. If you have diabetes, you can thank the chimps who were experimented on to come up with glucose balancing medicine. Ditto for thyroid medication and other medicines many of us take daily and don't think twice about. Yes, maybe we should just die and decrease the surplus population. I already hear your argument, Aurey ;-)"
Disclaimer: I never said I was in favour of PETA and similarly-aggressive groups, nor of forcing an end to all animal testing.
Heh....well, my argument is in favour of medical research, but not in
pushing the envelope of life too hard and too greedily....
I'm more in favour of having people lead healthier and more
able/fulfilling lives rather than necessarily longer ones, and I
think that more attention needs to be paid to prenatal (and pre-
procreation at all) health of both parents and child, rather than
having every extreme premature case "rescued" and put on an incubator
no matter how remotely viable. Besides, I'm also all for reducing
the chasm in quality of health care between rich and poor, and I
think that financing/resources are often far better alotted to making
sure that medical advancements and due professional attention are
made available to as many people as possible in all regions, rather
than pushing on constantly ahead on cutting-edge advancements that
will only widen the divide between those who can afford the best in
care (both necessary and elective/cosmetic) and those who can't.
And yeah, I think that PETA is scary. Personally, I don't see why so
many celebrities support/do ads for them, unless there's some sort of
a Scientology-type different angle that they're being fed. I'm
against J-Lo using fur in her fashions (as demand increases
hunting/farming, not to mention that I can't stand J-Lo anyhow),
but I don't deny its virtues as a practical covering if the
climate/weather demands, and I'm not against leather, especially not
so long as there's a meat industry in the first place that results in
hides being harvested.
[And don't try to push veganism on me as an ultimate ideal, 'cause
I'm well aware from my own and my siblings' allergies/sensitivities
that no, soy is not the answer to everything. Different people
have different needs and issues--deal with it. Personally, I was
born an omnivore.]
I think that there should be more effort in fashion/design to make
faux animal materials look convincing and wear better so that there
is less visual prestige to having 'the real thing'.
Oh, and I hate seeing roadkill on the highways where animals can't
cross any other way, and I think that game hunting these days is
hardly a credible sport, especially as culling "trophy" animals is
against the natural practice of predators. All of which falls under
the general heading of selfishness, hurry and unfair advantage. But
I know that medical research animals are generally treated well and
valued for their (albeit involuntary) contributions...well, make that
more of an "I knew that..."--because scientific research may well
have gotten more callous since its pioneering days, what with
corporate expansion and incentives. But I hardly see them getting
more humane on the whole with having to be on the defensive against
targeted ideological attacks. There needs to be a middle ground, and
neither the radicals (who want a war and are preparing for it) nor
the pharmaceutical companies (who want their profits unhampered by
public controversy) are making use of it.
Aurey
P.S.--My family's total past and current ecological affiliations
include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation,
the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon
Society, the Coalition of Concerned Scientists -- and Brookfield
Zoo. Just to be comprehensive about it.
Stimulus: "I'm all for treating animals well and getting rid of unnecessary torturous experiments, like cosmetics, but the truth is.. we do need animal testing for many medical problems. If you have diabetes, you can thank the chimps who were experimented on to come up with glucose balancing medicine. Ditto for thyroid medication and other medicines many of us take daily and don't think twice about. Yes, maybe we should just die and decrease the surplus population. I already hear your argument, Aurey ;-)"
Disclaimer: I never said I was in favour of PETA and similarly-aggressive groups, nor of forcing an end to all animal testing.
Heh....well, my argument is in favour of medical research, but not in
pushing the envelope of life too hard and too greedily....
I'm more in favour of having people lead healthier and more
able/fulfilling lives rather than necessarily longer ones, and I
think that more attention needs to be paid to prenatal (and pre-
procreation at all) health of both parents and child, rather than
having every extreme premature case "rescued" and put on an incubator
no matter how remotely viable. Besides, I'm also all for reducing
the chasm in quality of health care between rich and poor, and I
think that financing/resources are often far better alotted to making
sure that medical advancements and due professional attention are
made available to as many people as possible in all regions, rather
than pushing on constantly ahead on cutting-edge advancements that
will only widen the divide between those who can afford the best in
care (both necessary and elective/cosmetic) and those who can't.
And yeah, I think that PETA is scary. Personally, I don't see why so
many celebrities support/do ads for them, unless there's some sort of
a Scientology-type different angle that they're being fed. I'm
against J-Lo using fur in her fashions (as demand increases
hunting/farming, not to mention that I can't stand J-Lo anyhow),
but I don't deny its virtues as a practical covering if the
climate/weather demands, and I'm not against leather, especially not
so long as there's a meat industry in the first place that results in
hides being harvested.
