January 31, 2010
God is grieved by this amendment.
–The Rev. Mark Asman of Trinity Episcopal Church of Santa Barbara, California, revealing that God opposes either the Nelson or Stupak anti-abortion funding amendments to the health care bills (it’s not clear which, but probably both); he didn’t reveal how he discerned the divine will on these pieces of legislation, though it’s fair to assume that he told the Almighty what to think and obtained agreement by virtue of his superior understanding of legislative language
January 30, 2010
Posted by David Fischler under American Religion
No one–and I mean no one–gives Christianity a worse name in this country than the members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. You’ve heard of them, I’m sure. They’re the people who show up at military funerals and various sundry public events with signs that say “God Hates Fags” (among others; given all the people they claim God hates, near as I can tell the only ones He doesn’t hate are the denizens of that “church”). Anyway, a group of San Franciscans has, I think, found the perfect response to Westboro: absurdist ridicule. At the Laughing Squid, Ed Hunsinger offers photos. First, here’s an example of Westboro’s schtick, if you’ve never seen it:
They’ve added “God Hates Jews” to their collection because, believe it or not, they were in San Francisco to protest a production of Fiddler on the Roof! Because, you know, it’s evil to have Jews be the good guys in a play. Or something. Anyway, the “I Have A Sign” guy gives you an idea of what the response looked like:
So, in honor of these merry pranksters, who know that the best answer to creeps like Westboro is to laugh at them, I offer some suggestions for signs folks can make for the next counter-demo, and solicit your suggestions as well:
Squiggy Sent Me
Barnacles Are Itchy
God Hates Nags
What’s It All About, Alfie?
Tea And Crumpets, Anyone?
Bring Back the Edsel!
Monty Python Was Right!
I Love Pizza
That’s enough for now. Contribute yours in the comments, and I’ll highlight the best of them in a future post.
(Hat tip: Alan Michaels on Facebook.)
January 29, 2010
Perhaps America’s most aggressively obnoxious atheist organization is the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Under the guise of being a church-state separation watchdog, it pursues a Soviet-style agenda of trying to drive religion from the public sphere altogether. Their latest crusade is directed at the U.S. Postal Service, according to Fox News:
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring “individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings.”
I wonder why the Postal Service has that regulation at all–I mean, why is acknowledging the contribution of religious people doing religious stuff that benefits humanity out of bounds, as opposed to literally any other field of human endeavor? Mother Teresa, after all, didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize because she was a nun or prayed a lot. But leave that aside, and note what the real objection is:
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the “darker side” of Mother Teresa.
This is straight out of Christopher Hitchens’ bizarre campaign against Mother Teresa embodied in his book The Missionary Position. So it’s not really about USPS regulations, or church-state separation–it’s really about the hate directed at one of the towering religious and humanitarian figures of the last century.
Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.
“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did,” Gaylor told FoxNews.com.
As far as people like Gaylor are concerned, it doesn’t matter what a person such as Mother Teresa did, or how many people benefited from her work–if she committed the cardinal sin of being identified with religion, America must act as though she never existed. Heaven forfend we give anyone the idea that people with religious motivations and associations ever do any good that others might want to emulate. Of course, Gaylor would probably also dispute that Mother Teresa did good, because she adhered to Catholic positions on birth control and abortion, which cancels out everything else. But it gets worse:
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan’s stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.
Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister,” and “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure,” she said.
“And he’s not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific.”
Yeah, and King was the Rev. Martin Luther King, a man who pastored churches and preached countless sermons, whose Ph.D dissertation was “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.” and whose civil rights work was inspired and informed by his Christian faith. But he “just happened to be a minister.” That calls out for a Captain Picard moment:
This nonsense wouldn’t be complete without a big dollop of anti-Catholic bigotry:
Gaylor said the foundation’s only concern is the “other things that deserve to be commemorated but are not because the people behind it didn’t have the power of the Catholic church.”
“It’s enormously difficult to get them,” she said, referring to commemorative stamps, “and people have huge campaigns, and to me this speaks of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in hierarchy.
“They want to make her a saint and this is part of the PR machine.”
Fortunately, there are atheists who recognize this for the idiocy it is:
Some atheists, too, spoke out against the group’s objections, including Bruce Sheiman, author of “An Atheist Defends Religion.” He said the Freedom from Religion Foundation is being “hypocritical” and really “stepping over the line.”
“Clearly there are a number of things that you can point to and say it’s religious and a number of things you can point to and say that it’s areligious,” Sheiman told FoxNews.com. “So it really doesn’t make sense to protest it.”
He said the Foundation’s campaign stems from concern that the abundance of humanitarian work done by believers will overshadow that done by atheists.
