EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Freedom of and From Religion
The president did something agile and wise the other day. And something quite important to the health of our politics. He reached up and snuffed out what some folks wanted to make into a cosmic battle between good and evil. No, said the president, we're not going to turn the argument over contraception into Armageddon, this is an honest difference between Americans, and I'll not see it escalated into a holy war. So instead of the government requiring Catholic hospitals and other faith-based institutions to provide employees with health coverage involving contraceptives, the insurance companies will offer that coverage, and offer it free.
The Catholic bishops had cast the president's intended policy as an infringement on their religious freedom; they hold birth control to be a mortal sin, and were incensed that the government might coerce them to treat it otherwise. The president in effect said: No quarrel there; no one's going to force you to violate your doctrine. But Catholics are also Americans, and if an individual Catholic worker wants coverage, she should have access to it -- just like any other American citizen. Under the new plan, she will. She can go directly to the insurer, and the religious institution is off the hook.
When the president announced his new plan, the bishops were caught flat-footed. It was so ... so reasonable. In fact, leaders of several large, Catholic organizations have now said yes to the idea. But the bishops have since regrouped, and are now opposing any mandate to provide contraceptives even if their institutions are not required to pay for them. And for their own reasons, Republican leaders in Congress have weighed in on the bishops' side. They're demanding, and will get, a vote in the Senate.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, says:
"The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion. It's right there in the First Amendment. You can't miss it, right there in the very First Amendment to our Constitution. And the government doesn't get to decide for religious people what their religious beliefs are. They get to decide that."
But here's what Republicans don't get, or won't tell you. And what Obama manifestly does get. First, the war's already lost: 98 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age have used contraceptives. Second, on many major issues, the bishops are on Obama's side -- not least on extending unemployment benefits, which they call "a moral obligation." Truth to tell, on economic issues, the bishops are often to the left of some leading Democrats, even if both sides are loathe to admit it. Furthermore -- and shhh, don't repeat this, even if the president already has -- the Catholic Church funded Obama's first community organizing, back in Chicago. Ah, politics.
So the battle over contraception no longer seems apocalyptic. No heavenly hosts pitted against the forces of Satan. It's a political brawl, not a crusade of believers or infidels. The president skillfully negotiated the line between respect for the religious sphere and protection of the spiritual dignity and freedom of individuals. If you had listened carefully to the speech Barack Obama made in 2009 at the University of Notre Dame, you could have seen it coming:
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem-cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships might be relieved. The question then is, "How do we work through these conflicts?"
We Americans have wrestled with that question from the beginning. Some of our forebearers feared the church would corrupt the state. Others feared the state would corrupt the church. It's been a real tug-of-war, sometimes quite ugly. Churches and religious zealots did get punitive laws passed against what they said were moral and religious evils: blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, alcohol, gambling, books, movies, plays ... and yes, contraception. But churches also fought to end slavery, help workers organize and pass progressive laws. Of course, government had its favorites at times, for much of our history, it privileged the Protestant majority. And in my lifetime alone, it's gone back and forth on how to apply the First Amendment to ever- changing circumstances among people so different from each other. The Supreme Court, for example, first denied, then affirmed, the right of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse, on religious grounds, to salute the flag.
So here we are once again, arguing over how to honor religious liberty without it becoming the liberty to impose on others moral beliefs they don't share. Our practical solution is the one Barack Obama embraced the other day: protect freedom of religion -- and protect freedom from religion. Can't get more American than that.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
91 Comments so far
Show AllFrom the article:
"Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, says:
"The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion."
Note how the notion of freedom is turned around as is so typical of right wing groups, making it about the right for a few to impose their views onto others.
And I am sad to say not a word by Mr. Moyers on the innate sexism that fuels this battle... turning women's bodies into the realm defined and decided upon by men, or their stand-ins, patriarchal institutions.
Sioux -
On your last theme, be sure to click on Abby Zimet's coverage and CD commentary today on the House Committee hearing chaired by Darrel Issa.
It ain't about sex, it's about God. This manufactured controversy has nothing to do with women's rights. This is all about religious belief and freedom of conscience for everybody.
At least that's how the boys running the show have billed it on their theatre marquee.
Bill from Saginaw
Thank you, Bill. Once again, so grateful to have you back!
I don't want to detract from this serious issue in any way, however
It seems the ruling neo-aristocracy trot out these highly divisive, emotional religious issues as a diversion from the larger issues, especially in "election" years.
For examples, the Bill of Rights has been gutted (NDAA etc.), the economy is in tatters, the kleptocratic and corrupt banking and financial system are being propped up by the Fed with taxpayers backstopping the mess, the US has enacted sanctions on Iran - a de-facto Act of War, military preparations have and are being made for an attack on Iran etc.etc.
Feggedabboudit
perhaps we could discuss another right: freedom from radiation...
What the bishops are actually asking for is that the government force the catholic women to comply with the religious edicts from the pope. They know full well that these women are refusing to listen to the ban on contraception.
Now, if I claimed to be a Muslim and I ate pork while having a glass of wine, most Muslims would say that I'm not a real Muslim. So, since it seems that 98 % of the women of the church are violating a similar religious edict...