[And don't try to push veganism on me as an ultimate ideal, 'cause
I'm well aware from my own and my siblings' allergies/sensitivities
that no, soy is not the answer to everything. Different people
have different needs and issues--deal with it. Personally, I was
born an omnivore.]
I think that there should be more effort in fashion/design to make
faux animal materials look convincing and wear better so that there
is less visual prestige to having 'the real thing'.
Oh, and I hate seeing roadkill on the highways where animals can't
cross any other way, and I think that game hunting these days is
hardly a credible sport, especially as culling "trophy" animals is
against the natural practice of predators. All of which falls under
the general heading of selfishness, hurry and unfair advantage. But
I know that medical research animals are generally treated well and
valued for their (albeit involuntary) contributions...well, make that
more of an "I knew that..."--because scientific research may well
have gotten more callous since its pioneering days, what with
corporate expansion and incentives. But I hardly see them getting
more humane on the whole with having to be on the defensive against
targeted ideological attacks. There needs to be a middle ground, and
neither the radicals (who want a war and are preparing for it) nor
the pharmaceutical companies (who want their profits unhampered by
public controversy) are making use of it.
Aurey
P.S.--My family's total past and current ecological affiliations
include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation,
the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon
Society, the Coalition of Concerned Scientists -- and Brookfield
Zoo. Just to be comprehensive about it.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Hmm, and just what's so bad about a pentacle....?
[Re: Wiccan Soldier's Widow Petitions for Recognition.
Original story and link to the audio of the complete story can be found at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5334805
Quoted from NPR's website, as listed above:
"All Things Considered, April 10, 2006 · The widow of a Nevada National Guardsman killed in Afghanistan wants her husband's Wiccan faith recognized. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs permits 38 religious symbols to adorn headstones and memorials, like the one commemorating Sgt. Patrick Stewart's unit. That list includes the Christian cross and even a symbol for atheists, but the government has not yet approved the Wiccan pentacle."] ============================================
The only truly fair (and definitely legal) thing to do in this case is either to allow the pentacle or take down all the crosses and everything else....otherwise there's clearly a bias and preferential treatment being given.
Now....as to WHY this is currently being denied, I think we can all clearly see that it's on account of the pentacle being assumed as evil by Christians (fundamentalists, Catholics and even-more-moderate/mainstreamers), because they count it as witchcraft/Satanism whether it's inverted or not.
But...under a truly non-establishmentarian form of law (non-preferential in terms of any religion being assumed/mandated), what one religion merely thinks of another and its symbols should not have an effect on the legal rights of that other religion to have its symbols recognized and used as a proper denotation of faith. It's
like (in business) claiming possession of someone else's trademark only to defame it. Just because some paranoid Christians may say that the pentacle means devil-worship, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to stand in the way of a fallen Wiccan soldier getting his due dignity.
ALSO...that means that even the inverted pentacle as a proper symbol of Satanism, and even a swastika as symbol of Odinism or Asatru (assuming that to be the self-chosen denotative symbol), should deserve the same right-of-use as religious symbols so long as the practiced faiths falls under the legal boundaries of 'freedom of religion'...controversial, yes, but listen:
I think that the primary societal justification of any religion's legal freedom should be this -- that its followers do not harm, molest, exploit, coerce or defame others (including among their own community) as part of the primary tenets of their belief, and that they do not advocate violence or political mandates against outsiders on account of whether they themselves follow the same beliefs, rituals or specifically cultural/moral restrictions.
If your religion holds to that, great and welcome to the free exercise and expression of it in a free world -- and if not, then why the hell should it deserve any respect or toleration as a matter of "personal belief"?
Monday, April 10, 2006
An apt word for these days: "heffalump"
Oh, you're gonna love this one that I found....it fills, I think, a sore need in today's play-it-safe-and-get-the-votes world. Here's the pitch:
'Brokeback Mountain' author angry about best-picture loss
Associated Press/Article Launched: 03/14/2006 5:39 PM PST
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Annie Proulx, whose 1997 short story inspired the film "Brokeback Mountain," has penned a scattershot blast in a British newspaper unleashing her anger over the film's best-picture Oscar loss.
Proulx criticizes Oscar voters and the Academy Awards ceremony in the 1,094-word rant, which appeared in Saturday's issue of The Guardian, a liberal paper boasting 1.2 million readers daily.
The best-picture Oscar went to "Crash," which focuses on race relations in Los Angeles.
