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...
Monday, July 19, 2004
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
