Perhaps because of a comment below, and some flak I’ve taken recently because of my religious and political belief, I’ve been asking myself what I really believe in. And so I’m going to set down my creed.
I believe in Christ and that He came and died for the redemption of sins.
I believe in a physical heaven and hell.
I believe in the existence of evil; I believe in the existence of Satan.
I believe in the existence of truth. (I also believe in cultural anthropology that says that most cultural ‘truths’ are constructs.)
I believe in life after death.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the body of the church here on earth.
I believe Christ will come again (to judge the living and the dead and that He will sit on the right hand of the Father.)
I believe in sin. (That it does exist and that there are things as sins.)
I believe in social justice for all.
I believe in peace.
I believe in humility before God. (I fail at this constantly.)
I believe in social action.
I believe in dissent.
I believe in the forgiveness of sins.
I believe in the separation of church and state (the better to protect the church from the arm of the state)
I believe that life does not begin at conception.
I believe in a woman’s right to make her own moral decisions without the aid of the state.
I believe in the beatitudes.
I believe that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves (which I haven’t really done because I truly think Republicans and evangelicals are tyrannical and bizarre. I’ll get better at this.)
I believe that Paul wrote beautiful scripture but that his views on women aren’t necessarily applicable to women today (especially women with an education or those who won’t marry.)
I believe that faith and doubt go hand in hand. (I don’t believe that doubt is heresy or blasphemy. After all, was Thomas’ skepticism wrong?)
I believe that an embryo is not the same thing as a fetus.
I believe in Christ’s redemption.
I believe in the sacrament of Holy Communion.
I believe in the power of confession and prayer.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The Revealer: Kerry Wins God Points
The Revealer: Kerry Wins God Points
think what you will about reproductive rights and john kerry, but i thought his answer to the woman about abortion and faith was brilliant.
let me repeat again: separation of church and state.
think what you will about reproductive rights and john kerry, but i thought his answer to the woman about abortion and faith was brilliant.
let me repeat again: separation of church and state.
Friday, October 08, 2004
post debate spin
kerry didn't give an inch.
bush was hysterical.
bush needs to bone up on history - dred scott was not about property rights - scott's race predicated his status as property. (and is it really a good idea to use a case from the 19th century to score a point today?)
bush was hysterical.
bush needs to bone up on history - dred scott was not about property rights - scott's race predicated his status as property. (and is it really a good idea to use a case from the 19th century to score a point today?)
Thursday, October 07, 2004
exactly
AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Keeping the Color Line
we want change for our communities?
then we need to do somethin.'
we want change for our communities?
then we need to do somethin.'
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
the debates last night gave me gas.
edwards, as always, looked fabulous. cheney, as ever, looked like he had put a lump of coal in your stocking and if you complained he'd get out his walking stick and give you a good thrashing about your head and shoulders.
as for winning, does it matter? it's easy to memorize talking points, but how about argument and mastery of a subject? much better to administer an essay (always my forte.)
anyway, not much going on. just a minor crisis of faith over whether it's unchristian to rebel against authority and whether my college education makes me closer to a godless agnostic than a traditional christian. (i don't think so, but apparently my non-problem with facilitated discussion makes me a dupe of the New World Order...or so according to some new friends of my dad.)
whatever. conservative old (white) guys are typically paranoid about everything.
edwards, as always, looked fabulous. cheney, as ever, looked like he had put a lump of coal in your stocking and if you complained he'd get out his walking stick and give you a good thrashing about your head and shoulders.
as for winning, does it matter? it's easy to memorize talking points, but how about argument and mastery of a subject? much better to administer an essay (always my forte.)
anyway, not much going on. just a minor crisis of faith over whether it's unchristian to rebel against authority and whether my college education makes me closer to a godless agnostic than a traditional christian. (i don't think so, but apparently my non-problem with facilitated discussion makes me a dupe of the New World Order...or so according to some new friends of my dad.)
whatever. conservative old (white) guys are typically paranoid about everything.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Campaign 2004 > Clergy: Black Pastors Backing Bush Are Rare, but Not Alone
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Clergy: Black Pastors Backing Bush Are Rare, but Not Alone
thanks to The Revealer for noticing that this article doesn't actually talk to anyone who's doing the voting - just the political operatives. nice.
thanks to The Revealer for noticing that this article doesn't actually talk to anyone who's doing the voting - just the political operatives. nice.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Top 10 Reasons to Get Out of Iraq
AlterNet: War on Iraq: Top 10 Reasons to Get Out of Iraq
i'll have to remember this list when i go home and start arguing politics with my family.
i'll have to remember this list when i go home and start arguing politics with my family.
AlterNet: Election 2004: What Women Want
AlterNet: Election 2004: What Women Want
but the question is will we vote?
oprah had a disturbing show yesterday - a building full of women who have not registered to vote and have no intention of doing so. an african-american woman in her forties shrugged and said that if she lost her right to vote, she wouldn't care.
what?!
so disturbing. our educational system in this country stinks if ordinary citizens aren't compelled to vote.
but the question is will we vote?
oprah had a disturbing show yesterday - a building full of women who have not registered to vote and have no intention of doing so. an african-american woman in her forties shrugged and said that if she lost her right to vote, she wouldn't care.
what?!
so disturbing. our educational system in this country stinks if ordinary citizens aren't compelled to vote.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
happy birthday to me.
we're just a month or so out from the elections and things are getting tight. i'll be travelling up to wisconsin next month to rally the troops and talk to a bunch of rifle carrying mid-westerners, but whatever.
anything to swing a state kerry's way.
ralph reed was on the daily show last night and lied in front of millions of people. somehow that doesn't surprise me when he's a guy taking money from all sorts of people he shouldn't.
we're just a month or so out from the elections and things are getting tight. i'll be travelling up to wisconsin next month to rally the troops and talk to a bunch of rifle carrying mid-westerners, but whatever.
anything to swing a state kerry's way.
ralph reed was on the daily show last night and lied in front of millions of people. somehow that doesn't surprise me when he's a guy taking money from all sorts of people he shouldn't.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
the buck stops...over there
First Draft - More on DeLay-Related Indictments
well, if you've been too depressed by all the polls showing shrub either with a gazillion point lead or just a mere 2, here's something to distract you.
remember when there was a possibility that tom 'the hammer' delay was going to be investigated for ethics breaches concerning his PAC Texans for a Republican Majority? well, while the ethics com'tee stopped the investigation (insuring he won't get nailed) delay's associates have not escaped the hammer of justice.
god they stink.
well, if you've been too depressed by all the polls showing shrub either with a gazillion point lead or just a mere 2, here's something to distract you.
remember when there was a possibility that tom 'the hammer' delay was going to be investigated for ethics breaches concerning his PAC Texans for a Republican Majority? well, while the ethics com'tee stopped the investigation (insuring he won't get nailed) delay's associates have not escaped the hammer of justice.
god they stink.
brainy wednesday, cont'd
Informed Comment : 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004
let's play a game. what if america had to live under the same conditions iraqis are living in now? what would we look like?
read it if you dare.
let's play a game. what if america had to live under the same conditions iraqis are living in now? what would we look like?
read it if you dare.
brainy wednesday: iraq & the philippines
ZNet Commentary: The Philippine Model
thanks to an good grad school chum, here's an article from last october about our colonial intervention in the philippines and how it foreshadows our actions in iraq today.
thanks to an good grad school chum, here's an article from last october about our colonial intervention in the philippines and how it foreshadows our actions in iraq today.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Yahoo! News - GOP Mailing Warns Liberals Will Ban Bibles
Yahoo! News - GOP Mailing Warns Liberals Will Ban Bibles
a friend read this story and became enraged; it smacked of dirty politics to her. but i understood it.
the time of universal persecution, of christian martyrdom, before the rapture and before the second coming, is central to a certain segment of christian faith. churches will close, bibles will burned, god will be publicly denounced; it will be a second inquisition. all christians will be forced to go underground. this eschatological desire is the center of our religious belief.
we (i include myself because this was my religious culture) tolerate this world and this life only for the reward that is to come. christian history is meant to move inexorably toward this moment of revelation - anything that deviates from this timeline is ignored.
it's strange to build a faith system that pivots on the idea of catastrophe and martyrdom (when Christ shall ultimately be revealed and defeat evil at last), but that's what really lies beneath the evangelical movement.
this is the apocalyptic heart of fundamentalism. with our eyes ever on the End, we eschew everything else. it explains why social problems don't matter; why poverty doesn't matter; why the war in iraq is holy; why crumbling civil rights don't matter; why the hijacking of our culture by terror doesn't matter. it all fits into the timeline.
why should church folk in west virginia care about better environmental laws, jobs, health care and civil rights when all that matters is their final reckoning before God?
unfortunately, democrats have never been able to answer that.
(more on that answer later)
a friend read this story and became enraged; it smacked of dirty politics to her. but i understood it.
the time of universal persecution, of christian martyrdom, before the rapture and before the second coming, is central to a certain segment of christian faith. churches will close, bibles will burned, god will be publicly denounced; it will be a second inquisition. all christians will be forced to go underground. this eschatological desire is the center of our religious belief.
we (i include myself because this was my religious culture) tolerate this world and this life only for the reward that is to come. christian history is meant to move inexorably toward this moment of revelation - anything that deviates from this timeline is ignored.
it's strange to build a faith system that pivots on the idea of catastrophe and martyrdom (when Christ shall ultimately be revealed and defeat evil at last), but that's what really lies beneath the evangelical movement.
this is the apocalyptic heart of fundamentalism. with our eyes ever on the End, we eschew everything else. it explains why social problems don't matter; why poverty doesn't matter; why the war in iraq is holy; why crumbling civil rights don't matter; why the hijacking of our culture by terror doesn't matter. it all fits into the timeline.
why should church folk in west virginia care about better environmental laws, jobs, health care and civil rights when all that matters is their final reckoning before God?
unfortunately, democrats have never been able to answer that.
(more on that answer later)
Doug Grow: Political calling put religion into the mix
Doug Grow: Political calling put religion into the mix
republican=god loving
democrat=god hating
not only is this a perfect example of evangelical binary thinking, it's also a lesson about what happens when a texan moves in.
republican=god loving
democrat=god hating
not only is this a perfect example of evangelical binary thinking, it's also a lesson about what happens when a texan moves in.
Salon.com News | "Voter terrorism"
Salon.com News | "Voter terrorism"
The sad fact is that voter-intimidation efforts aimed at minorities have been carried out in just about every major election over the past 20 years. The campaigns are almost always mounted by Republicans who aim to reduce the turnout of overwhelmingly Democratic minority voters at the polls.
what about this says republicans look out for minority interests?
The sad fact is that voter-intimidation efforts aimed at minorities have been carried out in just about every major election over the past 20 years. The campaigns are almost always mounted by Republicans who aim to reduce the turnout of overwhelmingly Democratic minority voters at the polls.
what about this says republicans look out for minority interests?
Sunday, September 19, 2004
BBC NEWS | Americas | Pill propelled into abortion debate
BBC NEWS | Americas | Pill propelled into abortion debate
this time i'm hard pressed to say 'i told you so.' alas, our side rather underestimates the hardcore fundamentalism of the christian right and social conservatives. why should the pro-lifers stop at just restricting access to abortion? why NOT go all the way to controlling a woman's basic ability to control her own body?
we're only women.
a note on the chemical abortion argument as grounds for refusing the Pill: to be pregnant, the egg must implant first; you can't abort if the egg doesn't implant. therefore, anything that stops the egg from implanting is NOT an abortifacient. it's a prophylactic.
"Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."
this time i'm hard pressed to say 'i told you so.' alas, our side rather underestimates the hardcore fundamentalism of the christian right and social conservatives. why should the pro-lifers stop at just restricting access to abortion? why NOT go all the way to controlling a woman's basic ability to control her own body?
we're only women.
a note on the chemical abortion argument as grounds for refusing the Pill: to be pregnant, the egg must implant first; you can't abort if the egg doesn't implant. therefore, anything that stops the egg from implanting is NOT an abortifacient. it's a prophylactic.
what liberals don't get about church folk
MSNBC - Altercation
the end discussion about religious fundamentalism trumping social concerns is a good one. and a true one:
"Exposure to religious passion is not something yankee liberals get much of. It's essential knowledge in Karachi and Kansas City."
unfortunately since it's almost 2 am, i'll write about it later.
the end discussion about religious fundamentalism trumping social concerns is a good one. and a true one:
"Exposure to religious passion is not something yankee liberals get much of. It's essential knowledge in Karachi and Kansas City."
unfortunately since it's almost 2 am, i'll write about it later.
Friday, September 17, 2004
ugh. more.
Doctors object on moral grounds - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - September 17, 2004
it sucks to be a woman, sometimes.
it sucks to be a woman, sometimes.
