AP Photos/Sebastian Scheiner
Olmert: We'll fight on until attacks end, soldiers returned - ""Citizens of Israel, there are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more," he said. "And I say to everyone: no more. Israel will not be held hostage - not by terror gangs or by a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state," "There is nothing we want more than peace on all of our borders," Olmert told the Knesset. But he said, "Israel will not agree to live with rockets fired on its citizens, he added. "Only a nation that can protect its freedom deserves it," he stated."
Is It Time For A Third World War? - "Sound crazy? In our Orwellian political climate, a new generation of Dr Strangelove's are in command. Only they have mastered the art of the TV interview and can, with selective facts and ideology packaged as information, make insanity sound oh so sane."
Williams Confronts Kristol: ‘You Just Want War, War, War, And You Want Us In More War’ - "This morning on Fox News Sunday, William Kristol argued that the Bush administration’s “coddling” of Iran had “invited” the latest outbreak of violence, and that the United States should join in the current fighting. Juan Williams pushed back: You just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle East. … You’re saying, why doesn’t the United States take this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been, we don’t talk to anybody. We don’t talk to Hamas. We don’t talk to Hezbollah. We’re not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill? Kristol threw up his hands and didn’t answer."
Neocons Rise From Mideast Ashes - "The key question: Is the Israeli offensive designed as a calculated effort to catapult the hard-right, neoconservative ideologues back to power in Washington?"
The Civil War in Iraq Has Begun - "My God, what have we done? What have we unleashed? The answer, unfortunately, is all out civil war. There is no way we, or anybody else, is going to get this genie back in the bottle. Through our arrogance, carelessness and even malice, we started a sectarian battle between the different ethnicities of Iraq. And that battle has now blossomed into an absolute war."
Who owns Christianity? - "You'd think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn't? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn't? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love. Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it's hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ's teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time.
Widen the view on the US - "According to Dr. Lu Dehong, American issue expert, since it's founding more than 200 years ago, the United States started or took part in more than 240 wars and foreign military operations. Hence it can be said that it is the wars that have made what the US is today. Ceaselessly looking for enemies, ceaselessly playing up crises, and ceaselessly sending out troops for military actions have become the core and essence of American military culture and strategic thinking."
George W. Turns 60, and is Obssessed with His Legacy - "How can a president claim greatness when he meets hate and rejection all over the world, and when among his own countrymen, he enjoys less and less acceptance, and when even the party faithful turn their backs on him?"
Florida's Fear of History: New Law Undermines Critical Thinking - "One way to measure the fears of people in power is by the intensity of their quest for certainty and control over knowledge. By that standard, the members of the Florida Legislature marked themselves as the folks most terrified of history in the United States when last month they took bold action to become the first state to outlaw historical interpretation in public schools. In other words, Florida has officially replaced the study of history with the imposition of dogma and effectively outlawed critical thinking." -- Interesting.
But make no mistake: this will not be a beauty-only pageant. -- Because I can't make this shit up.
Online age verification may prove complex - "With heightened concerns over sexual predators lurking at so-called social-networking sites, state attorneys general have called for such communities, particularly MySpace, to improve age and identity checks. If only it were so easy, experts say."
5 comments:
Comment regarding Florida's Fear of History: New Law Undermines Critical Thinking: I wonder how much of this is an agenda to teach dogma vs. to give legitimate education (which I do not doubt is occuring to some degree or another), and how much of this is a response to standardized testing. When standings and funding is based on this type of system, where the merit of an individual student is based on an A-E bubble sheet, we are encouraging our schools to teach an A-E style of education. This means that answers which do not conform to the narrow perspective of the exam get thrown by the wayside. This leads to a conversation to the legitimacy of the standardized test system... is it implemented to measure students or to force them into conformity? Very interesting stuff indeed.
Hrmph... want to clarify on the ending of my last post. Upon review, it seems that I may be in favor of standardized testing (which I'm not). When I mention "is it implemented to measure students or to force them into conformity?", I mean the intent (misguided as it may be) behind the testing.
A few comments on Who owns Christianity?. I'm going to try really hard to be brief on this one, but no promises (I've been in vociferous mode lately with regards to religion 'cos I've been debating Protestantism vs Catholicism with a friend).
When Mr. Chopra writes, "Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias?", he makes the same mistake that so many people make: he mistakes love and forgiveness for moral ambiguity. The claim is that since a Christian is to love his neighbor and to forgive sinners, if this Christian deems someone a sinner and disapproves of the sin, then this Christian is deemed an extremist, fundamentalist, and intolerant.
But how legitimate are Mr. Chopra's ideas? Consider the statement: "The first move seems Christian. Women deserve to hold church office as much as political office". His rationale on women in the clergy? It's not a matter of following the word of Christ, it's a matter of deserving to hold office. Which, unfortunately, is the way many people interpret religion... to many, it is not a matter of following God, it is of finding comfort in a name ("Christian") while throwing out all those things that do not coincide with one's opinion. Do God's commandments matter? Only if they are convenient. Does obedience matter? In this day in age? Are you kidding me?
How is it that the "worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant" than the Episcopal Church, save for the "reactionaries" in that Church, yet if that Church schisms, it is the reactionaries who are threatening to "form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood"? Mr. Chopra would have you believe that the schism is brought on by the "reactionaries", when in reality these are the members maintaining faithfulness in the Anglican teachings. Yet his perspective will not let him see this. Faith in doctrine, dogma and reason aren't of interest... it is the perpetuation of an opinion; any group who disapproves of or disagrees with this opinion are deemed as being the ones moving away from true belief.
