Libertine: On the Prowl
Vidi, vici, veni -- I saw, I conquered, I came. _______________________________________________________________
Mormons and Marriage Discrimination
The passage of Proposition 8 in California, which categorically defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, was successful in part because of the LDS (Mormon) Church's mobilized support for the issue, despite Mormons being only two percent of the state's population.According to the Los Angeles Times, monetary support for Proposition 8 from Mormons is estimated to have been about twenty million dollars. Donations from individual Mormons were in response to a letter from church leader read in all LDS congregations in California, urging members do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."
As well as providing financial support to Prop 8, Mormons also hosted websites, formed an outreach organization: Protect Marriage Coalition, posted pro-Prop 8 videos online, and so on.
I think the Mormon stance against same-sex marriage is ironic, considering that the US government forced the LDS church to give up polygyny in 1890, as a pre-requisite to Utah becoming a state.
Perhaps if the US had allowed polygyny and other forms of polygamy to remain legal and aboveboard, we'd not be seeing these renegade Mormon groups forcing underage girls to marry old men, as the government could have applied the same rules to such marriages as they do to monogamous ones (consenting adults only).
One would think the Mormons would be especially sensitive to marriage discrimination, but apparently this isn't the case.
Thoughts?
How Many Ways Are You Going to Hell?
How many ways are you going to hell?
The creator of this amusing sign should count himself lucky that being a half-illiterate dumbass with bad grammar and bad spelling is not on the list of sins or he'd be down there right now serving drinks to Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin.
Personally, I'd send him to hell just for the rampant apostrophe abuse. And what the hell is "fullutent"? Flatulent? If farting will earn you a one way ticket to hell, at least I'll see everyone I ever knew when I get there.
Out of this lists of "sins", the list below shows the ways I'll be going to hell. Feel free to list the ways you'll earn your ride on the handbasket to hell.
Democrat
Environmentalist -- I guess he thinks Jesus wants us to trash the planet
Abortionist -- I've never performed an abortion, but I'm pro choice
Feminist -- I'm not a misogynist, so I must be a feminist
I'm not gay, but I'm pro-same sex rights, so I guess I'm a "homo" enabler
Government Recipient -- I've collected unemployment and tax refund checks before, so I guess I qualify for this
Adulterer
Fornicator
Pervert
Pagan
Agnostic
Liar -- who hasn't ever lied?
Freeloader
Liberal
The maker of this sign obviously has no clue whatsoever of what Jesus is supposed to be all about:
Love Your Neighbor
Let's see your "sins".
Paraplegic Groom Denied Church Wedding
A 26 year old paraplegic man who wanted to get married in a Catholic church in Italy was recently denied a church wedding because he is impotent.Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo, Italy said, "No bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment" of the marriage.
After being turned away by the church, he and his fiancee, who was aware of his impotence, were married in a civil ceremony in Viterbo.
While I'm no fan of marriage, I'm appalled at this. This denial, totally lacking in compassion, shows that the official Catholic position on marriage is that it must be about having children and that any other reason, including love, is entirely irrelevant to them. Never mind that the world is already groaning under the weight of overpopulation. And never mind that there are millions of children waiting for homes that this couple could possibly adopt.
I'm wondering if they also refuse to marry elderly people past the age of reproduction or sterile people who don't have handicaps that are visually detectable? We already know they won't marry same sex couples, but denying a church wedding to a disabled person is a new one on me.
Thoughts?
Belief-O-Matic Religion Quiz
I didn't get much sleep last night, so I feel like I've been dragged through the mud at this point. I'm not particularly inspired to write anything today, so I leave you with the Belief-O-Matic religion matching quiz. The results indicate how many of one's personal beliefs match the faiths mentioned below:1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (93%)
3. Secular Humanism (89%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (81%)
5. Neo-Pagan (79%)
6. New Age (74%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (74%)
8. Nontheist (68%)
9. Reform Judaism (68%)
10. Taoism (64%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (60%)
12. Bahá'í Faith (53%)
13. New Thought (48%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (46%)
15. Scientology (38%)
16. Sikhism (38%)
17. Jainism (30%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (30%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (29%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (24%)
21. Islam (23%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (21%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)
24. Hinduism (14%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (11%)
26. Roman Catholic (11%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)
To take this quiz, click here, and report your results below.
