The Big Lie of the Anti-choice Right

Tags

abortion, abstinence, pro-life, religion, right to choose, sex education, sexuality, women's bodies, Women's issues

It is probably true that there is no basis of compromise between the two sides. One either believes that there is a fundamental right of a woman to control her own body or one believes that  conception and the resultant life trumps all other issues from the moment that sperm meets ovum.

We can all agree to that. What choice people profess, and most anti-choicers refuse to acknowledge, is that choice people also want to reduce abortion in every effective way possible short of legally restricting the right. Nobody is “for” abortion as the “pro-lifers” are want to insist.

Reasonable heads should prevail, one would assume. The question should become, “what can we do to effectively work toward reducing abortions?”

It would seem obvious that we can get together to work on that, right? Wrong.

Because that is part of the big lie of the right. They are not so much interested in reducing abortions as they are in winning on this issue, and controlling women’s bodies. And that suggests that it is not some “overriding” moral conclusion that is beyond religion as they claim. Make the argument that abortion is a religious issue, and wait for them to begin howling. No they claim, it’s not religion, its simple morality. Odd, since they will surely claim that all sense of morality comes from God, thus non-believers cannot be “moral” exactly.

If abortions are immoral, then reducing abortions must be more moral than merely  stubbornly objecting to abortions as being immoral. And the dirty little secret is that abortion is only part of the agenda for the religious right. The other item on the agenda is “contraception.” And this of course is very much a religious issue, and depends on a very specific type of belief, namely that sex is only for procreation and that to use any type of barrier to conception is a slap in the face to God.

No matter of course, that an omnipotent God can presumably frustrate the best efforts of humans to defy his wishes. It is the internal desire to take conception out of God’s hands that is objected to. And most every if not all the right to life organizations are anti-contraception.

There is a fascinating article by AlterNet on the subject, and with some amazing statistics. Tim Ryan, (D-OH) and pro-lifer, has been removed from a pro-life board of directors because he favors means to reduce abortion, including contraception. He has gone public and is underscoring that the real war is between a tiny segment of the “pro-life” movement, and the vast majority of pro-lifers who are like him, fine with contraception.

The realities are stark. Abstinence only programs are a failure, at best postponing for a few extra months, teens experimentation with sex. Worse, when they do begin having it, they don’t use protections and have a much higher incidence of STD’s and pregnancy, thus abstinence only programs actually result in increased abortions.

Study after study shows that broad based sex education works. States are moving away from AO after watching their statistics start to re-climb, back to comprehensive sex education, a proven method of reducing STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. Joining with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ryan sponsors the “Preventing unintended pregnancies, Reducing the need for abortion and supporting Parent’s Act,” which aims at instituting practices found useful from the “The Third Way,” a left-center think tank.

Various anti-choice organizations now call Ryan “so called” when it comes to being pro-life. But when polled 80% of those who self-identify with a pro-life stance, also are pro-contraception. The bill supports contraception, help for poor women who wish to carry to term, comprehensive sex education, and help for adoptive families. No pro-life group supports the legislation.

Only the Catholic church 0pposes contraception, even though 90% of its faithful use it or are in favor of its availability. There is no denomination whose support of contraception is below 88%. Jewish support is at 97%.  Even 70% of Republicans and Independents favor contraception and only a measly 2% of them don’t.

According to Ryan, only 20% of the pro-life movement favors no contraception, but they seem fully in control of the movement. Ryan urges that those within the movement need to hold that 20% accountable now.

It is obvious that this minority has an agenda separate and apart from reducing abortion. And I contend that that agenda is religious in nature and is theocratic in intent. It is nothing less than to impose religious concepts of sexual behavior onto the public at large, regardless of what their religious believes are or are not.

Certainly, it is perfectly fine for anyone to believe personally that contraception is wrong for them, and somehow against God. One’s personal theology is sacrosanct. However, to allow it to intrude to the point that one will not work for a  legitimate goal of reducing abortion, is telling to say the least. It in fact shows all too clearly that something else is at stake. The article is a real eye opener. It is what I have been contending for some time, and what no doubt others have realized as well.

It’s not just about “life” its also about controlling women and their sexuality.

The Never Ending Process

Tags

conversion, faith, God, Health care, Michael Jackson, racism, spiritual journey

I ran into Fran’s blog today, and as happens quite often, she stopped me dead and made me think. She does that quite often, and what I deeply love about her is that she is unafraid to ask the hard questions, and answer them as well.