Academy members who vote for the year's best film are "out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city," Proulx writes.
The 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize-winning author points out that "Brokeback," which was nominated for eight Academy Awards, was named best picture at the Independent Spirit Awards one day before the March 5 Oscars.
"If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices," Proulx advises.
She even lashes out at Lionsgate, the distribution company behind "Crash."
"Rumour has it that Lionsgate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash -- excuse me -- Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline," Proulx writes.
She decries the "atmosphere of insufferable self-importance" inside the Kodak Theatre, the Oscars site, and describes the audience as a "somewhat dim LA crowd." The show, she writes, was "reminiscent of a small-town talent-show night."
"Clapping wildly for bad stuff enhances this," Proulx writes.
She notes that "Brokeback's" three Oscar wins, for original score, adapted screenplay and direction for Ang Lee put it "on equal footing with King Kong."
When Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the best-picture winner, "there was a gasp of shock," Proulx writes.
"It was a safe pick of `controversial film' for the heffalumps," she writes, using the elephant-like "Winnie the Pooh" character to describe academy voters.
"For those who call this little piece a Sour Grapes Rant," Proulx concludes, "play it as it lays."
Calls by The Associated Press to Proulx's Wyoming home and her literary agent, Elizabeth Darhansoff, were not immediately returned Tuesday.
So there you have it, folks....HEFFALUMP is the new word of the day!!!
Closely related to its more-famous political lookalike the mugwump (a political candidate or figure who paranoidly avoids taking any firm public stance that might jeopardize his chances of election/reelection), the heffalump also has discernable homophonic ties to the word "philistine" and "halfway" and the slang euphemism "effin'", reflecting the author's anger as an artist at the Academy voters who played it safe by choosing a film that mostly reiterated and illustrated what most civilized people know as basic concepts of human/social decency rather than actually challenging their attitudes and boundaries of acceptance, making them think too hard about something they'd often rather sweep under the carpet.
I'm not saying myself that Crash is a bad movie, mind you, but I have heard a lot of criticism of its relative simplicity/exaggeration/'preaching to the choir' on matters of racial tension. In the arts as well as in politics, actually being perceived as promoting acceptance (and the avoidance of tragedy...) of "the love that dare not speak its name" is sometimes just too big of a liability in comparison to "can't we all just get along?". One could clearly see the sociopolitical calculation in the distribution of awards, however it started and however many voters contributed to it. It was there. It is not a misperception.
And now we have a word -- a fun and fulsomely scathing word! -- to summarize in shorthand those who want to be seen as socially enlightened but won't take risks of alienating the supposedly-moral mainstream...such as every politician who says he/she supports gay rights but reserves "marriage" as a term too sacred, or demurs on the custody and raising of children as a responsibility that shouldn't be entrusted save as a last resort...everyone who believes in "separate but equal" social restrictions and freedoms; the acceptance of "private" activity so long as it's silent and invisible as any sort of real relationship or active community/part of society; the U.S. military's famous compromise of "don't ask, don't tell"; the half-hearted prosecution of crimes, allowing defenses of violence and murder as having been 'understandably' provoked by transgender deception or gay sexual solicitation/innuendo....and even the spreading trend of decriminalization/protection of "gender expression" that STILL leaves unchallenged the multiple obstacles of social sex-coding, medical probations and legal-documentation hoops and hurdles in the way of legal gender recognition....
And in religion too -- the political pandering to what's established/respected by precedent; the cliquery of even liberal monotheists as if they were all the religion that ever mattered in society; the mostly-unquestioned tenet of popular faith that social preference, if not 'official national religion' status, belongs to Christianity over-and-excluding all other faiths from serious concurrent consideration...oh, unless of course they have a well-known habit of fighting, boycotting and/or killing for the respect they want. Funny how the most uncivil religions....enh, need I continue that one...?
Yeah. Heffalumps. Unable to put their full and visible weight behind what needs to be seen, needs to be changed. Thank you, Annie Proulx -- you've made a much-needed contribution to contemporary social rhetoric, and I'll be doing my part to spread it where it needs to go.
'Brokeback Mountain' author angry about best-picture loss
Associated Press/Article Launched: 03/14/2006 5:39 PM PST
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Annie Proulx, whose 1997 short story inspired the film "Brokeback Mountain," has penned a scattershot blast in a British newspaper unleashing her anger over the film's best-picture Oscar loss.
Proulx criticizes Oscar voters and the Academy Awards ceremony in the 1,094-word rant, which appeared in Saturday's issue of The Guardian, a liberal paper boasting 1.2 million readers daily.
