Make no mistake that the war against abortion is a war against WOMEN--when Dobson says that abortions amount to a holocaust he is saying that aborted unborn children are the victims of Nazi-like women and doctors--outrageous:
t r u t h o u t - FOCUS: Marjorie Cohn | Right to Choice Under Nuclear Attack: " James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, decried 'six or eight very squishy Republicans' who oppose the destruction of the filibuster. Dobson, who recently compared the Supreme Court to the KKK and held it responsible for the 'biggest holocaust in world history' since Roe v. Wade was decided, called the justices 'unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values - and they're out of control.'"
It is Dobson that wishes to "redesign" the culture according to his own biases and values--the courts allow us freedom (mostly). Placing legal restrictions on behavior does not allow people freedom of will or conscience--social engineering interferes with liberty. Everyone should be entitled to act or not act on their own religious views within their person and in privacy. They differ! I believe that G_d protects the souls of all unborn children, aborted or naturally terminated:
"Before I formed you in the womb I selected you, before you were born I consecrated you..."
-Jeremiah 1:5
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Bush, the simple checkers guy vs. terrorism
Dennis Miller was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart displaying his limited understanding of why the Iraq war was a bad idea and the simplistic, black and white view of the world. He said that this was in fact why he supports Bush, because Bush is a "checkers" man and Kerry was a "chess" man. The chess man deliberates and makes decisions based on observation and context, but the all-mighty checkers man just moves without much thought--quicker decisions, I guess, makes for better decisions. Well, that hasn't been true in any sense, but it just shows the silly ways that Bush supporters show support for Bush. They construct elaborate examples based on personality or style rather than substance.
So yesterday, Checkers decides that he should host the Prince of Saudi Arabia at his Texas White House (the arrogance of a Western White House is inescapable). Checkers shows the world how friendly he is with the Saudi Prince by grasping his hand in a gesture that shows brotherhood among muslims (a practice that is quite common in the muslim world).
Checkers is saying, "The Saudi Prince and me are brothers."
To me, this is as inflammatory to terrorists as is our presence in Iraq. Recently, two American journalists were targeted in Saudi Arabia by anti-American Saudi terrorists--one was killed and one was paralyzed. Our cozy relationship with the royal family is obviously doing NOTHING to help our energy policy (Bush didn't dare ask the Prince, his brother, to increase their production of oil--I guess that's a chess move?) yet his "style and personality" has a huge impact on the morale of terrorists and anti-American/Israeli forces in the middle east. It recruits!! It threaten us as well as the Saudi royal family. The Saudi Prince and Bush can't see this from their red and black checkers board--ironically it really is that simple. Cause and effect...
It's time to discontinue propping up the Saudi royal family with our military and oil needs--we are not their brothers. Cousins, sure, brothers, no.
So yesterday, Checkers decides that he should host the Prince of Saudi Arabia at his Texas White House (the arrogance of a Western White House is inescapable). Checkers shows the world how friendly he is with the Saudi Prince by grasping his hand in a gesture that shows brotherhood among muslims (a practice that is quite common in the muslim world).
Checkers is saying, "The Saudi Prince and me are brothers."
To me, this is as inflammatory to terrorists as is our presence in Iraq. Recently, two American journalists were targeted in Saudi Arabia by anti-American Saudi terrorists--one was killed and one was paralyzed. Our cozy relationship with the royal family is obviously doing NOTHING to help our energy policy (Bush didn't dare ask the Prince, his brother, to increase their production of oil--I guess that's a chess move?) yet his "style and personality" has a huge impact on the morale of terrorists and anti-American/Israeli forces in the middle east. It recruits!! It threaten us as well as the Saudi royal family. The Saudi Prince and Bush can't see this from their red and black checkers board--ironically it really is that simple. Cause and effect...