The question was: “What conversion am I being invited into today?”

Indeed. Think about that.

I’m not especially crazy I don’t think, but I find a lot of competing persons inhabiting my body at any given time. This is especially disconcerting, since I experience from time to time, really deep, moving, spiritual moments. Each makes me think I am forever changed, yet within a few days, certain unsavory elements seem to resurface, and I feel like my “old” self once again.

We hear often, especially those who have returned from the brink of death, that they are forever changed, how they will never look upon life the same way again. Perhaps, but I rather assume that within some weeks or months, they are pretty much taking most things for granted again, and have slipped back into old patterns of behavior.

This doesn’t mean that I think that these “conversions” are not meaningful, it just means they are less life altering than we might wish them to be. We change, I submit incrementally.

I have become beyond incensed by all the talk about Harvard profs and cops, and what type of beer these men will drink. I’m nearly insane from continuing “revelations” about Michael Jackson. I’m ready to assault the next Republican I meet when I read that the public seems to be starting to buy all their lies about how the health reform bill will destroy medical care for those who have it. And the list is forever long, and I get forever  distressed and I sigh and I go for a donut to just put it out of my mind.

That’s one side of me. It’s the mean, snarling bitch, ready to come here and rant and make snide little jokes about Sarah and Hannity and, well pick your subject. You know all the ones I can rant about.

But there is the other side too. There is the side that soars on Sunday in my church, among my family of faith. It is the place where I feel drawn again and again to service, and keep finding more time and more place for “other” in my world. Where the tears flow easily, where shame and guilt are replaced by dedication and warm friendship, and feeling integrated into a world of love and acceptance. Where Jesus holds my hand and slowly urges me forward to forgiveness and tolerance, even for those I most disagree with.

I see this transition in of all places, a forum where I am wont to get virally angry. Angry at the intolerant viciousness that can be found there. At ex-Episcopalians who, unable to get the church to conform to them, have found refuge where they are not happy, and so spew tirelessly their hatred and desire to see the entire church destroyed to vindicate their pain. I get angry, and sometimes I erupt in indignation and hurt, but more often I don’t. I turn my mind to those who are gentle, who listen, who offer advice and uphold. There are plenty of those folks around, and the private message is alive and well!

For I see that conversion is not a one time thing, as so very many think. Those of us in the trenches of the journey, know only to well, that conversion is a daily thing. And even when I think that “well that problem is over” it rears its head again and again. But less often, with less severity. That’s the progress, that’s the process of conversion at work.

Those who are so enamored of the “born again” philosophy will no doubt disagree. But frankly, but a few really do change that dramatically. Some perforce are better at portraying that “change” publicly no doubt, especially those who have found a way to profit by the “change.” But most of us backslide nearly as far as we progressed, and we do it seemingly endlessly.

But, when we finally look around, we find, lo and behold, that we can see a good deal farther than before. Our vista is grander, and that means we have indeed made progress up the mountain. We are better people than we were last year, if only by a bit. And if we wish, and if we try, we will be even better next year.

Best to ask that question every day, “What conversion am I being invited into today?” It’s a way to move that process along at a faster rate I think. The answer is easy. What makes you uneasy, what makes you angry, what makes you tighten your jaw, stresses you out, snap at the dog? That’s the place you need to breathe into and just for the moment, come into God’s presence. It is there the healing occurs, the change is made, and the increment is achieved.

So ask the question today, and every day.

What’s In a Constitution?

Tags

2nd Amendment, abortion, Constittutional interpretation, free speech, Living Constitution, originalists, strict construction

The Contrarian raised the question: “How does one oppose pharmaceutical companies being allowed to advertise on TV without violating the first amendment?”

The thing about the Contrarian is, he seldom asks easy questions. And I’ve learned to mostly not think too much about his questions, because I usually have enough of my own. But, given my legal background, an idea came to mind, and I replied:

“I think you might argue that said commercials constitute a clear and present danger to the public at large and are thus subject to regulation or prohibition.” You may or may not agree, but at least it’s plausible. I mean listening to the average list of cautions about dangerous side effects leads me at least to conclude that most drugs shouldn’t be taken unless absolutely necessary.