One of the things I find most interesting is when he writes, "As healthy as it is to nourish your own devotion and faith, it's disastrous to allow extremists to take over the church, because the statehouse, the board of education, the Congress, and eventually the presidency are next." An interesting sentiment. I propose that the opposite is equally interesting, being, "as healthy as it is to nourish your political idealism, it's disastrous to allow extremists to take over the statehouse, because the church is next".
Mr. Chopra closes by saying, "One can only hope that the church comes to its senses and regains its moral center. If that doesn't occur, the core teachings of Christ will be lost, for all intents and purposes, to this generation." Another interesting sentiment. One has to then ask, what are these "core teachings"? Who decides what is core and what is not? Apparently, Mr. Chopra believes that the church (a term which I dislike, but I'll use because of the little "c") has fallen away from these core beliefs. Apparently, the answer to "who decides what is core and what is not?" is Mr. Chopra and folks like him. So, apparently, the answer to, "Who owns Christianity?" is Mr. Chopra and those who know which teachings of Christ are considered core and which can be thrown out. Apparently, the rest of us have gotten it wrong for over 2000 years.
Did I mention I was being brief? Har har :)
Luis,
Don't even try to kid yourself about being "brief" with your comments. To hell with being brief! Rant away!
It may be a response to standardized testing, but regardless it is disturbing. I don't know if the "intent" is nefarious or not. More likely it's just because standardized A-E tests are easy to grade. Unfortunately, history is interpretation (How pathetic of a statement is that?). There are differing views as to what actually happened, and rarely do we get a unified view. What's wrong with gathering as many facts (another term that is often mistaken for interpretation) as possible and letting the people (school children in this case) come to their individual conclusion conclusion/opinion? Wait, that implies critical thinking. Damn it! I knew my logic went astray somewhere.
So, the word of Christ is that women are not to hold office in the church? Here's where you and I differ when it comes to religion. I see that as a control issue. These laws/commandments/whatever-you-want-to-call-them seem to me to be nothing more than tools to control a populace. If the word of Christ is that women are to be second class citizens, or human beings that are different from the members of the church should be ostracized (if not outright killed), then I don't want any part of that particular belief. I don't think anyone owns Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or any of the other religions of the world, but I do believe many people twist the teachings of these religions into fanatical dogma. What I don't understand is why so many of their followers are so damn gullible and commit such atrocious acts against fellow humans?
Ok, got a few comments on the second issue... I think we're agreeing on the first :)
My primary complaint regarding Chopra's argument is that his argument regarding religion is not a religious one. If one is going to debate women in the clergy (for example), it should be a debate based on theology and history, not feelings. By starting a point with "I feel" in a theological debate, you are essentially saying that orthodoxy doesn't matter to you; if it did, your personal feelings of the matter wouldn't be an issue... what would be at issue is the orthodoxy of the subject of the debate. Chopra observes a group making a theological argument on a religious subject, yet his response has to do with personal feelings. This may have sway over those who aren't viewing the subject from a religious perspective, but it means very little for those who are.
Feelings play a crucial role when deciding whether a religion's set of dogmas and discipline are compatible with one's own world view. But people are willing to compromise even here, as orthodoxy does not seem to be very important to many folks. It seems that many people are willing to claim subscription to a religion but disregard some of the dogmas that define it.
"I follow religion X, except for the whole skateboarding thing. Oh, and I don't believe that playing basketball with earthworms will cause the sun to rise the next day. I don't believe in that. But aside from that, I believe in X wholeheartedly." (Ridiculous example, but I didn't want anyone thinking I was isolating anyone).
As for the role of women in clergy, I'll really try to be brief here (because believe me, I can wind up babbling forever one this one). I'll narrow it down to the following 27 points:
First, his stating "women are not to hold office in the church" is a misstatement with regards to most Christian churches (the Anglican and the Catholic Church included). This conveys the idea that women are excluded from all positions of authority in their respective Church, which is simply not the case. It is true, however, that positions available to men and women are exclusive; a man can no more become a nun than a woman a priest.
(Just kidding about there being 27 points, by the way... har har)
Second, the notion that women are seen as lesser members within most of the various Christian churches is false. While it is true that men and women serve in different roles, this does not make the ministry of one less important than of the other. Nor does it mean that the ministry of one contributes less than the ministry of the other, just in a different way. And sometimes, in ways that are not that different. In most cases, the issue at the core of the debate is about who is allowed to administer the various sacraments, and who is allowed to perform what function in the ceremonies dealing with the sacraments. Those who would argue (based on theology) that this is a role reserved for men would not conclude that women are second-class citizens within their respective Church. While not a great analogy, we can look to the laity within a congregation; typically, the laity does not administer sacraments, but this does not make the laity second class citizens; we acknowledge that the roles between the clergy and the laity are different, but this does not make one bad (similar to the earlier discussion of married vs. chaste life). While it is true that men do get the lions share of administrative positions, and almost all of those which have influence externally, all the arguments I've heard from women wishing to change the rule is due to a desire to perform the sacraments, not to gain an administrative position (which isn't to say that such women do not exist, but I do not think it's a misstatement to say that they are in the vast minority).
Regarding why folks are easily manipulated by those twisting their faith, I think folks are easily manipulated period, whether it be their faith, their politics, their paranoia, etc. Twisting faith and politics have just proven more efficient than other methods. I'm really worried about the time when folks figure out how to turn the other screws just right to get people acting like asses.
Post a Comment