It's time to discontinue propping up the Saudi royal family with our military and oil needs--we are not their brothers. Cousins, sure, brothers, no.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Tonight's "Justice Sunday," A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time
The following excerpt from the excellent article in the New York Times illustrates what people who try to control, limit and condemn other people's healthy sexuality and reproduction are usually trying to hide--their own sexual crimes, perversions and on-going sexual shame:
t r u t h o u t - Frank Rich | A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time: "Perhaps the closest historical antecedent of tonight's crusade was that staged in the 1950's and 60's by a George Wallace ally, the televangelist Billy James Hargis. At its peak, his so-called Christian Crusade was carried by 500 radio stations and more than 200 television stations. In the 'Impeach Earl Warren' era, Hargis would preach of the 'collapse of moral values' engineered by a 'powerfully entrenched, anti-God Liberal Establishment.' He also decried any sex education that talked about homosexuality or even sexual intercourse. Or so he did until his career was ended by accusations that he had had sex with female students at the Christian college he founded as well as with boys in the school's All-American Kids choir. "
t r u t h o u t - Frank Rich | A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time: "Perhaps the closest historical antecedent of tonight's crusade was that staged in the 1950's and 60's by a George Wallace ally, the televangelist Billy James Hargis. At its peak, his so-called Christian Crusade was carried by 500 radio stations and more than 200 television stations. In the 'Impeach Earl Warren' era, Hargis would preach of the 'collapse of moral values' engineered by a 'powerfully entrenched, anti-God Liberal Establishment.' He also decried any sex education that talked about homosexuality or even sexual intercourse. Or so he did until his career was ended by accusations that he had had sex with female students at the Christian college he founded as well as with boys in the school's All-American Kids choir. "
Friday, April 22, 2005
Protestants, Jews Blast Frist's Evangelical TV Role
t r u t h o u t - Protestants, Jews Blast Frist's Evangelical TV Role
This is all about abortion. I am so sick of this fight between those who want women to control their own lives in privacy and those who want to control women's lives. The more I hear about it, the more I see misogyny. Not only is opposing women's right to an abortion a dismissal of an individual woman's will, health and control of her own destiny (this I consider hatred), it also makes her invisible. In their world view, a fetus belongs to everyone but her. NO MAN WOULD STAND FOR THIS. Men even stop at these parameters with other men (an equivalent would be doping sex offenders with hormonal manipulation), but we lack the same respect for women's privacy and self-control. Maybe men were let off the hook when Paul told Christian men that they would not have to get circumcized to be Christians while he made clear that wives were subservient to them (my friend Barbara pointed this out--think about it).
Many people advocate less social control on men, more social control on women.
Anti-abortionists who work to limit abortions are instrisically arguing for more control over women. It's not a harmless argument, folks. We have an attorney general in Kansas trying to get his hands on women's medical records. Again, no man would stand for that. It was illegal (not sure now because of the Patriot Act).
It is more difficult to address the religious purism that motivates people in their anti-abortionism. Although I vehemently disagree about the destiny of human souls (I believe aborted fetuses return to G_d), I can't blame people for theologically believing that every soul is in danger and might go to pergatory if it's unnaturally ended before baptism (ugh!). It's dark, but idealistic. So why not practice what they preach, model it, and teach their children to take after them. When they start forcing their religious beliefs on others we get a theocracy, not a republic. What if Jews decided to force circumcision or kosher eating on everyone? It's just not imaginable!
So to me, this fight over abortion is a time and resource waste for everyone--I'd rather be working at ways to improve the lives of women and children. But as a society we don't do that--we'd rather just blame women for all our society's ills--as many Romans did in the end (and Roman historians, mind you).
As for abortion and birth control: Live and let live. Let it be. Let women be allowed to make good and bad decisions and live with them, men are. Save your passion and influence for yourself, your family, and your community's health and well-being. What a beautiful world that would be.