Yet, some folks, get ideas about diseases or afflictions and demand said drugs at great risk to their health or life. There seems always a way to get them too, even when “good” doctors refuse to prescribe. So there is danger to the public by allowing drug companies to plant notions of  disease in people’s minds. The “restless leg syndrome” comes to mind. Nobody is going to die from it, and the treatment has some might weird side effects.

But it all raised a greater issue to me, that of judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Not something that most people sit around discussing in bygone years I admit, but lately it has become a political tool of the right. Labeling every judge whose decisions you don’t like as “not a strict constructionist” makes otherwise perfectly legitimate judges look like somehow sinister and utopia crazy.

Mostly, as I’ve suggested before, the label is wildly misused. I’m not going to get into all the possible means of interpretation here. There may be more than a dozen technical ways of looking at the document, but a couple are important I think. An originalist, of which Scalia and Bork are, means that one attempts to glean what the purpose and intent of the Founders was. It attempts to determine what the original words meant to the persons who wrote them, and thus limits in a very real way an expansion into new areas. They would claim that this is the realm of amendments.

A strict constructionist claims that we are limited by the actual words. If it says, the “Congress shall make no laws,” it means precisely that. This means that there can be no limit on one’s right to “keep and bear arms,” even if the arms turn out to be a bazooka or nuclear weapon. The originalist, it would seem, should be bound to muskets and swords since those were the weaponry of the time when the document was written, but they tend to waffle so it seems.

Case in point. Washington DC had a law restricting the possession of hand guns within its corporate limits. The SCOTUS, struck down the law which had been in existence since the mid 70’s, finding that it violated the 2nd Amendment.

Now, first since the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the phrase, “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. .  . .” one would think, that a originalist would assume this provision was drafted to secure the rights of the state to defend itself against. . .perhaps another country trying to keep it in bondage? Like George III perhaps? Or at least a federal government gone amok?

But alas no, neither the originalists on the bench nor the “strict constructionists” were troubled by the linkage and struck down the law as violative of the right to be arms.

Now another, and I would declare better way of analysis is the Living Constitution method, whereby we recognize that after 200+ years it is unreasonable to assume that any document can reasonably cover situations encountered today. It is worse yet, impossible to believe that our Founding Fathers could have drafted any document that could be stretched to accommodate what was unknowable and probably unthinkable to them.

Thus, proponents of this interpretative method look to the general tenor of the document in all its particulars and do their best to apply those principles and ideals to new situations. When we look a the DC handgun provision in this manner, an very different result can ensue.

Life in densely populated urban areas carry its own special dangers. Crime and violence are present to a much greater degree. The prevalence of weaponry, especially that of high range and increased potency, make it dangerous for all residents, not just those who are the intended victims. Keeping weapons for “protection” often doesn’t protect anyone, and leads to errors in judgment and the deaths of innocents. It is rational for the protection of the many that people be prevented from possessing easily hidden dangerous weapons.

Therefore the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation, and that regulation can take into account the demographics of place.  In other words what is right for Philadelphia may not be right for rural Iowa.

Similarly in Roe v. Wade, using a different kind of analysis, the Court determined that an overall examination of the amendments suggested that there was a “theme” of privacy that was being protected, and under this guise, nothing is more private than the right to do with one’s body as one wishes, within limitations.

I think that seeing the Constitution as a basic blueprint enunciating ideals and beliefs is the better way to see the document. Thus, the Court’s job is to preserve those ideals and beliefs in an ever changing world. Sometimes what was legal for decades can no longer be sustained if the ideals and beliefs are to have any meaning.

That’s the way I see it anyhow. I see the originalists and strict constructionists merely echoing “conservative” values at the expense of those ideals and beliefs. It’s akin to following tradition when the original purpose  has subsequently been subverted. It’s time to change or eliminate the tradition rather than blindly adhering to rigid rules  that no longer lead to the intended purpose.

Exploring Stupid: STOOOPID

Tags

Essays, Humor, Sarah Palin, stupid people

Stupid is not a word that should be bandied about lightly, as a certain President recently learned.

I promise not to bandy. God apparently did bandy, for it’s thanks to him that there are stupid people, right? I mean, geesh, perhaps there aren’t any good jokes around up-out there, but come on, give the rest of us a break huh?