Let Them Eat Cake
The other night while listening to the radio, I heard an ad which began by talking about the plight of poor people overseas at Christmas time. At first, I thought it was asking people to donate money to send food and warm clothing to such people.I was wrong.
It was a solicitation to send Bibles to poor people overseas, which would be personally presented to them by a "wonderful missionary". (Their exact words). Pardon me if I gag at this point. Never mind that what poor people the world over need most is food, clothing, job assistance, health care, education, and other practical things.
I've heard of missionaries who make people convert first before they'll give them any food, clothing, or other needed items. But this is the first ad I've heard where they're so blatant about it.
Give them a Bible and let them eat cake!
Thoughts?
Picking Your Battles Carefully
Clemson University's head football coach, Tommy Bowden, has drawn the attention of the ACLU, because of the coach's annual team activity, "Church Day". This event, which has occurred annually for the last several years, is an activity where the entire team attends services at a different local church. Attendance is voluntary, but is “strongly” recommended. Those who do not wish to attend must publicly opt out; simply not showing up is not considered acceptable.In a letter to the president of Clemson, which is a state-supported university, the vice president of the state ACLU stated, "“My belief as I understand things, the way it’s set up has an element of coercion to it,” he said. “Whether it’s intended or not, we’re concerned that the head coach of a nationally-visible football team strongly encourages people to do things and in the context of all his athletes, says, ‘You really ought to do this unless you want to stick your neck out and say no.'" He also urged that the activity be eliminated.
Clemson's response was not to ban Church Day, but neither will it provide university-owned and operated buses for the event. Those who attend must use their own vehicles.
I'm of two minds on this. Though I'm an agnostic, I see this as a minor thing, not really worth expending time and effort to fight. Clemson University has ensured that the activity is voluntary and has not allowed the use of its tax-supported resources (buses and drivers), which I think is a valid compromise.
But I can also see the ACLU's point. Though attendance is voluntary, requiring players to publicly opt out, is to compel them to publicly take a stand on an issue (religious belief or lack thereof) that they might prefer to remain private. And it's the coach's job to train and mold the students as football players -- it's not his place to mold or influence their religious or spiritual beliefs.
But, in the end, I think the ACLU would have done better to pick their battles more carefully. South Carolina is a conservative, highly religious red state, and the ACLU's criticism of Bowden has only so far served to draw sympathy for him and to bring all the "Christianity is under attack" wingnuts out of the woodwork.
Thoughts?
Why I Am An Agnostic
Over on Rubicon's blog, there is a lively debate as to existence of God, faith vs science, evolution vs creationism, and the like.After reading all the comments, I was inspired to write this entry, which I'd originally intended to merely be a comment over there.
Rubicon said:
Atheism is not a religion...it's a belief system, one ripe with absolute inconsistencies, and one that atheists have a real hard time arguing and or proving. You can argue and or debate in a political environment, and have some hope of getting your views across...try and debate or argue with an atheist and you'll soon become the biggest loser.
That's why I'm an agnostic. I don't think there's enough conclusive proof either way to say that God does or does not exist. I think that extreme fundamentalists of all religions (note that I said fundamentalists, not all adherents of religion) and extreme atheists both are arrogant in their black and white, yes/no view of the world.
Though I'm assuredly a skeptic, I cannot comfortably close and lock the door completely on the idea of some sort of Higher Power, or God. Science cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God any more that religion can prove the validity of its claims. So, the jury is out until something comes along that can prove it one way or the other. I'll just keep a skeptical, but open to change, mind for now.
With that in mind, let me go on to say what I do believe. One question I've pondered is why does religion exist in the first place? I've concluded that religion serves two major purposes, one benign, the other malign.
I think religion evolved among the ancients, where there was little science to understand the world around them, as a way to explain the unexplainable and to provide comfort to people as they dealt with the many hardships of life. Though science today has explained much of what was inexplicable to the ancients, much still remains unknown and unexplainable today, though it will lessen even more in the years to come. I doubt, however, that everything will ever be known to humanity. There will always be some mystery to life, however minuscule it may eventually come to be. And life will always have hardships, so religion in its benign sense can still function as a source of comfort for many people.
