I've been waiting to see what develops in the "torture" of detainees revelations. So far we have debated whether the "memos" should have been released, whether the people who wrote the memos broke the law, and whether torture works. All of these debates are rather minor compared to the real issue: should human being torture each other for information, even "valuable" information?And a subsidiary question: although it is illegal, indeed unconstitutional, in the United States to torure, is it alright to torture if they are not U.S. citizens. Well Bush Chaney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al say "sure it's fine if it's in the interest of the U.S." And who will define that interest---officials of the U.S. goverrnment. Or let's go further and say if a majority of Americans favor torture of certain individuals, then we should torture?
Well, that's where we are in American today. Let's call it torture by public demand. After all, majority rules.
But you know, maybe the "right" to torture is good. I bet we could cut our crime rate, at least some, if we allowed torture of accused felons. I bet we Might, I repeat Might, get some valuable information on the plans of some who Might be planning a bank robery. Maybe a little torture of the possible suspects mothher or girlfriend or children. We kill each other in America at a rate that dwarfs anything Al Quieda has done. Let's go for torture , folks. It MIGHT help!!
Hey, and trials, and attorneys, and facing your accuser---these do nothing but protect the bad. That's what some people have been saying for decades.
And listen, you weaklings who squirm when you even think of a person being tortured. You're probably some 'pinko' scum bag that hates Merica.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Torture as a 'Tired old thing."
I know it's bad blog form to 'name' another blog on your post. But I have to admire Crystal of the blog "Perspective" for mentioning the torture thing. She gets almost no response from the pious. The other bloggers I follow seem remarkably disinterested. I put a comment on another blog. I got bawled out for talking about'tired old things' and my response was erased. Yes, mike it is discouraging.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Episcopal blogs
I think blogging is fading, but is still a great thing. All kinds of people, interests, points of view etc. So I am going to take a little tour of Episcopal Church blogs. Okay call me a troll, although I noticed many bloggers list dozens of blogs they follow. I have ben following about 5 blogs. After checking about 30-40 Episcopal blogs, that is blogs that list Episcopal Church as an interest, just some preliminary observations.
I do not mean to be difficult, but there are so many variations of Episcopal (at least interest in) blogs sometimes I get confused. Most are primarily about something besides the Episcopal Church. Gardening, pets, Benedictine spirituality, cooking and on religion, mostly about Buddhism.
The big name Episcopal/Anglian blogs are very difficult to get on. Some you have to get and display an Episcopal decal to make a comment.
Some are never at home.
The 'biggies' are a tad clanish. One of the biggest refers to its commenters as "our community." And if you go to that one you had better be a community member or you will get trashed.
As an Episcopalian for over 6 decades, I hope this trip down memory lane will be educational and fun. So far, Okay. Jack
I do not mean to be difficult, but there are so many variations of Episcopal (at least interest in) blogs sometimes I get confused. Most are primarily about something besides the Episcopal Church. Gardening, pets, Benedictine spirituality, cooking and on religion, mostly about Buddhism.
The big name Episcopal/Anglian blogs are very difficult to get on. Some you have to get and display an Episcopal decal to make a comment.
Some are never at home.
The 'biggies' are a tad clanish. One of the biggest refers to its commenters as "our community." And if you go to that one you had better be a community member or you will get trashed.
As an Episcopalian for over 6 decades, I hope this trip down memory lane will be educational and fun. So far, Okay. Jack
Monday, April 13, 2009
Clergy and Sex
I have suggested before that the dominant element in Catholic church dogma and practice is dominated disproportionately by the chergy's desire to regain the "power" they think they made have had in the "good old days." And this strategy is clearly seen, to me, by a strong revival of the Church's historic hostility to anything sexual. So I submit these points.
No one is allowed to have any influence in the Church except clergy.
These clergy must be celibate.
These clergy must not have any sexual activity.
The clergy must have no sexual thoughts whatsoever.
If they do such thoughts must be repressed.
All unmarried persons must refrain from all sex thought or repress such.
Masturbation is considered a sin.
Any male orgasm outside the women's vagina is a sin.
The above restriction applies to married couples.
Any type of "artificial" blockage of sperm emission is a sin.
The principal purpose of all sex is only procreation.
Because, the above principal is rejected by almost all, the celibate clergy have added "unity" as a possible purpose of sexual intercourse, but only if it is open to procreation.
The church's central, and only public requirement, is the opposition to abortion.
The Church defines abortion as the killing of persons, beginning with the flat insistence that a one cell fertilized egg is a full person.
IMO, the opposition to all abortion is simply an opposition to all sex, except for procreation.