Actually, I’m not going to talk about stupid in general, but stupid in  pretty darn specific way. Contrary to the above, I think most stupid people kinda know they are so. I mean don’t we all get some kind of idea where we are on the scale from too stupid to remember to breathe to so freakin’ brilliant that the space-time continuum is but child’s play?

I mean it only took me seeing what kind of dim bulbs could actually graduate from law school, to realize that I better start taking proper care in selecting my physician and dentist, accountant, and so on and so forth. Passing tests is some what of an art form, and is no indicator of “smarts.” Some folks have the “gift for gab” and that makes then electable, no?

I assume most of them know this. I knew it. I’m not stupid, but I’m not as smart as the Contrarian for instance. I’m smarter than better than half the House of Representatives, but not as smart as the other half. I can study hardier and compensate a lot. Most people learn ways to compensate for their weakness. They find people who are smarter and listen carefully to their opinions, they take cues from signs saying walk and don’t walk. You know what I mean.

But then, there is a class unto themselves, and I am rather angry that God thought fit to sic them on humanity. They are: People who are stupid, and not only don’t know it, but think they are above average and are arrogant about that. Yes, a rare bird indeed, but when you have come upon such a one as this, you will be bald in a short time from pulling out every freakin hair on your head in frustration.

One could argue, go ahead, argue, or conclude, that Sarah,”The Quitter,” Palin is such a creature. I hate to think she is, for that means that God has passed from being humorous to down right mean spirited, and that’s something I don’t like to think about God.

Now for Sarah, stupidity takes on a rather unique characteristic. It isn’t that she is knuckle dragging stupid, but that she has this bizarre idea that because she can somehow manage to titillate a certain small, below average, population, that she is fit to govern something larger than a PTA meeting.

Rest assured, she has hired people who sit with binoculars to watch should Putin raise his head from Russia and snoop. She’s got that covered.

What kind of mental midget thinks that it’s okay not to learn anything about issues, because one’s “gut” is all one needs. What kind of incurious bird can’t think of a single publication when asked to state what papers and magazines she reads? I mean is this rocket science?

I will give you an example of a true idiot I once worked “around.” Said person was a judge, elected by the fine folks of Detroit, Michigan, or Daytwa, if you like the French pronunciation. Since said “attorney,” and I use that term as they say loosely, was fairly poor at his craft, and was regularly embarrassed in courtrooms, it made perfect sense to him to run for judge. And given God’s penchant for this humorous subspecies of homo sapien, “C” won.

Now most people in criminal court are there for good reason. Even if not technically or otherwise guilty of the present crime, they are okay with paying their dues for a hundred they escaped notice with. But occasionally, a really really innocent person enters the arena, and it’s incumbent on all parties to recognize that. Especially is it important that judges sniff out these folks. Its fairly easy thereafter to see that justice prevails.

But arrogant and stupid confines itself to adoring itself. It can’t see beyond its own brilliance, and so, I would be frustrated in attempting to alert said “C” that he needed to LISTEN. There were of course myriads of stories about said ASS (Arrogant/stupid/sapien), and I won’t relate them here, but for one.

I was patiently (one must be patient) outlining, step by step, why any judge with a brain (perhaps only 1/2 of one) should do as I suggested, by proceeding point by point, all inexorably leading to an obvious conclusion. “Crrrrrshhshsh, crrrrsshhshs,” I hear, coming from the microphone at the bench. I look up. (Not that dramatic look up over the rims of reading glasses, since I was way too young for them, but with a definite look of exasperation. One could also turn one’s back for a moment and make a face at the attorneys sitting behind, which often brought muffled giggles and attempts to not give away that the freakin’ judge had gone bonkers. . . . but I digress).

Said ASS was banging a piece of paper about the side of 4 x 4 inches against some spike that you save messages on. Finally it concluded, he looked at me, and in full exasperation, waved his arm, “Go on, go on, or are you done?”

I refrained from saying the obvious, “I won’t be done until I’ve seen you die from having lost your last functioning brain cell.” Of course, he didn’t understand a word I had said, and he denied whatever it was I asked, and then called me and the oh so lucky, don’t have to work in this courtroom prosecutor, to the bench.

Once there, I hazarded a look down at what had been stuck on the spindle. Being a sneaky attorney, I am good at reading upside down. It said in part.

• Be calm
• Relax, take a deep breath
• Speak Slowly
• “Would the clerk please call the first case.”