“Like billboards and bus ads, this is just part of the whole campaign that they’re doing to make non-belief more visible,” he said.
Good for you, Bruce.
January 28, 2010
I haven’t seen the pro-life ad featuring University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow that will air during the Super Bowl. Neither have any of those who are yelping so loudly about it. Among those is–surprise, surprise–the Priesthood of Moloch Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which put out this screed today:
As people of faith, we have a sacred responsibility to protect women’s health, lives and dignity. That is why I am urging you to contact CBS now and tell them not to air a religiously-focused ad that celebrates a woman who ignored medical advice to have an abortion. The fact that the ad will air on Super Bowl Sunday and that the child she delivered is a football star makes it all the more insidious. Super Bowl viewers – last year, more than 97.5 million people watched the game – will be told that it is noble for a woman to sacrifice her health and life, in this case for the game of football.
Stuff like this makes me want to throw up, to be perfectly honest. Tim Tebow’s mother didn’t risk “sacrificing her health and life” for football; she did it for her baby. I know that’s got to be hard to RCRC to understand–the idea that a mother might be willing to risk everything for the sake of another, even for something as icky as an unborn child. But as hard as it might be for an allegedly Christian minister like Carlton Veazey to understand, there actually are Christians who take seriously the idea that sacrifice for the sake of another is the highest form of love, one that is embodied in the life and death of Jesus Christ.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve got to ask: since when are doctors infallible oracles? Tim’s parents, Christian missionaries in the Philippines, decided to make a decision that was faithful to their Lord, and in the process demonstrated that the doctors were wrong. Or is it only when doctors recommend abortion that their patients are supposed to surrender their role as responsible decision-makers and do whatever someone with an M.D. tells them?
The ad – developed and paid for by the anti-equality, anti-choice conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family – will feature Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. Pam became sick during a mission trip to the Philippines in 1987 and ignored a recommendation by doctors to have an abortion. It is a blessing that Tim’s birth was healthy, but it is irresponsible to encourage other women to take such a risk….
Got it. It is “irresponsible” to encourage women to listen to their conscience. It is “irresponsible” to suggest that doctors aren’t infallible. It is “irresponsible” to suggest that there are times when one might not choose abortion. It is “irresponsible” to suggest to women that they should ever think about anyone other than themselves, or for that matter that they should think for themselves rather than letting the priests of the religion of abortion do it for them. Once again, would someone please get me a barf bag?
Every time I think the RCRC could go no lower, they surprise me by sinking even farther down into the morally and spiritually deadening cesspool that is the culture of death.
January 28, 2010
Posted by David Fischler under Uncategorized
Leave a Comment
I’ve just been notified by my blog hosts that my post on J.D. Salinger is on the front page of WordPress.com, and I’ve also noticed that the traffic has gone way up today, surely as a result. So to all who are visiting this blog for the first time, greetings! Have a look around, and don’t hesitate to comment, whether on Salinger’s passing or anything else that tickles your fancy.
January 28, 2010
You may remember the “oven mitt and lederhosen” look that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts-Schori blitzed Jerusalem with a while back. Well, turns out that ensemble had nothing on her audition costume for the latest production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat:
She wore this at the consecration of the new bishop of Georgia. Needless to say, the South surrendered all over again.
(Via Chris Johnson of MCJ.)
January 28, 2010
He died this morning, according to the Washington Post:
Catcher in the Rye author J.D. Salinger has died at age 91 in New Hampshire.
The author’s son, in a statement from the author’s literary representative, says Salinger died of natural causes at his home. He had lived for decades in self-imposed isolation in the small, remote house in Cornish, N.H.
The Catcher in the Rye with its immortal teenage protagonist – the twisted, rebellious Holden Caulfield – came out in 1951 during the time of anxious, Cold War conformity.
Salinger wrote for adults, but teenagers all over the world identified with the novel’s themes of alienation, innocence and fantasy.
In later years, Salinger became famous for not wanting to be famous, refusing interviews.
He also became famous in part because despite being one of America’s best known authors solely on the strength of one novel, he has refused to publish anything for over forty years (his last published work came out in 1965).
As might be expected, I loved Catcher in the Rye when I was 17, but it comes across as somewhat dated now. Trouble is, I’m not sure whether that’s an indictment of the book, or our culture.
UPDATE: Changed “terribly”to “somewhat” with reference to Catcher being dated. A lot of its language is dated, but in the same way that movies from the 1930s, ’40s, or ’50s can still be watched and enjoyed even with what sound to our ears like oddities of language, Salinger’s novel still merits reading from the standpoint of language, for its historical value among other things. And certainly as commenters have pointed out, teenage angst, though it may be expressed differently, appears in every generation.
Next Page »