Why are these women still considered Catholics? They're sinning against god, aren't repentant at all, and will continue to use birth control. I challenge the bishops to do the right thing (from their own cannon laws). Excommunicate every one of these sinning woman from their church.
Edit in laugh track here....
Yes, I was stretching the point, probably broke it a bit, but do you really disagree with what I said. I don't think I've seen you make such a short comment before. :)
I hardly equate men who dress up in costumes, pretend to drink the blood of Christ, officially hate women, and too often molest boys as those in a position to determine what is God's will. I think most people like to be part of a community; and since religious identification is passed down through family generations, Catholic women make their own deal with "the devil" by enjoying the social, familiar aspect, while making their own informed choices about birth control. As if we need more unwanted children with the global population rising just when climate change assures less reliable food and water sources.
I wish I could be happy to agree with everything you just wrote. Although I agree completely, I'm not happy. If that makes any sense.
"I hardly equate men who dress up in costumes, pretend to drink the blood of Christ, officially hate women, and too often molest boys as those in a position to determine what is God's will."
That statement alone, Siouxrose, should make most people hysterically laugh....and cry. That so few believers would allow themselves such an honest appraisal of their priest or bishop is sure testimony to the power of coercion, propaganda and the use of fear......and the fact that humans seem to love ceremonies and rituals and social gatherings.
I've felt for years that many good Christians (and people of all persuasions, not to leave anyone out) are held to their proclamations of faith and to faithful church-going by the very inherent need to belong to a group or a club...to feel included and a part of something bigger than one's individual routine of living, breathing, loving, hating, eating, working, procreating, sleeping and trying to understand the meaning of life without some sort of guidance or at least shared experience with other folks from similar backgrounds with similar interests.
Seems churches have very successfully exploited that human need for an explanation and understanding of human existence and purpose by making the ultimate guarantee...eternal salvation and promises of a rosy afterlife with God and loved ones (if one follows a few simple rules) to help generate interest in and entice members into the fold.....along with weekly social gatherings, potlucks, bingo and trivia nights, youth camps (sorta scary to me), bus-tours and group trips......all kinds of feel good social interactions.
If one considers the apparent need of humans to believe in something larger than themselves...something profound to explain our seemingly unique existence on this planet......it is not hard to understand the immense power and control over humans and human behavior that patriarchal religious organizations gained and have wielded for all the centuries they have.
And I call them (particularly the largest ones with the largest number of followers) organizations, institutions, businesses...any number of names will work to point out that they seem less avenues to God than business-as-usual, with their main desire/goal being acquiring money (operational costs and charitable uses, you know) and influence over congregants and within their communities (which equates to power and control).....just like any other 'for profit' industry.
Only, while Proctor and Gamble or General Motors may influence what kind of tooth paste and laundry soap we use or the car we drive, and may do everything in their power to keep existing customers and entice new ones.....churches want the ultimate influence....ownership of our very souls. They cultivate loyal followers and consumers that will joyfully hand over money and self-righteously help spread the word to insure the church's continued growth and increased power and influence.
Your saying that Catholic women "make their own deal with 'the devil'.." is, I think, very true of many people.....especially those born into and expected to adhere to a particular faith.
And then there are those who manage to break away. I can't tell you how often I have personally witnessed people kinda 'church shopping'...looking for just that most comfortable and best fit. Other than those folks who adhere to a family religious tradition, seems like many people shop for religion like they shop for the best deal on shoes or airfare.
Would people strive so hard to find just the right one if they weren't sort of trying to find a way to, first of all, please God (just in case)...and, most importantly, justify their own beliefs and actions, somehow getting the most reward for the least work and sacrifice?
A lot of church-going seems less to do with God and religion than about being accepted by others and having an active fulfilling family-friendly social life. I expect the powers that be of the Catholic Church are on pins and needles constantly. It's got to be very taxing trying to hold together something that scandal, greed, exploitation and lies are so successful tearing asunder. The very last thing the Pope and his bishops want is for women to ever assert themselves or for women to be given equal status in this failing enterprise called patriarchy.
Fedup2 - Interesting take on why people belong to a church and how churches enable that. So, people are fools looking for belonging, because it is in their nature to belong, and getting suckered into joint organizations that take advantage of that innate need just to get membership numbers? Leaving God's part in this out of the discussion just for a bit, why not view churches and all "belonging" organizations, religious or not, as people choosing to come together in a commitment of community because of their innate need to belong? And since human beings interact and relate imperfectly, so will the organizations-of-belonging that they create. Yes, there plenty examples of unscrupulous individuals or groups of individuals taking advantage of organizations for their own vile self-interests but that doesn't condemn all organizations-of-belonging.
As for God's part - If God is the creator of human beings and human beings have an innate need for belonging and relationship, then God created that aspect of human beings. So, would not God want humans to create and commit to organizations-of-belonging? Would not God provide a way to meet that inherent need?
rdeesjoy.....sorry if my rant seemed to generalize and lump all seekers of spiritual truth and guidance into the same group as loudly religious church-goers who are typically dismissive or judgmental of those who follow any other path.