However, religion has most assuredly had a dark side throughout its history. And humanity has seen much more of negative religion than positive religion. Malign religion acts to control people, to keep them in line. Religion has been a perfect vehicle over the millennia for those in power to justify whatever they wanted to impose upon a nation's people, however malevolent. In ancient times, just to proclaim that "God said it" was to give unequivocal authority in a way that no secular body of laws could ever hope to accomplish. Fundamentalism, in all its forms, remains today the descendant of the original forms of malign religion in that it serves or hopes to serve as an inflexible vehicle for social control, rather than as a source of comfort....of grace, if you will.
As an agnostic, I neither revere the Bible, nor do I see it as total rubbish. I see it as a entirely human document, flawed and riddled with inconsistency. It is in no way "inerrant" or inspired by God -- indeed, if it had been, I think an omnipotent being would have come up with something better: consistent and seamless. The writers may have been inspired by their faith to write the documents that were later gathered together as "the Bible"; but that's in no way the same as being directly inspired by any supernatural being. I also think that if there is a God that He/She/It cannot be limited by the Bible or any other tangible, finite object. Indeed, many fundamentalists are guilty of bibliolatry; that is, of making an idol of the Bible and limiting God to its pages.
However, I don't think the Bible is entirely useless, either. I think it's worthy of study as a historical document, to see how the people of that time lived; their culture, literature, ethics, and psychology. It's also essential to study it to see how it's affected society and law in the years since its introduction. Whether or not one is a believer, we cannot discount its influence on modern society.
I believe that if God exists that He/She/It and Jesus are quite a bit different than what fundamentalists would have us to believe. I would think that experiencing God isn't or shouldn't be a "one size fits all" experience for believers, but that it's a personal and private thing, different for each person. Nor do I believe that some people are saved, while others are going to hell -- if there's an afterlife and/or a heaven, I believe that it's for everyone. (To read more detail into this, see my Sept. 18 entry, "Why Human Nature Doesn't Need Salvation")
I respect Jesus as a philosopher who contributed much to the ethical understanding of humanity, but I don't believe in the supernatural claims about him. I don't believe that he was the literal son of any supernatural being, the virgin birth, nor do I believe that he rose from the dead as described in the Bible. However, I don't think that disbelief in any of those things takes anything away from the core ethical principles that he taught. You don't have to believe that his mother conceived him as a virgin in order to believe in "Love thy neighbor as yourself".
To use the example of evolution vs creationism as an illustration of the black and white thinking on both sides, I believe in evolution, but I'm open to the idea that it's possible that some supernatural being/God set it all in motion in the beginning, then stood back and allowed nature to take its course. Lisa and Aielman presented this view over at Rubicon's blog:
Aielman said:
I ...realized that science and religion don't have to conflict at all, especially when you consider the metaphorical nature of the creation.
I have no problem believing that Darwin was correct, just like I have no problem believing that 6 days was a metaphor to explain to a technologically and scientifically ignorant primative man how easy it was for an infinite being like God to make the universe.
I have no problem believing that a day for someone who is outside of time, could be 40 million years for those who aren't. Or that, once creating them, that an infinite being would work within the boundaries of the physical laws in order to do his work.
Aiel hit upon one of the main weaknesses of fundamentalism in their literal approach to the Bible as a static object. To read every word in the Bible literally as if it were a math textbook, to focus on the examples and illustrations of principles, rather than on the principles themselves is to freeze it in time, removing its relevance to people today. When you read it as metaphors that illustrate principles, it has something to say to people today.
I've written quite a novel and I could write volumes more about my agnostic approach to religion, but I'll stop for now. If you're interested, read the entries under my "religion" category that will further get into some of the things I've touched upon in this entry.
Evangelical Scholar Rethinks Divorce
It seems as if some conservative evangelical Christians may be coming to the view that one cannot always take the Bible literally, at face value. It seems as if some conservative evangelicals are reconsidering what it meant by the Bible passages concerning divorce.Last month, Christianity Today featured an article, "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce." In this article, the author, David Instone-Brewer, focuses on the two Bible passages that the most extremely conservative of Christians still use today as a scriptural justification to ban divorce.
