File this under "ministry suicide": a priest in the New York archdiocese has filed suit, alleging that Cardinal Egan is soft on abusive priests, not because of a generalized "culture of secrecy," but because Cardinal Egan himself is gay, and doesn't want to break up the network.
To his credit, Father Bob Hoatson has apparently done some pretty solid work with abuse victims, as they have begun to come forward. And the Voice article linked above does make it sound as though he has been roughed up a little by the institution he has, inevitably, had to criticize.
But there are a few red flags here, too: Hoatson is, by his own description, a man on a mission -- and men on missions are frequently blinded by their enthusiasm. He also says he's an abuse victim himself, which raises issues about his ability to remain objective when evaluating the stories he must hear. And Hoatson's lawyer has already filed a suit with similar allegations against the Bishop of Albany, who authorized an outside investigation that cleared him. Finally, you have to wonder about people who file a case making dramatic allegations like this, when there is essentially no chance of proving their claims. Even an outsider can guarantee that no credible witnesses will trstify against Egan.
Still, let's assume the worst case: Hoatson is a fanatic, his lawyer is a publicity-hound, nobody testifies, the case falls apart before it ever gets to court. Even if all this is true, it doesn't -- necessarily -- mean that the claims are false. Sometimes you run out into the highway, screaming about the pod people, even though you know that they won't believe you. Not because you think you'll succeed, but because it's your duty as a human being.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
Get Your Girl On
New Hummer H3 ad goes like this:
Soccer Mom and son waiting on line; second kid jumps line; Soccer Mom says, "Johnny was next," and line-jumper's mom responds, a la schoolyard bully, "Now my son is next."
So Soccer Mom goes out, buys a big-ass SUV, and drives around smiling and feeling powerful, with little Johnny strapped in beside her. The closing tagline is "Get Your Girl On."
What does this ad tell us? Hmm. That some kids are bullies, and so are their moms -- but we already knew that. That SUVs are bascially chickmobiles -- we knew that, too, ever since Marge Simpson got her Canonero. But mostly, it tells us that we can drop even the pretense that luxury trucks are a hairy-chested he-man thing. Hummer doesn't even bother with that, and why should they? Nobody believed it anyway.
Watching the ad, I wanted nothing more than to run out and buy the smallest, most sensible car I could find -- a Prius, a SmartCar, anything -- just to prove that I wasn't an insecure, bullying, Hummer-driving woman. (Okay, I did allow that a sporty little 60s roadster would do the job -- something in an MG-B or a Karmann Ghia.) I wanted to shout, "I'm a man, dammit -- and I'm secure enough in my mascilinity to drive a small car."
And as for Arnold "Hummer-Enthusiast" Schwarzenegger, we ask: Who's the girly-man now, Arnie?
Soccer Mom and son waiting on line; second kid jumps line; Soccer Mom says, "Johnny was next," and line-jumper's mom responds, a la schoolyard bully, "Now my son is next."
So Soccer Mom goes out, buys a big-ass SUV, and drives around smiling and feeling powerful, with little Johnny strapped in beside her. The closing tagline is "Get Your Girl On."
What does this ad tell us? Hmm. That some kids are bullies, and so are their moms -- but we already knew that. That SUVs are bascially chickmobiles -- we knew that, too, ever since Marge Simpson got her Canonero. But mostly, it tells us that we can drop even the pretense that luxury trucks are a hairy-chested he-man thing. Hummer doesn't even bother with that, and why should they? Nobody believed it anyway.
Watching the ad, I wanted nothing more than to run out and buy the smallest, most sensible car I could find -- a Prius, a SmartCar, anything -- just to prove that I wasn't an insecure, bullying, Hummer-driving woman. (Okay, I did allow that a sporty little 60s roadster would do the job -- something in an MG-B or a Karmann Ghia.) I wanted to shout, "I'm a man, dammit -- and I'm secure enough in my mascilinity to drive a small car."
And as for Arnold "Hummer-Enthusiast" Schwarzenegger, we ask: Who's the girly-man now, Arnie?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Click This Link. Just Click It, Okay?
A reader (yay! We have one) sent a very thoughtful note, and a link to her own website. She sews custom-made vestments and paraments. And lemme tell ya, friends, that's a real blessing!
As some of you know, Father Anonymous represents the Lollipop Guild -- which is to say, he's something of a Munchkin. Even CM Almy's "small" chasuble drapes like a bedsheet. I have been known to trip over the ends of my stole now and then. Seriously.
(Which is why I gave up on those darn fringes. They just rip right off when you step on 'em).
So hats off to Lynn at Ichthys Designs for her elegant -- and largely fringless -- modern liturgical stylings.
As some of you know, Father Anonymous represents the Lollipop Guild -- which is to say, he's something of a Munchkin. Even CM Almy's "small" chasuble drapes like a bedsheet. I have been known to trip over the ends of my stole now and then. Seriously.
(Which is why I gave up on those darn fringes. They just rip right off when you step on 'em).
So hats off to Lynn at Ichthys Designs for her elegant -- and largely fringless -- modern liturgical stylings.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Mag Dogs and Englishmen . . .
. . . are getting harder to tell apart.
The infighting of the Anglican Communion becomes more rabid every time we check our email. Egg readers (btw: are there any?) already know that the decade-long struggle over sexuality was not resolved by the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention. Episcopalians had been invited to express regret for elevating Gene Robinson to the episcopate; they declined to do so, and their election of a female presiding bishop was seen in some corners as further provocation of, or at least a snub to, conservatives worldwide.
After the convention, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that the Anglican Communion adopt a two-tier structure, in which one tier (read, full members) took the conservative view of homosexuality, and a second (read, Americans and Canadians) took the liberal view. The first tier would be the Communion properly so-called; the second tier would consist of churches with historical connections to Anglicanism, rather like the Methodists. [Which raises a side question: Would Methodists be invited into this club? For that matter, why aren't they already Communion members?]
We'll say it again: Alas, poor Rowan Williams . . . a fellow of infinite jest and most excellent fancy.
The problem, of course, is that it isn't a communion if the members aren't in, well, communion with each other. And at this point, the US/Canada and Global South provinces pretty definitively out of communion. The schism is here, people, in all but name.
The only real question is whether the Church of England can continue to moderate between them, creating the possibility that the schism may eventually be ended -- or whether, as some signs suggest, the C of E will itself be torn apart, into warring camps with overlapping episcopal jurisdictions.
Where's that Elizabeth and her settlement when they need her?