I have no quarrel with those who seek out and have found God or who embrace and follow a very spiritual path in life. My quarrel is with and my rant goes out to the very intentional and un-Godly exploitation-of-God-and-congregant by most major organized religions......and a lot of the hugely popular and hugely populated, televangelist style churches that have sprung up over the last couple of decades that have droves of hopeful believers convinced that salvation and the only real path to God is through their ministry.
To me, the fact that we have not in thousands of years gotten any closer to turning "IF God is the creator of human beings" into "God is undeniably, provably the creator of human beings" that inspires my criticism of organized patriarchal religion and many of its all too often zealous and self-righteous adherents.
I don't believe my suggestion that the largest churches (who seem to also be the most powerful and influential) seduce and exploit believers...enticing faithful followers to come back every Sunday to listen to sermons and tithe generously because they also let them have potlucks, bingo night and other enjoyable social interactions (which I suppose may temper the ever-present fear factor of hell and damnation for not believing, for divorcing, for using birth control, for having or even thinking about having an abortion, for being gay or even thinking about it, and a plethora of other human behaviors that were supposedly accepted, overlooked or forgiven by Jesus)...are very far off base.
And, maybe I'm just too jaded by the corruption and dysfunction so evident across the human landscape, but adhering strongly to any religious dogma on faith, especially in light of the undeniably hateful, violent events and behaviors generously sprinkled throughout Christianity's history done in the name of God...and still occurring in such acts as justifying/waging war for resource control or regime change and political advantage, decades of covering up and downplaying the severity/frequency of pedophilia and other sexual misconduct amongst priests, the bombing of abortion clinics, condemning homosexuals while uttering, "We think you are sick sinners, but we and God still love you and just want to help you", our president asking God to bless America while he issues the order for a drone attack that will kill one or ten or a thousand "enemies" to preserve OUR freedom...seems naive and a sure path to disappointment...not to mention, a little arrogant.
If God is the creator of human beings, s/he needs to go back to the drawing table.
For all those who aren't Catholic (I am) there's much more to the thinking in our church than the official pronouncements. Catholic Bishops don't always speak for their flock. Contraception is s shining example. Also, the Catholic church won't officially admit it, but as long time catholics know we aren't so different from the Protestants--there are many factions. Maybe those of us who think for themselves should be called "Cafeteria Catholics". I attend two different Catholic churches in my area and haven't head one word from the pulpit about this contraception issue--so they're either smart not to bring it up or quietly disagree. But we have discussed getting rid of the death penalty twice in the last month.
Someone who is a nominal Catholic needs to challenge the bishops by insisting that they excommunicate these sinners--then these buffoons can choke on their own words, because they are at least intelligent enough to know where their income comes from.
The ironic thing about the bishops is that Catholic theologians--such as Dan Maguire, at Marquette University--are often highly critical of their pronouncements on theological grounds. This fact should embarrass the bishops, but they must assume that none of their "flock" pay attention to the bishops--thereby making the stupid assumption that all lay people are uneducated. (I speak as a non-Catholic, but one with Catholic friends and relatives.)
Moyers is wrong.
What Obama did was to change a law (congress' job?) to appease a special interest group which is clearly misogynistic.
When was the last time (or the first) that a private insurance company did ANYTHING "for free"? This is a ridiculous statement.
Also, in the area where I live, ALL of the hospitals are privately owned and most of them are run by religions. Most of the public have to be confronted by religious propaganda if they want medical care.
Of course, that would be AFTER Obama's beloved private insurers decide if we have a legitimate reason to be in the hospital.
As far as I'm concerned, the need to rely on these religious hospitals is further proof of what a nation of hypocrites we have become and the failure of the corporate government.
When a person is in an increased state of vulnerability, they shouldn't have to be repeatedly reminded that the hospital owners think the patient is going to hell because they don't believe in the sadistic scenes of crucifixion.
STOP trying to save Obama. He is a corporate fraud, just like the vast majority of Washington.
Right, just another example of caving in by Obama--the Great Compromiser, with the strange idea that "compromising" involves just giving in.
Peace Activists, remember in the 1980's when we protested the Contras Reagan hired with our tax money to rape, and kill civilians in Nicaragua to defeat the Sandinistas and communist Daniel Ortega ( Iran/Contra -gate). America wasted millions maybe Billions of dollars and untold numbers of innocent lives only to see Daniel Ortega rise into power in 2006 by mobilizing the Sandinistas behind Cardinal Muiguel Obando y Bravo's blanket law against abortion. When Daniel Ortego then gained power, in the first year at least 82 women died from preventable pregnancy complications. In Feb. 2010 Amnesty International was appalled at the Nicaragua government's refusal to respond to the pleas to allow a 27 year old pregnant woman and mother of a ten year old daughter, cancer treatments. The doctors would be punished if they saved the mothers life. In America so far Bishops can only excommunicate doctors and Nuns who save a pregnant woman's life. "Nicaragua's ban on life saving abortions is a human rights scandal that ridicules medical science and turns the law into a weapon against the provision of essential medical care to pregnant women and girls" said Esther Major "Four U.N. treaty bodies , including the committee against torture called for the total criminalization of abortion to be repealed" Catholics who use birth control and and/or abortion but support this religion that causes so much pain and suffering in the third world are guilty by their silence which is complicity. I remember when I sent money to the Propagation of Faith for the starving children in central and south America back in the 50's and 60's. Before I needed birth control to protect my life and was refused. Then I realized how wrong the church is on reproductive freedom of conscience. I soon realized that the church causes the need for charity in many of the countries by not allowing Planned Parenthood health clinics help women protect their lives and plan families they can afford .
