And if you are going to essentially call an entire nation evil, could you please do so with proper grammar?
Thank you.
January 20, 2010
January 16, 2010
January 14, 2010
Christianity: Inversed
Pat Robertson has done it again. He has used his position as a media mogul to proclaim a perverted and inversed theology that is profoundly sub, if not anti-Christian. A Calvinist once told me, in his defense of the concept of limited atonement (the notion that the Graces of Christ's death on the cross only extend to those predestined to salvation), that "some of us are just born damned." I replied, "if that is the case, then your god is a monster."
Robertson claims Haitians today are suffering Divine punishment as a result of a centuries old "pact" made with the devil made by some leaders trying to shirk French colonial power. This strikes me as odd, given that Evangelicals have worked so hard to divorce human action and free will from salvation and damnation in their tenets of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. Robertson's idea that human action has somehow led Divine will seems like the ultimate vanity, and profoundly un-Evangelical at that. It seemed especially ironic to me, then, when in Mass today, the priest took great care in his homily to point out that human action is distinct from God's will. He pointed out that we may live a good upstanding life and suffer greatly, contrary to the "Gospel of Health and Wealth" that so many preach (a la Joel Osteen). Or we may live a lowly life of sin and still receive many blessings and graces. But our lives are our own, and only in committing them to Christ through the sacraments do we even stand a chance. If any of us came into this world carrying the spiritual baggage of our predecessors, we'd all surely be sunk before we took our first breath.
Robertson's god sounds a lot like my Calvinist friend's god. Robertson's god sounds like a monster. And God is not a monster; monstrosity defies the very concept of God. So Mr. Robertson, with whom then, are you making your pacts?
Robertson claims Haitians today are suffering Divine punishment as a result of a centuries old "pact" made with the devil made by some leaders trying to shirk French colonial power. This strikes me as odd, given that Evangelicals have worked so hard to divorce human action and free will from salvation and damnation in their tenets of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. Robertson's idea that human action has somehow led Divine will seems like the ultimate vanity, and profoundly un-Evangelical at that. It seemed especially ironic to me, then, when in Mass today, the priest took great care in his homily to point out that human action is distinct from God's will. He pointed out that we may live a good upstanding life and suffer greatly, contrary to the "Gospel of Health and Wealth" that so many preach (a la Joel Osteen). Or we may live a lowly life of sin and still receive many blessings and graces. But our lives are our own, and only in committing them to Christ through the sacraments do we even stand a chance. If any of us came into this world carrying the spiritual baggage of our predecessors, we'd all surely be sunk before we took our first breath.
Robertson's god sounds a lot like my Calvinist friend's god. Robertson's god sounds like a monster. And God is not a monster; monstrosity defies the very concept of God. So Mr. Robertson, with whom then, are you making your pacts?
January 12, 2010
Tea Party - Double Entendre Intended?
Michael Steele's grim outlook on Sean Hannity's television show regarding the Republican Party's odds in 2010 prompted Rogue in Rouge to quip glibly to a coworker that we ought to scrap the entire party and start afresh, a la Whig --> Democrat. I've always imagined the end of the Whig Party as a boisterous scene with a bunch of men angrily removing their wigs, waving them with clenched fists in the air, throwing them to the ground, storming out of the Capitol and ending the party then and there. A recent WSJ/NBC News Poll hints that such a thing may be afoot. It's not a good sign when a loosely affiliated group of protesters within your party is more popular with voters than the actual party itself, right?
January 11, 2010
The Young Victoria
The film "The Young Victoria" is a fantastic biopic with an a-typically un-feminist narrative. The film places particular emphasis on the fact that Victoria, a feisty, independent, and strong-willed woman, chose to make the love of her life, Prince Albert, her equal and partner, rather than stuffing him in a palatial corner. The films concludes as she stands shyly looking at her husband, having just pushed their desks so that they face each other. Just before the credits, the producers take care to point out that together they had 9 children. Even the photo used to promote the film, seen above, portrays a woman leaning against a stalwart soldier, not a brazen queen overshadowing her king. For an industry that churns out movies that decry the "oppression of women" yesterday and today, "The Young Victoria" offers a refreshingly optimistic perspective on love and romance, while challenging traditional notions about what it means to be a woman ahead of one's time.
January 8, 2010
Whale Wars
My office is located one floor above the conservationist group Oceana. You can spot one of them in the lobby from a mile away. I know who is going to push floor number 5 when we pile on every morning just by looking around. The person wearing jeans on a Tuesday, with a holey, rumpled sweater and the faint odor of "unbathed" is sure to be one of the clan that regularly delays my elevator ride by 15 seconds. When they exit, I routinely mutter threateningly under my breath, "freakin whale watchers." I like to say it just loud enough that they briefly pause and wonder if they heard me correctly.
The only good thing the whale watchers have ever brought to my office was January Jones for a promotional filming. Otherwise they just bring irritating conversation (why do you have to talk so loudly in a 4 x 4 box??), bad smells, and painful elevator delays. They also installed this color-changing fiber optic wall one sees every time the elevator doors open on floor five that makes strange hypnotic sounds. It makes me uncomfortable.