The Gadflyer: Uncle Sam Wants You to Get Married
The Gadflyer: Uncle Sam Wants You to Get Married
i have a girl friend who works for the dept of health and human services; she flipped out when she was told 4 years ago that she'd have to start counseling her clients to stay married - or get married in order to continue their benefits or receive them.
she said, what does marriage have to do with this girl getting her high school diploma and finding a job?
absolutely nothing, i told her.
the republican mindset is amazing to me. solutions are often so easy, so band-aid like. poor? get married. too many kids? get married. no job? get married. hate the ghetto? get married.
the placebos make us feel better about charity but allow us to ignore real material conditions that have real, adverse affects on a poor family. we'd rather a woman be married to another poor man who can't support his family rather than think of ways to get them help to lead them out of poverty.
let's say it together: poor people need not to be poor anymore.
i have a girl friend who works for the dept of health and human services; she flipped out when she was told 4 years ago that she'd have to start counseling her clients to stay married - or get married in order to continue their benefits or receive them.
she said, what does marriage have to do with this girl getting her high school diploma and finding a job?
absolutely nothing, i told her.
the republican mindset is amazing to me. solutions are often so easy, so band-aid like. poor? get married. too many kids? get married. no job? get married. hate the ghetto? get married.
the placebos make us feel better about charity but allow us to ignore real material conditions that have real, adverse affects on a poor family. we'd rather a woman be married to another poor man who can't support his family rather than think of ways to get them help to lead them out of poverty.
let's say it together: poor people need not to be poor anymore.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
we're dumber than i thought
sigh.
i'd give my right ovary to discover what those people, who seem to be living in a lead-lined tank, are doing with their time that they can walk around blissfully unaware.
on a more serious note, what george barna calls moral relativism i'd like to call privacy. while most conservative christians seem to be comforted by the thought that we could legislate private behavior (in other words, make private actions and thoughts answer to a public authority), most others are uncomfortable with it. for good reason.
theocratic rules make us squeamish. it goes against our history, our grain, our personalities. in a pluralistic society such as ours, to impose one rigid legalistic faith (and the consequences for breaking with that faith) would be disastrous. we'd all move to canada!
however, if the main goal is to examine the reasons for the gap between a christian's faith declaration ('i'm against gay marriage') and practice ('but what you do in your own bedroom is up to you'), then the question is interesting.
is that moral relativism or is it just minding your own business?
i'd give my right ovary to discover what those people, who seem to be living in a lead-lined tank, are doing with their time that they can walk around blissfully unaware.
on a more serious note, what george barna calls moral relativism i'd like to call privacy. while most conservative christians seem to be comforted by the thought that we could legislate private behavior (in other words, make private actions and thoughts answer to a public authority), most others are uncomfortable with it. for good reason.
theocratic rules make us squeamish. it goes against our history, our grain, our personalities. in a pluralistic society such as ours, to impose one rigid legalistic faith (and the consequences for breaking with that faith) would be disastrous. we'd all move to canada!
however, if the main goal is to examine the reasons for the gap between a christian's faith declaration ('i'm against gay marriage') and practice ('but what you do in your own bedroom is up to you'), then the question is interesting.
is that moral relativism or is it just minding your own business?
well, this explains it...
from the barna evangelical christian survey:
66% of evangelicals describe themselves as “mostly conservative” when it comes to political and social issues (compared to 32% of adults nationwide), 25% describe themselves as somewhere in between (compared to 49% of adults nationwide), and none call themselves liberal (compared to 13% of adults nationwide). (2004)
[emphasis mine]
66% of evangelicals describe themselves as “mostly conservative” when it comes to political and social issues (compared to 32% of adults nationwide), 25% describe themselves as somewhere in between (compared to 49% of adults nationwide), and none call themselves liberal (compared to 13% of adults nationwide). (2004)
[emphasis mine]
brilliant
Welcome to The Barna Group!
well, according to the study the barna group conducted, african americans self-identify as 'stressed out.' (scroll all the way down)
word.
well, according to the study the barna group conducted, african americans self-identify as 'stressed out.' (scroll all the way down)
word.
christian stats!
The Third Coming of George Barna - Christianity Today Magazine
utterly fascinating. his findings on the state of the church today are riveting. go here.
utterly fascinating. his findings on the state of the church today are riveting. go here.
Welcome to The Barna Group!
i'm leaving the office right now but this article from george barna's group about ethnicity and faith is really really really good. numbers! research!
it's a smart girl's catnip - i can't wait to read more. (insert dorky music here.)
i'm leaving the office right now but this article from george barna's group about ethnicity and faith is really really really good. numbers! research!
it's a smart girl's catnip - i can't wait to read more. (insert dorky music here.)
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
women's studies, 101
8. Birth Control�A Parents� Problem or Woman�s?. Sanger, Margaret. 1920. Woman and the New Race
tuesday was margaret sanger's 125th birthday. i'd almost forgotten about her - and how her activities changed the material realities of most women.
birth control and reproductive autonomy seems to be my latest bug - an obssession supported by the latest news from the department of labor saying that women spend twice as much time raising the kids as their male counterparts (while men spend twice as much time at work or at leisure.)
a natural way of the world? not by my estimation. (nor the estimation of a few fem blogs who picked this up)
tuesday was margaret sanger's 125th birthday. i'd almost forgotten about her - and how her activities changed the material realities of most women.
birth control and reproductive autonomy seems to be my latest bug - an obssession supported by the latest news from the department of labor saying that women spend twice as much time raising the kids as their male counterparts (while men spend twice as much time at work or at leisure.)
a natural way of the world? not by my estimation. (nor the estimation of a few fem blogs who picked this up)
whoops
ABCNEWS.com
like this says, a little perspective is needed on the whole CBS forgery story.
rather, some perspective on the response to this story is needed. where was the outrage when the white house used forgeries to make their case for the war? where was the outrage when ALL of the media turned on the clintons and gore with stupid rumors and unproven allegations (remember vince foster, anyone?)?
let's not forget the merits of the story: bush ducked out of duty. period.
what's the lesson here? if you actively lie about a democrat, you get a pass. if you're a republican who has only passing familiarity with FACTS you get a pass. if you smear a republican with (cough) less than totally vetted materials (cough) be prepared for a can of whup-ass to be opened all over your backside.
like this says, a little perspective is needed on the whole CBS forgery story.
rather, some perspective on the response to this story is needed. where was the outrage when the white house used forgeries to make their case for the war? where was the outrage when ALL of the media turned on the clintons and gore with stupid rumors and unproven allegations (remember vince foster, anyone?)?
let's not forget the merits of the story: bush ducked out of duty. period.
what's the lesson here? if you actively lie about a democrat, you get a pass. if you're a republican who has only passing familiarity with FACTS you get a pass. if you smear a republican with (cough) less than totally vetted materials (cough) be prepared for a can of whup-ass to be opened all over your backside.
black like me?
The Gadflyer: Blacker Than Thou
a very good piece on identity politics and the illinois senate race. taken with the news of the republican targeting of black congregations, it asks a sharp question about which party (and which candidate) really advocates black interests.
as for alan keyes, i think it's sad that the man can't even acknowledge how he's being used.
(let's say the word together: minstrel.)
a very good piece on identity politics and the illinois senate race. taken with the news of the republican targeting of black congregations, it asks a sharp question about which party (and which candidate) really advocates black interests.
as for alan keyes, i think it's sad that the man can't even acknowledge how he's being used.
(let's say the word together: minstrel.)
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
when i grow up
i want to be like these women.
i could probably take more care of this little blog - be less ranty, more researched, less snarky - but who has the time? these women have the time.
if you like your feminists smarter than you are and aggressive with it, then they're the ones for you:
bitter shack of resentment
xx blog
pinko feminist hellcat
i could probably take more care of this little blog - be less ranty, more researched, less snarky - but who has the time? these women have the time.
if you like your feminists smarter than you are and aggressive with it, then they're the ones for you:
bitter shack of resentment
xx blog
pinko feminist hellcat
i'm not alone.
i've been ranting recently about women's issues - particularly reproductive issues.
here's a new blog i discovered that doesn't make me retch. cogent. smart. reasoned. right.
i've been ranting recently about women's issues - particularly reproductive issues.
here's a new blog i discovered that doesn't make me retch. cogent. smart. reasoned. right.
Monday, September 13, 2004
shake it like a...oh, forget it
The New York Times > Arts > Music > Rappers Are Raising Their Churches' Roofs
i have a confession to make:
i used to listen to christian music. not what people listen to now: lots of guitar-y praise stuff or big huge gospel choirs.
i mean, the old stuff. the archers, ken medema, dallas holme, keith green, amy grant, the imperials, russ taff, evie turnquist, the winans (before the cultural cache of homophobia).
once russ taff won a grammy and crossed over, i stopped. actually, i can blame my own crossover on amy grant. she crossed over, made lame videos they showed on mtv (which just showed how uncoool she was - and by extension, how uncool i was), had an affair with her next door neighbor vince gill, divorced her nice frizzy headed husband phil and in the middle of all that, sung a horrific duet with peter cetera.
how could christian music survive that?
but i must confess once more: i want my father to burn a cd of all those old records and send them to me.
i miss them.
i have a confession to make:
i used to listen to christian music. not what people listen to now: lots of guitar-y praise stuff or big huge gospel choirs.
i mean, the old stuff. the archers, ken medema, dallas holme, keith green, amy grant, the imperials, russ taff, evie turnquist, the winans (before the cultural cache of homophobia).
once russ taff won a grammy and crossed over, i stopped. actually, i can blame my own crossover on amy grant. she crossed over, made lame videos they showed on mtv (which just showed how uncoool she was - and by extension, how uncool i was), had an affair with her next door neighbor vince gill, divorced her nice frizzy headed husband phil and in the middle of all that, sung a horrific duet with peter cetera.
how could christian music survive that?
but i must confess once more: i want my father to burn a cd of all those old records and send them to me.
i miss them.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
a modern beatitude
AT LAST the full *shocking* story of how BUSH LIED to us about DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER and GOING AWOL, and generally GIVING THE FINGER to his superiours while SHIRKING HIS RESPONSIBILITY to serve during the Vietnam war.
AT LAST karma came back and bit the administration in the ass.
children, what did we learn this week?
when you lie, someone will find out. you may not think they will, but they will.
it's the rule of the universe: what goes around, comes around.
it's our unspoken judeo-christian ethic.
heh.
AT LAST karma came back and bit the administration in the ass.
children, what did we learn this week?
when you lie, someone will find out. you may not think they will, but they will.
it's the rule of the universe: what goes around, comes around.
it's our unspoken judeo-christian ethic.
heh.
it's all my fault
MSN Money - Why we're not having enough babies
multiple choice: which event doomed the world to economic death?:
the education of women
the entrance of women into the workforce
the industrial revolution
the use of birth controll
the unruly and rampant masculinist practices of capitalism
the cynicism of generation x
multiple choice: which event doomed the world to economic death?:
the education of women
the entrance of women into the workforce
the industrial revolution
the use of birth controll
the unruly and rampant masculinist practices of capitalism
the cynicism of generation x
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
it explains so much...
Political Victory: From Here to Maternity (washingtonpost.com)
money quote:
"Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts."
if ever a national policy on family planning was needed...
money quote:
"Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts."
if ever a national policy on family planning was needed...
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
amen
Being There - What does 9/11 tell us about Bush? Nothing. By William Saletan
who's the girly man now?
who's the girly man now?
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
dumb men, pt 3
The Revealer: L'il Ol' Me
will it ever end?
follow the links in the summary.
news about stupidity controlling women's lives is just so depressing.
will it ever end?
follow the links in the summary.
news about stupidity controlling women's lives is just so depressing.
dumb men, pt 3
The Revealer: L'il Ol' Me
will it ever end?
follow the links in the summary.
news about stupidity controlling women's lives is just so depressing.
will it ever end?
follow the links in the summary.
news about stupidity controlling women's lives is just so depressing.
Monday, August 30, 2004
top 10 conservative idiots!
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots, No. 168 - Democratic Underground
it made me laugh. (and it's well documented, to boot! says the girl who thinks everything should have a footnote!)
it made me laugh. (and it's well documented, to boot! says the girl who thinks everything should have a footnote!)
why are people voting for this man?
WorkingForChange-Still unreported: The pay-off in the Air Guard fix
do a google search on 'ben barnes' and you get the story (the long-suppressed story) of how quid pro quo shrub's stint in the texas air national guard really was.
and yet - we still have the swifties out there. what a joke our press is.
do a google search on 'ben barnes' and you get the story (the long-suppressed story) of how quid pro quo shrub's stint in the texas air national guard really was.
and yet - we still have the swifties out there. what a joke our press is.
let the hearburn begin
Let the heartburn begin. The Repub convention kicks off tonight and already the coverage has burned a hole in my chest.
Taking a break from painting yesterday, I caught some GOP congresswomen from the south (including a rep from Kentucky) talking about why the GOP is so bad with single women. The Kentucky rep’s comments came down to this:
Single women don’t have a man to discuss these matters with, so they’re vulnerable to the Democrats’ fear tactics. Married women, on the other hand (their numbers are much better with this demographic), care a lot about safety and discuss these things with their husbands and look to the party that will keep them safer.