Thank you for sharing. It is important.
Meanwhile, Catholic Women have more abortions than non-catholic women. See the BeliefNet article on this subject.
Thank you again for sharing your story. It puts the lie to the "pro life" agenda in the forefront. It isn't and never was about life; it is only about control.
"they hold birth control to be a mortal sin"
There will be no hierarchy to hijack the people's task to develop and implement an ethical philosophy that fits their nature, human nature. Human nature is part of the gift of life, given by the Earth, possessed by every human being, and we won't be forbidden from discovering that nature within us and acting accordingly. The hierarchy, and its dictates, can go back to where they came from - the oppressive fantasies of power-drunk elites.
Bacon is available OTC.
The obvious answer is for such faiths to cast out all the unbelievers. They need irrefutable proof, of course. I can't wait for the righteously, rightly publicized fallout from their A/V equipped microdrones as they report live from the backrooms, boardrooms, bedrooms, bars, back-alleys, bathrooms, barracks....
I feel like two points are confused in this article (and most I see on the topic):
1) Don't men get contraception covered as well? (Bill says she, when it should be he or she). According to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/10/health-care-law-catholics-birth-control/, it seems that condoms are covered, and in the future hopefully men will get more options (I opted for a vasectomy - it would be great if those were covered now or in the future).
2) Do we just ignore workers that are employed directly by the church (and not in hospitals or universities)? Also according to politifact in the same article, it mentions that a Catholic employer does not have to cover a catholic or non-catholic employee if it is a religious school or church job (regardless of the religion of the employee). Now granted there are probably a lot more employees working for hospitals that are looking for birth control coverage than in this smaller category, but still - if we are talking principle, shouldn't this new rule from Obama cover them too? (maybe it does, but I have yet to read about it).
If I were a Catholic woman - I would just stop putting money in the collection plate, and/or stop attending church. If the perverts who run the Catholic hierarchy are not going to provide help and support for women, I surely wouldn't support them.
You can still be a Christian and follow the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth who said that you should not pray in public anyway, but rather go to your room, close the door and speak to your god in private. Jesus would be appalled if he knew that these men were using his good name and teachings to denigrate a whole gender, let alone committing heinous crimes against children. Amen
=="Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, says: "The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion."==
A FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT on COMMON DREAMS
The debut of a New Religion is a rare event indeed - but this is such. The new religion is called STILTISM. Followers/Believers[FBs] have as their religious worship goal getting Closer to God. Specifically, their practice is to elevate their penitent bodies 36 inches - - by means of using or wearing stilts.
Four times a day, for 20 minutes, FBs will grasp their sacred stilts, place their feet in holy stirrups, and RISE 36 INCHES TO MEET THEIR MAKER. FBs will march around in circles while singing praise to God. People are requested to give us lots of damn room as we do so. After 20 minutes, stilt marching will stop for a few hours. Things may return to normal.
NOW - according to the Holy Book of Stiltism, God wants to see the genitals of those Risen who love Him. Consequently, when FBs climb upon their Stilts - males and females will uncover their penises and vaginas for the duration of each circle stilt march. Unfortunately, this is going to place their genitalia at the eye level of persons who adhere to other faiths, or a-adhere to no faith. Until sufficient tests are conducted, it is not clear how the olfactory environment will change. Major accommodation is going to be necessary, because exceptions to laws prohibiting public nudity will need to be made in order to protect the FREEDOM OF RELIGION of Stiltists. Of questionable orthodoxy is the 20 minute loaning of opaque masks to persons not wishing to see genitalia in public at eye level. FBs are, however, willing to do so in good faith. We believe in: pee no evil.
Stilitists take a religious vow not to take any crap from persons offended by naked genitalia. Deacons of the faith are entitled to wear leather belts bearing holy concussion grenades.
Stiltists look forward to meeting legal challenges in court and meeting with President Obama. We say, if some other religion can declare as a =sacred practice= kneeling on a small rug aligned towards a sacred city far far away, it would take a hell of a lot of nerve to deny us our practice of exposing genitals while on stilts.
Trylon
The reason I suggested (in another thread) that you might need therapy is that, bar none, you are the poster most likely to use references to genitalia (or breasts) in your posts. I'd say you do this 20-25% of the time. So it's rather obsessive, not to mention immature. And it definitely reinforces something that seemed evident to me when I began taking psychology classes in college, at the time considering making that my major... that some of the weirdest people, which is to say those wholly uncomfortable in their own skins (added to the types unlikely to make any dating A-lists) were predominantly what was on view in those classes. Hence I became an English teacher.