The best-picture Oscar went to "Crash," which focuses on race relations in Los Angeles.
Academy members who vote for the year's best film are "out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city," Proulx writes.
The 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize-winning author points out that "Brokeback," which was nominated for eight Academy Awards, was named best picture at the Independent Spirit Awards one day before the March 5 Oscars.
"If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices," Proulx advises.
She even lashes out at Lionsgate, the distribution company behind "Crash."
"Rumour has it that Lionsgate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash -- excuse me -- Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline," Proulx writes.
She decries the "atmosphere of insufferable self-importance" inside the Kodak Theatre, the Oscars site, and describes the audience as a "somewhat dim LA crowd." The show, she writes, was "reminiscent of a small-town talent-show night."
"Clapping wildly for bad stuff enhances this," Proulx writes.
She notes that "Brokeback's" three Oscar wins, for original score, adapted screenplay and direction for Ang Lee put it "on equal footing with King Kong."
When Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the best-picture winner, "there was a gasp of shock," Proulx writes.
"It was a safe pick of `controversial film' for the heffalumps," she writes, using the elephant-like "Winnie the Pooh" character to describe academy voters.
"For those who call this little piece a Sour Grapes Rant," Proulx concludes, "play it as it lays."
Calls by The Associated Press to Proulx's Wyoming home and her literary agent, Elizabeth Darhansoff, were not immediately returned Tuesday.
So there you have it, folks....HEFFALUMP is the new word of the day!!!
Closely related to its more-famous political lookalike the mugwump (a political candidate or figure who paranoidly avoids taking any firm public stance that might jeopardize his chances of election/reelection), the heffalump also has discernable homophonic ties to the word "philistine" and "halfway" and the slang euphemism "effin'", reflecting the author's anger as an artist at the Academy voters who played it safe by choosing a film that mostly reiterated and illustrated what most civilized people know as basic concepts of human/social decency rather than actually challenging their attitudes and boundaries of acceptance, making them think too hard about something they'd often rather sweep under the carpet.
I'm not saying myself that Crash is a bad movie, mind you, but I have heard a lot of criticism of its relative simplicity/exaggeration/'preaching to the choir' on matters of racial tension. In the arts as well as in politics, actually being perceived as promoting acceptance (and the avoidance of tragedy...) of "the love that dare not speak its name" is sometimes just too big of a liability in comparison to "can't we all just get along?". One could clearly see the sociopolitical calculation in the distribution of awards, however it started and however many voters contributed to it. It was there. It is not a misperception.
And now we have a word -- a fun and fulsomely scathing word! -- to summarize in shorthand those who want to be seen as socially enlightened but won't take risks of alienating the supposedly-moral mainstream...such as every politician who says he/she supports gay rights but reserves "marriage" as a term too sacred, or demurs on the custody and raising of children as a responsibility that shouldn't be entrusted save as a last resort...everyone who believes in "separate but equal" social restrictions and freedoms; the acceptance of "private" activity so long as it's silent and invisible as any sort of real relationship or active community/part of society; the U.S. military's famous compromise of "don't ask, don't tell"; the half-hearted prosecution of crimes, allowing defenses of violence and murder as having been 'understandably' provoked by transgender deception or gay sexual solicitation/innuendo....and even the spreading trend of decriminalization/protection of "gender expression" that STILL leaves unchallenged the multiple obstacles of social sex-coding, medical probations and legal-documentation hoops and hurdles in the way of legal gender recognition....
And in religion too -- the political pandering to what's established/respected by precedent; the cliquery of even liberal monotheists as if they were all the religion that ever mattered in society; the mostly-unquestioned tenet of popular faith that social preference, if not 'official national religion' status, belongs to Christianity over-and-excluding all other faiths from serious concurrent consideration...oh, unless of course they have a well-known habit of fighting, boycotting and/or killing for the respect they want. Funny how the most uncivil religions....enh, need I continue that one...?
Yeah. Heffalumps. Unable to put their full and visible weight behind what needs to be seen, needs to be changed. Thank you, Annie Proulx -- you've made a much-needed contribution to contemporary social rhetoric, and I'll be doing my part to spread it where it needs to go.
Monday, April 03, 2006
"Black vs. Queer" government deal--aka the smart way of splintering minority power...
(also cross-referenced on other sites, including full text below for a closer look after commentary)
Re: Norcross church wants ‘tough love’ for gays
Hmmm....logic check here, anyone?
"I love homosexuals," Pleasant said. "That's why we have programs here to help them change."