In Matthew, the Pharisees ask Jesus, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?", to which Jesus is credited as having responded, "Whoever divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, commits adultery." In First Corinthians, Paul later asserted that a Christian is no longer bound to a non-Christian spouse who abandons them.
Instone-Brewer, puts forth the idea that Jesus' questioners were not asking him whether there was any cause at all for divorce, but whether he supported something called "any-cause" divorce, a term a little bit like "no-fault" that allowed husbands to divorce wives for any reason at all. He further asserted that Jesus' "no" was a response to the no-fault idea; that his "except for sexual indecency" condition was not the sole exemption from a blanket prohibition, but merely his reiteration of one of several divorce conditions in the Old Testament. Instone-Brewer gave four grounds for divorce he found affirmed in both Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.
Indeed, to allow for adultery and not physical abuse would be inhumane: how could a loving God forbid divorce, even by omission, in cases of wife-beating, or of abandonment by a Christian spouse?
Catholicism bans divorce entirely, and extreme fundamentalist Protestants adhered to a literal interpretation of scripture. As a case in point, it was common as recently as 30 years ago for fundamentalist pastors to counsel battered women to return home to their abusive husbands and to tell them to be more submissive so that he'd not have cause to beat them. Some slightly more "enlightened' fundamentalists would allow for divorce in extreme cases, but would mandate that the divorced person not ever remarry.
Instone-Brewer's article indicates that even the most hidebound denominations can eventually accept reality and to finally take a humane approach and use some common sense in reponse to social issues in today's society.
And statistics indicate that most fundamentalists ignore the traditional teachings, anyway: polls released by the Barna Research Group in 2001, showed that the divorce rate for evangelicals has been as high or higher than the national average.
This isn't the first time, they've budged and given in to reality. Christians once believed in the divine right of kings, but that went by the wayside a couple of centuries ago. Similarly, as recently as the middle sixties, fundamentalists still asserted that racial segregation was God's plan and spoke out against "interracial" marriage -- read some of Jerry Falwell's old sermons from that era if you don't believe me -- even though more enlightened Christians began realizing that racism was wrong as early as the 18th century;.
And if Christianity is to survive as a dynamic faith and not die of obdurate "static-ness", they'll do so again. The most likely issues where they'll likely eventually give in to common sense are the ideas of women's equality in marriage and to accept same-sex marriage.
We can only hope.
What's Your Religious Philosophy?
| You are Agnostic |
 You're not sure if God exists, and you don't care.For you, there's no true way to figure out the divine. You rather focus on what you can control - your own life. And you tend to resent when others "sell" religion to you. |
All Roads Lead to Rome
"Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes."
--George Carlin
--George Carlin
Christianity is unique among the world's major religions in that many of its denominations place a strong emphasis on evangelism. That is, actively trying to "sell" their religion to non-believers and those of other religions, attempting to get them to convert and believe likewise. The more conservative the denomination, the stronger the focus is on evangelism. It is particularly strong among Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, both of which are considered by some to be offshoot derivatives of Christianity and not part of mainstream Christendom.
Other major religions do not actively seek to gain converts, for the most part. Converts are accepted and welcomed, but it is always the convert who seeks out knowledge and initiates the process of conversion. The attitude is "We're here, this is what we believe, ask questions, then decide for yourself". However, you'll never see a Jew or a Buddhist, going from door to door aggressively trying to sell their religion to others. They are apparently content to allow others to determine their own religious paths, if any.
In the Bible Jesus said, "'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."
In other words, Jesus is waiting for people to come to him; he doesn't say, "Behold, I come to the door and break it down and come in". One doesn't need to "sell" Christianity, Christ's words are there for anyone to study and should stand on their own merits -- that's the "knock" part. Whether or not to "open the door" (study and/or convert) should be initiated by the would-be convert.
For myself, the only religion I need is expressed in the Golden Rule; to treat others as we would wish to be treated. I find it highly relevant that this sentiment is expressed in nearly every religion and ethical system on the planet. So, I think it matters little which religious tradition one chooses to practice, if any, as the essential ethics are universal. All roads lead to Rome and all that, you know.