I almost had a stroke. Those statements, paraphrased as they are, exemplify all that is wrong with the Republican party. They don’t get it. They don’t get me, they don’t get my friends, they don’t get any of us.
AND they couldn't respond to the questions from Chris Matthews or the cute black chick on CNN about what the GOP had to offer women like me. They just said safety. That's what their policy is about. Safety.
Like we care.
Taking a break from painting yesterday, I caught some GOP congresswomen from the south (including a rep from Kentucky) talking about why the GOP is so bad with single women. The Kentucky rep’s comments came down to this:
Single women don’t have a man to discuss these matters with, so they’re vulnerable to the Democrats’ fear tactics. Married women, on the other hand (their numbers are much better with this demographic), care a lot about safety and discuss these things with their husbands and look to the party that will keep them safer.
I almost had a stroke. Those statements, paraphrased as they are, exemplify all that is wrong with the Republican party. They don’t get it. They don’t get me, they don’t get my friends, they don’t get any of us.
AND they couldn't respond to the questions from Chris Matthews or the cute black chick on CNN about what the GOP had to offer women like me. They just said safety. That's what their policy is about. Safety.
Like we care.
Friday, August 27, 2004
the swifty effect
The Gadflyer: The Poll Miner
so how much did the swift boat crapola really mess up our candidate? a breakdown here.
so how much did the swift boat crapola really mess up our candidate? a breakdown here.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
we're winning
improve your mind; read a big report by a reputable foundation that says kerry's in the lead.
(smart numbers, people, smart numbers!)
(smart numbers, people, smart numbers!)
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
keyes on faith
a profile of the illinois senate GOP candidate; it's rather thoughtful but at the end crops up the confidence (arrogance, whatever) that his brand of faith is the only one that serves.
there is no doubt keyes is a smart, well-read man. he's thoughtful about his faith and his political beliefs (let's ignore the flip-floppiness). but for those of us who are of a quieter faith (a faith that doesn't necessarily want to label women who get abortions 'terrorists') the conflation of religious and political rhetoric is problematic and even a little skeevey.
history has proven that it's never a good idea.
there is no doubt keyes is a smart, well-read man. he's thoughtful about his faith and his political beliefs (let's ignore the flip-floppiness). but for those of us who are of a quieter faith (a faith that doesn't necessarily want to label women who get abortions 'terrorists') the conflation of religious and political rhetoric is problematic and even a little skeevey.
history has proven that it's never a good idea.
the sudan
in the circus surrounding the elections, the war, our boob of a president and emerging scandals surrounding his cabinet, we forget about this:
FURBURANGA, Sudan - In the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan, the killers pray toward Mecca. The million displaced people do as well. Marauding men on horseback, the women raped by them, the rebels who incited the fighting and the politicians, soldiers and police officers who have failed to control it, nearly all are Muslim.
ouch - krugman
read it here.
(i love this guy; his brain is so huge. and i think 4 major papers have come out saying the swift boat vets are liars - new york times, washington post, chicago trib and la times. isn't time we started asking why they lied? and why the same scrutiny isn't being applied to a president whose national guard records mysteriously keep disappearing?)
(i love this guy; his brain is so huge. and i think 4 major papers have come out saying the swift boat vets are liars - new york times, washington post, chicago trib and la times. isn't time we started asking why they lied? and why the same scrutiny isn't being applied to a president whose national guard records mysteriously keep disappearing?)
dumb men, pt 2
say what you will about the practice, but again, the issue is whether or not a woman has reproductive freedom. her moral choices are her own.
and, please, keyes - shut up. you're embarrassing.
and, please, keyes - shut up. you're embarrassing.
Monday, August 23, 2004
stem cells
science...
(you'll need a subscription to read)
again, the difference between an embryo and fetus...
(you'll need a subscription to read)
again, the difference between an embryo and fetus...
Friday, August 20, 2004
scandal
How a Philosophy Professor With a Checkered Past Became the Most Influential Catholic Layman in George W. Bush's Washington
a couple of weeks ago, the dems had to grimly bear the brunt of governor mcgreevey's resignation and coming out party in new jersey.
now it's the conservatives' turn.
and it's sad that both these scandals turned on sexual dishonesty.
a couple of weeks ago, the dems had to grimly bear the brunt of governor mcgreevey's resignation and coming out party in new jersey.
now it's the conservatives' turn.
and it's sad that both these scandals turned on sexual dishonesty.
smoke and fire
HungryBlues - A Lynching In Tuskegee
ben from hungryblues picked up this story yesterday about a lynching in tuskegee. (or questionable suicide.)
we'd all like to think that times are different. but i think sometimes we know better.
ben from hungryblues picked up this story yesterday about a lynching in tuskegee. (or questionable suicide.)
we'd all like to think that times are different. but i think sometimes we know better.
the title's sardonic...
KtB - Bible Porn
not that this is exactly the same thing, but i used to do the same thing: in sunday services when jake was preaching, i'd open the bible and find the 'naughty' stories. it looked like i was being studious, but i was reading for naughtiness.
i was 10. i was curious. and if you can't giggle at the song of solomon, then what can you?!
not that this is exactly the same thing, but i used to do the same thing: in sunday services when jake was preaching, i'd open the bible and find the 'naughty' stories. it looked like i was being studious, but i was reading for naughtiness.
i was 10. i was curious. and if you can't giggle at the song of solomon, then what can you?!
Salon.com News %7C Church says girl%27s communion not valid
since i'm a protestant, i really don't have strong opinions on what catholics do with their wafers, but this seems a bit much.
what's the logic here? faith is a matter of glutin? no wonder people find religion to be ridiculous.
since i'm a protestant, i really don't have strong opinions on what catholics do with their wafers, but this seems a bit much.
what's the logic here? faith is a matter of glutin? no wonder people find religion to be ridiculous.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
why dumb men are a danger to women
El Paso Times Online
reason #1 why sex ed needs to happen in schools. any woman can tell you that birth control pills isn't an abortifacient. birth control pills prevent ovulation, thereby preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg -- because the egg hasn't been released!!
gaah! dumb men who know NOTHING about women's bodies are making decisions for them.
this is how it starts. one's position on abortion is one thing - on birth control is another. reproductive control over one's body is absolutely necessary for a woman to be independent and autonomous.
for if she can't make decisions about when she wants to have children and how many children to have, then whose decision is it? it's incredibly short-sighted to prevent women access to medically safe and legal birth control--what about family planning? i can't tell you the problems in the black community that could be solved if only someone knew how to wear a condom or take birth control.
but this is how it starts - if abortion rights are knocked down, then the right's next move will be to limit access to birth control (birth control pills, iuds, depo provera, the ring, condoms, tubal ligation, etc.) until a woman's choice regarding her reproductive future belongs to someone else. if she can't get birth control pills, then how will she prevent pregnancy? if she can't buy condoms, then how will she protect herself against disease? and this isn't just about single women or teenage girls - married women also need birth control (or do men think that women will give birth until they die?) do they know that the largest number of women who ask for tubal ligation are married women?
and the predictable response from the conservative right will be 'ah, but then she shouldn't have sex unless she's married, should she?'
let's trace the argument: if a woman is sexually active and gets pregnant, she can't get an abortion because that's murder; but neither could she have prevented pregnancy because that's against judeo-christian ethics, so her sexual activity should never have happened in the first place. or if it did, only in a church/state sanctioned relationship so that the fruits of it will be legitimate.
so we come full circle - basically every law restricting a woman's right to practice safe sex and/or control her reproductive destiny is in the interest of a man (or a masculine institution) controlling her sexuality and her body.
feminism 101, people: if this isn't mysogyny and patriarchy at work then i don't know what is.
(update: the hormones in birth control pills can also change the chemistry of the mucal lining of the cervix, making it 'inhospitable' to sperm - again, preventing sperm from even making it to an egg.)
reason #1 why sex ed needs to happen in schools. any woman can tell you that birth control pills isn't an abortifacient. birth control pills prevent ovulation, thereby preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg -- because the egg hasn't been released!!
gaah! dumb men who know NOTHING about women's bodies are making decisions for them.
this is how it starts. one's position on abortion is one thing - on birth control is another. reproductive control over one's body is absolutely necessary for a woman to be independent and autonomous.
for if she can't make decisions about when she wants to have children and how many children to have, then whose decision is it? it's incredibly short-sighted to prevent women access to medically safe and legal birth control--what about family planning? i can't tell you the problems in the black community that could be solved if only someone knew how to wear a condom or take birth control.
but this is how it starts - if abortion rights are knocked down, then the right's next move will be to limit access to birth control (birth control pills, iuds, depo provera, the ring, condoms, tubal ligation, etc.) until a woman's choice regarding her reproductive future belongs to someone else. if she can't get birth control pills, then how will she prevent pregnancy? if she can't buy condoms, then how will she protect herself against disease? and this isn't just about single women or teenage girls - married women also need birth control (or do men think that women will give birth until they die?) do they know that the largest number of women who ask for tubal ligation are married women?
and the predictable response from the conservative right will be 'ah, but then she shouldn't have sex unless she's married, should she?'
let's trace the argument: if a woman is sexually active and gets pregnant, she can't get an abortion because that's murder; but neither could she have prevented pregnancy because that's against judeo-christian ethics, so her sexual activity should never have happened in the first place. or if it did, only in a church/state sanctioned relationship so that the fruits of it will be legitimate.
so we come full circle - basically every law restricting a woman's right to practice safe sex and/or control her reproductive destiny is in the interest of a man (or a masculine institution) controlling her sexuality and her body.
feminism 101, people: if this isn't mysogyny and patriarchy at work then i don't know what is.
(update: the hormones in birth control pills can also change the chemistry of the mucal lining of the cervix, making it 'inhospitable' to sperm - again, preventing sperm from even making it to an egg.)
Thursday, August 12, 2004
holiday aborted because of *this*
ABCNEWS.com : S. Carolina Targeted for Christian State
where to begin?
a christian-only state built on religoius law. i guess if the amish can do it, so can you. but wait - the amish don't have a separate state.
where to begin?
a christian-only state built on religoius law. i guess if the amish can do it, so can you. but wait - the amish don't have a separate state.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
taking a break
the convention exhausted me.
politics and my outrage being constantly on High is just too tiring.
the last month of summer is here and i haven't had any significant fun in months.
so now i'm concentrating on boys. politics for boys. and barbecue. and laying out in the sun. and more barbecue. that movie about metallica. dancing. and live music by the lake and the park and the fountain and the seurat exhibit at the art institute.
i live in chicago, the best city in the country! i need to have fun.
so yeah, no politics until the republican convention. then it all starts again. heh heh heh.
politics and my outrage being constantly on High is just too tiring.
the last month of summer is here and i haven't had any significant fun in months.
so now i'm concentrating on boys. politics for boys. and barbecue. and laying out in the sun. and more barbecue. that movie about metallica. dancing. and live music by the lake and the park and the fountain and the seurat exhibit at the art institute.
i live in chicago, the best city in the country! i need to have fun.
so yeah, no politics until the republican convention. then it all starts again. heh heh heh.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
and another thing
the desire to acquire barak obama as their ideological son also shows how incredibly ignorant they are of african american intellectual history.
there isn't one thing he said last night that wasn't said first by W.E.B. DuBois.
there isn't one thing he said last night that wasn't said first by W.E.B. DuBois.
obama
last night barak obama (illinois st. senator running for senate) gave the keynote at the dnc convention. i watched it at home with A-- on msnbc (my roommate loves chris matthews; i don't know why).
it was wonderful - that is, until the pundits got to it. their main complaint: that he gave a speech full of conservative ideas. they've actually commented that self-reliance, responsibility, a good work ethic, faith and hope are all conservative ideals.
i think republicans are out of step with democrats. the old picture they've painted of democrats is far more suitable for the 60s or 70s than now. while we may be supportive of those conservative targets (affirmative action, welfare, multi-culturalism) we recognize the nuances and limitations of these ideas and practices.
for instance, wouldn't affirmative action achieve its goals better if it focused on class, rather than ethnicity? educational access is really about who can afford it. and if my african american community is afraid to release our grip on affirmative action because we're afraid of losing that privilege, i think we need to look beyond our skin color and realize that so many of our issues are at the intersection of race and class.
we need to realize that our interests lie in the empowerment of our urban poor, our rural poor, our working brothers and sisters whatever their color.
the conservative insistence that only conservatives can talk about faith, equality, responsibility and hope exposes the conservative's inability to take on complexity, which is itself an inherent and crucial conservative characteristic. they are talented at narrowing a discourse to a few signifiers, but complicate them, add color to those floating signs, and they get lost in the tall grass.
suddenly, their discourse becomes petulant - 'we said that first!'