So I want to know what they think of today's article on the brewing conflagration in the Antarctic highlighted in the Washington Post.
The article is so funny I have to post the headline and the first couple of paragraphs:
Conservation Group Hunts for Japanese Whalers by Helicopter
Japanese whalers and conservationists squared off Thursday for more hostilities in the Antarctic, a day after the hunters crushed one of the activists' boats in a clash each side blamed on the other but all agreed endangered lives.
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society searched Antarctic waters by helicopter for a Japanese whaling ship Thursday, renewing its attempt to harass the whalers into giving up their hunt, the group's founder Paul Watson said.
The escalating Antarctic confrontations were broadly condemned, but no plan was immediately hatched to prevent future confrontations.
I mean, this sounds like an article from the Onion, not the Washington Post.
The best part? Apparently there is an actual television series on Animal Planet TV entitled "Whale Wars" that documents this ongoing battle.
The whole thing kind of reminds me of an incident at my alma mater, Tufts University, when members of the student Peace and Justice group physically assaulted members of the Tufts Republicans under the cover of darkness. Apparently the whale watchers think its fine to hunt humans, but not orcas.
I didn't know the whalies like a good fight. Bring it on Floor 5.
The only good thing the whale watchers have ever brought to my office was January Jones for a promotional filming. Otherwise they just bring irritating conversation (why do you have to talk so loudly in a 4 x 4 box??), bad smells, and painful elevator delays. They also installed this color-changing fiber optic wall one sees every time the elevator doors open on floor five that makes strange hypnotic sounds. It makes me uncomfortable.
So I want to know what they think of today's article on the brewing conflagration in the Antarctic highlighted in the Washington Post.
The article is so funny I have to post the headline and the first couple of paragraphs:
Conservation Group Hunts for Japanese Whalers by Helicopter
Japanese whalers and conservationists squared off Thursday for more hostilities in the Antarctic, a day after the hunters crushed one of the activists' boats in a clash each side blamed on the other but all agreed endangered lives.
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society searched Antarctic waters by helicopter for a Japanese whaling ship Thursday, renewing its attempt to harass the whalers into giving up their hunt, the group's founder Paul Watson said.
The escalating Antarctic confrontations were broadly condemned, but no plan was immediately hatched to prevent future confrontations.
I mean, this sounds like an article from the Onion, not the Washington Post.
The best part? Apparently there is an actual television series on Animal Planet TV entitled "Whale Wars" that documents this ongoing battle.
The whole thing kind of reminds me of an incident at my alma mater, Tufts University, when members of the student Peace and Justice group physically assaulted members of the Tufts Republicans under the cover of darkness. Apparently the whale watchers think its fine to hunt humans, but not orcas.
I didn't know the whalies like a good fight. Bring it on Floor 5.
January 7, 2010
Reurbanista
Check out RIR's friend Leigh Snead on Salon. Good for London lady antics. Because why would you not want to read London lady antics?
January 6, 2010
Rebuttal
Best rebuttal yet to my earlier bit on Tiger Woods and Prince Charles:
"Where would Akon or 50 or Gaga be if they wrote songs about their undying devotion to their sacramental spouses instead of about drugs and prison and sex with strangers?"
From RIR reader Daniel Cole (a.k.a. the "winged monkey") of Colorado Tea Party fame. Point taken, Mr. Cole.
"Where would Akon or 50 or Gaga be if they wrote songs about their undying devotion to their sacramental spouses instead of about drugs and prison and sex with strangers?"
From RIR reader Daniel Cole (a.k.a. the "winged monkey") of Colorado Tea Party fame. Point taken, Mr. Cole.
January 5, 2010
Another awesome Elizabeth
When I was a little girl, I cursed the fact that I had Elizabeth for a middle name. I liked to think of myself as iconoclastic, but I was trapped with the most common girl's first name in America, followed by the most common girl's middle name.
I've since realized that there have been many an Elizabeth overtime that give the name some historical oomph. My oldest favorite? Queen Elizabeth I. My newest favorite? St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.
She was revolutionary, a school foundress, a socialite, and a convert - an all around free-spirited and independent, but pious lady. She was also the first native born American to be canonized in the Catholic Church. I like to imagine her romping around early America, skirts dragging in the mud, her spirited Catholicity inspiring those around her.
For those who think the Catholic Church is sexist, I wonder how they would argue that Her decision to canonize an independent and iconoclastic woman as the first native born American saint supports that theory.
I've since realized that there have been many an Elizabeth overtime that give the name some historical oomph. My oldest favorite? Queen Elizabeth I. My newest favorite? St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.
She was revolutionary, a school foundress, a socialite, and a convert - an all around free-spirited and independent, but pious lady. She was also the first native born American to be canonized in the Catholic Church. I like to imagine her romping around early America, skirts dragging in the mud, her spirited Catholicity inspiring those around her.