The infighting of the Anglican Communion becomes more rabid every time we check our email. Egg readers (btw: are there any?) already know that the decade-long struggle over sexuality was not resolved by the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention. Episcopalians had been invited to express regret for elevating Gene Robinson to the episcopate; they declined to do so, and their election of a female presiding bishop was seen in some corners as further provocation of, or at least a snub to, conservatives worldwide.
After the convention, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that the Anglican Communion adopt a two-tier structure, in which one tier (read, full members) took the conservative view of homosexuality, and a second (read, Americans and Canadians) took the liberal view. The first tier would be the Communion properly so-called; the second tier would consist of churches with historical connections to Anglicanism, rather like the Methodists. [Which raises a side question: Would Methodists be invited into this club? For that matter, why aren't they already Communion members?]
We'll say it again: Alas, poor Rowan Williams . . . a fellow of infinite jest and most excellent fancy.
The problem, of course, is that it isn't a communion if the members aren't in, well, communion with each other. And at this point, the US/Canada and Global South provinces pretty definitively out of communion. The schism is here, people, in all but name.
The only real question is whether the Church of England can continue to moderate between them, creating the possibility that the schism may eventually be ended -- or whether, as some signs suggest, the C of E will itself be torn apart, into warring camps with overlapping episcopal jurisdictions.
Where's that Elizabeth and her settlement when they need her?
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Cult of Chairman W.
Harrowing Independence Day piece by Andrew Sullivan. Read it yourself -- here are some teaser quotes:
I do not believe that this president has ever acknowledged his own responsibility for the atrocities committed by Americans on his watch and under his command. He simply cannot process the fact that his own hand provided the signature that allowed torture to spread like a cancer through the military and CIA. ...
It is, I think, an integral part of his own world view, which is that of a former addict whose life was transformed by a rigid form of fundamentalist Christianity. “[My faith] frees me to enjoy life and not worry what comes next,” he told the reporter Fred Barnes. When you know you have been saved, when you know your motives are pure, when, as Bush so often puts it, your “heart” is a good one, then it follows that you cannot commit evil. Or if you do, it doesn’t attach to you. Somehow, it isn’t yours, even when it is.
In this sense fundamentalist Christianity can enable evil by promoting the lie that some humans have been saved from it. It misses the deeper Christian truth that even good people can do bad things. It forgets that what is noble about America is not that Americans are somehow morally better than anyone else. But that it is a country with a democratic system that helps expose the constancy of human evil, and minimise its power through the rule of law . . .
But here's the thing to which we would draw your attention: a sidebar provided by Religion News Blog, a cult-awareness website. RNB doesn't say who wrote this; it's not Sullivan's style. But it's worth quoting in its entirety:
While George Bush claims to be a Christian, his behavior is not unlike that of a cult leader. He apparently believes he is above the law, expects that people believe his lies (e.g. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or insisting the US does not use torture), and punishes those who express dissenting opinions. He preaches and promotes human rights violations (e.g. Guantanamo), all the while claiming that his actions are of great benefit to mankind. He is a warmonger abroad, and a power-grabber at home. No wonder many people currently view the US as a "bigger threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear program."
I do not believe that this president has ever acknowledged his own responsibility for the atrocities committed by Americans on his watch and under his command. He simply cannot process the fact that his own hand provided the signature that allowed torture to spread like a cancer through the military and CIA. ...
It is, I think, an integral part of his own world view, which is that of a former addict whose life was transformed by a rigid form of fundamentalist Christianity. “[My faith] frees me to enjoy life and not worry what comes next,” he told the reporter Fred Barnes. When you know you have been saved, when you know your motives are pure, when, as Bush so often puts it, your “heart” is a good one, then it follows that you cannot commit evil. Or if you do, it doesn’t attach to you. Somehow, it isn’t yours, even when it is.
In this sense fundamentalist Christianity can enable evil by promoting the lie that some humans have been saved from it. It misses the deeper Christian truth that even good people can do bad things. It forgets that what is noble about America is not that Americans are somehow morally better than anyone else. But that it is a country with a democratic system that helps expose the constancy of human evil, and minimise its power through the rule of law . . .
But here's the thing to which we would draw your attention: a sidebar provided by Religion News Blog, a cult-awareness website. RNB doesn't say who wrote this; it's not Sullivan's style. But it's worth quoting in its entirety:
While George Bush claims to be a Christian, his behavior is not unlike that of a cult leader. He apparently believes he is above the law, expects that people believe his lies (e.g. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or insisting the US does not use torture), and punishes those who express dissenting opinions. He preaches and promotes human rights violations (e.g. Guantanamo), all the while claiming that his actions are of great benefit to mankind. He is a warmonger abroad, and a power-grabber at home. No wonder many people currently view the US as a "bigger threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear program."
Least Probable Headline Ever
"Anglican Communion to Restore Nigeria's Glory."
Where to begin? Shall we begin with the concept of "Nigeria's lost glory?" Or go straight to Archbishop Akinola's contempt for both human rights and the position of his communion with regard to those rights? O shall we ... oh, never mind. You get the idea.
Where to begin? Shall we begin with the concept of "Nigeria's lost glory?" Or go straight to Archbishop Akinola's contempt for both human rights and the position of his communion with regard to those rights? O shall we ... oh, never mind. You get the idea.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Mother Jesus
Episcopal Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori has ... brass. Only days after her election, the London Times reports,
Dr Schori signalled her feminist credentials in a sermon that drew on the writings of the 14th-century Julian of Norwich. She said: “Mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.”
The General Convention has been a parlous affair, its every painful moment reported in the international media, and she in now one of the very few female Anglican primates in a communion that still has great reservations about women priests. You might have thought her sermon would have been something straightforward and unexceptionable, on the order of "Jesus loves me, this I know /For the Bible tells me so." In the ears of many traditionalists, "Mother Jesus" is decidedly exceptionable language.
But should it be?
The Times adds:
Liberals in Britain and America defended her sermon as being in a long tradition of writings by women theologians that use the metaphor of Jesus as mother.
Certainly true -- and Dame Julian is certainly common coin in modern Anglican circles. But the maternal Jesus is not merely the province of female theologians. The same image is used often in medieval writing by men, especially Cistercian monks, and most especially St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard is of such importance to the history of theology that he is sometimes called "the Last of the Fathers." There's a classic essay on how he used "Mother" as a term both for Jesus and for himself as abbot, by Caroline Walker Bynum.