Thoughts?
Human Nature Doesn't Need Religious Salvation
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
~ Gene Roddenberry
~ Gene Roddenberry
The quote above expresses succinctly one of the problems I've always had with the traditional formula for Christianity. That is, I don't understand why it's necessary for humans to be "saved" or "redeemed" from their supposedly sinful natures, nor do I see why Jesus had to die on the cross.
If humanity is imperfect, I can see two reasons why this is so, neither of which would require us having to apologize and "repent" from being what we are. That is, supposing that God is real and we are God's creations.
One, as Roddenberry said, is that God made a mistake, in which case, it's not our fault we are the way we are, and there's no need to repent for not having been created perfect. But I find this highly unlikely, if God is the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God that Christianity has always claimed God to be.
I think the second reason is more plausible. That is, I think that if God is real, that we were designed to be imperfect from the get-go intentionally. Perfect people would be boring and static, unable to change and grow, or to make more of themselves. That would be pretty boring and life would be essentially pointless that way. As the imperfect beings that we are, we are like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to eventually get with each newborn baby. Our lives are not mapped out for us ahead of time to follow a perfect, predictable path.
So, again, there's no need to to be "saved" from our essential natures, but rather to try to live life the best way we can with what we've been given and to make the most of what we have.
Thoughts?
Fundamentalist Bizarreness
While listening to talk radio for blogging fodder last night, I tuned to the Focus on the Family show. This organization is so diametrically opposed to my worldview, that I usually listen in stunned amazement, much in the same way one rubbernecks a trainwreck.When I tuned in, they were interviewing this woman who made the assertion that if a couple was not ready to have children, then they shouldn't get married, either. She said that they should wait until they are ready for children or to call off the marriage altogether.
Where to begin?
For one thing, the vast majority of people, even Christians, do not wait until their wedding nights to first have sex, especially considering that most people don't get married until a decade and more beyond when they go through puberty. They need to wake up and acknowledge reality.
Secondly, there IS such a thing as birth control. And this applies to the few that wait until marriage to have sex as well. A woman who waits until her wedding night can get herself on the pill a month or two before her wedding day, so there's no excuse for getting pregnant before you are ready. Similarly, men can use condoms.
Married or single, there's no reason for anyone to have children before they are ready.
Thirdly, many people don't want to have kids at all, but they do want to get married for whatever reason. To say that people should not get married until they're ready to have children is to say that marriage and, by extension, sex is only for the purposes of procreation.
Conversely, there are also people who want kids, but don't want to be married.
Focus on the Family has other similar, bizarre ideas about marriage and sex on their website. For instance, one article says it's a good idea to get married just so that you can have sex:
Sexual sin is serious business, resulting in severe spiritual, physical, emotional and relational consequences. God's best antidote is marriage. Just because our culture seems to think it's fine to wait until you're nearly thirty years old to take this step doesn't mean you should ignore what you know is obvious: God designed you for sexual relations; God limits all sexual activity to marriage; and if you're finding it difficult to control yourself sexually, He gives clear advice: Find somebody to marry.
I don't know about you, but I think getting married just so you can get laid is a pretty poor reason and a recipe for later divorce.
I think it's much more sensible to engage in safe sex either with one partner at a time or a variety of partners when you're single, so that when and if you are ready to marry, you will do so for the right reasons and not just because you're so horny you're about to burst.
Thoughts?
Looney Letter to the Editor
While reading the letters to the editor section of my local paper recently, I came upon a letter that was so ignorant as almost not to be believed. The letter writer was a name familiar to me; a woman who has been going around stirring up shit in my town for years. I first became aware of her over a year ago when she unsuccessfully led a campaign to drive a store that sells sexy lingerie and sex toys out of business.This time, she decided to attack Harry Potter ..... a fictional character. Her letter reads:
America has given herself over to sorcery if the millions spent for Harry Potter indicate anything. Some think it’s just entertainment. The Bible issues stern warnings against sorcery: “Then will I come near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers, against false swearers and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless…” (Malachi 3:5)
I believe God’s marking angels that have charge over each city are now marking those who groan over America’s gross sins. Judgment must soon follow and it has begun at God’s house.