Need I say more? And this from an I D I O T who had been on the bench for better than a year!

Well, I can smell a wounded animal with the best of them Alaska hunters. I was merciless to the end in making a jackass out of “C” from that day forward. Did I tell you I can’t stand arrogant and stupid together? The only drawback, was that most of the time, he was too STUPID to know what sport I made of  him.

Chasing a Thought or Two

Tags

Charles Grassley, citizenship, Health care, James Inhofe, Lou Dobbs, Obama, police, Professor Gates, racial profiling, racism, Sarah Palin

I do pay attention to the news. I read a few dozen posts a day dealing with various issues before the country. I watch news. So, I’m not uninformed.

Yet I found myself stymied the other day coming upon the term “Birthers.” What the (bleep) did that mean? The Contrarian helped me out. “It’s the nut cases that are continuing to ask for “proof” that Obama is a US citizen.”

Oh, that. I’ve been seeing some of that. Lou Dobbs continues to claim it’s newsworthy all the while saying he personally doesn’t see any efficacy to the allegations. Uhuh. Well, then why are you wasting people’s time dude?

I’ve seen the video of the crazy lady grilling a congressperson all to the applause of the audience of crazy people, finally crying out in anguish, “I want my country back!” Awww, such sore losers, I lament.

Perennial nut case Senator James Inhofe, (R-OK) says, the birthers, “have a point.” What point is that exactly? He of course does not say, because of course there is none.

Along with DeMitt who urges Republicans to thwart the health care bill because it will be Obama’s “Waterloo” and set the stage for Republicans to recapture control of Congress in 2010, Inhofe and others of that ilk continue down the path of obstructionism for party gain.

This causes semi intelligent Republicans to lament, “If the health care bill is completely put down, voters will blame the Republican party.” At least so says Chuck Grassley, (R-IA).

So far, my attitude is let’em go. Nothing is better for Democrats that what is happening now. Keep the Rethugs tied up in knots over “birthers” and saying No for no’s sake for hoped for political gain. That will be seen for what it is and will ensure further gains for the Democrats come 2010.

That is, if the idiots in the Democratic party can get their heads out of said dark space and realize the obvious. Passing  health care will help all Democrats period. Even the red dog Democrats can’t hope to benefit from failure, their only hope is in success. If and only if the working and lower middle class sense some relief from their financial burdens will they credit the Democratic party and thus vote for Democrats in vulnerable districts and states.

So as long as Republicans seem hell bent on pandering to the extremely stupid and nutty brained, then Democrats look good by comparison. So bring on the birthers and all that. While you’re at it, spend oodles of time talking and wondering about the political future of Sarah, “The Quitter” non sequitur, Palin. Someone who’s support continues to coalesce around a smaller and smaller base is just where the Rethugs need to spend their time. 

More and more Republicans seem like rats, drawn by the silent music of the flute, knowing they are jumping to their death but being unable to break the spell of doom. I say: MORE FLUTES!

It goes without saying that I am SOOOO tired of this Gates affair. The media just drives me nuts with it’s glomming onto “news” that is easy and doesn’t take any effort to run.

This ceased to be an issue about the day after it happened, but they babble about it incessantly under the guise that “this is a conversation America needs to have.” Uhuh, yeah, we been a havin’ it since the early 60’s.

The truth of the matter is, without more, I suspect both men were not acting like adults that night. The type of person drawn to law enforcement is psychologically one who feels powerless. Thus getting a shootin’ iron and “authoritay” are powerful aphrodisiacs to them. They like being obeyed. African American men are tired of being victimized by said swaggerers, and might have a tad of a tendency to react before there is any evidence of slight.

Put the two together, and well, they react like naughty boys, each saying “he said.” The cops always win, since they got the above stated weaponry and restraints and the power of arrest.

And let me set one record straight. When the media claims that said Sargent was a trainer on the issue of “avoiding racial profiling,” that needs to be explained. What it means is he was teaching others how to mask their behavior so that it couldn’t legally be defined as racial profiling, and thus be thrown out of  court. That’s what “avoiding 4th amendment complaints” means as well.

So can we move on to matters of some actual important?

Now That’s Some Good Entertainment

Tags

disaster movies, Entertainment, Flash Gordon, Killer Shrews, Movies, scifi movies, The Blob, Tornado

I’ve never kept it hidden that the Contrarian and myself are television watchers. But I have also pointed out, that a good deal of what we watch is “high brow.” I drop “Bill Moyer” and PBS around quite frequently just to make sure you are suitably impressed.