Peace
This is all about abortion. I am so sick of this fight between those who want women to control their own lives in privacy and those who want to control women's lives. The more I hear about it, the more I see misogyny. Not only is opposing women's right to an abortion a dismissal of an individual woman's will, health and control of her own destiny (this I consider hatred), it also makes her invisible. In their world view, a fetus belongs to everyone but her. NO MAN WOULD STAND FOR THIS. Men even stop at these parameters with other men (an equivalent would be doping sex offenders with hormonal manipulation), but we lack the same respect for women's privacy and self-control. Maybe men were let off the hook when Paul told Christian men that they would not have to get circumcized to be Christians while he made clear that wives were subservient to them (my friend Barbara pointed this out--think about it).
Many people advocate less social control on men, more social control on women.
Anti-abortionists who work to limit abortions are instrisically arguing for more control over women. It's not a harmless argument, folks. We have an attorney general in Kansas trying to get his hands on women's medical records. Again, no man would stand for that. It was illegal (not sure now because of the Patriot Act).
It is more difficult to address the religious purism that motivates people in their anti-abortionism. Although I vehemently disagree about the destiny of human souls (I believe aborted fetuses return to G_d), I can't blame people for theologically believing that every soul is in danger and might go to pergatory if it's unnaturally ended before baptism (ugh!). It's dark, but idealistic. So why not practice what they preach, model it, and teach their children to take after them. When they start forcing their religious beliefs on others we get a theocracy, not a republic. What if Jews decided to force circumcision or kosher eating on everyone? It's just not imaginable!
So to me, this fight over abortion is a time and resource waste for everyone--I'd rather be working at ways to improve the lives of women and children. But as a society we don't do that--we'd rather just blame women for all our society's ills--as many Romans did in the end (and Roman historians, mind you).
As for abortion and birth control: Live and let live. Let it be. Let women be allowed to make good and bad decisions and live with them, men are. Save your passion and influence for yourself, your family, and your community's health and well-being. What a beautiful world that would be.
Peace
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Morning-After Pills Provoke Escalating Culture War
t r u t h o u t - Morning-After Pills Provoke Escalating Culture War
THIS IS MADDENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY DO THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DELAY A WOMAN FROM ENDING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EARLY UNWANTED PREGNANCY? THEIR CONCERN FOR LIFE AT THIS STAGE IS SO OUT OF PROPORTION FROM THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY ARE ABSOLUTE PURISTS WHO HAVE NO CONCEPT OF COMPASSION FOR WOMEN OR AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS DRIVING ME NUTS!
THIS IS MADDENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY DO THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DELAY A WOMAN FROM ENDING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EARLY UNWANTED PREGNANCY? THEIR CONCERN FOR LIFE AT THIS STAGE IS SO OUT OF PROPORTION FROM THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY ARE ABSOLUTE PURISTS WHO HAVE NO CONCEPT OF COMPASSION FOR WOMEN OR AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS DRIVING ME NUTS!
Arch-Conservative German Elected Pope
t r u t h o u t - Arch-Conservative German Elected Pope: "Born in Bavaria on April 16, 1927, the son of a police chief, he served in the Hitler Youth during World War II when membership was compulsory, according to his autobiography.
But he was never a member of the Nazi party and his family opposed Adolf Hitler's regime, biographers have said."
He still hates gays and labels other Christians (let alone Jews) as "deficient." Sounds pretty Nazi-like to me...I will pray that he's not.
I am really struck at how much PR the vatican gets. The press will follow any big dog and pony show, eh? I mean, how much does the pope really affect American lives?? How about some congressional coverage, folks??
But he was never a member of the Nazi party and his family opposed Adolf Hitler's regime, biographers have said."
He still hates gays and labels other Christians (let alone Jews) as "deficient." Sounds pretty Nazi-like to me...I will pray that he's not.
I am really struck at how much PR the vatican gets. The press will follow any big dog and pony show, eh? I mean, how much does the pope really affect American lives?? How about some congressional coverage, folks??
DeLay Banks on Guns, God and Glory
t r u t h o u t - DeLay Banks on Guns, God and Glory: "DeLay's image beamed from two huge screens at each end of the banquet hall. 'When a man's in trouble or in a good fight,' he said, 'you want to have your friends around - preferably, armed.'"