Your mentions of sex are never sensual or inviting, they're always vulgar and grotesque. Nor do they (or you) make the slightest effort not to offend women readers. It's as if all perception arises from a dick, and codes of conduct begin and end there. Perhaps you got stunted in your development at the premise of penis envy. You've posted that you are a Scorpio, and that sign does connote the sex organs, however, your allusions lack class, finesse, and the seasoned maturity that generally come with real life experience.
i know you usually mean well, and you do occasionally positively acknowledge a well constructed argument. and yet it seems to me a sizable quantity, maybe upwards of 25% of your commentary heaps scorn and ridicule on other posters.
something of an overly defensive control/competition reaction here, i'd say.
which is hardly an example of "seasoned maturity."
it's always easier to find fault in others than in oneself.
but that doesn't mean faultfinding or personal criticism are especially attractive or worthy qualities.
in trylon's case, i think the impulse toward sexual references is probably congenital.
Cool. What's responsible for my admirable references to the writings of Daniel Berrigan, William Sloane Coffin and A.J. Muste? Each attributed his ethical humanism and social protest to Christian values. I say the jury is out on that attribution.
=Congenital= is a great joke that I'm not sure you were intending
Trylon
i was
You may or may not belong to a little club of impostors who habituate these threads for less than savory or honest reasons. Like any planned, covert operation, its agents enjoy the benefits afforded by anonymity, and thus their agenda is well-served in a forum of this nature. I have had a history of redundant attacks here, and have learned to recognize the modus operandi of the attackers. And how they work together. If I see these posters also pushing ideas that are antithetical to Progressive ideals, I call them out. Your screen name is rather new, so it's possible that you missed the history here. Just as some are no doubt keeping track of any true radicals, along with those who exhibit the capacity to influence others, I likewise am observing them, and making my insights public. Now if you want to use the canard about paranoia, an allegation that may have held water in a phase that preceeded this era of govt. surveillance, NDAA, pre-emptive crack-downs on protests, etc. go for it. It will only date your commentary, or expose your loyalty to authoritarian causes.
There is a huge difference between calling out those pushing agendas designed to undercut Progressive causes, and mere bickering over what you allege to be "personal criticisms." To repeat: a forum of this nature allows for plausible deniability. Frankly, I think you're "one of the boys." For you to narrow the nature of my commentary into that of finding fault with others, is no doubt done to grant cover to those exposed. It's not a new trick. Only the screen names all too conveniently change to make it SEEM that may be the case.
Trylon is not, in my view, one of that bunch. However, for a psychologist to redundantly post comments that condemn all persons, as if huMAN nature, as opposed to the devices put in place to shape it, is diabolical... is a sickening conclusion from one sworn to an occupation whose ethos is: "First, do no harm."
Your attempt to discredit me has been noted. I don't think I ever found anything particularly useful or unique in anything you've yet posted, "stark raving," or otherwise.
"for you to narrow the nature of my commentary into that of finding fault with others is no doubt done to grant cover to those exposed".
therein lies the problem. you have taken the mantle of final arbiter of all things progressive and authentic, being only minimally qualified to do so. just by observing how often you feel the need to "launch" into someone, you demonstrate a particular lack of empathy for other forms of human experience - the kind that threads of this nature thrive on.
i do not wish to grant anyone cover, or expose him/her as fraud. i wish to engage with any and all in the enlivening exchange of ideas and insights that are perhaps unique to us as individuals. regardless of how i may disagree with anything you may say here, i do not seek to discredit you - but if you dish it out, you should be able to take it.
==you might need therapy==
I would be sitting in a waiting room with all members of Monty Python & most standup comics. I've written, and been paid for, more than 2,000 personality appraisals in my career. I'd be glad to write one about you, based upon your posts.
Some are real doosies. If you think you can stand in judgment of me, but not be judged in return, you are in for the biggest surprise of your life. When needed, I can attack ad hominem with the very best.
Your overreaction also suggests to me the part of the brain underlying Tourettes is being twigged. Our brain has one and nobody knows why. Victims of this disorder do not stop in a supermarket and yell: "shoe, house, car car car" to the shock of shoppers. What they yell are words socially considered vulgarities - - and people go ape. For this behavior, Touretters, like epileptics, have been beaten by cops.
At a higher level, what knowledge is shared by John Clese and Umberto Eco [Name of the Rose], but is apparently unknown by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris [Letter to a Christian Nation] and Chris Hedges [ When Atheism Becomes Religion - a copy of which is next to me as I write]?
The answer is that the only force so far discovered that's an effective counterthrust to the evils of religion (and they are myriad) is FARCE. Crochet that statement into a kitchen sampler, eh?