Terrorists are here and marking cities also. But few are taking this seriously. Many are benumbed with Harry Potter or too busy screaming at President Bush, “Get out of the war!”
Our great opportunity in this window before the next attack is to repent. Jesus Christ, the only way to God, is still crying out: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Is anyone listening?
That's right -- terrorists attacked this country because Americans were reading Harry Potter! I've heard some conspiracy theories in my time, but this one takes the cake. This woman is as nutty as squirrel shit in my opinion.
But there is hope. The paper had a reply from what seems to be a teen reader of Harry Potter and also a Christian:
I am a Christian and I LOVE Harry Potter. Do I worship him? No! Do I believe it is all real? No! Get a life!!! It is a FICTIONAL story. For those too "ignorant" to know what that means..it means the story is NOT TRUE. It is MADE-UP. It is a FAIRY TALE. The "Rev" is the reason people are looking down on Christians. Concentrate your efforts on REAL problems and not made-up ones.
This young woman makes a good point in that rantings like the original letter do absolutely nothing for the cause of Christianity.
Thoughts?
Fair and Balanced?
While at the DMV today, I noticed a sign on the wall which showed two different license plates, with the words, "Which one do you want? They cost the same!" The sign showed both the standard state plate, plus another plate that proclaimed, "In God We Trust".
My state, like all US states, offers several different license plate designs in addition to the standard state plate. But these specialty plates usually cost quite a bit more than the standard plate. Also, none of the other specialty plates available were shown anywhere in plain sight. One apparently must ask to see the designs, unlike with the God plate, which this sign called special attention to.
Irritated at this apparent violation of the separation of church and state, I went to the DMV website when I got home to look at all the specialty plates offered. To my surprise, there was an offering for secular humanists, with the words "In Reason We Trust":
At first glance, it appears that the state has been fair to offer plates for both religious people and for humanists. But South Carolina manages to subvert the idea of fairness, while at the same time technically upholding it.
By offering both plates, they are being fair. But there are several factors that clearly indicate that the state favors the God plate over the humanist plate.
The first is cost. The God plate costs the same as the standard plate, while the humanist plate costs several dollars more.
The second is availability. The God plate is available to everyone, but the humanist plate is only available to those who are members of an organization, "Secular Humanists of the Low Country".
The third is visibility. The God plate is shown on a poster that is clearly visible to all vistors to the DMV, which calls attention to its low cost. The humanist plate is on an unseen sheet of paper or in a catalogue, which a person must request to see. The average person visiting the DMV will have no idea that a humanist plate is even available.
Is this fair or balanced?
I think not.
Bathing Suit or Potato Sack?
It's no surprise that many fundamentalists find currently fashionable women's swimsuits, even the most conservative styles, to be unacceptably immodest. In reaction to this, some have come up with their own styles, which they consider to be properly "modest" beach wear.
Yes, these are supposed to be bathing suits. They expect women to SWIM while wearing all this cloth. These suits are modest all right -- they'd fit right in on the beach of 1897. But in 2007, they're bug-ugly as hell; the potato sack of swimsuits. And I would imagine they'd get waterlogged in short order, dragging the wearer down.
In contrast, the following suits from the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s are quite modest compared to today's suits, but are positively racy compared to the fundamentalist "burkinis" above. I've got a picture of my mother at around 18 wearing a suit very much like the yellow one below.
1920s suit
1930s suit
1940s suit
I find it both hilarious and absurd when a bathing suit my grandmother might have worn in the 1920s and one my mother would have worn in the 1940s would be considered "immodest" by fundamentalists today. Surely, anyone with any sense would realize that a more modest alternative to a thong bikini need not be a "burkini".
One of the stated goals of the company that sells these monstrosities, "Wholesome Wear", was to create a suit where undue attention would not be paid to the body, that their suits would "highlight the face, not the body". But anyone showing up at a beach in one of these getups is guaranteed to get a LOT of unwanted attention -- they might as well show up in a Civil War hoopskirt. They'll get MORE attention, not less, which defeats their stated goal. But I suppose they believe that being laughed at is preferable to being lusted after, who knows?
Thoughts?