actually, they haven't. progressives have always expressed deep faith - but they've also realized that government is not in the business of imposing it on the majority. progressives have always espoused self-reliance - but they've also realized that government is also responsible for the basic needs of its citizenry. progressives have always believed in responsibility - but they've also thought that responsibility belongs to everyone, especially to those in power. progressives have always fought for equality - but equality in the interest of those on the margin, not those already enjoying the fruits of privilege.
obama's performance was thrilling, moving and strategic in laying out how this party is the embodiment of traditional american values. best of all it put conservatives on the defensive, forcing an attempt to co-opt our language (and even our candidate)in order to blur the real differences between democrats and republicans.
it was wonderful - that is, until the pundits got to it. their main complaint: that he gave a speech full of conservative ideas. they've actually commented that self-reliance, responsibility, a good work ethic, faith and hope are all conservative ideals.
i think republicans are out of step with democrats. the old picture they've painted of democrats is far more suitable for the 60s or 70s than now. while we may be supportive of those conservative targets (affirmative action, welfare, multi-culturalism) we recognize the nuances and limitations of these ideas and practices.
for instance, wouldn't affirmative action achieve its goals better if it focused on class, rather than ethnicity? educational access is really about who can afford it. and if my african american community is afraid to release our grip on affirmative action because we're afraid of losing that privilege, i think we need to look beyond our skin color and realize that so many of our issues are at the intersection of race and class.
we need to realize that our interests lie in the empowerment of our urban poor, our rural poor, our working brothers and sisters whatever their color.
the conservative insistence that only conservatives can talk about faith, equality, responsibility and hope exposes the conservative's inability to take on complexity, which is itself an inherent and crucial conservative characteristic. they are talented at narrowing a discourse to a few signifiers, but complicate them, add color to those floating signs, and they get lost in the tall grass.
suddenly, their discourse becomes petulant - 'we said that first!'
actually, they haven't. progressives have always expressed deep faith - but they've also realized that government is not in the business of imposing it on the majority. progressives have always espoused self-reliance - but they've also realized that government is also responsible for the basic needs of its citizenry. progressives have always believed in responsibility - but they've also thought that responsibility belongs to everyone, especially to those in power. progressives have always fought for equality - but equality in the interest of those on the margin, not those already enjoying the fruits of privilege.
obama's performance was thrilling, moving and strategic in laying out how this party is the embodiment of traditional american values. best of all it put conservatives on the defensive, forcing an attempt to co-opt our language (and even our candidate)in order to blur the real differences between democrats and republicans.
Friday, July 23, 2004
bush can't dance
BET/CBS News Poll of African Americans Finds Mistrust, Disen... - Jul. 21, 2004
according to this latest poll, bush is an election-stealing dweeb who can't dance.
hee!
according to this latest poll, bush is an election-stealing dweeb who can't dance.
hee!
sneaky
Marriage Protection Act passed in the States | Headlines | News | Gay.com UK
There's something wrong with a law when it hearkens back to the 19th century:
The last time such a "court-stripping" measure passed was in 1868, during the nation's reconstruction after the Civil War. Other such measures considered since then rarely made it out of committee because they were considered unconstitutional.
There's something wrong with a law when it hearkens back to the 19th century:
The last time such a "court-stripping" measure passed was in 1868, during the nation's reconstruction after the Civil War. Other such measures considered since then rarely made it out of committee because they were considered unconstitutional.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
our stupid war
Informed Comment
i hate thinking about the war so much - not because i'm such a girl that war is icky. i just hate stupidity and this war is the epitome of stupid.
(stupid: slow to learn or understand; tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes; marked by a lack of intelligence or care; pointless; worthless.)
and now it seems like the stupidity will spread to iran. who couldn't see this coming?
stupid.
i hate thinking about the war so much - not because i'm such a girl that war is icky. i just hate stupidity and this war is the epitome of stupid.
(stupid: slow to learn or understand; tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes; marked by a lack of intelligence or care; pointless; worthless.)
and now it seems like the stupidity will spread to iran. who couldn't see this coming?
stupid.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
it's basic, people
t r u t h o u t - Clerics Resist Bush Strategy to Seek Aid of Churchgoers
when i talk to people about why i don't agree with allowing prayer in public schools or why including religious language into a federal document skeeves me out, my answer is always the same: the separation of church and state, people.
this separation is not just to protect a state from undue influence from one particular religious movement (though you really wouldn't be able to tell that with this administration) it's mainly in existence to protect the church from the rather fickle and punitive arm of the state.
if a church participates in partisan electioneering, it's in violation of their tax-exempt status. (and no, inviting someone to speak doesn't count as electioneering; actively giving fiscal or organizational support to a candidate does.)
totalitarian countries endorse state sanctioned religion. do we really want to fall in the same group?
when i talk to people about why i don't agree with allowing prayer in public schools or why including religious language into a federal document skeeves me out, my answer is always the same: the separation of church and state, people.
this separation is not just to protect a state from undue influence from one particular religious movement (though you really wouldn't be able to tell that with this administration) it's mainly in existence to protect the church from the rather fickle and punitive arm of the state.
if a church participates in partisan electioneering, it's in violation of their tax-exempt status. (and no, inviting someone to speak doesn't count as electioneering; actively giving fiscal or organizational support to a candidate does.)
totalitarian countries endorse state sanctioned religion. do we really want to fall in the same group?
our holy war rolls on...
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | Torturing Children
slowly, the news about the children imprisoned in abu ghraib leaks out - mainly from international sources, not our own media (the cowardly weasles they are.)
typical that governor arnold's 'girly men' comment (which isn't really a surprise coming from a semi-literate actor, come on) gets more coverage than our abuse of children in a badly conceived and horrifically executed war.
if there is a decaying moral center to our country, its origin isn't gay marriage, feminism, secular humanism or even darwinism. it's the seed within us that allows us to do things like this to people in the hollow name of freedom and christianity.
slowly, the news about the children imprisoned in abu ghraib leaks out - mainly from international sources, not our own media (the cowardly weasles they are.)
typical that governor arnold's 'girly men' comment (which isn't really a surprise coming from a semi-literate actor, come on) gets more coverage than our abuse of children in a badly conceived and horrifically executed war.
if there is a decaying moral center to our country, its origin isn't gay marriage, feminism, secular humanism or even darwinism. it's the seed within us that allows us to do things like this to people in the hollow name of freedom and christianity.
Monday, July 19, 2004
who knew?
The New York Times > National > Single Evangelical in Need of Advice? Books Have Plenty
quote of the day -
"I once got a letter from a reader that said, `I know that even if I were stranded on an island, God would send me a mate,' " Ms. Courtney said. "I wanted to write back and say, `If you're stranded on an island, you shouldn't be worried about a husband, you should be thinking about a boat.' "
who knew the current divorce rate among christians was 33%? that's really stunning.
huh. so much for traditional marriage...
quote of the day -
"I once got a letter from a reader that said, `I know that even if I were stranded on an island, God would send me a mate,' " Ms. Courtney said. "I wanted to write back and say, `If you're stranded on an island, you shouldn't be worried about a husband, you should be thinking about a boat.' "
who knew the current divorce rate among christians was 33%? that's really stunning.
huh. so much for traditional marriage...
Friday, July 16, 2004
election or evangelism?
the recent email conversation with evangelist paul in comments to the fma post brought forth an argument about whether or not i should tell my gay friends they're going to hell.
(note: i am not telling my gay friends they are going to hell.)
the argument follows thusly:
1. God does not condone sin A.
2. Person indulges in sin A.
3. Friend of Person indulging in sin A is a Christian.
4. Friend, therefore, should clue in Person indulging in sin A.
5. Person/Sinner will...
and here's where the argument breaks down. Person/Sinner will...what? So far, we have a pretty straight line of cause and effect. But until this point, when the ball is thrown back in Person/Sinner's court, the game fails; it becomes a flow chart leading to the same zero-sum conclusion.
1. Person/Sinner, told he is bound for hell, will either:
a. Agree.
b. Tell you to perform a physically impossible act upon yourself.
c. Tell you to mind your own business.
d. Tell you he doesn't believe in God, so there.
most evangelicals hope for (a). but since this almost never happens (and i dare anyone to prove otherwise) let's think about options (b-d). in all of these reactions, you've polarized the situation and each of you are entrenched. no one's moving, there's no effect - except that now you feel really good that you've done what you were told to do. you've just spread God's word.
but what about the doctrine of election?
(thanks, dad.)
(note: i am not telling my gay friends they are going to hell.)
the argument follows thusly:
1. God does not condone sin A.
2. Person indulges in sin A.
3. Friend of Person indulging in sin A is a Christian.
4. Friend, therefore, should clue in Person indulging in sin A.
5. Person/Sinner will...
and here's where the argument breaks down. Person/Sinner will...what? So far, we have a pretty straight line of cause and effect. But until this point, when the ball is thrown back in Person/Sinner's court, the game fails; it becomes a flow chart leading to the same zero-sum conclusion.
1. Person/Sinner, told he is bound for hell, will either:
a. Agree.
b. Tell you to perform a physically impossible act upon yourself.
c. Tell you to mind your own business.
d. Tell you he doesn't believe in God, so there.
most evangelicals hope for (a). but since this almost never happens (and i dare anyone to prove otherwise) let's think about options (b-d). in all of these reactions, you've polarized the situation and each of you are entrenched. no one's moving, there's no effect - except that now you feel really good that you've done what you were told to do. you've just spread God's word.
but what about the doctrine of election?
(thanks, dad.)
'ligion and the press
The Revealer: Re-Branding Revolution
just found this new site. it's mainly just a collection of media stories about religion (all of them) and how religion is covered in the media (both mainstream and not).
the highlighted article is about an image overhaul to the evangelical movement. (re-branding is what we call it in the pr field.)
just found this new site. it's mainly just a collection of media stories about religion (all of them) and how religion is covered in the media (both mainstream and not).
the highlighted article is about an image overhaul to the evangelical movement. (re-branding is what we call it in the pr field.)
the war...
The Revealer: Don't Forget the Bodies
it's summertime. nights are warm. days are awash with light. yesterday, after work, i sat outside with coworkers at a farewell party for one of our own. we sat in the gallery and restaurant district in chicago. the sun was still high in the sky and we all wore sunglasses to block the light.
our glasses of wine sweat in the heat. we laughed, told ridiculous stories and made plans for later in the evening. we ended up singing karaoke in a dive bar, performing really bad covers of aretha franklin and the doors.
meanwhile, on the other side of the world, there's war.
just in case any of us forgot.
it's summertime. nights are warm. days are awash with light. yesterday, after work, i sat outside with coworkers at a farewell party for one of our own. we sat in the gallery and restaurant district in chicago. the sun was still high in the sky and we all wore sunglasses to block the light.
our glasses of wine sweat in the heat. we laughed, told ridiculous stories and made plans for later in the evening. we ended up singing karaoke in a dive bar, performing really bad covers of aretha franklin and the doors.
meanwhile, on the other side of the world, there's war.
just in case any of us forgot.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
apples, meet oranges
in a comment to my FMA post, a reader (!!) wanted to know what i didn't understand about the prohibition in the bible against homosexuality.
my answer: nothing. i understand everything. (let's not forget i'm a smart preacher's daughter who probably knows as much as you about the bible.)
but here's a different question: what does the prohibition against homosexuality in the bible have to do with letting joe and steve share a joint checking account?
just asking.
my answer: nothing. i understand everything. (let's not forget i'm a smart preacher's daughter who probably knows as much as you about the bible.)
but here's a different question: what does the prohibition against homosexuality in the bible have to do with letting joe and steve share a joint checking account?
just asking.
values in action
there have been blogland rumors of this for a while; it's been reported in the european press (der spiegel) and the irc and unicef have released reports about children imprisoned in iraq and not having access to them.
there was even a hint of this when the photos at abu ghraib first emerged and senators, along with rumsfeld, vaguely alluded to 'unmentionable crimes.' well, now we know what these unmentionable crimes were.
there's nothing in our corporate press (other than hersh's reporting) to follow up on this story. our silence is our shame.
the christian community should be in arms over this violation of the innocent. but where is the outcry? where is the outrage that should greet news of what we have become over there? instead, we repeat empty words like 'freedom,' 'war on terror,' and 'support our troops.' our values mean nothing if we can't face, and take responsibility for, what we've done for the sake of this president's war.
there was even a hint of this when the photos at abu ghraib first emerged and senators, along with rumsfeld, vaguely alluded to 'unmentionable crimes.' well, now we know what these unmentionable crimes were.
there's nothing in our corporate press (other than hersh's reporting) to follow up on this story. our silence is our shame.
the christian community should be in arms over this violation of the innocent. but where is the outcry? where is the outrage that should greet news of what we have become over there? instead, we repeat empty words like 'freedom,' 'war on terror,' and 'support our troops.' our values mean nothing if we can't face, and take responsibility for, what we've done for the sake of this president's war.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
FMA - dead on the floor
Salon.com News | Senate scuttles gay marriage amendment
the Constitution is safe for now.
what will the GOP think of next?
the Constitution is safe for now.
what will the GOP think of next?