But I have a confession to make, actually two, . . . .well make that four. Only two for myself, but I’m confessing for the Contrarian as well. We are sorta, kinda, addicted to (oh the embarrassment!) old sci-fi movies.

The older the better too. The best are near 1950, that seminal year of my birth (key the trumpets please). The reason is quite simple: special effects were in their infancy and so the “special effects” are really special in that they look so darn funny.

With a few obvious exceptions such as “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” most were done on low budgets, perhaps out at the edge of Hollywood where the local dumps were located.

The directors, if you can call them that, were probably second year students at UCLA school of film, and were those least likely to succeed. The scripts were worse.

The acting was even worse, if that is possible, although there was a notable exception here and there, usually by someone getting their first break.

The subject matter of said genre can be just about anything. It can be mutant creatures that are generated here on good ole earth via “atomic” testing or through violent inner earth disturbances. Often, they result from alien invasion and can take the form of most any creature and often take human form.

Depending on just how short the budget was, (under $100?) you often didn’t get a very good look at the “creature” at all. Creatures have been known to be composed of parts of “suits” from King Kong and left over garage sale items.

My all time favorite in this genre is “The Killer Shrews.”  It was the lowest of the low budgets, and one never got much of a look at the killer creature. Most of the “attacks” were at night so that such things as “costuming” were kept to a minimum as a concern.

Generally speaking, there are a few requirements for all such movies. There must be at least one woman, fair and unsuitably dressed in high heels who of course then has to run like the dickens to escape the monster.

Next, a leading man, of no particular occupation who ends up being the savior of said girl.

Also the girl must have the ability to scream really long and loud. In fact that may be the only qualification for the job.

Occasionally there is a mad scientist who either “caused” the creature to arise out of it’s hidey hole, or knows how to kill it. He may or may not die before the end, but never before imparting the means of getting rid of the creature. All other “actors” (should you really wish to call them that) are fodder for the creature and are killed off along the way.

My other confessional is a deep addiction to “disaster movies.”

Here, you don’t go for the old stuff. Here good special effects matter, so look for the latest. Even the low budget stuff can afford to hire a “special effects” guru who can whip up some fine footage that is designed to please the palate of the most discerning of disaster movieophiles.

Here, plot is the key. They are all the same. First, you must have a scientist who is brilliant but for some reason has lost his/her job and is carrying on research as a loner. This person is often considered a misfit, not a team player, whistle blower type, or simply has off the wall claims.

This person “discovers” the impending disaster. At first nobody listens, and the first hour is spent trying to convince others (often with a “cried wolf” flavor).

There will always be one family. Part of the family could be the scientist, but doesn’t have to be. It can be a first responder, or other “good” person. There is a man and woman and one child. Never two. They will be separated during the disaster and will miraculously, in the midst of miles of rubble and chaos manage to find each other. All will be safe, the family often reunites after being separated by family disputes of the past.

There  must be a naysayer. This person is the “keep the beaches open” person from “Jaws” fame. He poo poos the warnings, for either personal gain or just because he’s trying to keep the “business” going whether as Mayor, or corporate bigwig, or governmental toady. He usually gets his in the end, for which you wait to cheer.

In the end, the scientist is believed, and the most catastrophic disaster averted, though there should be sufficient destruction of the mini disaster genre  to engender lots of wows and OOhs.

Disaster can be just about anything. Tornadoes, comets, meteors, atomic fallout, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanche, flood, etc. Anything will do, but it must have lots and lots of buildings falling down, and cars flying through the air. Bridges should collapse, houses be swept away, and so forth. One of the better volcanic eruptions broke off a part of California and had it an island.

Why does such a person as myself watch this stuff? For the sheer joy of watching really really bad acting, cheap sets, finding all the flaws in logic, and a myriad of other reasons. Just great great fun. A bowl of popcorn, suspension of belief, and you are there!

Take it from me, this stuff doesn’t scare the pants off you like the typical horror movie, and isn’t filled with blood and gore. It’s just good clean fun, and we love it. We are always on the lookout for “Planet X” and oh my favorite, the original “Flash Gordon.” Now that was some fun with Ming the Merciless!