Nor did the tradition die with Bernard. The same images -- of Jesus and the parish pastor as "Mothers" -- were used repeatedly by John Donne, the Dean of St Paul's and a key figure in conservative, high-church Anglicanism of the 17th century. (There is a chapter on this in my STM thesis, available for publication if anybody is interested . . . ).
I saw Bishop Schori bashed a little (okay, a lot) for using this image on a blog today. Even when somebody pointed out the Biblical use of maternal imagery for God, the blogger just kept going. But I suspect he was a Baptist, and may have lacked a keen sense of tradition. Bishop Schori, as an Anglican, is expected to preach with the whole cloud of witnesses around her -- and in this case, she evidently did.
Dr Schori signalled her feminist credentials in a sermon that drew on the writings of the 14th-century Julian of Norwich. She said: “Mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.”
The General Convention has been a parlous affair, its every painful moment reported in the international media, and she in now one of the very few female Anglican primates in a communion that still has great reservations about women priests. You might have thought her sermon would have been something straightforward and unexceptionable, on the order of "Jesus loves me, this I know /For the Bible tells me so." In the ears of many traditionalists, "Mother Jesus" is decidedly exceptionable language.
But should it be?
The Times adds:
Liberals in Britain and America defended her sermon as being in a long tradition of writings by women theologians that use the metaphor of Jesus as mother.
Certainly true -- and Dame Julian is certainly common coin in modern Anglican circles. But the maternal Jesus is not merely the province of female theologians. The same image is used often in medieval writing by men, especially Cistercian monks, and most especially St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard is of such importance to the history of theology that he is sometimes called "the Last of the Fathers." There's a classic essay on how he used "Mother" as a term both for Jesus and for himself as abbot, by Caroline Walker Bynum.
Nor did the tradition die with Bernard. The same images -- of Jesus and the parish pastor as "Mothers" -- were used repeatedly by John Donne, the Dean of St Paul's and a key figure in conservative, high-church Anglicanism of the 17th century. (There is a chapter on this in my STM thesis, available for publication if anybody is interested . . . ).
I saw Bishop Schori bashed a little (okay, a lot) for using this image on a blog today. Even when somebody pointed out the Biblical use of maternal imagery for God, the blogger just kept going. But I suspect he was a Baptist, and may have lacked a keen sense of tradition. Bishop Schori, as an Anglican, is expected to preach with the whole cloud of witnesses around her -- and in this case, she evidently did.
Alas, Poor Rowan
An English writer cheers the US Episcopal Church for refusing to be intimidated by other Anglican provinces, and -- more pointedly -- portrays the Archbishop of Canterbury as a man who has surrendered his ideals.
This may be an oversimplification. PECUSA is a mess right now, and it is hard to cheer much for a mess. And Archbishop Rowan Williams is attempting a task which seems frankly impossible: to hold both the CofE and the Anglican Communion together.
Still, Michael Hampson makes an interesting case. His brief piece includes some things I did not know, especially the Coelkin case (which is somewhere between Mother Angelica vs. Cardinal Mahoney and Lefebvre vs the Vatican). It is worth reading.
This may be an oversimplification. PECUSA is a mess right now, and it is hard to cheer much for a mess. And Archbishop Rowan Williams is attempting a task which seems frankly impossible: to hold both the CofE and the Anglican Communion together.
Still, Michael Hampson makes an interesting case. His brief piece includes some things I did not know, especially the Coelkin case (which is somewhere between Mother Angelica vs. Cardinal Mahoney and Lefebvre vs the Vatican). It is worth reading.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Spinning Clergy
So a couple of ministers make a movie about football. It gets a PG rating, which is about what they expected. Then, so far as we can tell, here's what happens:
The MPAA, which rates films, gives Facing the Giants a PG for "mature themes." These are pretty common in pictures about guys pounding the crap out of each other then getting naked and showering together. (See under: North Dallas Forty, or Cruising.)
But somehow, the religious themes of the movie also come up in conversation. So the producers decide that they got their rating based on religious bias, rather than the aforementioned pounding and showering. And they raise a big stink, and are joined by the usual crowd of thugs and morons, by which we mean the US House of Representatives.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., sent an angry letter to the MPAA. "If religion creates a warning for parents and kids and violence and bad language don't, this thing appears to me to be heading in the wrong direction, and I think most Americans would agree," Blunt said.
Can you smell the spin here, people? An indie flick about football is pretty ho-hum stuff; but an indie flick about football that's been censored by the evil ratings bureaucracy and defended by a few stalwart people of faith -- well, heck, that's a cause celebre. (Or would be, if Republicans could read French). It's all a crock, of course. That's not why they got the rating. But wouldn't it be cool if it were? Think of the tickets they'd sell, the church-group DVDs, the Hollywood offers. So even though it isn't true, they must have decided, let's just say it is.
And we'll even find a pet Congressman to go in on the gag. (Blunt knows from spin -- he's married to a tobacco lobbyist. Not Aaron Eckhardt, though.)
Here's the funniest part -- and we don't mean ha-ha-funny:
One of the filmmakers said he'd want to be warned if his children were going to see a film with a pro-Islamic message. "But our country wasn't founded on Islamic values," [said producer-star Alex Kendrick.] "It was founded on Judeo-Christian values."
This defender of free speech actually approves of warning moviegoers about religious content, provided it isn't his religion. Yeah, that's the spirit that made America great, isn't it?
The MPAA, which rates films, gives Facing the Giants a PG for "mature themes." These are pretty common in pictures about guys pounding the crap out of each other then getting naked and showering together. (See under: North Dallas Forty, or Cruising.)
But somehow, the religious themes of the movie also come up in conversation. So the producers decide that they got their rating based on religious bias, rather than the aforementioned pounding and showering. And they raise a big stink, and are joined by the usual crowd of thugs and morons, by which we mean the US House of Representatives.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., sent an angry letter to the MPAA. "If religion creates a warning for parents and kids and violence and bad language don't, this thing appears to me to be heading in the wrong direction, and I think most Americans would agree," Blunt said.
Can you smell the spin here, people? An indie flick about football is pretty ho-hum stuff; but an indie flick about football that's been censored by the evil ratings bureaucracy and defended by a few stalwart people of faith -- well, heck, that's a cause celebre. (Or would be, if Republicans could read French). It's all a crock, of course. That's not why they got the rating. But wouldn't it be cool if it were? Think of the tickets they'd sell, the church-group DVDs, the Hollywood offers. So even though it isn't true, they must have decided, let's just say it is.
And we'll even find a pet Congressman to go in on the gag. (Blunt knows from spin -- he's married to a tobacco lobbyist. Not Aaron Eckhardt, though.)