Monday, July 12, 2004
the federal marriage amendment
A vote approaches about the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is important to me, not just because of my gay friends and how this affects their daily lives (because let’s face it, this will impact a gay person’s life more than a straight person’s.) I think we’re being horribly ahistorical about marriage (there’s that word again.) It’s also important because ultimately the argument is about values – the things that define us.
As a Christian I believe that our greatest commandment is to love Christ and be a representative, a carrier, of His love to the world. This amendment is not about love or embracing our brother. (Yes, the gay sitting next to you is your brother.) This amendment isn’t even about marriage. There are two types of marriage in our society – civic and religious. It so happens that the civic and religious faces of our marriages usually unite – because of mutual faith backgrounds of those marrying, but mostly because of convention. But throughout Western history, daresay much of history itself, marriage has not been merely a religious rite, but a social rite, as well.
The history of marriage is a history of social contracts, legal rights and civic law. Through the act of marriage property has been united, wealth consolidated, political futures secured. To see marriage in only its religious light is to be ignorant of the secular role of marriage – a role that shadowed, or stealthily followed, the church. In fact the church has worked very hard to support the needs of the state when it comes to marriage. (English history lite: What was Henry VIII’s beef? The church wouldn’t let him divorce on religious grounds. Being all hotheaded, Henry took this as a political offense – a foreign power encroaching on his sovereignty. Because of this political threat and to get what he wanted, a new church was established – the Anglican Church—and Henry was its head. He got that divorce – and many others besides. But he also got land – he confiscated Roman Catholic property and grasped their wealth for his own; it was a bold political move forged on the back of his marital dissatisfaction and religious disagreement.) Marriage can be a declaration of faith, yes, but it’s also backed by the needs of the state (I use the word ‘state’ to embody the government).
To emphasize what we’re talking about, let me repeat: We have a state power using marriage in its religious sense to further its own secular political agenda and to civically disenfranchise a segment of our population from legal rights the majority of our citizenship already enjoy – despite their marital status. It’s sleight of hand, this Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s a trick that satisfies our biases (which you have a perfect right to) and tries to write those biases into law (which is not so right.)
As a social convention marriage, and the definition thereof, also changes with the needs of society. Just as changing ideas about race and gender have contributed to severe rewritings in defining marriage (i.e., women are no longer legally defined as property and interracial marriages are no longer illegal, though some states still lag behind...) so will ideas about sexual orientation will, as well. This is part of that moment. As a social convention, marriage binds the properties and financial responsibilities of two consenting adults; why shouldn’t gay people have this civic right?
If our national values say liberty for all – and this includes the liberty of private property, private acts, association and speech – then such an amendment takes the private lives of our citizens and makes portions of it illegal. This isn’t just a law that says when two men marry it's bad – it says that union is illegal. It becomes punishable. It not only says that marriage is defined by one man and one woman (though history would prove otherwise); it says that any sort of civil bind – domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, and the benefits thereof – are void. They no longer exist. That gay couple you avoid talking to living down the street, who bought a house and have been together for years? Any legal agreements they’ve made regarding taxes, powers of attorney, benefits, and social security are void. They cannot open a joint checking account, they cannot list each other as beneficiaries of benefits, they cannot make medical decisions for one another, and they cannot share the same health coverage. The civil liberty that you enjoy, they are now forbidden to enjoy.
I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I also know what’s in my heart when I am with my gay friends whom I love. Moreover, if opposing this cruel and disingenuous amendment (the possibility of which is already forcing two very dear people I love to move because they can’t own property in the state they’re in because they’re gay) means that I’m on the wrong side of the church, then I’ll take that chance. But I don’t think that I am; I’m on the wrong side of the state.
That gay marriage threatens or destroys the sanctity of marriage, necessitating a federal amendment, is a false argument. This amendment is not about sanctity; it’s about the relationship of the citizen to the state. Considering our long-held separation of church and state, our government is not in the business of codifying sanctity – at least it shouldn’t be. And the concept of freedom of religion is not freedom from religion; it’s the freedom to practice ones beliefs, even if that belief does not include the presence of God, without fearing censure from the state. The religious definition of marriage is therefore safe; it is unimpeachable.
If the religious value of marriage is safe, then what are we fighting for? My gay and lesbian friends are fighting for hospital visitations; they’re fighting for social security benefits; they’re fighting for inheritance rights; they’re fighting for parental rights; they’re fighting to retain their basic national identity, in all its meanings. If they already can’t fight in our armies and navies, if they already can’t be who they are in private, let alone in public, if they can’t have the right to raise children, if they can’t share benefits, property or enter into agreements recognized by the state, then what exactly is the purpose of the amendment?
Oppose homosexuality all you like. I’m not saying you don’t have to. But when the government starts taking away rights because of something that’s private (it has nothing to do with their legal status as citizens) and you support it, you’re valuing discrimination and that makes you a bigot and a homophobe.
(edited because 'unimpeachable' was the word i was going for.)
As a Christian I believe that our greatest commandment is to love Christ and be a representative, a carrier, of His love to the world. This amendment is not about love or embracing our brother. (Yes, the gay sitting next to you is your brother.) This amendment isn’t even about marriage. There are two types of marriage in our society – civic and religious. It so happens that the civic and religious faces of our marriages usually unite – because of mutual faith backgrounds of those marrying, but mostly because of convention. But throughout Western history, daresay much of history itself, marriage has not been merely a religious rite, but a social rite, as well.
The history of marriage is a history of social contracts, legal rights and civic law. Through the act of marriage property has been united, wealth consolidated, political futures secured. To see marriage in only its religious light is to be ignorant of the secular role of marriage – a role that shadowed, or stealthily followed, the church. In fact the church has worked very hard to support the needs of the state when it comes to marriage. (English history lite: What was Henry VIII’s beef? The church wouldn’t let him divorce on religious grounds. Being all hotheaded, Henry took this as a political offense – a foreign power encroaching on his sovereignty. Because of this political threat and to get what he wanted, a new church was established – the Anglican Church—and Henry was its head. He got that divorce – and many others besides. But he also got land – he confiscated Roman Catholic property and grasped their wealth for his own; it was a bold political move forged on the back of his marital dissatisfaction and religious disagreement.) Marriage can be a declaration of faith, yes, but it’s also backed by the needs of the state (I use the word ‘state’ to embody the government).
To emphasize what we’re talking about, let me repeat: We have a state power using marriage in its religious sense to further its own secular political agenda and to civically disenfranchise a segment of our population from legal rights the majority of our citizenship already enjoy – despite their marital status. It’s sleight of hand, this Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s a trick that satisfies our biases (which you have a perfect right to) and tries to write those biases into law (which is not so right.)
As a social convention marriage, and the definition thereof, also changes with the needs of society. Just as changing ideas about race and gender have contributed to severe rewritings in defining marriage (i.e., women are no longer legally defined as property and interracial marriages are no longer illegal, though some states still lag behind...) so will ideas about sexual orientation will, as well. This is part of that moment. As a social convention, marriage binds the properties and financial responsibilities of two consenting adults; why shouldn’t gay people have this civic right?
If our national values say liberty for all – and this includes the liberty of private property, private acts, association and speech – then such an amendment takes the private lives of our citizens and makes portions of it illegal. This isn’t just a law that says when two men marry it's bad – it says that union is illegal. It becomes punishable. It not only says that marriage is defined by one man and one woman (though history would prove otherwise); it says that any sort of civil bind – domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, and the benefits thereof – are void. They no longer exist. That gay couple you avoid talking to living down the street, who bought a house and have been together for years? Any legal agreements they’ve made regarding taxes, powers of attorney, benefits, and social security are void. They cannot open a joint checking account, they cannot list each other as beneficiaries of benefits, they cannot make medical decisions for one another, and they cannot share the same health coverage. The civil liberty that you enjoy, they are now forbidden to enjoy.
I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I also know what’s in my heart when I am with my gay friends whom I love. Moreover, if opposing this cruel and disingenuous amendment (the possibility of which is already forcing two very dear people I love to move because they can’t own property in the state they’re in because they’re gay) means that I’m on the wrong side of the church, then I’ll take that chance. But I don’t think that I am; I’m on the wrong side of the state.
That gay marriage threatens or destroys the sanctity of marriage, necessitating a federal amendment, is a false argument. This amendment is not about sanctity; it’s about the relationship of the citizen to the state. Considering our long-held separation of church and state, our government is not in the business of codifying sanctity – at least it shouldn’t be. And the concept of freedom of religion is not freedom from religion; it’s the freedom to practice ones beliefs, even if that belief does not include the presence of God, without fearing censure from the state. The religious definition of marriage is therefore safe; it is unimpeachable.
If the religious value of marriage is safe, then what are we fighting for? My gay and lesbian friends are fighting for hospital visitations; they’re fighting for social security benefits; they’re fighting for inheritance rights; they’re fighting for parental rights; they’re fighting to retain their basic national identity, in all its meanings. If they already can’t fight in our armies and navies, if they already can’t be who they are in private, let alone in public, if they can’t have the right to raise children, if they can’t share benefits, property or enter into agreements recognized by the state, then what exactly is the purpose of the amendment?
Oppose homosexuality all you like. I’m not saying you don’t have to. But when the government starts taking away rights because of something that’s private (it has nothing to do with their legal status as citizens) and you support it, you’re valuing discrimination and that makes you a bigot and a homophobe.
(edited because 'unimpeachable' was the word i was going for.)
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Christian Principles in an Election Year
Christian Principles in an Election Year
came across this in an article on salon abou the right's move to rally conservative churches. it's just an interesting thing to read.
more on this later.
came across this in an article on salon abou the right's move to rally conservative churches. it's just an interesting thing to read.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
perhaps my religious upbringing was a bit different, but in all the sermons preached to me, one of the biggest lessons was the value of thinking. thinking independently of cant and thinking logically for oneself. in other words, to be skeptical of everything. critical of everything. i don't think people think much nowadays.
frankly, i'll leave arguments about doctrine to theologues. i'll admit i have doubt about things and that's as far as i'll go. (my private struggles with some aspects of my faith are exactly that - private and no one's business.) i'm talking about how religious faith intersects with the public sphere.
...
every month my church's young singles adult group puts together a dinner; a few years ago, the topic was Faith & Politics. one man at my table was very...orthodox. i sensed this and kept my mouth pretty much shut; i'd had a long day and didn't want to get into a shouting match with a stranger over dinner. but when the question about prayer in public schools came up and he loudly advocated it, i put my fork down and disagreed. also loudly. my disagreement had nothing to do with whether or not children from other faith backgrounds would be offended. it was a political disagreement.
and when i said that, as a christian, i was uncomfortable with the idea of a government inserting religion where it doesn't belong, pretty much linking the state to a religious institution, that the separation of church/state primarily protects churches from government control and interference, he called me a bad christian.
whenever someone calls me a bad christian or an improper woman, or even 'twisted', i know that a rupture has just occured. a conversation dies because of an ad hominem attack. (ad hominem = arguing 'to the man', a personal attack; a rhetorical strategy that distracts you from an argument by moving attention away from the merits of that argument to the person who made it. basically, it's a cheap shot coming from someone who can't muster arguments on their own.)
though the majority of people in this country identify themselves as religious, christian or somehow faithful, the level of religious discourse, especially in some of our smaller and more urban communities, is particularly low. it shows, for one, that the religious community doesn't have much of a sense of humor about things. so someone disagrees with you - so what?
and it shows the religious community to be rather...reactionary instead of thoughtful. being thoughtful doesn't mean capitulation or even compromise. it just means, take a breath, wipe the spittle from your chin and make your argument. if your argument consists of 50 scriptures that supposedly support your view why church/state should be immediately welded together, then so be it. but expect a challenge on those merits.
...
at the gay pride parade this past weekend, there was a protest from local religious groups. from what i heard, there was one scuffle (not really bright to shove and spit at a group of muscular gay men in their own neighborhood) and a lot of yelling. and signs saying God loves you but you're going to burn in hell. i have to wonder at the argumentation and point of all that. leaving what they're saying aside (since i have gay friends, i have my own ideas) i wonder why they're saying it. is it to convert? is it just to make known your disapproval? is it because you are compelled to?
it makes me think of that passage in the bible where the disciples are told to go into different towns, say their message, and if their message isn't accepted, leave and shake the dust from their sandals. i don't quite recall an admonition to set up a gauntlet, write a few signs, spit at some strangers and scream they're going to hell. i don't know why i mentioned that. it just makes me mad.
frankly, i'll leave arguments about doctrine to theologues. i'll admit i have doubt about things and that's as far as i'll go. (my private struggles with some aspects of my faith are exactly that - private and no one's business.) i'm talking about how religious faith intersects with the public sphere.