What a f-ing coward...stand with him or his friends will shoot you.
What a f-ing coward...stand with him or his friends will shoot you.
The Theocrats
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | The Theocrats: "Though we live today in an age where official hypocrisy is as common as sunlight and shadow, the reasons for Frist's looming attack on the filibuster forge new precedent in the annals of foolishness. Twelve of 204 Bush nominations to the Judiciary have been stopped by the Democrats, those twelve being far feathers on the right wing who have no place on the bench. This equals a Judicial nominee approval rate of 95%, which is a far cry from the obstructionism of the Republican Congress during Clinton's term, when one out of three seats in the Federal court system were left empty thanks to the efforts of the Gingrich brigades."
An American just said that Christ gave us the pope.
A priest who studied with Pope Benedict XVI (and who obviously worships this man) just said that Christ gave us the apostles and the pope.
Can someone illustrate to me at what point Christ appointed a pope?
Peace.
Can someone illustrate to me at what point Christ appointed a pope?
Peace.
Okay, so now I care about pope issues...
Authority
Relativism
Certainty
These are the words being battered around by those debating the philosophy of the new Pope Benedict XVI, the German son of a cop. He thinks that some idea of "relativism" is a danger to Catholic teachings because it means that there can be no certainty.
Certainty.
Catholic teaching relies on certainty about G_d? No, Catholic teaching relies on people having certainty about papal teachings. Catholic priests are asking the people to rely on papal teachings about G_d.
In stark contrast, Jewish teachings (particulary reformed Jews) continually question the bible and reinterpret ("reform") the text to inform how we, as individuals, see G_d as an actor through history, and today. Rabbis do not speak for G_d, and certainly don't see themselves as representations of Christ (although in my eyes they certainly have more claim to that legacy).
One might call the approach of reform "relative" and the Catholic methods "certain," but there is no way to make a judgement about anything without giving it moral relativism (difference in value) toward something else. I mean, come on, Catholics are infamous for having some sins count for more sin than others! Mortal sins are worse than other sins--that's the definition of moral relativism (see sin).
So in the end, this "philosophical" debate is not about modern philosophy at all, it's about authority.
In my eyes, this papal claim for authority has very little to do with G_d. To me, G_d is about consciousness and awareness within people (and all life forms); I do not believe that it can be given or granted to people under the limited, political terms of a human "authority."
To me, Christianity errects an enourmous number of human obstructions and hurdles that get in the way of the idea and experience of G_d (and love, and sometimes community). I've been there.
Relativism
Certainty
These are the words being battered around by those debating the philosophy of the new Pope Benedict XVI, the German son of a cop. He thinks that some idea of "relativism" is a danger to Catholic teachings because it means that there can be no certainty.
Certainty.
Catholic teaching relies on certainty about G_d? No, Catholic teaching relies on people having certainty about papal teachings. Catholic priests are asking the people to rely on papal teachings about G_d.
In stark contrast, Jewish teachings (particulary reformed Jews) continually question the bible and reinterpret ("reform") the text to inform how we, as individuals, see G_d as an actor through history, and today. Rabbis do not speak for G_d, and certainly don't see themselves as representations of Christ (although in my eyes they certainly have more claim to that legacy).
One might call the approach of reform "relative" and the Catholic methods "certain," but there is no way to make a judgement about anything without giving it moral relativism (difference in value) toward something else. I mean, come on, Catholics are infamous for having some sins count for more sin than others! Mortal sins are worse than other sins--that's the definition of moral relativism (see sin).
So in the end, this "philosophical" debate is not about modern philosophy at all, it's about authority.
In my eyes, this papal claim for authority has very little to do with G_d. To me, G_d is about consciousness and awareness within people (and all life forms); I do not believe that it can be given or granted to people under the limited, political terms of a human "authority."