Now what other group of people in the world can a person get away with saying that about? If gays were Muslims instead, there'd be the friggin' Stonewall jihad over shit like that!
And that little "Black Contract with America on Moral Values"--
In exchange for black churches focusing on defeating marriage for same-sex couples, the churches will receive money through the government's faith-based initiative programs....
--first of all it's morally obscene, and secondly why the hell is this news not being broadcast all across the country, that the GOP is essentially bribing black churches to aid in denying full civil rights to another minority group? Does it not matter because there wasn't slavery involved, just like no socio-political situation can ever be compared to Nazi Germany until you actually have mass killings and concentration camps?
The reason the Third Reich got so far in their campaigns against minorities -- ethnic, religious or "degenerate" -- is that they knew how to divide people against each other, to have them constantly vindicating themselves as good/loyal citizens and others as troublemakers who deserved what they got...the less they demanded equal rights or made themselves visibly deviant, the underlying reasoning was, the less that anyone could possibly have a problem with them....the whole "sweep yourselves under the carpet" approach, which in the case of "invisible" or semi-visible minorities has always been a convenient way of making the assimilated minorities blame those who stick out (drag queens, Hasidic Jews, butch lesbians, stereotypically effeminate gays) just for visibly sticking out.
[Reference the Daughters of Bilitis for this one...they were a groundbreaking social organization for lesbians, but they were also committed to the idea of "blending in" as feminine in dress and public behaviour as a group imperative.]
Any reasonably intelligent ruler/administration knows that the best way to maintain power is to keep the less-powerful factions fighting against each other rather than letting them see their common causes/complaints and unite against those on the top. Currently, we have a prominent number of token/exceptional black political insiders, who serve as a reassurance that the government is committed to racial equality -- even if socio-economic equality is the furthest thing from the White House's collective mind. We have a clearly expressed political desire afoot to permanently prevent same-sex marriage, even though the idea of marriage as being solely for procreation went out the window ages ago...we even have gay and lesbian commentators who say that to gain the right to marry would be a trap into the same old 'traditional-values' social system, and that maybe it shouldn't be a goal afterall.
Loyal queers...in a way, or at least being used as such, tolerated so long as there's not too much uppityness for full social equality -- look, have we not heard of this before?
In shorthand: blacks are being visibly courted through their churches, gays are being re-demonised as society's scourge (as if that ever stopped, in some areas that socially aren't even out of the nineteenth century or maybe even the seventeenth) -- and if enough blacks and other ethnic minorities feel that their socio-moral concerns are in line with those of the government -- if they have that feeling of being in good with the government on the same sympathetic ground -- then they won't notice quite so much that they're still stuck in the same old ruts as before, still prone to poverty and privation, neglect and criminal assumptions.
Notice too, that nowhere do these ministers say that black men on the "down low" ARE gay or bisexual as even a temporary/curable condition...because that would be an insult to the very image of strong/macho black masculinity that they're playing into, the same proud stereotype that made this phenomenon happen in the first place 'cause black men couldn't dare to be with each other for fear of compromising the social reputation of their race. Just like, for example....oh, gay Catholic men entering the priesthood 'cause their immigrant neighborhood communities had such a high and insular pressure towards marriage and procreation that there was no other discreet option. Same for nuns who didn't want to be mothers. Hell, all through history people have entered religious orders to get out of the babymaking demands of society.
But in black society it's not about real desires, right?--it's all the fault of the "homosexual agenda" (does it float around on its own just seducing unwary people together?) and women not putting out enough to satisfy their men (again, the supposed insatiable potency of black males--see "Aryan sexual paranoia", perhaps?). Throw AIDS
into that as a punishment-consequence (again!) and you got yourself a moral crusade....
This makes me sick. Thank you for posting it, and I hope the word gets around as quickly and thoroughly as possible that this manipulative shite is going on. People who can't see and learn from the patterns of the past before things reached their worst are far more likely to see the worst repeated.
Aureantes
============================================
[as posted in hyperlucidity -- the eternal pathology]:
In hyperlucidity@yahoogroups.com, indiscriminately_tactless wrote:
Anything I could say about this will be said. I'll just re-iterate my "Ugh," of disgust and contempt, however.
************************************************
Norcross church wants ‘tough love’ for gays
Anti-gay Rev. Lou Sheldon headlines ‘family values’ summit
By ANDREW KEEGAN
Friday, March 31, 2006
Married black women who do not have regular sex with their husbands are to blame for the "down low" and the rise of HIV infection among African Americans.