Some Thoughts On Religion
After reading posts on religion some time ago on other blogs, I was inspired to share a few of my own thoughts. One thing that a blogger said in particular got me to thinking:THAT'S my big problem with organized religion, the "sheep-like" mentality of it. I can't take what one man says to me as biblical fact, maybe I've grown bitter I don't know. It seems to me that if God will speak to me, then HE will be the one speaking to me. A mortal man claiming to know God's will and attempting to convey that message to me leaves me very skeptical. How much of a personal slant does he give to it?
Exactly. That’s how I’ve always felt as well. I’ve never thought that religion or spirituality is, or should be, a “one size fits all” matter. Whatever Higher Power exists can certainly relate to each one of us on an individualized basis and this is reflected in the numerous religions and personal philosophies that exist on this planet. As there are different people, there are different ways of relating to the infinite.
And this brings me to the Christian Bible. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is “inerrant”, that is, they believe that the Bible is God’s own final word to humanity, that it was literally dictated to those people who wrote it, that it is without error or fault, and that every word in it is literally true.
There are several problems with this view. First of all, to say God speaks only through the Bible is to limit an infinite being to a tangible object; it puts the Bible before God. There’s a word for it -- “bibliolatry”, which means worshipping the Bible itself.
Secondly, what we now consider “the Bible”, was written over the space of several hundred years. Many parts of it were passed down orally for years before ever being written down. There’s also no doubt that the biblical authors injected their own opinions and interpretations into what they wrote, Paul, who never met Jesus personally, being a case in point.
Many sacred texts were produced in the early years of Christianity, in addition to the ones contained in the present Christian Bible. The compilation of texts into what now comprises the Bible was not accomplished until many years after Christ’s death. A group of clerics decided which sacred texts would be included and they naturally excluded and suppressed such sacred writings that contradicted their own opinions.
After it was decided which texts would comprise the Bible, it was translated numerous times over the centuries from early Greek and Hebrew versions which themselves were likely not original. Even within a single language, the Bible exists in several different versions.
With all this in mind, it’s more than a little presumptuous to call the Bible “inerrant”. Most of us have played the game “Whisper Down the Line” when we were children. That is, a story was told to one person, who whispered it to the next person, who in turn did the same to the next person, until the story had reached the last person. Invariably, the story was quite different by the time the last person told everyone what they'd heard. No doubt the same is true, even more so, for the Bible, considering how many more filters it has passed through until the present day.
Thirdly, to take every word in the Bible literally is ludicrous. “The Bible means exactly what it says”, fundamentalists assert. The problem is that Christians have never been able to agree on just what that is, and many interpretations exist, all insisting that theirs is the only correct meaning. Beyond that, the Bible is full of allegory and parable, not meant to be taken literally, but to illustrate principles. And we must remember it was written in a cultural and historical milieu vastly different from our own. It also has contradictions and records things offensive to modern people.
For example, we are told that if our eyes cause us to sin, we are to pluck them out. Those who dash out the brains of the enemies’ children against a wall are called blessed in the Bible. People are commanded not to wear two different types of cloth together. Women are told they may not teach or speak in church and that they must obey their husbands because God only speaks to them through their husbands, slaves are told to obey their masters, that kings have a divine right to rule, and so on.
Christians no longer believe in slavery and the divine right of kings, and progressive Christians now believe in the full independent humanity of women. The misuse of certain Bible texts to oppress various groups of people over the centuries is now rightly believed not to reflect the original intention and spirit of Christ’s teachings.
Of course, I could write much more about this, but it would be a lengthy, further digression of the inspiration I got from the blog posts I read. The above is merely the background of why I share his skepticism of organized religion.
For me, the Bible can be boiled down to “Treat others as you would wish to be treated”. I think if that’s all a person takes away from the Bible, then they’re doing well.
Christian Fundamentalists Protest Wal Mart Advertising
I'm guessing that many Christian fundamentalists have a lot of time on their hands and don't have enough worthwhile things to keep themselves occupied with, if the latest bit of news I've heard is any indication.A fundamentalist group, American Family Association, has been picketing Wal Mart because their holiday promotional advertising says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
Yes, you read it correctly. Instead of collecting food, clothing, and toys for poor families during the holiday season, they are wasting their time nitpicking over a major retailer's advertising content!