To me, Christianity errects an enourmous number of human obstructions and hurdles that get in the way of the idea and experience of G_d (and love, and sometimes community). I've been there.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Roosevelt Was A Radical in the White House
t r u t h o u t - Herbert: A Radical in the White House
Just a good look at what the Roosevelts were all about FAIRNESS AND EQUITY among Americans. Everytime the Bush people invoke FDR's legacy as somewhat related to their own, think of the article above. They are so far from FDR's mark it's ridiculous that they even try to relate themselves to him or his legacy. Plus, Mrs. Bush has not scratched the surface of what Eleanor accomplished in her lifetime.
Just a good look at what the Roosevelts were all about FAIRNESS AND EQUITY among Americans. Everytime the Bush people invoke FDR's legacy as somewhat related to their own, think of the article above. They are so far from FDR's mark it's ridiculous that they even try to relate themselves to him or his legacy. Plus, Mrs. Bush has not scratched the surface of what Eleanor accomplished in her lifetime.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The importance of apologies within families
I haven't made a random observation for awhile, they've mostly been politics whereas my interests range from art to relationships (although these very often seem controversial!).
I grew up with a father who was unfaithful to my mother several times during my childhood and teen years. He was otherwise a good man, but he never apologized for this adultery to me or my brothers. I think he apologized to my mother, and this was enough for me for a long time. And I do forgive him, but it didn't dawn on me until recently (yesterday watching Dr. Phil) that he really owed his children an apology.
When I was a teenager, I learned from his poor example. I was defiantly rebellious and independent and when I made mistakes (some biggies) I did not understand or tolerate that I owed anyone an apology or even an explanation. I also felt that no one was responsible for me or my behavior but me, and therefore no one else, particulary my parents, should be notified, informed or consulted when I did something wrong. Having been brought up in a religious family (we were not spiritual by any sense), this was a very secular and fiercely independent view that I had of myself and my role in my family. It strikes me as very American, not that unusual, sad, and very disconnected from a sheltering family.
I hope my husband's and my child or children never feel this way. I hope that we will responsibly apologize for every wrong we do that affects our children, and that they will follow our example with others. I hope they will know that they will always have a very important role in the health and happiness of our family.
I grew up with a father who was unfaithful to my mother several times during my childhood and teen years. He was otherwise a good man, but he never apologized for this adultery to me or my brothers. I think he apologized to my mother, and this was enough for me for a long time. And I do forgive him, but it didn't dawn on me until recently (yesterday watching Dr. Phil) that he really owed his children an apology.
When I was a teenager, I learned from his poor example. I was defiantly rebellious and independent and when I made mistakes (some biggies) I did not understand or tolerate that I owed anyone an apology or even an explanation. I also felt that no one was responsible for me or my behavior but me, and therefore no one else, particulary my parents, should be notified, informed or consulted when I did something wrong. Having been brought up in a religious family (we were not spiritual by any sense), this was a very secular and fiercely independent view that I had of myself and my role in my family. It strikes me as very American, not that unusual, sad, and very disconnected from a sheltering family.
I hope my husband's and my child or children never feel this way. I hope that we will responsibly apologize for every wrong we do that affects our children, and that they will follow our example with others. I hope they will know that they will always have a very important role in the health and happiness of our family.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
God and perfectionism
Humans are not perfect, nor pure, not one of us. That is G_d's role. Anyone who tries in vain to be perfect is aspiring to something that cannot be accomplished in human terms. A loss of ego and greater awareness of others should be the goal of humans. This is a daily battle.
US Appears to Have Fought War for Oil and Lost It
Our UNSUCCESSFUL war for oil in plain terms:
t r u t h o u t - US Appears to Have Fought War for Oil and Lost It
t r u t h o u t - US Appears to Have Fought War for Oil and Lost It
Friday, April 08, 2005
The Pope and patriarchy
I haven't been reading or watching anything about the pope, so every time I catch a bit of the Vatican crowds on TV, or color pictures in the newspaper of a white haired old man waving or later embalmed on a royal bed, I groan inside.
I have serious issues with wealthy displays of Catholicism, flawed Christianity and patriarchy. I believe the former do a great deal to promote the latter. Judaism has its own patriarchal mechanisms, but they are MUCH harder to find in the practice and texts of reformed Jews.