Here's the funniest part -- and we don't mean ha-ha-funny:
One of the filmmakers said he'd want to be warned if his children were going to see a film with a pro-Islamic message. "But our country wasn't founded on Islamic values," [said producer-star Alex Kendrick.] "It was founded on Judeo-Christian values."
This defender of free speech actually approves of warning moviegoers about religious content, provided it isn't his religion. Yeah, that's the spirit that made America great, isn't it?
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Searching the House
You know the story by now: FBI searches the office of a congressman. Congress raises a stink. Bureau chief and Attorney General threaten to resign if search is ruled illegal.
A couple of interesting thoughts present themselves. One is the studious secrecy of the Bush Administration itself. These people claim "executive privilege" at the drop of a hat, even for such basic details as which industry lobbyists the Veep meets with before making policy. Never mind the outright lies that Scott "Pudgie" McClellan used to tell in his effort to stonewall the Plame investigation. So is it just me, or is there a faint aroma of hypocrisy here?
After all, executive privilege exists so that the President and his team can do their work without coercion from the other branches. Although Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution doesn't specify that a congressman's chambers shall be off-limits to an Executive Branch investigation, it certainly tends in that direction. It exempts them from prosecution, or even questioning, for things they do on the floor of Congress. As with soveriegn or diplomatic immunity, legislators are freed from certain kinds of scrutiny in order to let them function independently. So you can see why Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi, strange bedfellows to be sure, are ticked off at the White House.
But let's give the devil his due. Rep. William Jefferson of Louisian is accused of accepting bribes. Does anybody actually doubt his guilt? I mean, the guy's a congressman. From Louisiana. Of course he took the money. So you can also see why he was under investigation in the first place, and why AG Gonzales and FBI Guy Mueller are ready to quit over this. He probably broke the law, they know it, and they want to put him in jail. Rightly so, if only the search were legal.
And oh my stars and garters, will you look at this. President Bush actually arranged a compromise -- a 45-day period for both sides to cool their jets. While it is a pleasant novelty to type the words "Bush" and "compromise" in the same sentence, let's be honest about this. Washington in general, and the House in particular, are places in which a lot of old grudges remain in play, seemingly without terminus. The two parties are still pissed at each other over Vietnam and Watergate, disasters which predate the birth of the average blogger. The Whitewater investigators spent six years looking into allegations that were already a decade old. The power elites have gotten over Teapot Dome, but only just.
So jets are going to cool in six weeks? We think not. This time-out is probably just a chance for both sides to marshall their forces. And remember, the sides in question aren't Republican versus Democrat. They are Executive versus Legislative -- or, it sometimes seems, autocrat versus .
But here's the silver lining: Gonzales and Mueller threatened to resign if they don't get their own way. So if Bush were a really smart politician, this could be a great opportunity. He could simply insist that the privileges of Congress be respected, and the seized documents be returned -- simultaneously striking a blow for the Constitution and forcing out the single most articulate spokesman for the illegal and immoral practice of torture that has helped to taint his administration's place in history and the good name of the United States.
Win-win, Mister President. Win-freaking-win.
A couple of interesting thoughts present themselves. One is the studious secrecy of the Bush Administration itself. These people claim "executive privilege" at the drop of a hat, even for such basic details as which industry lobbyists the Veep meets with before making policy. Never mind the outright lies that Scott "Pudgie" McClellan used to tell in his effort to stonewall the Plame investigation. So is it just me, or is there a faint aroma of hypocrisy here?
After all, executive privilege exists so that the President and his team can do their work without coercion from the other branches. Although Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution doesn't specify that a congressman's chambers shall be off-limits to an Executive Branch investigation, it certainly tends in that direction. It exempts them from prosecution, or even questioning, for things they do on the floor of Congress. As with soveriegn or diplomatic immunity, legislators are freed from certain kinds of scrutiny in order to let them function independently. So you can see why Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi, strange bedfellows to be sure, are ticked off at the White House.
But let's give the devil his due. Rep. William Jefferson of Louisian is accused of accepting bribes. Does anybody actually doubt his guilt? I mean, the guy's a congressman. From Louisiana. Of course he took the money. So you can also see why he was under investigation in the first place, and why AG Gonzales and FBI Guy Mueller are ready to quit over this. He probably broke the law, they know it, and they want to put him in jail. Rightly so, if only the search were legal.
And oh my stars and garters, will you look at this. President Bush actually arranged a compromise -- a 45-day period for both sides to cool their jets. While it is a pleasant novelty to type the words "Bush" and "compromise" in the same sentence, let's be honest about this. Washington in general, and the House in particular, are places in which a lot of old grudges remain in play, seemingly without terminus. The two parties are still pissed at each other over Vietnam and Watergate, disasters which predate the birth of the average blogger. The Whitewater investigators spent six years looking into allegations that were already a decade old. The power elites have gotten over Teapot Dome, but only just.
So jets are going to cool in six weeks? We think not. This time-out is probably just a chance for both sides to marshall their forces. And remember, the sides in question aren't Republican versus Democrat. They are Executive versus Legislative -- or, it sometimes seems, autocrat versus .
But here's the silver lining: Gonzales and Mueller threatened to resign if they don't get their own way. So if Bush were a really smart politician, this could be a great opportunity. He could simply insist that the privileges of Congress be respected, and the seized documents be returned -- simultaneously striking a blow for the Constitution and forcing out the single most articulate spokesman for the illegal and immoral practice of torture that has helped to taint his administration's place in history and the good name of the United States.
Win-win, Mister President. Win-freaking-win.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Neuhaus Defends Sex Abuser
To its credit, Benedict XVI's Vatican has done what John Paul's dared not: publicly disciplined a highly-placed figure accused of abusing young men under his religious care. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, has been "invited" to refrain from any public exercise of his priestly office, and turn to a life of "prayer and penitence." (Read the Vatican's press release).
The Times article gives details, but the bottom line is that at least nine former seminarians claim Maciel molested them. He denies the claims, as do his supporters -- well, of course he does. It seems John Paul was believed those denials. And Benedict, as a cardinal, had personally ended a 1999 proceeding against Maciel.
But as the monstrous reality of Rome's coverup culture has become more apparent, Cardinal Ratzinger re-opened the Maciel case, and talked about getting rid of "filth" in the Church. The Vatican statement expressly stated that, due to his age and ill-health, Maciel would be spared a trial -- but the implication is clearly that a trial might otherwise be forthcoming.