...
every month my church's young singles adult group puts together a dinner; a few years ago, the topic was Faith & Politics. one man at my table was very...orthodox. i sensed this and kept my mouth pretty much shut; i'd had a long day and didn't want to get into a shouting match with a stranger over dinner. but when the question about prayer in public schools came up and he loudly advocated it, i put my fork down and disagreed. also loudly. my disagreement had nothing to do with whether or not children from other faith backgrounds would be offended. it was a political disagreement.
and when i said that, as a christian, i was uncomfortable with the idea of a government inserting religion where it doesn't belong, pretty much linking the state to a religious institution, that the separation of church/state primarily protects churches from government control and interference, he called me a bad christian.
whenever someone calls me a bad christian or an improper woman, or even 'twisted', i know that a rupture has just occured. a conversation dies because of an ad hominem attack. (ad hominem = arguing 'to the man', a personal attack; a rhetorical strategy that distracts you from an argument by moving attention away from the merits of that argument to the person who made it. basically, it's a cheap shot coming from someone who can't muster arguments on their own.)
though the majority of people in this country identify themselves as religious, christian or somehow faithful, the level of religious discourse, especially in some of our smaller and more urban communities, is particularly low. it shows, for one, that the religious community doesn't have much of a sense of humor about things. so someone disagrees with you - so what?
and it shows the religious community to be rather...reactionary instead of thoughtful. being thoughtful doesn't mean capitulation or even compromise. it just means, take a breath, wipe the spittle from your chin and make your argument. if your argument consists of 50 scriptures that supposedly support your view why church/state should be immediately welded together, then so be it. but expect a challenge on those merits.
...
at the gay pride parade this past weekend, there was a protest from local religious groups. from what i heard, there was one scuffle (not really bright to shove and spit at a group of muscular gay men in their own neighborhood) and a lot of yelling. and signs saying God loves you but you're going to burn in hell. i have to wonder at the argumentation and point of all that. leaving what they're saying aside (since i have gay friends, i have my own ideas) i wonder why they're saying it. is it to convert? is it just to make known your disapproval? is it because you are compelled to?
it makes me think of that passage in the bible where the disciples are told to go into different towns, say their message, and if their message isn't accepted, leave and shake the dust from their sandals. i don't quite recall an admonition to set up a gauntlet, write a few signs, spit at some strangers and scream they're going to hell. i don't know why i mentioned that. it just makes me mad.
typical
Ralph Reed's Gamble
back in the 80s and early 90s the conservative right had a new poster boy, ralph reed. he was clean cut, well-spoken and just a little bit scary in his christian coalition fervor. (think smooth-faced youthful brownshirt). so straight. so narrow.
and now, so scandalous.
back in the 80s and early 90s the conservative right had a new poster boy, ralph reed. he was clean cut, well-spoken and just a little bit scary in his christian coalition fervor. (think smooth-faced youthful brownshirt). so straight. so narrow.
and now, so scandalous.
euww.
Family.org - CitizenLink - FNIF News - Berkowitz Interview Draws Criticism
his conversion could be real, whatever.
but that's just icky.
almost as icky as accepting money from rev. moon...
his conversion could be real, whatever.
but that's just icky.
almost as icky as accepting money from rev. moon...
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
is God a republican?
Sean Hannity: God is "no Democrat"; Dennis Mill ... [Media Matters for America]
according to conservatives, yes. wow. who knew??
since i'm generation x, i'll just sit back and wait for some universal irony to kick their asses in november.
according to conservatives, yes. wow. who knew??
since i'm generation x, i'll just sit back and wait for some universal irony to kick their asses in november.
strange bedfellows, pt 2
The Gadflyer: Moon Over Washington
no way:
is the world going insane? first billy graham and now this? do people not remember than Moon was investigated for criminal acts about 20 yrs ago?
if it wasn't so horrifically wrong, i'd laugh my butt off.
no way:
But now that he's forged unbreakable ties with conservative Christians, Moon has moved on to African-American ministers, and, through them, allies in the Democratic Party. This has been below the radar of the press, but not for lack of outlandishness. Moon celebrated Easter Sunday, 2003 by launching a coast to coast series of "tear down the cross/Who is Rev. Moon?" events, targeting pastors in poor neighborhoods. From the Bronx to L.A., Moon's people were convincing pastors to pull the crosses off their walls and replace them with his Family Federation flag. An old hymn was invoked: "I'll trade the old cross for a crown."
is the world going insane? first billy graham and now this? do people not remember than Moon was investigated for criminal acts about 20 yrs ago?
if it wasn't so horrifically wrong, i'd laugh my butt off.
Salon.com News | Army to call up retired, discharged troops
Salon.com News | Army to call up retired, discharged troops
wow. it really isn't ending. is the draft too far behind?
wow. it really isn't ending. is the draft too far behind?
Strange Bedfellows
Better Angels: Christians and Neocons Join Forces to Drag Us Into War with North Korea
Summary: there is a quiet movement to pass a North Korean Human Rights Bill in the Senate. It's still in the planning stages but it's been in the works for about a year.
The site above is a list of the groups backing the bill. I'm only mentioning this for a couple of reasons.
1. Neocons are nuts. Overly militaristic and a little short on planning, their ideologies mired us in Iraq when we could have been concentrating on war in Afghanistan. They're heavy ideologues of the most reactionary sort.
2. I think religious groups need to be careful about the company they keep. Do some basic research, people. Ask what's to be gained for all these different groups to converge on North Korea like this. (And also ask if we can afford this kind of venture.) I also think it's a mistake to join messianic missions to military ones. Religious zealotry mixed with heavy firepower is never a good combination. (Think of every single imperial and colonial venture in Western history.)
Is this what the Bush Doctrine has brought us? Now that we're in the process of pulling out of Iraq, are we now looking at other countries to 'transform'? It reminds me of that scene in Batman when The Joker decides to 'improve' his girlfriend and mutilates her face. The word is 'transform' but the result is ' disaster.'
Will we be in a state of perpetual war until our nation in bankrupt and we become wholly isolated from other nations?
Summary: there is a quiet movement to pass a North Korean Human Rights Bill in the Senate. It's still in the planning stages but it's been in the works for about a year.
The site above is a list of the groups backing the bill. I'm only mentioning this for a couple of reasons.
1. Neocons are nuts. Overly militaristic and a little short on planning, their ideologies mired us in Iraq when we could have been concentrating on war in Afghanistan. They're heavy ideologues of the most reactionary sort.
2. I think religious groups need to be careful about the company they keep. Do some basic research, people. Ask what's to be gained for all these different groups to converge on North Korea like this. (And also ask if we can afford this kind of venture.) I also think it's a mistake to join messianic missions to military ones. Religious zealotry mixed with heavy firepower is never a good combination. (Think of every single imperial and colonial venture in Western history.)
Is this what the Bush Doctrine has brought us? Now that we're in the process of pulling out of Iraq, are we now looking at other countries to 'transform'? It reminds me of that scene in Batman when The Joker decides to 'improve' his girlfriend and mutilates her face. The word is 'transform' but the result is ' disaster.'
Will we be in a state of perpetual war until our nation in bankrupt and we become wholly isolated from other nations?
Monday, June 28, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Salon.com | Does torture work?
Salon.com | Does torture work?
Earlier I posted an angry rant against a post that had shown on my father's site. One of my screeds called the original poster 'ahistorical.'
This is an article that gives a better, more measured, critique of the use of torture in battle.
And it's a fine example of using extant texts to make a point about history (yeah, it's called research.)
Earlier I posted an angry rant against a post that had shown on my father's site. One of my screeds called the original poster 'ahistorical.'
This is an article that gives a better, more measured, critique of the use of torture in battle.
And it's a fine example of using extant texts to make a point about history (yeah, it's called research.)
Monday, June 21, 2004
unbelievable - the moonies in congress
ok, i may be progressive, but there is nothing progressive enough in me to make me think that THIS is right:
June 21, 2004 | You probably imagine your congressman hard at work in the Capitol debating legislation, making laws -- you know, governing. But your newspaper probably didn't tell you that one night in March, members of Congress hosted a crowning ritual for an ex-convict and multibillionaire who dressed up in maroon robes and declared himself the Second Coming.
On March 23, the Dirksen Senate Office Building was the scene of a coronation ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the conservative Washington Times newspaper and UPI wire service, who was given a bejeweled crown by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill. Afterward, Moon told his bipartisan audience of Washington power players he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin -- the murderous dictators had been born again through him, he said. In a vision, Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him, calling him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
To many observers, this bizarre scene would have looked like the apocalypse as depicted in "Left Behind" novels. Moon, 84, the benefactor of conservative foundations like the American Family Coalition -- who served time in the 1980s for tax fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice -- has views somewhere to the right of the Taliban's Mullah Omar. Moon preaches that gays are "dung-eating dogs," Jews brought on the Holocaust by betraying Jesus, and the U.S. Constitution should be scrapped in favor of a system he calls "Godism" -- with him in charge. The man crowned "King of Peace" by congressmen once said, according to sermons reprinted in his church's Unification News: "Suppose I were to hit you with the baseball bat to stop you, bloodying your ear and breaking a bone or two, yet still you insisted on doing more work for Father."
What, exactly, drew at least a dozen members of Congress to Moon's coronation? (By the Unification Church's estimate, 81 congressmen attended, although that number is probably high.) The event was the grand finale of Moon's coast-to-coast "tear down the cross" Moonification tour, intended to remove Christian crosses from almost 300 churches in poor neighborhoods -- the idea being that the cross was an obstacle to uniting religions under Moon. Yet the Dirksen ceremony was sold as a celebration of world peace. According to a cheery promotional video released by Moon's International and Interreligious Federation for World Peace, the ceremony marked the dawn of "the era of the Eternal Peace Kingdom, one global family under God." Moon's coronation also cured God's pain, the announcer explains.
By all accounts, most of the congressmen in attendance didn't expect a coronation. Instead, they thought they were heading to an awards dinner honoring activists from their home states as "Ambassadors for Peace." A flier for the event claimed an impressive who's-who of organizers, including Republicans Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Charlie Black, a top Republican strategist. Democrats were named, too, like Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee, who, incidentally, claims to have not even heard of the event.
And then there was Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., the only congressman who has publicly expressed pride in the crowning ceremony, who praised Moon for bringing religious leaders together in his Ambassadors for Peace tours to Jerusalem and beyond. Davis, it was revealed this week in the Chicago Reader, took money from Moon-organized fundraisers, who also gave to a charity of his choice. Davis told an Anglican magazine that Moon's remarks were "similar to a baseball team owner telling team members that 'we are the greatest team on earth'" to get them fired up.
At the time, the surreal event went uncovered by the Washington press corps, save for Moon's own Washington Times, which ran a brief description of the festivities. The story is getting some traction only now, after it was recently reported in the online magazine The Gadflyer. But what transpired at Dirksen two months ago remains a mystery to most Americans -- and those constituents of congressmen who attended Moon's crowning.
The crowning ritual indeed began as a somewhat normal awards ceremony. Ribbons that looked like Olympic gold medals were given to Rep. Bartlett and others. But then it took an odd turn. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., whose office maintained he did not attend the event until I provided photographs of him there -- spoke beside a photograph of himself pinning an American flag on Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy, back when President Bush was praising him for abandoning WMD programs and before he was suspected of trying to kill the leader of Saudi Arabia.
Then, after Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., gave a speech praising one of Moon's Ambassadors for Peace, the civil rights veteran Rev. Walter Fauntroy, an unnamed Lubovitch rabbi took the stage declaring: "I have never seen this miracle where Jews, Christians and Muslims come together for peace!" Then Moon's cleric Chung Kwak took the mic. Before his days as the commander of the UPI wire service, Kwak, Moon said in a 1997 speech, was authorized to whomp on Unification Church members who slacked off. "Particularly those who are sleeping and hiding, Reverend Kwak's baseball bat will fall upon you at any time," Moon said. Now Kwak was standing in a Senate office building declaring Moon the king of the "second and third Israel."
It might almost make sense for conservative congressmen to honor Moon in this way. After all, a writer in Moon's magazine Insight wrote in February that it's long past time for Republicans to thank the billionaire Korean preacher for his gifts. "[T]he continued refusal of Beltway conservatives publicly to acknowledge their steadfast patron is, of course, scandalous," wrote contributor Paul Gottfried. Moon has sunk an estimated $2-$4 billion into the money-losing Times, and countless other causes -- like Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.
Moon has also made inroads in the Bush administration, as Salon reported last September, with plum appointments for former or present Moon VIPs, and almost half a million dollars in abstinence-only grants supporting Moon's anti-sex crusade. To teach teens that "free sex" is revolting, they're asked by Moon's followers to drink other people's spit out of a cup, and then consider how much more vigilant you must be when sharing other body fluids.