That was just one message delivered during a two-day summit on "Protecting the Biblical Institution of Marriage and Family Values," held March 25-26 at Kingdom Builders Christian Center, a large predominately black church in Norcross.
"Apostle" Jamie Pleasant presides over the congregations, which cites more than a thousand members, according to its web site. He has a doctorate degree from Georgia Tech in Business Management and started the church in 1995.
Addressing the "down-low," a term that describes married black men having sex with other men in secret, Pleasant told hundreds of worshipers March 25 that God intended man and woman to procreate.
"The marital duty is not being fulfilled," Pleasant said. "Why are we with you women? Just think about it...we have a strong sex drive. You need to do your part and keep the marriage bed pure. Whenever your husband wants sex it is your duty to say yes."
`Preachers never lie'
Rev. Lou Sheldon, chair of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group opposed to gay civil rights, was the guest speaker for the weekend. His organization is actively recruiting large black churches in its effort to battle the "homosexual agenda."
In January, Sheldon, who is white, and 70 black pastors who supported President George W. Bush met in Los Angeles. The summit yielded the "Black Contract with America on Moral Values," the Los Angeles Times reported. In exchange for black churches focusing on defeating marriage for same-sex couples, the churches will receive money through the government's faith-based initiative programs, the paper reported.
Sheldon, who told the Norcross congregation that he has been fighting "gay rights" since 1972, began his sermon by declaring, "Preachers never lie."
"We have a battle on our hands," Sheldon said. "The homosexuals lose every time an issue is on a ballot but more and more activist judges and legislators are supporting them. It is important that people of color speak up because the press will listen to you."
Sheldon then played a video to illustrate his point. Images of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights marches were mixed with photos of leather-clad men, drag queens and topless women marching in Pride parades.
"The homosexual excuse is `we want civil rights,'" Sheldon said after the video. "Have they ever been denied the right to vote? Have they ever had to sit in the back of a bus? They have hijacked the freedom train to Selma."
Gay adoption was also a key theme throughout Sheldon's two-hour talk.
"The homosexuals have gone from their bedrooms to the classrooms, and the press is always playing up the well-dressed homosexual helping these minority children," he said. "It is up to us to make sure our little children are not being violated."
Cries of "mercy" rang out when Sheldon claimed that 85 percent of all lesbians have been sexually molested.
"Our heart must go out to them," he said. "They don't trust men and need female counseling."
Sheldon concluded his address by telling attendees, "There is no such thing as a gay gene. It is a tragic and unfortunate learned behavior that must be stopped or homosexuality will destroy society."
`Impotent' words?
The author of "The Homosexual Agenda," Sheldon encouraged worshipers to purchase his book that is filled with statistics similar to those mentioned during his talk.
The National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay group focused on fighting both racism and homophobia, works to refute claims by anti-gay groups that the majority of African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage.
Sylvia Rhue, NBJC director of religious affairs, attended the meeting in Los Angeles this year where Sheldon addressed black church leaders.
Despite his anti-gay rhetoric, Rhue said Sheldon, 72, is not as effective as many people believe.
"His words and shenanigans are impotent, incompetent and ignorant," Rhue said. "His pronouncements shrivel and die in the light of truth and show how desperate he is. They cannot win by telling the truth and we cannot lose by telling the truth."
Jay Brown, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political group, said Sheldon's statistics are downright lies.
"These are bogus studies being pushed by a messenger with absolutely no credibility," Brown said.
`Tough love' for gays
After the program, the leader of Kingdom Builders Christian Center told Southern Voice he does not hate gays.
"I love homosexuals," Pleasant said. "That's why we have programs here to help them change."
Pleasant equated the church's role in dealing with gays to that of a parent.
"If a child does something wrong and you spank them, it's not because you hate them," he said. "It's tough love."
Questioned on the apparent contradiction of using the civil rights message advocated by King, which included gays, in the fight against gay rights, Pleasant said that both Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta Scott King were wrong.
"While I respect everything they did for us, I truly believe what the Bible says comes first," Pleasant said. "What we're trying to do is protect society."
Pleasant said the church would work to defeat any measure it deems "un-biblical," including gay marriage and gay adoption.
Alton Pollard III, director of the black church studies program at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, said the ongoing racism of the white church and society plays an important role in why many black churches reject homosexuality.
"Stereotypes of black hypersexuality and fertility, male and female, are central to the grand reluctance of many black churchgoers to be more affirming and inclusive," Pollard said. "Black people have been blamed for every sin under the sun ... they will not willingly accept yet another."
Re: Norcross church wants ‘tough love’ for gays
Hmmm....logic check here, anyone?