To be sure, some people don't think Benedict has gone far enough. "They have negotiated with a criminal," says one former priest. Well, yes. But district attorneys do that every time they offer a plea bargain -- and the guilty still get punished.
Here's the part that kills us, though. Maciel has a number of prominent defenders in the Catholic neo-con camp: think George Weigel, Bill Bennett, Mary Anne Glendon. (Where is Michael "Warmonger" Novak, we wonder?) One of these is Richard John Neuhaus, who seems to be getting a little weirder in his old age. Here are the money quotes:
On Friday, Father Neuhaus . . . said he still believed that the charges against Father Maciel were unfounded. "There is nothing in the Vatican statement that suggests that the word penance is meant as a punitive measure," he said.
Asked why the Vatican would take any action, he said, "It wouldn't be the first time that an innocent and indeed holy person was unfairly treated by church authority."
A little disingenuous, don't you think?
First, let's remember what penance is: turning to God and asking forgiveness. For what? For sins. The Vatican doesn't specify which sins -- nor would we ask it to -- but the invitation to penance is clearly offered as the result of an investigation and the alternative to a trial. So yes, there is something in the statement which suggests a punitive measure, even if it doesn't make such a claim expressly.
And second, if we are going to extend charity toward our neighbors, should we not begin by assuming that nine men are less likely to lie than a single one, and to assume that the Pope knows something about his own affairs?
The Times article gives details, but the bottom line is that at least nine former seminarians claim Maciel molested them. He denies the claims, as do his supporters -- well, of course he does. It seems John Paul was believed those denials. And Benedict, as a cardinal, had personally ended a 1999 proceeding against Maciel.
But as the monstrous reality of Rome's coverup culture has become more apparent, Cardinal Ratzinger re-opened the Maciel case, and talked about getting rid of "filth" in the Church. The Vatican statement expressly stated that, due to his age and ill-health, Maciel would be spared a trial -- but the implication is clearly that a trial might otherwise be forthcoming.
To be sure, some people don't think Benedict has gone far enough. "They have negotiated with a criminal," says one former priest. Well, yes. But district attorneys do that every time they offer a plea bargain -- and the guilty still get punished.
Here's the part that kills us, though. Maciel has a number of prominent defenders in the Catholic neo-con camp: think George Weigel, Bill Bennett, Mary Anne Glendon. (Where is Michael "Warmonger" Novak, we wonder?) One of these is Richard John Neuhaus, who seems to be getting a little weirder in his old age. Here are the money quotes:
On Friday, Father Neuhaus . . . said he still believed that the charges against Father Maciel were unfounded. "There is nothing in the Vatican statement that suggests that the word penance is meant as a punitive measure," he said.
Asked why the Vatican would take any action, he said, "It wouldn't be the first time that an innocent and indeed holy person was unfairly treated by church authority."
A little disingenuous, don't you think?
First, let's remember what penance is: turning to God and asking forgiveness. For what? For sins. The Vatican doesn't specify which sins -- nor would we ask it to -- but the invitation to penance is clearly offered as the result of an investigation and the alternative to a trial. So yes, there is something in the statement which suggests a punitive measure, even if it doesn't make such a claim expressly.
And second, if we are going to extend charity toward our neighbors, should we not begin by assuming that nine men are less likely to lie than a single one, and to assume that the Pope knows something about his own affairs?
Friday, May 19, 2006
Giuliani Proves Shakespeare Wrong
Rudy Giuliani, in a campaign speech for Ralph Reed, declared heterosexual marriage to be "inviolate." Oy, vey. Where to begin?
First: As the Times notes, Giuliani was finessing his long-standing support for gay civil unions. One has to assume that Reed's conservative supporters will see through this pretty quickly. And in a just world, support for Reed would alienate Giuliani's own moderate base.
Second: Giuliani is selling his soul by supporting Reed's homophobic Christianist campaign in Georgia. No surprise there; as we ramp up for the '08 Presidential campaign, souls are going for cheap. Anybody remember McCain's little visit to Liberty U.?
But here's where the rubber hits the road, people --
Third: Inviolate? What does this guy know about keeping marriage inviolate? Let's review.
(a) Giuliani's first marriage was to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi. Under canon law, this is grounds for an annullment, which he sought and received. Not right away, mind you, but after fourteen years together. Fourteen years. And -- key concept here -- he "learned" about the blood relationship and got the annullment while he was in the middle of an adulterous affair with TV personality Donna Hanover, whom he later married.
(b) Giuliani's second marriage, to Ms. Hanover, was an ugly thing. During his tenure as Mayor of New York, he was generally believed to be engaged in an affair with one of his subordinates, press secretary Crystyne Lategano, who later got a plum political appointment. They denied it all, to be sure, but nobody believed them. So there -- if the speculation is true -- we have adultery coupled with abuse of power coupled with nepotism and topped with an icing of lies.
(c) Even if the first affair isn't certain, the second is. While still married to Hanover, and still mayor, Giuliani started sleeping with Judith Nathan. (They marched in the St. Patrick's Day Parade together, for crying out loud -- the way normal mayors usually do with their wives. Oh, and he later married her.) Giuliani and Hanover had an ugly, public squabble over who could live in Gracie Mansion -- and of course, their kids got caught in the middle. In the divorce proceedings, he accused her of "cruel and inhuman treatment," while she accused him of "open and notorious adultery." Which argument was more convincing? Well, she gets a million dollars a year in alimony.
So. Rudy Giuliani is a serial adulterer, a liar, a man who doesn't mind dragging his kids through the mud that he creates with his disdain for marriage vows. And, since Rome won't annull his second marriage, he is also presumably unwelcome to receive communion in his own church.
So maybe this guy should keep his big mouth shut on the subject of making marriage "inviolate." In any case, his speech in Georgia proves that Shakespeare is wrong -- conscience doth NOT make cowards of us all. Or does that only work if you have a conscience?
First: As the Times notes, Giuliani was finessing his long-standing support for gay civil unions. One has to assume that Reed's conservative supporters will see through this pretty quickly. And in a just world, support for Reed would alienate Giuliani's own moderate base.
Second: Giuliani is selling his soul by supporting Reed's homophobic Christianist campaign in Georgia. No surprise there; as we ramp up for the '08 Presidential campaign, souls are going for cheap. Anybody remember McCain's little visit to Liberty U.?
But here's where the rubber hits the road, people --
Third: Inviolate? What does this guy know about keeping marriage inviolate? Let's review.