IMO, Catholic clergy are to a great degree are people afraid of, disgusted by, or guilt ridden about sexual acts as younger boys, specifically masturbation.
To most people the anti-sex crazed clergy strictures on all sexual activity for clergy and sexual activity for the married only if opened to procreations, is analagous to a deaf person critiqueing a symphony.
I have attempted to find stories of the early life of today's bishop's. I have only found 4---all suggesting a rather strange attitude in the years prior to becoming priest.
I have no objection whatsoever to homosexual priests. They are no more dangerous to the young than heterosexual priests.
The Church's frantic effort to root out homosexuals is clearly a "cover" after the priest abuse scandal, where 80 per cent of the victims were male.
Coming full circle. Chaput and crew don't really weep over every 'aborted' cell. But they do consider all abortion a form of birth control which leads to sex as pleasure. The latter a position the church has always considered an impediment to true "spirituality", and, most importantly, which priests, by living a totally sexless life, alone have the inside track.
No one is allowed to have any influence in the Church except clergy.
These clergy must be celibate.
These clergy must not have any sexual activity.
The clergy must have no sexual thoughts whatsoever.
If they do such thoughts must be repressed.
All unmarried persons must refrain from all sex thought or repress such.
Masturbation is considered a sin.
Any male orgasm outside the women's vagina is a sin.
The above restriction applies to married couples.
Any type of "artificial" blockage of sperm emission is a sin.
The principal purpose of all sex is only procreation.
Because, the above principal is rejected by almost all, the celibate clergy have added "unity" as a possible purpose of sexual intercourse, but only if it is open to procreation.
The church's central, and only public requirement, is the opposition to abortion.
The Church defines abortion as the killing of persons, beginning with the flat insistence that a one cell fertilized egg is a full person.
IMO, the opposition to all abortion is simply an opposition to all sex, except for procreation.
IMO, Catholic clergy are to a great degree are people afraid of, disgusted by, or guilt ridden about sexual acts as younger boys, specifically masturbation.
To most people the anti-sex crazed clergy strictures on all sexual activity for clergy and sexual activity for the married only if opened to procreations, is analagous to a deaf person critiqueing a symphony.
I have attempted to find stories of the early life of today's bishop's. I have only found 4---all suggesting a rather strange attitude in the years prior to becoming priest.
I have no objection whatsoever to homosexual priests. They are no more dangerous to the young than heterosexual priests.
The Church's frantic effort to root out homosexuals is clearly a "cover" after the priest abuse scandal, where 80 per cent of the victims were male.
Coming full circle. Chaput and crew don't really weep over every 'aborted' cell. But they do consider all abortion a form of birth control which leads to sex as pleasure. The latter a position the church has always considered an impediment to true "spirituality", and, most importantly, which priests, by living a totally sexless life, alone have the inside track.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Catholic Travels
Hey, a new game. My liberal catholic friends and I are having a great time thinking of practical examples of what would happen if the Catholic effort to say one cell is and has all the rights and priviledges of any other person.
Just a few to start with, realizing at present almost no law reconizes one or a few cells as a person'
Can a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant count the fetus as a tax deduction?
Should 6 week old fetuses be counted in the census? If not why not, if they are the same as me?
Should birthdays be eliminated in favorof conception day? After all I was just as much a person on day one as nine months later
Should medicare eligilbility be 65 or changed to 64 and 3 months? After all I have been a "full person" for 64.3 months and 9 months which equals 65.
If I leave my estate to my " sons", I die and my wife has twin boys 3 moths later can the latter sue for part of the estate?
If a women has 4 miscarriages and 6 children, should she not be reported as having 10 children in government figures?
Should not life expectancy reflect all deaths from date of conception?
Should a 17 year, 3 month old person be allow consensual sex, since they are actually 18 years old?
Read "Gulliver's Travels" about the people who carried heavy bags on their backs of many objects, so they could show the object when talking rather than shortening their lives by wasting energy speaking.
And, of course, the biggie; never answered during my life. Man kills wife. Sentenced to death. Woman has abortion in fourth week. Catholics say "MURDER." Her punishment today. She goes to retreat sponsored by Church to lessen her feeling of guilt after Church has accused her of murder. YOU FIGURE. Jack
Just a few to start with, realizing at present almost no law reconizes one or a few cells as a person'
Can a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant count the fetus as a tax deduction?
Should 6 week old fetuses be counted in the census? If not why not, if they are the same as me?
Should birthdays be eliminated in favorof conception day? After all I was just as much a person on day one as nine months later
Should medicare eligilbility be 65 or changed to 64 and 3 months? After all I have been a "full person" for 64.3 months and 9 months which equals 65.