"I love homosexuals," Pleasant said. "That's why we have programs here to help them change."
Now what other group of people in the world can a person get away with saying that about? If gays were Muslims instead, there'd be the friggin' Stonewall jihad over shit like that!
And that little "Black Contract with America on Moral Values"--
In exchange for black churches focusing on defeating marriage for same-sex couples, the churches will receive money through the government's faith-based initiative programs....
--first of all it's morally obscene, and secondly why the hell is this news not being broadcast all across the country, that the GOP is essentially bribing black churches to aid in denying full civil rights to another minority group? Does it not matter because there wasn't slavery involved, just like no socio-political situation can ever be compared to Nazi Germany until you actually have mass killings and concentration camps?
The reason the Third Reich got so far in their campaigns against minorities -- ethnic, religious or "degenerate" -- is that they knew how to divide people against each other, to have them constantly vindicating themselves as good/loyal citizens and others as troublemakers who deserved what they got...the less they demanded equal rights or made themselves visibly deviant, the underlying reasoning was, the less that anyone could possibly have a problem with them....the whole "sweep yourselves under the carpet" approach, which in the case of "invisible" or semi-visible minorities has always been a convenient way of making the assimilated minorities blame those who stick out (drag queens, Hasidic Jews, butch lesbians, stereotypically effeminate gays) just for visibly sticking out.
[Reference the Daughters of Bilitis for this one...they were a groundbreaking social organization for lesbians, but they were also committed to the idea of "blending in" as feminine in dress and public behaviour as a group imperative.]
Any reasonably intelligent ruler/administration knows that the best way to maintain power is to keep the less-powerful factions fighting against each other rather than letting them see their common causes/complaints and unite against those on the top. Currently, we have a prominent number of token/exceptional black political insiders, who serve as a reassurance that the government is committed to racial equality -- even if socio-economic equality is the furthest thing from the White House's collective mind. We have a clearly expressed political desire afoot to permanently prevent same-sex marriage, even though the idea of marriage as being solely for procreation went out the window ages ago...we even have gay and lesbian commentators who say that to gain the right to marry would be a trap into the same old 'traditional-values' social system, and that maybe it shouldn't be a goal afterall.
Loyal queers...in a way, or at least being used as such, tolerated so long as there's not too much uppityness for full social equality -- look, have we not heard of this before?
In shorthand: blacks are being visibly courted through their churches, gays are being re-demonised as society's scourge (as if that ever stopped, in some areas that socially aren't even out of the nineteenth century or maybe even the seventeenth) -- and if enough blacks and other ethnic minorities feel that their socio-moral concerns are in line with those of the government -- if they have that feeling of being in good with the government on the same sympathetic ground -- then they won't notice quite so much that they're still stuck in the same old ruts as before, still prone to poverty and privation, neglect and criminal assumptions.
Notice too, that nowhere do these ministers say that black men on the "down low" ARE gay or bisexual as even a temporary/curable condition...because that would be an insult to the very image of strong/macho black masculinity that they're playing into, the same proud stereotype that made this phenomenon happen in the first place 'cause black men couldn't dare to be with each other for fear of compromising the social reputation of their race. Just like, for example....oh, gay Catholic men entering the priesthood 'cause their immigrant neighborhood communities had such a high and insular pressure towards marriage and procreation that there was no other discreet option. Same for nuns who didn't want to be mothers. Hell, all through history people have entered religious orders to get out of the babymaking demands of society.
But in black society it's not about real desires, right?--it's all the fault of the "homosexual agenda" (does it float around on its own just seducing unwary people together?) and women not putting out enough to satisfy their men (again, the supposed insatiable potency of black males--see "Aryan sexual paranoia", perhaps?). Throw AIDS
into that as a punishment-consequence (again!) and you got yourself a moral crusade....
This makes me sick. Thank you for posting it, and I hope the word gets around as quickly and thoroughly as possible that this manipulative shite is going on. People who can't see and learn from the patterns of the past before things reached their worst are far more likely to see the worst repeated.
Aureantes
============================================
[as posted in hyperlucidity -- the eternal pathology]:
In hyperlucidity@yahoogroups.com, indiscriminately_tactless wrote:
Anything I could say about this will be said. I'll just re-iterate my "Ugh," of disgust and contempt, however.
************************************************
Norcross church wants ‘tough love’ for gays
Anti-gay Rev. Lou Sheldon headlines ‘family values’ summit
By ANDREW KEEGAN
Friday, March 31, 2006
Married black women who do not have regular sex with their husbands are to blame for the "down low" and the rise of HIV infection among African Americans.