While Moon once focused his energies on anti-Communism, making him popular among Republicans in the Reagan era -- his organization gave the first $100,000 to Oliver North's Nicaraguan Freedom Fund -- he has now shifted gears, aiming left. He's planning a "Peace United Nations" entwining religions instead of countries and is trying to make friends in the Congressional Black Caucus, like Rep. Davis. No congressman, on the right or left, has publicly denounced Moon for his momentous speeches describing his "peace kingdom" as a place where "gays will be eliminated" in a "purge on God's orders" he says will be like Stalin's. And many are surprisingly comfortable around a guy known for over-the-top speeches about the holy "love organ of life" and its various fluids. In a 1994 speech, he asked: "Do you like the smell of your husband's semen? Answer to Father. Does it smell good or bad? You may not like the smell of your wife's stool, but do you smell your own? Why don't you smell your own but you smell your wife's? Because you are not totally one."
But if Moon pulled off his greatest trick on Mar. 23, fooling some unsuspecting congressmen into attending his coronation, it's not as if his stunt was new -- for more than 25 years, Moon has sought to surround himself with powerful people to gain credibility and legitimacy, including presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. If the congressmen had simply run "Ambassadors for Peace" through the Google search engine, they would have discovered the group was tied to Moon and his grand plans for the future of Christianity -- plans to "reconcile" religions by tearing the Christian cross off church walls and persuading Jews to sign apologies for giving Jesus over to the Romans.
Weldon, for one, had a long time to do that Google search. As far back as June 19, 2003, he's listed in a speech by Rep. Danny K. Davis on the floor of the House of Representatives honoring Moon: "Many of my colleagues will join me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), co-chair, in giving tribute to some of the outstanding Americans from our districts," said Davis. "We are grateful to the founders of Ambassadors for Peace, the Reverend and Mrs. Sun Myung [Moon], for promoting the vision of world peace, and we commend them for their work."
As for Moon's vision of world peace, there are widespread reports, even acknowledged within Moon's church, of allegations that in 1989 he allowed brutal inquisitions to take place. The inquisitor, a man Moon apparently believed was the reincarnation of his son, was allegedly encouraged to tie people to radiators and beat them. As a result, Moon's trusted lieutenant, Bo Hi Pak, was said to have suffered minor brain damage. Wrote his daughter-in-law, Nansook Hong, in her tell-all book: "Sun Myung Moon seemed to take pleasure in the reports that filtered back to East Garden of the beatings being administered by the Black Heung Jin. He would laugh raucously if someone out of favor had been dealt an especially hard blow." Members of Congress may want to do their homework before they crown their next King of Peace.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
For Father's Day
Dads Need Our Support, Too (washingtonpost.com)
there's a group of men out there who live in small apartments, separated from the families they started. they pay child support. some don't. they float on a cluttered puddle of disuse. some get bitter and think their situation is endemic of how feminism has ruined men (shout out to that sad sad sad mensnewsdaily.com). some just disappear, becoming even less relevant.
but what if we thought differently about a man's role? the traditional roles we're often locked into can cause more stress than not. a father is more than provider. he's more than a cash machine. there's a crisis in masculine identity today and rather than blame feminism (which actually helps everyone - hello, paid maternity and paternity leave) i think we need to acknowledge the fact that a changing society requires that we need to change how we think of fathers.
my sister is married with two adorable kids. she and her husband went to high school and college together. they've been together longer than jennifer lopez and all her marriages combined. they share in everything. she works, so does he; she takes care of the house, so does he; when she has to leave earlier in the morning, he gets the kids ready; when he works late, she's making dinner and after picking up the kids from day care. they're partners. one day dad looked at them and said that times are different; he didn't do any of this when we were kids.
well, for good or bad, times are different. our lives are more quickly paced; our obligations are more varied; our lives are more cluttered. yes, one could regress to the simpler equation of mothers staying at home while the father is simply the provider. but now, families need more than a provider, don't you think?
i look at my relationship with my own father, my last remaining parent. last night we talked on the phone for 90 minutes, talking deeply about relationships, communication, and catching up on family news. we usually email each other every week. he's a conservative and i'm liberal and i once freaked out in a museum cafeteria and yelled that he was a fascist forcing a bunch of chinese tourists to move away from our table, but we staunchly defend each other. my sister and i are closer to our father than we thought we could be.
the other day a friend of mine said that i was lucky that my father knew me and my sister so well. it's true. my dad knows us. we know him. i feel sorry for those families who only look at their fathers or children across a huge gulf, through these narrow channels: provider, worker, dead-beat. what about friend, mentor, teacher, and guide?
if we want our parents, our fathers, to see us as whole, complex human beings, shouldn't we want to see fathers the same way?
there's a group of men out there who live in small apartments, separated from the families they started. they pay child support. some don't. they float on a cluttered puddle of disuse. some get bitter and think their situation is endemic of how feminism has ruined men (shout out to that sad sad sad mensnewsdaily.com). some just disappear, becoming even less relevant.
but what if we thought differently about a man's role? the traditional roles we're often locked into can cause more stress than not. a father is more than provider. he's more than a cash machine. there's a crisis in masculine identity today and rather than blame feminism (which actually helps everyone - hello, paid maternity and paternity leave) i think we need to acknowledge the fact that a changing society requires that we need to change how we think of fathers.
my sister is married with two adorable kids. she and her husband went to high school and college together. they've been together longer than jennifer lopez and all her marriages combined. they share in everything. she works, so does he; she takes care of the house, so does he; when she has to leave earlier in the morning, he gets the kids ready; when he works late, she's making dinner and after picking up the kids from day care. they're partners. one day dad looked at them and said that times are different; he didn't do any of this when we were kids.
well, for good or bad, times are different. our lives are more quickly paced; our obligations are more varied; our lives are more cluttered. yes, one could regress to the simpler equation of mothers staying at home while the father is simply the provider. but now, families need more than a provider, don't you think?
i look at my relationship with my own father, my last remaining parent. last night we talked on the phone for 90 minutes, talking deeply about relationships, communication, and catching up on family news. we usually email each other every week. he's a conservative and i'm liberal and i once freaked out in a museum cafeteria and yelled that he was a fascist forcing a bunch of chinese tourists to move away from our table, but we staunchly defend each other. my sister and i are closer to our father than we thought we could be.
the other day a friend of mine said that i was lucky that my father knew me and my sister so well. it's true. my dad knows us. we know him. i feel sorry for those families who only look at their fathers or children across a huge gulf, through these narrow channels: provider, worker, dead-beat. what about friend, mentor, teacher, and guide?
if we want our parents, our fathers, to see us as whole, complex human beings, shouldn't we want to see fathers the same way?
Friday, June 18, 2004
Thursday, June 10, 2004
whoops. My bad.
Yahoo! News - U.S. Will Revise Data on Terror
so let me get this right:
bush & co are good for this country because they tell the truth, fight terrorism and protect us from...what?
so, in addition to lying about medicare, the environment, women's health, the war and weapons of mass destruction, torture, the budget, and yellow cake uranium, this president and his cabinet also lie about whether or not we're safe.
just checking.
so let me get this right:
bush & co are good for this country because they tell the truth, fight terrorism and protect us from...what?
so, in addition to lying about medicare, the environment, women's health, the war and weapons of mass destruction, torture, the budget, and yellow cake uranium, this president and his cabinet also lie about whether or not we're safe.
just checking.
Black Job Loss: Another reason to switch horses in mid-stream
AlterNet: Black Job Loss Deja Vu
also to be unpacked later on.
but a small thought: there's more to the next presidency than what's going on in people's bedrooms.
also to be unpacked later on.
but a small thought: there's more to the next presidency than what's going on in people's bedrooms.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Abstinence-Only Education, pt 2
so let's go back to that conference. i've just raised my hand, being a college junior who's just learned how to put a condom on a banana, and asked why the church won't talk about birth control as a way to curb their teens from giving birth.
and my father's just said, christians don't believe in condoms.
now, we all know that's not true. christians totally believe in condoms; we also believe in the rhythm method, vasectomies, and the Pill. but just not for teens. but this wasn't my question. i had asked, if you want to stop pregnancies, why not teach them how not to get pregnant? but this question about pregnancy got conflated into the sex prevention question.
two different questions, people: stopping a particular outcome of sex and stopping sex altogether.
if you want to prevent an outcome of sex, like pregnancy or disease, you must teach how to protect for it. like it or not, a latex barrier is the most practical material barrier against disease and pregnancy.
if you want to stop your kids from having sex (until they're married? good luck) until they're ready to make rational choices about their bodies and their futures, you're going to have to give them alternatives to going out on their own and learning wacky stuff from their friends. (wacky myth #1: you can't get pregnant from anal sex. you can; it's rare, but you can, especially if the dude isn't wearing a condom and backsplash occurs. total. pregnancy.)
one, get over sex. sex is a biological function; our bodies are made for it. there are mechanics involved that you probably haven't thought of in years; well, get to thinkin' cuz you need to think about them with your kids. that means you need to know more about sex than your kids do. get over the language embarrassment. call a blow job a blow job. it's not making love, it's having sex, to them. it's not intercourse, it's sex.
two, solo action is a good thing. it's natural. come on. when i was 11 my mother, a minister's wife, told me to explore my body. thank goodness i did. if i hadn't, i would have been a burnt out, bitter woman. nuff said. (all within a context, of course. you don't want to raise a generation of rabid wankers.)
three, give them consequences. real consequences. not just, this is your penis with the clap. take them to a clinic, take them to a hotline. take them to a single mother's home. make them volunteer in places that show the consequences of some crappy decision making. you want that college dream? think of what college is like for a single mother. you want that cool prom? how about going to prom pregnant or with a hot laser up your butt because of warts? but you have to talk with them about what these consequences are. they think they could handle it. well, experiment. get creative. do that cosby thing. see if they can make those adult-like decisions in a safe way, with you around. and hey, when you're talking with them, you're going to have to listen, too. they'll tell you stuff you won't believe and if you freak out at what so and so pulled with the football team, you've just lost it.
four, give them reasons not to have sex when they're too young to handle it. like, college. like, a life that has a better chance of not being over because you let some smooth talking kid get in your pants. like, a life with a partner that you can truly feel intimate with. treat the complexity of sexual activity with the complexity it deserves.
i think that for most in the church, sex is simple. the marriage bed is undefiled, and all that. but having looked around at the sexual dysfunction that exists within the church itself, it's not that simple at all. if christian parents can't communicate between themselves about sex in a rational and responsible manner, how can they talk to their kids about it? if christian parents still treat sex like it's a naughty subject only to be giggled about in women's retreats, or judged at when the guys get together, basically infantilizing it, then how can you tell your daughter that she's more than a sexual object? (not that later on, like when she's 35, a little objectification can't be hot.) how can you tell your son that a real man is more than how his package swings, or how many babies he can make, if you can't teach him responsibility?
there is nothing wrong with abstinence - if you have the discipline for it. (see how this flies if you called it what it really is: celibacy.) there is something wrong when you think that the way to teach young adults about sex is only through abstinence. because what you're actually teaching them is a lack - the absence of sex. if you want to teach them how to have a life without sex, then go for it. i think that's totally weird and neurotic, but that's just you, i guess. if you want to teach them that sex is a gift (one that should be unwrapped at its proper time), then that takes more than abstinence. that takes communication, care, and trust.
and my father's just said, christians don't believe in condoms.
now, we all know that's not true. christians totally believe in condoms; we also believe in the rhythm method, vasectomies, and the Pill. but just not for teens. but this wasn't my question. i had asked, if you want to stop pregnancies, why not teach them how not to get pregnant? but this question about pregnancy got conflated into the sex prevention question.
two different questions, people: stopping a particular outcome of sex and stopping sex altogether.
if you want to prevent an outcome of sex, like pregnancy or disease, you must teach how to protect for it. like it or not, a latex barrier is the most practical material barrier against disease and pregnancy.
if you want to stop your kids from having sex (until they're married? good luck) until they're ready to make rational choices about their bodies and their futures, you're going to have to give them alternatives to going out on their own and learning wacky stuff from their friends. (wacky myth #1: you can't get pregnant from anal sex. you can; it's rare, but you can, especially if the dude isn't wearing a condom and backsplash occurs. total. pregnancy.)
one, get over sex. sex is a biological function; our bodies are made for it. there are mechanics involved that you probably haven't thought of in years; well, get to thinkin' cuz you need to think about them with your kids. that means you need to know more about sex than your kids do. get over the language embarrassment. call a blow job a blow job. it's not making love, it's having sex, to them. it's not intercourse, it's sex.
two, solo action is a good thing. it's natural. come on. when i was 11 my mother, a minister's wife, told me to explore my body. thank goodness i did. if i hadn't, i would have been a burnt out, bitter woman. nuff said. (all within a context, of course. you don't want to raise a generation of rabid wankers.)
three, give them consequences. real consequences. not just, this is your penis with the clap. take them to a clinic, take them to a hotline. take them to a single mother's home. make them volunteer in places that show the consequences of some crappy decision making. you want that college dream? think of what college is like for a single mother. you want that cool prom? how about going to prom pregnant or with a hot laser up your butt because of warts? but you have to talk with them about what these consequences are. they think they could handle it. well, experiment. get creative. do that cosby thing. see if they can make those adult-like decisions in a safe way, with you around. and hey, when you're talking with them, you're going to have to listen, too. they'll tell you stuff you won't believe and if you freak out at what so and so pulled with the football team, you've just lost it.
four, give them reasons not to have sex when they're too young to handle it. like, college. like, a life that has a better chance of not being over because you let some smooth talking kid get in your pants. like, a life with a partner that you can truly feel intimate with. treat the complexity of sexual activity with the complexity it deserves.
i think that for most in the church, sex is simple. the marriage bed is undefiled, and all that. but having looked around at the sexual dysfunction that exists within the church itself, it's not that simple at all. if christian parents can't communicate between themselves about sex in a rational and responsible manner, how can they talk to their kids about it? if christian parents still treat sex like it's a naughty subject only to be giggled about in women's retreats, or judged at when the guys get together, basically infantilizing it, then how can you tell your daughter that she's more than a sexual object? (not that later on, like when she's 35, a little objectification can't be hot.) how can you tell your son that a real man is more than how his package swings, or how many babies he can make, if you can't teach him responsibility?
there is nothing wrong with abstinence - if you have the discipline for it. (see how this flies if you called it what it really is: celibacy.) there is something wrong when you think that the way to teach young adults about sex is only through abstinence. because what you're actually teaching them is a lack - the absence of sex. if you want to teach them how to have a life without sex, then go for it. i think that's totally weird and neurotic, but that's just you, i guess. if you want to teach them that sex is a gift (one that should be unwrapped at its proper time), then that takes more than abstinence. that takes communication, care, and trust.