Defining the Undefinable

Tags

Christianity, feminist, God, Jesus, liberation, love, praxis, social concerns, theology

God does speak to me from time to time. He has a particular way of going about it. I can never be sure at first, which is why he beats me over the head with what ever it is he wants me to know. To explain, he tells me the same thing over and over by diverse ways. Finally I see that, and go, “okay, gotcha boss.”

Mostly this time, God has been reinforcing my train of thought. If you’ve been reading the posts “What is the Message” and my review of Robin Meyers’ book, “Saving Jesus from the Church.” you will see where I’m heading. I’ve been seeing that Church needs to be redirected to praxis rather than a continuation of the ongoing theological conversation of who bests defines Christianity and what is sin and how are we saved.

I mentioned that Presiding Bishop Schori’s remarks about individual salvation being inadequate added to the mix. So that was three things. I had also begun pondering Martin Buber’s “I-thou versus I-it” philosophy, in which he posits that humans are engaged in one or the other at all times. I-thou is subject to subject or in equal respect and mutuality. I-it refers to me and the other as an it, or object. It’s value is only that of enhancing me in some way or furthering my personal aims.

Last night, God let me again visit these subjects, and finally I was convinced that indeed I was on the right track. We were watching Bill Moyer’s Journal. His guests were Dr. Cornel West, theologian from Princeton, Dr. Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary in NYC, and Dr. Gary Dorrien, Reinhold Neibuhr Professor of Social Ethics at UTS. They were talking about the “Christian” take on our world wide economic decline.

Their discussion was wide ranging and involved ultimately what in some sense can be called a reform movement within Christendom. They spoke of the evils of greed and love in action. All three spoke to the fact that the students in seminary today are burning with a desire to live and work authentically following Jesus in full praxis. I suspect that more traditional theology falls by the wayside. It is the time of liberation, feminist, black, and other theologies which seek to reclaim the original message of Jesus.

It got me to thinking late last night as I, in one of my wide awake middle of the night moments, sat on the porch and looked up at the Milky Way, ablaze with stars. Thinking of God, I realized something, something quite obvious I suspect. Once we are past the big three: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, we are essentially done talking about God in the singular. Which is not to say that even this is right. Who is to say that God doesn’t have siblings and parents, and aunts and uncles, all busily engaged on their own planes of reality. But on this plane, we contend there is but One God.

Yet, by the first act, that of creation, God is no longer One, but in relationship, for creation was  all about relationship. It continues to be so. My poem the other day about perspective between life on the big and small is but relationship, a shared universe, a shared planet. My piece on vegetarianism and meat eaters again notes that we are in a cycle of shared life and death and symbiosis.

Trinity may or may not be real, it is our way of explaining what we can’t really explain. But if true or not, the message is the same. Intimacy, mutuality, love, compassion, interrelatedness,   are the rule, the norm. Man is not meant to be alone as God said, and there are few humans who do well in seclusion. We thrive on relationship, I-thou which is healthy, or I-it which is not so healthy.

Evolutionary psychologists would no doubt claim that this is an evolutionary plus, designed to help ensure the survival of the species by promoting breeding and offspring. Believers would claim that it echoes a design infused in all creation by the Creator. It is why I am “in the image of” after all.

Rather than suggesting that God somehow “looks” like us, in the image of signifies that we are relational as God is relational.

It is not enough to merely state the obvious, but to ingest it, and digest it, and make it apart of ourselves. Relational means truly that I am my brother’s keeper, and it is my perfect duty to help ensure that he is fed, clothed, returned to health, and upheld as fully as I am myself. He is me, and I am him, and we are, and God is.

At the end of Bill Moyer’s conversation with these three, he revisited some food pantries that they had been to some months ago. As you can imagine, the situation is more dire than before. Person after person related their stories of having worked for years, decades in fact, only to find themselves struggling to stretch food, and meagre, simple food it is, from week to week. Children given “enough” but not as much as they would wish, meals of crackers and peanut butter.

I have contributed to our food pantry through our church. I softly said to the Contrarian, “Monday I’ll inquire who is our liaison at “Loaves and Fishes” and. . .”

“Yes,” he replied, knowing where I was going, and not needing me to finish.

It is no longer just enough to drop a bag of cans in the basket. Jesus walks before me beckoning me and you to much more than that. “Okay, gotcha boss.”