John Clese is responsible for the controversial film =Life Of Brian=. It was banned in some U.S. theaters, and clergy fulminated from both pulpits and pages of religious journals. This was followed by Monty Python's film opus =The Meaning Of Life=. A pipe smoking actor represents a Protestant man who explains to his wife he is allowed to wear something on his =dickie= (breathe) that Catholic males are not allowed to wear. Twist and squirm while I revive the scenes of Catholic nuns, holding up the front of their habits, dancing in chorus lines, and singing: "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate." And - speaking of Catholics - -
Scene from =Born On The Fourth Of July=. Massapequa's Catholic, Vietnam War paraplegic Ron Kovik is berated by his mother as he sits in a wheelchair, urine draining into a bag strapped to his leg.
Mom: (shouting) Don't you say penis in THIS HOUSE !!!
Ron: (tearful) PENIS! PENIS! PENIS!
In life I settle for nothing less than the license extended to Monty Python, or to standup comedians.George Carlin suggested that, had Christ been put to death in an Electric Chair, Catholic girls would all be wearing thin chains around their necks with a charm in the shape of an Electric Chair. It's too late for you to crap on George's Twinkie, Siouxrose, he's dead.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Chris Hedges go at each other with intellectual hammers and tongs while Bill Moyers looks on. I might be wrong but I don't think any of them have read =The Sacred Canopy= by Peter Berger. Since I graduated from a church-related college, my collection of books on the topic of the Sociology of Religion approaches 14 inches (breathe). The relationship of religion to government is critical to the peoples' social contract. This nation was founded to be anathema to THEOCRACY. I know. My forbears were here 125 years before the Declaration of Independence. We are facing the biggest threat in American history of that happening here. That is Bill Moyers point. He expressed it intellectually. I expressed it by farce - in the tradition of, say, =Gulliver's Travels". Imagine Gulliver encountering a strange people who walk using stilts in order to be Closer to God.
The CD COMMENTS POLICY is a filter for farce. John Clese, Umberto Eco, and Jonathan Swift would need to turn off their sense of the absurd before logging in.
Trylon
Your entire catechism is etched in the language of patriarchy. You are 100% adhered to its reasoning, and absolutely convinced that the boys' club owns the exclusive authority to define the experience and existence of both unique halves of humanity. Sure, the MIC and other male-dominated institutions might validate your work, but I do not. I had hoped to point out to you the need to open your thought process to what Feminists have noted; or integrate the data that precedes the widely-held narrow beliefs about history as taken from the scholarship of the likes of Riane Eisler. Instead, you reinforce the old, traditional LIES about human nature and pass this area of "expertise" off as noted authority.
Your post is all over the board. What never occurs to you is that your sexist posts could be offensive to women readers. You could care less, and I think you rather enjoy pushing sexist, a/k/a insensitive memes. I recall that you said you had a daughter... perhaps you might give some thought to what a world pushing porn along with war, both newly merged into "war porn" will mean to her experience.
Lastly, as to your generous offer to psycho-analyze me, my response is 3-prong:
One: In my younger years I worked as a waitress. Two men walked in around 4 P.M. that is, before the dinner rush. I had to set the tables and they were observing... one decided that he'd like to date me. I told him he was not my type. Turns out he was a psychologist and because I had the audacity to reject his advances, he let it be known that he believed that I had a personality disorder. (How convenient for his ego to make use of that defense.)
Secohd: I like George Carlan, but most comedy reflects the ism-divisions that have been woven into culture down the centuries. (Good example here is the lisp that's part of "good" Castilian Spanish... it was adopted because some king had that speech impediment.)
Third, women like me, which is to say those who do not find truth in male, authoritarian systems, were falsely defined as witches and mercilessly done away with by the thousands. Why would I trust another system designed by men to define what I am, or what motivates me? Heck, there are still plenty of idiots in your field who think women get upset (over the hundreds of insults to existence that arise when societies block equal gender-representation) over penis envy.
I do not extend to you the authority to define or attempt to type-cast me, given the archaic tools in your toy chest. Men who don't even realize how off-balance societies (like the US in its make-war ethos) have become due to the fact that all aspects of their designs left women entirely out of the decision-making process, are morally and in my view, intellectually blind, if not retarded. I am doing you a favor in attempting to wake you up. I just gave you half an hour of my time. And time is precious.
Growth (can) happen(s).
Trylon,
i don't always agree with your point of view, but i generally appreciate your sense of humor. That is what is sorely lacking, IMO, in too much of "the left" - a sense of humor - humor and love, the 2 most powerful forces in our "battles" with "evil".
I regret the social disappearance of the phrase: "More fun than a barrel of monkeys." Noam Chomsky could use a few barrels, eh?
Trylon
Trylon....I really try to stay out of the bickering and criticizing that occasionally takes place here......and I had planned to stay out of this one between you and Siouxrose, but I just can't.
First of all, I can accept and grant you the right to say just about anything you want, to make your points any way you choose, etc. What I always find hard to understand and that I usually find offensive are the sexual innuendos and often blatant penis and genitalia references deemed necessary (by men, typically) to enhance a story or emphasize a point.
With the abundance of available words one can choose to express thought, it is always an amazement to me that so many people cannot complete a sentence without the F word or express even the simplest thought or opinion free of sexual and sexist jokes, references or analogies.