If I leave my estate to my " sons", I die and my wife has twin boys 3 moths later can the latter sue for part of the estate?
If a women has 4 miscarriages and 6 children, should she not be reported as having 10 children in government figures?
Should not life expectancy reflect all deaths from date of conception?
Should a 17 year, 3 month old person be allow consensual sex, since they are actually 18 years old?
Read "Gulliver's Travels" about the people who carried heavy bags on their backs of many objects, so they could show the object when talking rather than shortening their lives by wasting energy speaking.
And, of course, the biggie; never answered during my life. Man kills wife. Sentenced to death. Woman has abortion in fourth week. Catholics say "MURDER." Her punishment today. She goes to retreat sponsored by Church to lessen her feeling of guilt after Church has accused her of murder. YOU FIGURE. Jack
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Catholic Power Grab
As a sceptic, I have always been almost contemptuous of conspiracy theories. However the last couple of years, and especially clear in the recent controversy over President Obama speaking at Notre Dame University, one would have to be naive not to see a clear pattern emerging from the Catholic hierarchy.
Obviously the American hierarchy is regrouping from what they must see as almost a half century in the wilderness. After Vatican 2, the increased emphasis on the laity has not set well withe the princes of the Church. The Catholic reactionary movement led by Weigel, Chaput, George, Neuhaus, etc have worked furiously to regain its power, even to the extent of becomming basically an arm of the Republican party. Now we are at the Rubicon.
The bishops, obviously in close collaboration, have thrown down the gauntlet: Every effort must be made to prevent the President of the United States from being seen as anything but an evil and wicked man. The frenzied threats against Notre Dame for inviting Obama all sound quite similar. At least an indication of coordinated action.
It was obvious in the last election and is becomming more clear by the day, that the main goal of the hierarchy is to regain control of the laity, and to exalt their own position, by using the political process. All public officials who even remotely suggest that abortion has even a small but legitimate role in our society are clearly the enemies of God( i,e. the Church) and must be eliminated from public service. To be sure the issue is partly about abortion, but far more about the right of the hierarchy to dictate public morals and political action through their "sheep" (the laity).
After decades of trying to, quitely, unite the Church and the State, the Church is now openly trying to fuse its theology with American law, and dominate a nation open to all religious views. Its vehicle is the Republican party---now a blending of the evangelical right and reactionary Catholicism. The Church is making progress by aligning itself with every vestige of the American far right. But, I think what it does not see, is the real possibility of a new anti-catholicism stirring among the better educated. But for the prelates to regain their imperial status, is, to them, worth the risk of people viewing the Church as un-American and unwilling to accept a role in a democracy.
Certainly vicious attacks on the elected leader of the nation because of that leader's refusal to surrender his thinking to the dictates of the American catholic hierarchy,, may portend an outcome not favorable to the Church as an influence for good. Jack
Obviously the American hierarchy is regrouping from what they must see as almost a half century in the wilderness. After Vatican 2, the increased emphasis on the laity has not set well withe the princes of the Church. The Catholic reactionary movement led by Weigel, Chaput, George, Neuhaus, etc have worked furiously to regain its power, even to the extent of becomming basically an arm of the Republican party. Now we are at the Rubicon.
The bishops, obviously in close collaboration, have thrown down the gauntlet: Every effort must be made to prevent the President of the United States from being seen as anything but an evil and wicked man. The frenzied threats against Notre Dame for inviting Obama all sound quite similar. At least an indication of coordinated action.
It was obvious in the last election and is becomming more clear by the day, that the main goal of the hierarchy is to regain control of the laity, and to exalt their own position, by using the political process. All public officials who even remotely suggest that abortion has even a small but legitimate role in our society are clearly the enemies of God( i,e. the Church) and must be eliminated from public service. To be sure the issue is partly about abortion, but far more about the right of the hierarchy to dictate public morals and political action through their "sheep" (the laity).
After decades of trying to, quitely, unite the Church and the State, the Church is now openly trying to fuse its theology with American law, and dominate a nation open to all religious views. Its vehicle is the Republican party---now a blending of the evangelical right and reactionary Catholicism. The Church is making progress by aligning itself with every vestige of the American far right. But, I think what it does not see, is the real possibility of a new anti-catholicism stirring among the better educated. But for the prelates to regain their imperial status, is, to them, worth the risk of people viewing the Church as un-American and unwilling to accept a role in a democracy.
Certainly vicious attacks on the elected leader of the nation because of that leader's refusal to surrender his thinking to the dictates of the American catholic hierarchy,, may portend an outcome not favorable to the Church as an influence for good. Jack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)