Nothing does more to promote patriarchy than the pope. You could argue that nothing does more to promote religious heirarchy than the pope, but it's much more specific than that if you happen to be female.
This glorified priest didn't believe women could serve as a representative of Christ like priests do (a problem in itself, but still). Instead, women serve Christ, and their husbands.
This glorified priest didn't believe women should use birth control, ever.
This glorified priest, if he followed Augustine's teachings, believed that women become men when they go to heaven.
How do you start from there and become a glorified representative of faith and religious purity?
Starting from nowhere, how does any, albeit influential, human become treated like a god after death?
How is this anything but vain?
How is this anything but a display of wealth and religious heirarchies?
How is it that our leaders want so desperately to be a part of this display?
I'm not angry.
I'm disgusted.
The Jesus I was taught to value would not have approved of any of this--for himself, or anyone else! And G_d said to put no idols before G_d!
I do not see Christianity or spiritual purity in this--I see very expensive tribal displays of the worship of gods on earth--and I turn away from it. Instead I think of those individuals who have lived and lost their lives for much more, say Ghandi, for a start. What did his funeral look like? Let us remember that heroes on earth are still men and women, not gods, and are definitely not every priest, rabbi, or minister.
Peace
The blog of a feminist who cooks (like me!) and who actually has been paying attention to pope TV: Pope, Croaked
I have serious issues with wealthy displays of Catholicism, flawed Christianity and patriarchy. I believe the former do a great deal to promote the latter. Judaism has its own patriarchal mechanisms, but they are MUCH harder to find in the practice and texts of reformed Jews.
Nothing does more to promote patriarchy than the pope. You could argue that nothing does more to promote religious heirarchy than the pope, but it's much more specific than that if you happen to be female.
This glorified priest didn't believe women could serve as a representative of Christ like priests do (a problem in itself, but still). Instead, women serve Christ, and their husbands.
This glorified priest didn't believe women should use birth control, ever.
This glorified priest, if he followed Augustine's teachings, believed that women become men when they go to heaven.
How do you start from there and become a glorified representative of faith and religious purity?
Starting from nowhere, how does any, albeit influential, human become treated like a god after death?
How is this anything but vain?
How is this anything but a display of wealth and religious heirarchies?
How is it that our leaders want so desperately to be a part of this display?
I'm not angry.
I'm disgusted.
The Jesus I was taught to value would not have approved of any of this--for himself, or anyone else! And G_d said to put no idols before G_d!
I do not see Christianity or spiritual purity in this--I see very expensive tribal displays of the worship of gods on earth--and I turn away from it. Instead I think of those individuals who have lived and lost their lives for much more, say Ghandi, for a start. What did his funeral look like? Let us remember that heroes on earth are still men and women, not gods, and are definitely not every priest, rabbi, or minister.
Peace
The blog of a feminist who cooks (like me!) and who actually has been paying attention to pope TV: Pope, Croaked
Friday, April 01, 2005
A wolf in sheep's clothing
Wolfowitz to head World Bank
Wow, does this tell us that the World Bank is now an arm of the Bush "empire" or was it always? When Wolfowitz claims that helping people in need is the most important thing people can do, I think of how we're not helping needy Iraqis, or much in Darfur. I can't believe anyone bought his "I'm a nice guy" B.S.--perhaps they just don't care that it's B.S. Being nice to your family and pets, presumably, while one helps to create an on-going immoral war doesn't count as a nice guy for the world community.
Wow, does this tell us that the World Bank is now an arm of the Bush "empire" or was it always? When Wolfowitz claims that helping people in need is the most important thing people can do, I think of how we're not helping needy Iraqis, or much in Darfur. I can't believe anyone bought his "I'm a nice guy" B.S.--perhaps they just don't care that it's B.S. Being nice to your family and pets, presumably, while one helps to create an on-going immoral war doesn't count as a nice guy for the world community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)