Comparing yourself or your methods of expressing yourself to John Clese and George Carlin, who are renowned and very well paid for their witty irreverence and naughtiness.....and claiming your experience and expertise at recognizing and understanding various personality traits....have not gone very far in eliminating my disgust and my being offended by your sexual, penis-proud commentary.
While I don't always agree with everything Siouxrose or anyone else says here....and with full understanding and acceptance that my views will not always sit right with people......I have to agree with her evaluation that the relative anonymity of speaking one's mind on sites like this often brings out the worst and most inappropriate comments and responses.
That you find your or anyone's sexist commentaries and analogies humorous is hard for me to understand.....what is hilarious or just 'good clean fun' to you may be considered disgusting, immature or crude by almost everyone else. There is no real right or wrong here, I suppose....but there is always a need for respect for each other. To me, there was nothing respectful or respectable in the words you chose to make your point.
While a comment like yours might cause quite a few guffaws from the boys I doubt there are very many women warmly regarding your way of expressing thought.
When my daughter was in high school one of the guys (who ended up married to her friend) couldn't seem to open his mouth to utter a thought, respond to one, or ever verbally use words without sexual innuendo, penis or vagina references, and almost any other way to twist whatever was said or being discussed into something smutty and sexually suggestive. Most women, even some of his male friends eventually got so sick that they either stopped associating with him or just ignored him best they could, accepting his other OK qualities in spite of his being generally an asshole.
I have no idea how old you are, but other than folks like George Carlin and the others you've compared yourself to...who can still get by being irreverent old guys who lace their funny, insightful, intelligent appraisals of the human condition with sexual references and profanity.....using such humor or references here on this thread seems at best very high-schoolish, at worst intentionally demeaning and offensive to women.
In any case, I doubt that Mr. Carlin or Mr. Clese would necessarily feel a need to utilize their bawdiest language and sex humor while engaged in a political or social interaction such as this one.
Thank you for that thoughtful reply.
One quote I have used a few times in the last 3 years is this: "Atrocity begins with euphemism". It was written by Mr. Ken Adachi, a Canadian of Japanese descent whose family was =relocated=. But there are other nefarious uses of euphemism.
In the =Social Construction of Reality= by Peter Berger, the social desirability of words is discussed, as are pressures accidental and deliberate to gain control of language. If you can control language, you have a head start on controlling thought, and many aspects of society involving Power. Some make you barf.
I can remember as a boy being asked by a teacher if I had to do Number 1 or Number 2 as this could affect permission to go to the bathroom, the washroom, the toilet, the boys room, the lavatory, the loo, the sandbox and other waste of dictionary paper. "I have to urinate." SCREECH - you used the "U" word. "I have to defacate." Screech - you used the "D" word.
I sometimes wonder what socially undesirable terms exist in countries with written language very different from ours. For instance, I would like to see a Chinese equivalent of =the N word= with the full and PC abbreviated glyphs side by side. My guess is that the Chinese aren't stupid enough to do this.
I would be more than happy to solve this unhappiness by using the Chinese terms for a list created here by my critics. But I'm confident the following would happen. Some jerk will count my use of written Chinese symbols in my posts and pull a Siouxrose upon me no matter what. I could switch to Cree Indian and two weeks later the same thing could happen.
Phuc Phuc Phuc Phuc. Do you know what that is? Thats' the name of Kim, the running, naked little Vietnamese girl who has been bombed with napalm. There are English speaking people who cannot speak her name without blushing. Kim, by the way, sought asylum in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. I sought asylum in Canada as a U.S. citizen and am also a Canadian citizen. Small world. .
Another quote I like is: "The name of the game is the labels imposed upon the facts".
And this one by Emile Zola: " I am an artist... I am here to live out loud."
Trylon
You're welcome...and, thank you for yours...:-)
I get your point, religion is silly made up crap and anyone can do it. But Siouxrose is dead on when she says you've got issues buddy. If you want to see a more "classy" approach, google Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I've mentioned "The Chalice & The Blade," by Riane Eisler, in part because it relates how religions came to be equated with the systematic oppression of women (and all their rights). Thus when some posters speak about religion, they often fail to mention (or understand) the degree to which these patriarchal institutions continue to mandate control over women's fundamental rights.
Second, this is not just a turf war over whether Catholic Hospitals need follow the secular law insofar as delivering birth control to those who request it. Just like the analogy of the frog placed in water that only slowly comes to a boil, matters are shaping up little by little. As Chris Hedges documents in "American Fascists," there is a very real desire on the part of many to have this nation function under rules consistent with a Christian theocracy. That is the goal of millions of people, and they are as well-organized in establishng that outcome as are military and/or football strategists.
Winning this battle is gaining a larger hold of the field.
It's not the matter of herding cats versus those "Oh, so well-organized tea party types," authoritarians by nature line up and follow orders, and they expect everyone else to do likewise. The most mortifying thing about it is that all the while they'd give lip service to democracy... as if it's nothing more than a brand name.
Too many here are cavalier about this issue as they don't bother to connect the dots; unless, of course they're comfortable in their lives (and/or maleness = control of their reproductive organs) and so this as just another divisive, peripheral issue to them. "How convenient!" As the Saturday Night Live skit for church lady put it.