That was just one message delivered during a two-day summit on "Protecting the Biblical Institution of Marriage and Family Values," held March 25-26 at Kingdom Builders Christian Center, a large predominately black church in Norcross.
"Apostle" Jamie Pleasant presides over the congregations, which cites more than a thousand members, according to its web site. He has a doctorate degree from Georgia Tech in Business Management and started the church in 1995.
Addressing the "down-low," a term that describes married black men having sex with other men in secret, Pleasant told hundreds of worshipers March 25 that God intended man and woman to procreate.
"The marital duty is not being fulfilled," Pleasant said. "Why are we with you women? Just think about it...we have a strong sex drive. You need to do your part and keep the marriage bed pure. Whenever your husband wants sex it is your duty to say yes."
`Preachers never lie'
Rev. Lou Sheldon, chair of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group opposed to gay civil rights, was the guest speaker for the weekend. His organization is actively recruiting large black churches in its effort to battle the "homosexual agenda."
In January, Sheldon, who is white, and 70 black pastors who supported President George W. Bush met in Los Angeles. The summit yielded the "Black Contract with America on Moral Values," the Los Angeles Times reported. In exchange for black churches focusing on defeating marriage for same-sex couples, the churches will receive money through the government's faith-based initiative programs, the paper reported.
Sheldon, who told the Norcross congregation that he has been fighting "gay rights" since 1972, began his sermon by declaring, "Preachers never lie."
"We have a battle on our hands," Sheldon said. "The homosexuals lose every time an issue is on a ballot but more and more activist judges and legislators are supporting them. It is important that people of color speak up because the press will listen to you."
Sheldon then played a video to illustrate his point. Images of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights marches were mixed with photos of leather-clad men, drag queens and topless women marching in Pride parades.
"The homosexual excuse is `we want civil rights,'" Sheldon said after the video. "Have they ever been denied the right to vote? Have they ever had to sit in the back of a bus? They have hijacked the freedom train to Selma."
Gay adoption was also a key theme throughout Sheldon's two-hour talk.
"The homosexuals have gone from their bedrooms to the classrooms, and the press is always playing up the well-dressed homosexual helping these minority children," he said. "It is up to us to make sure our little children are not being violated."
Cries of "mercy" rang out when Sheldon claimed that 85 percent of all lesbians have been sexually molested.
"Our heart must go out to them," he said. "They don't trust men and need female counseling."
Sheldon concluded his address by telling attendees, "There is no such thing as a gay gene. It is a tragic and unfortunate learned behavior that must be stopped or homosexuality will destroy society."
`Impotent' words?
The author of "The Homosexual Agenda," Sheldon encouraged worshipers to purchase his book that is filled with statistics similar to those mentioned during his talk.
The National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay group focused on fighting both racism and homophobia, works to refute claims by anti-gay groups that the majority of African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage.
Sylvia Rhue, NBJC director of religious affairs, attended the meeting in Los Angeles this year where Sheldon addressed black church leaders.
Despite his anti-gay rhetoric, Rhue said Sheldon, 72, is not as effective as many people believe.
"His words and shenanigans are impotent, incompetent and ignorant," Rhue said. "His pronouncements shrivel and die in the light of truth and show how desperate he is. They cannot win by telling the truth and we cannot lose by telling the truth."
Jay Brown, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political group, said Sheldon's statistics are downright lies.
"These are bogus studies being pushed by a messenger with absolutely no credibility," Brown said.
`Tough love' for gays
After the program, the leader of Kingdom Builders Christian Center told Southern Voice he does not hate gays.
"I love homosexuals," Pleasant said. "That's why we have programs here to help them change."
Pleasant equated the church's role in dealing with gays to that of a parent.
"If a child does something wrong and you spank them, it's not because you hate them," he said. "It's tough love."
Questioned on the apparent contradiction of using the civil rights message advocated by King, which included gays, in the fight against gay rights, Pleasant said that both Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta Scott King were wrong.
"While I respect everything they did for us, I truly believe what the Bible says comes first," Pleasant said. "What we're trying to do is protect society."
Pleasant said the church would work to defeat any measure it deems "un-biblical," including gay marriage and gay adoption.
Alton Pollard III, director of the black church studies program at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, said the ongoing racism of the white church and society plays an important role in why many black churches reject homosexuality.
"Stereotypes of black hypersexuality and fertility, male and female, are central to the grand reluctance of many black churchgoers to be more affirming and inclusive," Pollard said. "Black people have been blamed for every sin under the sun ... they will not willingly accept yet another."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)