Abstinence-Only: Does It Work?
The New York Times > Health > Health Care Policy > Personal Health: Abstinence-Only: Does It Work?
my sister and i learned about sex because of our german shepherds. one morning, or afternoon, i looked out the back porch window and saw them stuck together. puzzled, i got my sister. we thought it looked funny. then we thought it hurt. especially for baba, the bitch. so we got dad, who explained in graphic detail, what mating dogs really did. and of course, this led to what people did. also, in graphic detail. gross. we were around 9 or 10.
then, maybe a year or so later, i was in the 6th grade and brought home a letter from school asking permission to include me in a short series of classes on sex education. there were going to be films, books, gender-specific classes and discussions. nothing co-ed (probably thinking that boys and girls were already too skeeved out to actually talk about it together.) my parents signed the paper and i got to learn about sammy sperm and olivia ovum. fast forward a couple of years to junior high health classes, high school health classes (i hit high school just as AIDS hit the airwaves) and the story is about the same: the school telling parents, hey we're about to talk about sex to your kids, and the parents saying, go ahead.
two things are happening here. one, my parents talked about sex in one particular context: monogamy and marriage. sex before marriage was a huge no-no because of our faith community, primarily, but also because...well, nice girls just didn't. (of course, i'd learn later what nice girls did in my church, but that's a different story.) the word NO was our mantra. NO, you may not ask me out. NO, you may not kiss me. NO, euww, that's gross. we learned our lessons well.
but we also went to school. i learned about condoms in school; in fact, i held one for the first time when i was in 10th grade. i learned about STDs, birth control (and all the stats on which were the most effective for which kind of activity), abortion and what erogenous zones were. i watched movies about herpes, chlamydia, syphillis, crabs, gonhorrhea, genital warts and, because of AIDS, was totally indoctrinated in what safer sex was supposed to be. and, of course, i was heavily armed with the parental NO.
then college. in my summer orientation i learned how to put a condom on a banana. i learned what a dental dam was. i learned about other things like cunninglingus, rimming and lube. i learned about the sponge, spermacide, different kinds of condoms, why latex is better than non-latex, and i learned about other types of sexuality. and, i was still armed with the parental NO. in fact, we were more than armed with it; the parental NO was being praised from the pulpit on a regular basis. my sister and i, daughters of the church, were pretty much the only ones not pregnant by the time we graduated college. in fact, we were the only ones to graduate college.
does abstinence only sex education work? by definition, no. because it isn't sex education. sex education teaches you about sex, albeit not all of it, but the general things - what it is, what the accessories are, the types that exist, and how to prevent some of the accidents of sex. abstinence is only one small part of that education; like the condom, it is a tactic in a whole strategy around sex. like the dental dam, abstinence is a tool that allows you to negotiate how sexually active you want to be - or your kids to be. there are two different arguments being made when we talk about sex education; if you want to talk about preventing young people from having sex, that's one thing. if you want to talk about how to teach young people to be sexually responsible, that's something else entirely.
let's get back to the church and its role in shaping sexual attitudes toward sex; clearly, in the church where i grew up, there were some slippages. as far as i knew we were all on message when it came to sex. publicly, the church's position was firm on NO sex if you weren't married. how many teen forums did i sit through listening to how premarital sex was inappropriate for christian teens? tons. how many panels on teen pregnancy avoided talk of comprehensive sex education even while admitting their churches were filling with single teenaged mothers? tons. how many groans of disappointment in our church when a promising young college bound guy admitted to getting his girlfriend pregnant? tons. so where was the slip? despite the message, what was going on?
i remember one conference, my father was on a panel and i was in the audience. i was spending my saturday morning at a teen conference and i could have been reading or something. i was already in college by this time. (and,yes, still armed with the NO.) there was much hand-wringing about the increasing stats of teen pregnancy in los angeles; there was much stern lecturing. i could totally tell not a single teenager in the room believed anything that anyone was saying - about saving oneself, about rules of God, about christian fortitude. i wanted to see what would happen if a different point of view was heard, so i raised my hand and asked, well since it's clear that this isn't working, why not tell teenagers better ways to protect themselves and actually prevent becoming pregnant? like condoms?
and that's when my dad said, christians don't believe in condoms, since premarital sex is outside the bounds of behavior for us. and that was the end of that topic. we moved on. i settled down thinking, well, clearly somebody didn't get that memo.
and the memo is still being unread. despite the popularity of abstinence pledges, and even despite the years of AIDS and HIV, sexual activity among young people is still increasing. sexually transmitted diseases are increasing within populations of color and young people. so, there's something that's not being transmitted by the 'just say no' message. one, it's too simplistic. saying NO doesn't mean anything unless there's a value system, a consistent one, to back it up. the parental NO worked on me and my sister because we saw it followed through; our family was vigilant, man. if you had a penis, you had to suffer through a fbi-level background check. you had to endure a conversation with my dad about sex that was so harsh, it would make you sick. you had to earn the right to come near us.
just say no is also a failure in logic. it's like saying 'the only way to not be drunk is to not drink.' yeah, well, good luck with that. the failsafe way to not get drunk isn't not to drink. it's not to mix, drink in moderation, and don't drink when you're not legally allowed (because, frankly, you're a teenager and you don't know about limits.) the 'just' in just say no is always a little too pat. it's much better to show how making bad decisions can have a larger effect on your life. because a teenager having sex isn't always about a teenager having sex. sometimes it's about something that's missing that they need filled.
which gets us back to those two separate questions when it comes to sex education.
do you want to prevent them from having sex as kids, or do you want them to be sexually responsible adults?
my sister and i learned about sex because of our german shepherds. one morning, or afternoon, i looked out the back porch window and saw them stuck together. puzzled, i got my sister. we thought it looked funny. then we thought it hurt. especially for baba, the bitch. so we got dad, who explained in graphic detail, what mating dogs really did. and of course, this led to what people did. also, in graphic detail. gross. we were around 9 or 10.
then, maybe a year or so later, i was in the 6th grade and brought home a letter from school asking permission to include me in a short series of classes on sex education. there were going to be films, books, gender-specific classes and discussions. nothing co-ed (probably thinking that boys and girls were already too skeeved out to actually talk about it together.) my parents signed the paper and i got to learn about sammy sperm and olivia ovum. fast forward a couple of years to junior high health classes, high school health classes (i hit high school just as AIDS hit the airwaves) and the story is about the same: the school telling parents, hey we're about to talk about sex to your kids, and the parents saying, go ahead.
two things are happening here. one, my parents talked about sex in one particular context: monogamy and marriage. sex before marriage was a huge no-no because of our faith community, primarily, but also because...well, nice girls just didn't. (of course, i'd learn later what nice girls did in my church, but that's a different story.) the word NO was our mantra. NO, you may not ask me out. NO, you may not kiss me. NO, euww, that's gross. we learned our lessons well.
but we also went to school. i learned about condoms in school; in fact, i held one for the first time when i was in 10th grade. i learned about STDs, birth control (and all the stats on which were the most effective for which kind of activity), abortion and what erogenous zones were. i watched movies about herpes, chlamydia, syphillis, crabs, gonhorrhea, genital warts and, because of AIDS, was totally indoctrinated in what safer sex was supposed to be. and, of course, i was heavily armed with the parental NO.
then college. in my summer orientation i learned how to put a condom on a banana. i learned what a dental dam was. i learned about other things like cunninglingus, rimming and lube. i learned about the sponge, spermacide, different kinds of condoms, why latex is better than non-latex, and i learned about other types of sexuality. and, i was still armed with the parental NO. in fact, we were more than armed with it; the parental NO was being praised from the pulpit on a regular basis. my sister and i, daughters of the church, were pretty much the only ones not pregnant by the time we graduated college. in fact, we were the only ones to graduate college.
does abstinence only sex education work? by definition, no. because it isn't sex education. sex education teaches you about sex, albeit not all of it, but the general things - what it is, what the accessories are, the types that exist, and how to prevent some of the accidents of sex. abstinence is only one small part of that education; like the condom, it is a tactic in a whole strategy around sex. like the dental dam, abstinence is a tool that allows you to negotiate how sexually active you want to be - or your kids to be. there are two different arguments being made when we talk about sex education; if you want to talk about preventing young people from having sex, that's one thing. if you want to talk about how to teach young people to be sexually responsible, that's something else entirely.
let's get back to the church and its role in shaping sexual attitudes toward sex; clearly, in the church where i grew up, there were some slippages. as far as i knew we were all on message when it came to sex. publicly, the church's position was firm on NO sex if you weren't married. how many teen forums did i sit through listening to how premarital sex was inappropriate for christian teens? tons. how many panels on teen pregnancy avoided talk of comprehensive sex education even while admitting their churches were filling with single teenaged mothers? tons. how many groans of disappointment in our church when a promising young college bound guy admitted to getting his girlfriend pregnant? tons. so where was the slip? despite the message, what was going on?
i remember one conference, my father was on a panel and i was in the audience. i was spending my saturday morning at a teen conference and i could have been reading or something. i was already in college by this time. (and,yes, still armed with the NO.) there was much hand-wringing about the increasing stats of teen pregnancy in los angeles; there was much stern lecturing. i could totally tell not a single teenager in the room believed anything that anyone was saying - about saving oneself, about rules of God, about christian fortitude. i wanted to see what would happen if a different point of view was heard, so i raised my hand and asked, well since it's clear that this isn't working, why not tell teenagers better ways to protect themselves and actually prevent becoming pregnant? like condoms?
and that's when my dad said, christians don't believe in condoms, since premarital sex is outside the bounds of behavior for us. and that was the end of that topic. we moved on. i settled down thinking, well, clearly somebody didn't get that memo.
and the memo is still being unread. despite the popularity of abstinence pledges, and even despite the years of AIDS and HIV, sexual activity among young people is still increasing. sexually transmitted diseases are increasing within populations of color and young people. so, there's something that's not being transmitted by the 'just say no' message. one, it's too simplistic. saying NO doesn't mean anything unless there's a value system, a consistent one, to back it up. the parental NO worked on me and my sister because we saw it followed through; our family was vigilant, man. if you had a penis, you had to suffer through a fbi-level background check. you had to endure a conversation with my dad about sex that was so harsh, it would make you sick. you had to earn the right to come near us.
just say no is also a failure in logic. it's like saying 'the only way to not be drunk is to not drink.' yeah, well, good luck with that. the failsafe way to not get drunk isn't not to drink. it's not to mix, drink in moderation, and don't drink when you're not legally allowed (because, frankly, you're a teenager and you don't know about limits.) the 'just' in just say no is always a little too pat. it's much better to show how making bad decisions can have a larger effect on your life. because a teenager having sex isn't always about a teenager having sex. sometimes it's about something that's missing that they need filled.
which gets us back to those two separate questions when it comes to sex education.
do you want to prevent them from having sex as kids, or do you want them to be sexually responsible adults?
Friday, June 04, 2004
yeah, i know - sacred cow
this was just...interesting.
that's all. interesting.
did dobson say this stuff? shocking to me. i used his coloring books and listened to him on the radio when i was a kid.
i'm too high on vicodin (thanks, wisdom teeth) to think anymore about this, but i will. all sorts of stuff have been happening lately.
that's all. interesting.
did dobson say this stuff? shocking to me. i used his coloring books and listened to him on the radio when i was a kid.
i'm too high on vicodin (thanks, wisdom teeth) to think anymore about this, but i will. all sorts of stuff have been happening lately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