Hi SR. I've read the Chalice and Blade and agree Testosterone may be the most dangerous drug on the planet. Minoan society sounds lovely, certainly hope I was there in a past incarnation admiring those bare-breasted nymphs at play. God most likely is a woman as she seems to have done some of her finest work on woman's physiques. I'm leaving the US and won't be able to carry all my books along, so I'll be dropping it off at the local library so more people can read it.
Trylon's post was a bit vulgar, but does highlight the absurdity of many organized religions like Catholicism. Scorpios are invariably sexually charged, so therapy is unlikely to change his nature much, imo.
I think everyone should find their own path to enlightenment, synthesize your own religion if neccessary, and avoid those who claim to be the only conduit to "God", as hucksters. Love is the key, all else is window dressing.
Peace
Shame those arabian fairy tales go through all that effort to cover up the beauty of the female form!! Seriously, WTF is up with that.
Goddess grant an incurable pox on mecca and free women from the slavery of the burka!!
Half the Scorpios in the world are female. Yum.
First, if not clearly understood everyone should realize that Sen. McConnell is a knee jerk party Hack, (see dictionary definition of hack) , he dozes what he is told to do. But most important. The Bill of Rights apply s to people NOT corporate type entities. Women , like men enjoy freedom of choice. Allowing any church or other corporate group to deny freedom of choice is a violation of our civil rights. In this case it would be a violation of the individuals freedom of religion.
Organizations are composed of individuals. In the case of religious orgs., people have come together because of their faith and beliefs. To ask a church to do something that violates their beliefs because some of their own folk don't adhere closely to every belief, is to say that your beliefs as a group don't count. Your beliefs only have weight when you are on your own as an individual.
I don't care for the managing structure of the Catholic Church, but I understand the strength of individual Catholics' faith in their God and the teachings of their church and the authority of their church, even if they don't adhere to every single one. You are going to find MANY Catholics who may use birth-control or who desire free birth-control for all who will also stand for 1st amendment rights for their church.
This is a good illustration of the binary thinking that so contaminates our politics. It seems to come from the horse-race mentality that our media promotes. In a horse race you place your bet and come hell or high water you want your horse to win. But politics isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a horse race- though actually it seems much worse - more as if you pick your horse color, not any particular horse.
It really is possible to criticize a politician without opposing his re-election. Moyers can call for a Democratic alternative to Obama and still approve of something Obama does. In fact he might still favor Obama's re-election and still think that it would be good to have the debates and discussions that would come from a challenge from within the Democratic Party.
I agree - the first step in getting out of this mess the duopoly has created is to understand that there ARE alternatives and to let folks know what they are - any site that posits itself as "progressive" yet fails to do this is hypocritical, IMO - to just go on and on about how lousy the the 2 parties are yet fails to present alternatives is to perpetuate the hegemony of those parties ....
I watched an interview of Rocky Anderson on the Real News yesterday. He seems a good, clear thinking man and from what I saw of him he would have a lot to contribute as president. However, as you point out, he does not get much exposure and I suspect there are not many voters who have ever heard of him or of Jill Stein.
That is the very first barrier for any candidate to be president and it takes both an organization and tremendous amounts of money to cross even that first barrier of widespread name recognition. The reality is that in this country it is almost inconceivable that someone not the Democratic or Republican party candidate could become president. If it happens it will be someone like Ross Perot with great personal wealth and who already has widespread name recognition.
Politics is not only about elections though. We've seen the effects of pressure both by the Tea Party and OWS; pressure is important and so is thoughtful criticism. We shouldn't confuse support of a candidate with blind support of everything that candidate does. That is the point I was making, not that it makes any sense to follow some impossible dream to try to elect someone who has no chance.
"it is almost inconceivable that someone not the Democratic or Republican party candidate could become president."
Almost, yes, but not completely - so you can conceive it, I gather - congratulations, you have taken the first step to making it happen -
The next steps are what we are doing here - letting folks know what and who is out there and spreading the word - "boots on the ground" and bits and bytes on the internet can accomplish with little money what the MSM does with a lot . What does it cost us but a bit of our time ...
"not that it makes any sense to follow some impossible dream to try to elect someone who has no chance."
tch, tch - now you are backsliding - buck up, it can be done ...
Maybe you are too young, don't know, to remember that song "High Hopes" (which I just read the other day was JFK's campaign song) "Once there was a little ole' ram, thought he'd punch a hole in a dam ....."
Also, just hope that if you are ever in dire medical straights, where the odds are against you, or are short of cash, your doc or nurse doesn't give up on you as a "hopeless case" ....
Or perhaps you are too young to have learned not to put all of your hopes into a hopeless long-shot. I don't play the lottery and when I do gamble it is for small stakes.
i am old enough to have seen patients who were "hopeless" walk out of a hospital because one or more folks would not give up - that was my profession. If the cause is worth it - you don't quit. This is not a horse race, nor a casino - it is about our and our progeny's future - it is worth it. It is because too many have treated it like a lottery - playing the "odds", instead of trying to change them, that we find ourselves where we are ...