For those who think the Catholic Church is sexist, I wonder how they would argue that Her decision to canonize an independent and iconoclastic woman as the first native born American saint supports that theory.
Snubbed
The latest airplane security incident of the now famed Nigerian underwear bomber has raised fresh questions about how seriously the Obama administration is taking national security. And the report today that many international airports, particularly those of nations considered to be harboring terrorists, are outright ignoring the U.S.'s demands for increased security for travelers to the U.S. evokes questions about just how seriously the world is taking the Obama administration.
Airports in Lebanon, Syria, and Libya, all on the U.S.'s list of states that sponsor terrorism, report no heightened security. One Lebanese aviation official said, "Everything is the same. There is no extra security."
I feel much better now.
Kind of like the confidence I felt when I saw this encounter of Obama with the Russian heads of state not too long ago.
January 4, 2010
Renegade Priests v. Renegade Archbishop
A New Year's Eve report from the Washington Post reveals that 20 former Catholic priests who want to marry have left the Catholic Church to form what they are calling the Catholic Apostolic National Church of Uganda. Unfortunately for them, it is not Catholic, nor is it apostolic. And that's their problem. Whether it will be allowed to be "National" is yet to be determined. And that is everyone's problem.
Uganda's vice president, Gilbert Bukenya, has already spoken out saying that an investigation is underway and that the Ugandan government wants "to know its roots. If we discover that it is illegal we will ban it."
Illegal?
Controversial, yes. Illegal, no. The line between renegade and illegal is one that governments often overstep in matters of religious controversy. The attempt to outlaw what in Southeast Asia or the Middle East might be labeled "blasphemous" is an increasing tendency in countries outside of these spheres and is a dangerous trend towards religious oppression and the restriction of basic speech and associational rights.
Catholic authorities have already said that the renegade priests are "outside" the Church and face excommunication. All fine and fully within the Church's right. However, the Ugandan Archbishop went a little renegade, if you will, in his statement in support of outlawing the new church when he said, "I call upon government to avoid registering such new churches. They can bring about religious conflicts." He also said such churches have the potential to "confuse" Ugandans.
Not only does his statement insult the Ugandan people and their ability to manage the True/False quiz about Roman Catholicism, it smacks of the very totalitarianistic mentality that is behind much of the persecution that the Church, and other religious minorities, have faced throughout the centuries. Religious registration is something Church leaders should be speaking out against, as it is a tool governments use to restrict religious freedom around the world. And it is never a mechanism that any prominent Catholic priest should endorse for suppressing something that offends the Church.
The Church has done alright dealing with offense for 2,000 years by continuing to unabashedly proclaim the Truth. Father Lwanga should stick to proclaiming the only truth in this situation: that these priests have left the Church and that Her cause in proclaiming the Gospel is ever more pressing. Ultimately, the Church will most thrive in an environment where all are free to seek out, affirm, and reject the Truth without inhibition or intimidation by government officials, or Church leaders.
The rogue priests are headquartering their new church in Jinja, a beautiful town that also happens to be the source of the Nile. Whether they meant anything symbolic by the choice of locale is unknown. But these men are fully within their basic human right to make controversial, though tragic, religious choices.
Uganda's vice president, Gilbert Bukenya, has already spoken out saying that an investigation is underway and that the Ugandan government wants "to know its roots. If we discover that it is illegal we will ban it."
Illegal?
Controversial, yes. Illegal, no. The line between renegade and illegal is one that governments often overstep in matters of religious controversy. The attempt to outlaw what in Southeast Asia or the Middle East might be labeled "blasphemous" is an increasing tendency in countries outside of these spheres and is a dangerous trend towards religious oppression and the restriction of basic speech and associational rights.
Catholic authorities have already said that the renegade priests are "outside" the Church and face excommunication. All fine and fully within the Church's right. However, the Ugandan Archbishop went a little renegade, if you will, in his statement in support of outlawing the new church when he said, "I call upon government to avoid registering such new churches. They can bring about religious conflicts." He also said such churches have the potential to "confuse" Ugandans.
Not only does his statement insult the Ugandan people and their ability to manage the True/False quiz about Roman Catholicism, it smacks of the very totalitarianistic mentality that is behind much of the persecution that the Church, and other religious minorities, have faced throughout the centuries. Religious registration is something Church leaders should be speaking out against, as it is a tool governments use to restrict religious freedom around the world. And it is never a mechanism that any prominent Catholic priest should endorse for suppressing something that offends the Church.
The Church has done alright dealing with offense for 2,000 years by continuing to unabashedly proclaim the Truth. Father Lwanga should stick to proclaiming the only truth in this situation: that these priests have left the Church and that Her cause in proclaiming the Gospel is ever more pressing. Ultimately, the Church will most thrive in an environment where all are free to seek out, affirm, and reject the Truth without inhibition or intimidation by government officials, or Church leaders.
The rogue priests are headquartering their new church in Jinja, a beautiful town that also happens to be the source of the Nile. Whether they meant anything symbolic by the choice of locale is unknown. But these men are fully within their basic human right to make controversial, though tragic, religious choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