(a) Giuliani's first marriage was to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi. Under canon law, this is grounds for an annullment, which he sought and received. Not right away, mind you, but after fourteen years together. Fourteen years. And -- key concept here -- he "learned" about the blood relationship and got the annullment while he was in the middle of an adulterous affair with TV personality Donna Hanover, whom he later married.
(b) Giuliani's second marriage, to Ms. Hanover, was an ugly thing. During his tenure as Mayor of New York, he was generally believed to be engaged in an affair with one of his subordinates, press secretary Crystyne Lategano, who later got a plum political appointment. They denied it all, to be sure, but nobody believed them. So there -- if the speculation is true -- we have adultery coupled with abuse of power coupled with nepotism and topped with an icing of lies.
(c) Even if the first affair isn't certain, the second is. While still married to Hanover, and still mayor, Giuliani started sleeping with Judith Nathan. (They marched in the St. Patrick's Day Parade together, for crying out loud -- the way normal mayors usually do with their wives. Oh, and he later married her.) Giuliani and Hanover had an ugly, public squabble over who could live in Gracie Mansion -- and of course, their kids got caught in the middle. In the divorce proceedings, he accused her of "cruel and inhuman treatment," while she accused him of "open and notorious adultery." Which argument was more convincing? Well, she gets a million dollars a year in alimony.
So. Rudy Giuliani is a serial adulterer, a liar, a man who doesn't mind dragging his kids through the mud that he creates with his disdain for marriage vows. And, since Rome won't annull his second marriage, he is also presumably unwelcome to receive communion in his own church.
So maybe this guy should keep his big mouth shut on the subject of making marriage "inviolate." In any case, his speech in Georgia proves that Shakespeare is wrong -- conscience doth NOT make cowards of us all. Or does that only work if you have a conscience?
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
"Code" Encourages Interfaith Cooperation
Three cheers for "The Da Vinci Code!"
Sure, it's a crock of lies packaged as trashy fiction. Sure, the "Priory of Sion" doesn't exist, despite Dan Brown's claims. Sure, Opus Dei -- dubious though it may be -- is nothing like the organization the book depicts. Sure, albino monks all over the world feel personally discriminated against. And sure, I'll never again walk through the front door of a Gothic church without squirming.
But the book manages to tick off not only the usual Christian crowd -- the Catholic League, TV preachers, etc. -- but also a fair sample of the moderate mainline. By uniting the extremists and the moderates, it strikes a blow for Christian unity.
And better yet, it also ticks off Muslims. (Remember, Jesus PBUH is a prophet.) And we all know what Muslims do when they get angry, don't we? Hide your ambassadors and intelligence attaches -- embassies will burn.
In fact, with the respect for freedom we have come to expect from our Asian neighbors, there are loud calls to ban the movie version in India and Korea. What tickles the Egg is that these calls come both from Christians and from Muslims "in support of our Christian brothers."
As Isaiah says, the lion shall burn embassies with the lamb.
So let's hear it for the Code -- a media product so objectionable it can turn age-old enemies into riot-prone enemies of free speech.
Sure, it's a crock of lies packaged as trashy fiction. Sure, the "Priory of Sion" doesn't exist, despite Dan Brown's claims. Sure, Opus Dei -- dubious though it may be -- is nothing like the organization the book depicts. Sure, albino monks all over the world feel personally discriminated against. And sure, I'll never again walk through the front door of a Gothic church without squirming.
But the book manages to tick off not only the usual Christian crowd -- the Catholic League, TV preachers, etc. -- but also a fair sample of the moderate mainline. By uniting the extremists and the moderates, it strikes a blow for Christian unity.
And better yet, it also ticks off Muslims. (Remember, Jesus PBUH is a prophet.) And we all know what Muslims do when they get angry, don't we? Hide your ambassadors and intelligence attaches -- embassies will burn.
In fact, with the respect for freedom we have come to expect from our Asian neighbors, there are loud calls to ban the movie version in India and Korea. What tickles the Egg is that these calls come both from Christians and from Muslims "in support of our Christian brothers."
As Isaiah says, the lion shall burn embassies with the lamb.
So let's hear it for the Code -- a media product so objectionable it can turn age-old enemies into riot-prone enemies of free speech.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Two Dumb Complaints
A Sri Lankan bishop postpones his trip to Britain because he believes that being fingerprinted at the embassy is "humiliating" and "discriminatory." Get real. At various foreign borders, I have been searched, probed, detained, lied to, denied a passport stamp, held at gunpoint, and robbed. Friends have had drugs planted in their baggage so that they could be forced to pay a bribe (the Peruvian police take credit cards). Those were humiliating and discriminatory. But offering my fingerprints in an effort to make international travel safer strikes me as the least a person of good consciece can do in these parlous times. Or, put bluntly: Wake up and smell the terrorism, Your Grace.
A Navy chaplain complains of religious persecution. He argues that the Navy wants to discipline him for praying in uniform. But this is disingenuous; he happened to pray while appearing in uniform at a politically-motivated press conference. And -- as the Right has recently taking to reminding retired generals -- there are strict rules governing the involvment of the military in civilian political affairs. (The difference being that the said generals have returned to civilian life, while Lt. Klingenschmitt remains on active duty. For now.)
Oh, and be alert: Friends in military chaplaincy have been worrying for years about the grpwing dominance of fundmentalists with a a hard-right political agenda. (See under: Air Force Academy). Klingenschmitt is a symptom, not the problem.
A Navy chaplain complains of religious persecution. He argues that the Navy wants to discipline him for praying in uniform. But this is disingenuous; he happened to pray while appearing in uniform at a politically-motivated press conference. And -- as the Right has recently taking to reminding retired generals -- there are strict rules governing the involvment of the military in civilian political affairs. (The difference being that the said generals have returned to civilian life, while Lt. Klingenschmitt remains on active duty. For now.)
Oh, and be alert: Friends in military chaplaincy have been worrying for years about the grpwing dominance of fundmentalists with a a hard-right political agenda. (See under: Air Force Academy). Klingenschmitt is a symptom, not the problem.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Episcopalians Dodge Bullet.
For now.
The California Diocese elected Mark Andrus as its next bishop. There were seven candidates; of those, two were gay men and one was a lesbian. One of the men was black. So this was, as these things go, a very diverse slate.
[Note to self: Aren't you sick of using "diverse" so superficially? For all I know, the whole group held the precise same social and theological views, exercised the same leadership in the same way, and so forth. There are other kinds of diversity than race, sex and nookie -- but mainline American Christianity doesn't care about anything else anymore.]