A spokeswoman for Wal Mart said that the contested advertising promotion set to run from mid-November to early January was simply misunderstood: its slogan is "home for the holidays." She went on to say that a slogan was chosen to incorporate all holidays between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day and that no religious slights were intended.
Indeed. These Christian fundamentalists apparently have forgotten that other faiths also celebrate holidays at this time of year, and that "Happy Holidays" is the best phrase to use to include everyone.
Happy holidays to all my readers.
Random Religious Rant
I work with several religious fundamentalists. None of them inspire the slightest desire in me to be likewise. If these particular people are an example of what it means to be “Christlike”, then I want no part of it.All of them, without exception, have a smug attitude, that their way is the only way, end of discussion. It’s like the bumper sticker I see every so often, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!“ They display an aura of smirky scorn to anyone who might believe differently, as if to disagree is to be sad and hopelessly confused.
None are able to articulate with any precision just why fundamentalist religion is important to them, let alone why it is the “one true way“. Any time I’ve asked why, I first get exasperation, as if it should be self-evident to any intelligent person. Then they regurgitate canned cliches which they’ve learned by rote.
I’ve always wondered why most people who turn to Christianity become fundamentalists, instead of embracing one of the more thoughtful, mainline denominations. I suspect the reason why “Christianity Lite” is so popular is precisely because of its simple black and white format. Everything is neatly explained in unequivocal terms, and there’s none of that pesky, complicated theology that makes a person have to think and -- perish the thought!-- question things.
One of the men at my job wants to become a Pentecostal preacher. It couldn’t possibly be because he wants to help people, if his behavior at work is any indication. He has no empathy for others, nothing that would inspire people to confide in him.
He joins with others in ridiculing one of our co-workers. This co-worker is good-natured, but rather simple minded, and he’s short and fat with no teeth. He’s ten years younger than me, but looks old enough to be my father.
This would-be preacher sees nothing wrong with jeering at this poor man, who simply smiles like a deer caught in the headlights because he doesn’t have the mental capacity to fight back.
He frequently tells me that sex is to be reserved solely for marriage, though he himself has fathered two children out of wedlock by two different women. I just laugh at him and continue on my merry way of debauchery.
He has no plans to attend a university to study theology, psychology, sociology or anything else that might be useful to a church leader, as he feels as if it’s unnecessary to someone who has a “true calling”.
I’m guessing he wants to become a preacher for the authority -- it’s the power that turns him on. I see this same lack of altruism in many others who have become fundamentalists -- they’re in it solely because they believe it’s their ticket to heaven, period. It‘s all about them.
Thoughts?
___________
Originally posted on 28 June 2005 at Blog City
The Libertine
Bedroom
Dossier
Library
Associates
Voyeur
My Other Blogs
Adventures of a LibertineA Libertine's Thoughts
Confessions of a Libertine
Categories
animalsblog stuff
books
culture/social issues
daily life
family
history
humor
language
libertine
news
people
personal
politics
quotes
rants
religion
reviews
sex
work
writing
Recent Entries
World Toilet DayLowest Common Denominator
Bar Hookups
Mormons and Marriage Discrimination
Bad Things Happen All At Once
Associates
kingofankhzarafa
jeremy
Chica
treasa
sexybeast
birdsnest
Eclectablog
elisataufik
elisla
sladewilson
grnidlady
Chandramoon
littleMissConfused
DeeJay
donald113
stefee
indigomoonarts
LauriesAsylum
sortingitout
kinnigurl
Cabinfeveronline
grimfairy
womanoffeathers
TrevaLVF
juancarlos
CertainInsanity
audsmom
jeeps
slayerbarbie
oldmanlincoln
thebigp
texican
Quacksplats
Patty
Vampyre
Rubicon
mandaj
selkie
deadonthesofa
Aielman
Lisa
Zoey
mothman
alittle
jelene
itsmylife
Minda
forinfnity
paledaemon
readerwil
windy
lisalisabobisa
tony
blogawards
Cam
Snowy
Your Two Cents
Weather
Stats
Good Reads
Blog Catalog