Anyway, the Spirit moved the diocese to choose Andrus, thereby postponing -- sorry, I meant averting -- a schism in the Anglican Communion. That was, surely, not the purpose of the vote -- the people needed a bishop, and sought the best person for the job. Averting schism was just a happy side effect. (Which is why, sooner or later, there will be a schism.)
Meanwhile, the Anglicans in Canada have come out against the proposed Nigerian law that would restrict basic human rights not only for gay people but for churches that serve them and newspaers that write about them. They "disassociated" themselves from the Church of Nigeria, which supports the law. Oh, yeah. There's a schism coming.
The California Diocese elected Mark Andrus as its next bishop. There were seven candidates; of those, two were gay men and one was a lesbian. One of the men was black. So this was, as these things go, a very diverse slate.
[Note to self: Aren't you sick of using "diverse" so superficially? For all I know, the whole group held the precise same social and theological views, exercised the same leadership in the same way, and so forth. There are other kinds of diversity than race, sex and nookie -- but mainline American Christianity doesn't care about anything else anymore.]
Anyway, the Spirit moved the diocese to choose Andrus, thereby postponing -- sorry, I meant averting -- a schism in the Anglican Communion. That was, surely, not the purpose of the vote -- the people needed a bishop, and sought the best person for the job. Averting schism was just a happy side effect. (Which is why, sooner or later, there will be a schism.)
Meanwhile, the Anglicans in Canada have come out against the proposed Nigerian law that would restrict basic human rights not only for gay people but for churches that serve them and newspaers that write about them. They "disassociated" themselves from the Church of Nigeria, which supports the law. Oh, yeah. There's a schism coming.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
How "Opal Mehta" Got Published, Got Revealed, and Got Yanked Off the Shelves
By now you've heard about 19-year-old Kaavya Viswanathan and her novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life. The big news is that Viswanathan plagiarized sections of her book from another writer, Megan McCafferty. Now it turns out she also lifted a few chunks from Sophie Kinsella's The Princess Diaries and Salman Rushdie's Haroun and the Sea of Stories.
That's the big news. But let's talk about the smaller, but still interesting, parts of the story.
First, money. Her publishers paid Viswanathan something like $500,000 as an advance. She's 19 years old. There are some very, very good writers in this country who never earn a dollar for their work, and many of the best never make a living at it. So whose bright idea was it to ante up half a million dollars for a teenager's first novel?
Second, Harvard's literary standards. I hope her English professors take note of the fact that she's ripping off crap. (Not you, Salman.) If you're going to steal, baby, why not steal from Flaubert?
Third, Harvard's ethical standards. (And everybody else's.) I recently taught course at an up-and-coming third-tier private college. Two sections, 25 students each. I had four cases of plagiarism. In each case, the boneheads had simply pasted in material they copied from the Internet -- Wikipedia, mostly, and one Wiccan site. (Something about that "wick" sound, I guess). They cried crocodile tears when I gave them "D"s, not seeming to understand (despite my rather stern comments and repeated references to both Turabian and the student handbook) that the normal punishment for plagiarism on a college term paper is expulsion. Or at least it was when I was a young 'un.
"What do you expect from these kids," I said to myself. "They're studying at Party U.; it's not like this place is ... I dunno ... Harvard." Except it turns out that it IS as though that place were Harvard, with less money.
My students claimed, without exception, that nobody had ever explained to them why it is wrong to take credit for things that somebody else has written. They had, by the way, gone to good high schools, several of them church-affiliated. So from the middle of American higher education to the top, it appears that there is a student culture which takes for granted what we old fogeys still call plagiarism. Call it hommagerie, or the age of sampling. Call it by the polite Biblical-studies term of pseudepigrapha. But either way, look for many sequels to Opal Mehta.
That's the big news. But let's talk about the smaller, but still interesting, parts of the story.
First, money. Her publishers paid Viswanathan something like $500,000 as an advance. She's 19 years old. There are some very, very good writers in this country who never earn a dollar for their work, and many of the best never make a living at it. So whose bright idea was it to ante up half a million dollars for a teenager's first novel?
Second, Harvard's literary standards. I hope her English professors take note of the fact that she's ripping off crap. (Not you, Salman.) If you're going to steal, baby, why not steal from Flaubert?
Third, Harvard's ethical standards. (And everybody else's.) I recently taught course at an up-and-coming third-tier private college. Two sections, 25 students each. I had four cases of plagiarism. In each case, the boneheads had simply pasted in material they copied from the Internet -- Wikipedia, mostly, and one Wiccan site. (Something about that "wick" sound, I guess). They cried crocodile tears when I gave them "D"s, not seeming to understand (despite my rather stern comments and repeated references to both Turabian and the student handbook) that the normal punishment for plagiarism on a college term paper is expulsion. Or at least it was when I was a young 'un.
"What do you expect from these kids," I said to myself. "They're studying at Party U.; it's not like this place is ... I dunno ... Harvard." Except it turns out that it IS as though that place were Harvard, with less money.
My students claimed, without exception, that nobody had ever explained to them why it is wrong to take credit for things that somebody else has written. They had, by the way, gone to good high schools, several of them church-affiliated. So from the middle of American higher education to the top, it appears that there is a student culture which takes for granted what we old fogeys still call plagiarism. Call it hommagerie, or the age of sampling. Call it by the polite Biblical-studies term of pseudepigrapha. But either way, look for many sequels to Opal Mehta.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Nigerian Bishop Hates Sin AND Sinner
"Hate the sin, love the sinner." That was the mantra of my conservative seminary classmates, tossed around so blithely in discussions of homosexuality that it came to induce instant nausea. And yet, let's be honest, it does describe a defensible position, in discussions far more wide-ranging than those of mere sexual morality.
The anti-gay crowd has hewn to this line in the debates which are slowly dividing worldwide Anglicanism (here's the New Yorker's take, reasonably good by secular-press standards). They have inisted that while they consider homesexuality sinful, they continue to care pastorally for gay people, and object to any legal or civil institutions which "victimize or diminish" them.
Or at least they did. Seems that Nigerian archbishop Peter Akinola, a leader of the anti-gay forces, "recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new law that would criminalize same-sex marriage in his country and deny gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law would also infringe upon press and religious freedom by authorizing Nigeria's government to prosecute newspapers that publicize same-sex associations and religious organizations that permit same-sex unions."
The quotation is from an op-ed piece by Bishop Chane of Washington, which has appeared in the WashPost and on the Episcopal Life website.
Apparently, the man who has become the living symbol of the global south's position on sexual morality is also happy to associate himself with the global south's endemic contempt for human rights. I hope that conservatives within America's Episcopal Church think long and hard about whether Akinola is somebody they want to, er, climb into bed with. Even proverbially.
The anti-gay crowd has hewn to this line in the debates which are slowly dividing worldwide Anglicanism (here's the New Yorker's take, reasonably good by secular-press standards). They have inisted that while they consider homesexuality sinful, they continue to care pastorally for gay people, and object to any legal or civil institutions which "victimize or diminish" them.
Or at least they did. Seems that Nigerian archbishop Peter Akinola, a leader of the anti-gay forces, "recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new law that would criminalize same-sex marriage in his country and deny gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law would also infringe upon press and religious freedom by authorizing Nigeria's government to prosecute newspapers that publicize same-sex associations and religious organizations that permit same-sex unions."
The quotation is from an op-ed piece by Bishop Chane of Washington, which has appeared in the WashPost and on the Episcopal Life website.
Apparently, the man who has become the living symbol of the global south's position on sexual morality is also happy to associate himself with the global south's endemic contempt for human rights. I hope that conservatives within America's Episcopal Church think long and hard about whether Akinola is somebody they want to, er, climb into bed with. Even proverbially.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Outraged Christians Burn Embassies
Not really. And that's the point.
A new movie has outraged Indian Christians with its depiction of a nun who falls in love and whose "attempts to flee the convent supposedly create hilarious situations." The poster is a sort of hommage to the Seven-Year Itch, and it has Indian Christians, especially priest and nuns, pretty hot under the collar (or wimple).
Well, okay, I admit it: we in the West have become inured to this sort of petty insult. Naughty nuns were a staple of Reformation-era polemic literature. More recently, we've put up with singing nuns and flying nuns, albeit pretty decorous ones; but also nuns on the run, nunsense, Sister Mary Ignatius, Whoopie Goldberg (twice). And there's a lot worse out there -- nuns having sex, nuns possessed by demons, nuns and abortions. I won't tell you where to find it 'cuz that stuff is gross, but you all know how Google works. And even though every nun I've ever known personally was in late middle age and dressed like a second-grade teacher, the TV and movie nuns are nearly all smoking hot and dressed in pre-Vatican habits. But with heels.
The mind reels. The people who make nun movies have, so far as I can tell, never met an actual nun.
Anyway, inured or not, let's make no mistake: a lot of this stuff isn't just irreverent, it's insulting. To Catholics, to Christians, to common sense. So, even if we can't get too very excited about it, the Egg certainly does understand the restiveness among Indian Christians. They're ticked, and they deserve to be. This is an insult to some of their mostl deeply held beliefs and most deeply revered figures.
But guess what? No embassies burning. No movie studios in flames. No kidnap videos, or assassinations. And I'm going to go out on a limb, and wager that there aren't going to be any, not over this. And that, gentle reader, tells a great deal about the difference between outraged Christians and outraged Muslims. Doesn't it?
A new movie has outraged Indian Christians with its depiction of a nun who falls in love and whose "attempts to flee the convent supposedly create hilarious situations." The poster is a sort of hommage to the Seven-Year Itch, and it has Indian Christians, especially priest and nuns, pretty hot under the collar (or wimple).
Well, okay, I admit it: we in the West have become inured to this sort of petty insult. Naughty nuns were a staple of Reformation-era polemic literature. More recently, we've put up with singing nuns and flying nuns, albeit pretty decorous ones; but also nuns on the run, nunsense, Sister Mary Ignatius, Whoopie Goldberg (twice). And there's a lot worse out there -- nuns having sex, nuns possessed by demons, nuns and abortions. I won't tell you where to find it 'cuz that stuff is gross, but you all know how Google works. And even though every nun I've ever known personally was in late middle age and dressed like a second-grade teacher, the TV and movie nuns are nearly all smoking hot and dressed in pre-Vatican habits. But with heels.
The mind reels. The people who make nun movies have, so far as I can tell, never met an actual nun.
Anyway, inured or not, let's make no mistake: a lot of this stuff isn't just irreverent, it's insulting. To Catholics, to Christians, to common sense. So, even if we can't get too very excited about it, the Egg certainly does understand the restiveness among Indian Christians. They're ticked, and they deserve to be. This is an insult to some of their mostl deeply held beliefs and most deeply revered figures.
But guess what? No embassies burning. No movie studios in flames. No kidnap videos, or assassinations. And I'm going to go out on a limb, and wager that there aren't going to be any, not over this. And that, gentle reader, tells a great deal about the difference between outraged Christians and outraged Muslims. Doesn't it?
Pastor Kills Girl
Terrible story from Kennewick, Washington: Randall Foos, an ELCA pastor, was driving his car and hit a bicylist. Her name was Sara Casey, she was 19 years old, and she died. Pastor Foos has been arraigned on charges of second-degree manslaughter.
This is an awful thing, but we all know that traffic accidents happen. Here's the part that ticks us off at the Egg: the accident took place in 2003. Foos has only just been charged because of new evidence that, three years ago, he couldn't see well enough to drive.
This raises some questions. First: Did anybody test his vision after the accident? Police, insurance companies, anybody? And second, which is more to our point: Don't Christian ethics -- which are more stringent than state traffic laws -- require a blind driver to admit that his blindness has resulted in a young woman's death?
Now, the jury is still out -- literally, figuratively, whatever. Maybe the "new evidence" is misleading. Prosecutors have been known to suffer an excess of zeal. Maybe the guy's vision was better than the state will argue. Maybe the bicylist was pedalling recklessly, without the right reflectors, and a person with 20-20 eyes would have hit her just as easily.
But here's the part that makes me shudder: If this man is guilty, how has he lived with himself these past three years?
This is an awful thing, but we all know that traffic accidents happen. Here's the part that ticks us off at the Egg: the accident took place in 2003. Foos has only just been charged because of new evidence that, three years ago, he couldn't see well enough to drive.
This raises some questions. First: Did anybody test his vision after the accident? Police, insurance companies, anybody? And second, which is more to our point: Don't Christian ethics -- which are more stringent than state traffic laws -- require a blind driver to admit that his blindness has resulted in a young woman's death?
Now, the jury is still out -- literally, figuratively, whatever. Maybe the "new evidence" is misleading. Prosecutors have been known to suffer an excess of zeal. Maybe the guy's vision was better than the state will argue. Maybe the bicylist was pedalling recklessly, without the right reflectors, and a person with 20-20 eyes would have hit her just as easily.
But here's the part that makes me shudder: If this man is guilty, how has he lived with himself these past three years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)