Showing posts with label Catholics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholics. Show all posts
The Virgin Mary in Wisconsin.
Officially validated by the Roman Catholic Church.
In 1859, the year after Mary is said to have appeared in Lourdes, a Belgian immigrant here named Adele Brise said she was visited three times by Mary, who hovered between two trees in a bright light, clothed in dazzling white with a yellow sash around her waist and a crown of stars above her flowing blond locks. As instructed, Ms. Brise devoted her life to teaching Catholic beliefs to children.
"Few people know it, and he does everything to hide it. But it's true: Homer J. Simpson is Catholic."
Proclaims Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, which isn't infallible.
Christine O'Donnell: " I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. … I dabbled into witchcraft."
She said that in 1999. I don't know when the dabbling itself took place. It bugs me more that she says "dabbled into" than that she actually did it (or claimed to). It's "dabbled in." Here's the clip, from Bill Maher's show:
1. Maher obviously knows her well and likes her. "She's nice," he says. She was on his show a lot, and he's just exploiting the clips he has, which, he tells us, he's going to keep doing until she comes on his show. He's blackmailing her and giggling about what he's doing to this nice person he likes.
2. It's a good attention-getting ploy by Maher. He's got the video and he's taking clips out of context for the maximum shock/comic effect. It's perfectly okay to do that with video, right? Remember when Andrew Breitbart did something like that to Shirley Sherrod, and all the liberals got all righteous about taking things out of context?
3. Did O'Donnell ever practice witchcraft? I doubt it. Even in the out-of-context clip, I'm seeing a young woman trying to get the hipper kids to believe she isn't really a complete square. In the story she tells, she went out with someone who, she thought, was into Satanism, and they had a picnic. A picnic! Even when she's straining to sound cool, she's square.
4. But she "dabbled into" witchcraft — doesn't that mean she did some witchcraft things? Frankly, I don't think she knows what "dabbled" means. The use of the wrong preposition is a hint. I think she means something more like she stumbled into witchcraft. She knew some people who did such things, and I'll bet the point she was making was that she was able to be friends with them, that she hasn't spent her whole life cocooned in squeaky clean conservative religion and she's able to relate to a wide variety of people.
5. Even if she had participated in some witchcraft, she'd only be like thousands of other young people who dabble in such nonsense. Do you want to string them all up? It's typical pop culture junk these days.
1. Maher obviously knows her well and likes her. "She's nice," he says. She was on his show a lot, and he's just exploiting the clips he has, which, he tells us, he's going to keep doing until she comes on his show. He's blackmailing her and giggling about what he's doing to this nice person he likes.
2. It's a good attention-getting ploy by Maher. He's got the video and he's taking clips out of context for the maximum shock/comic effect. It's perfectly okay to do that with video, right? Remember when Andrew Breitbart did something like that to Shirley Sherrod, and all the liberals got all righteous about taking things out of context?
3. Did O'Donnell ever practice witchcraft? I doubt it. Even in the out-of-context clip, I'm seeing a young woman trying to get the hipper kids to believe she isn't really a complete square. In the story she tells, she went out with someone who, she thought, was into Satanism, and they had a picnic. A picnic! Even when she's straining to sound cool, she's square.
4. But she "dabbled into" witchcraft — doesn't that mean she did some witchcraft things? Frankly, I don't think she knows what "dabbled" means. The use of the wrong preposition is a hint. I think she means something more like she stumbled into witchcraft. She knew some people who did such things, and I'll bet the point she was making was that she was able to be friends with them, that she hasn't spent her whole life cocooned in squeaky clean conservative religion and she's able to relate to a wide variety of people.
5. Even if she had participated in some witchcraft, she'd only be like thousands of other young people who dabble in such nonsense. Do you want to string them all up? It's typical pop culture junk these days.
"But she found the Party of the Right students compassionate, intellectual and not terribly exercised about her homosexuality."
"She was drawn to the Catholics among them, who corrected her misimpression that the existence of sin 'means you are bad.' It means 'precisely the opposite,' they taught her. 'It means you have a chance to come back and repent and be saved,' she says."
The NYT has an article about Eve Tushnet, the daughter of lefty lawprof Mark Tushnet. As a Yale student, she first attended a meeting of the conservative group "specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals." Now, she advises individuals with a homosexual orientation to abstain from sex.
The NYT has an article about Eve Tushnet, the daughter of lefty lawprof Mark Tushnet. As a Yale student, she first attended a meeting of the conservative group "specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals." Now, she advises individuals with a homosexual orientation to abstain from sex.
As the hundred or so daily readers of eve-tushnet.blogspot.com, and a larger audience for her magazine writing, know by now, Ms. Tushnet can seem a paradox: fervently Catholic, proudly gay, happily celibate. She does not see herself as disordered; she does not struggle to be straight, but she insists that her religion forbids her a sex life.That blog has been on my blogroll for a long time. Her father, now a Harvard lawprof, is one of the many former Wisconsin lawprofs who are out there at other law schools carrying on what people here like to think of as the Wisconsin tradition.
Her father, a nonobservant Jew, and her mother, a Unitarian, both belonged to progressive traditions, tolerant of her sexuality.Eve became a Catholic in her sophomore year at Yale.
[S]ince 2002 she has made a meager living through writing, computer programming and freelance research. She lives in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of downtown Washington and volunteers two hours a week at a Christian pregnancy-counseling center.ADDED: Queerty says:
Tushnet's website receives "hundreds" of visits per day — hardly enough to call her an influential blogger. But that reach comes through her scribblings for magazines like the National Review, titles that are apt to give space to people "on the inside" of gays advocating against them. Her writings are interesting, we'll give her that; ex-gays! sublimation vs. repression! And so is her story.... But she is a person with a platform who is out harming human beings with her instruction, and that's simply unacceptable.
"Our reflexive response to 'Everybody Draw Mohammad Day'... was sympathetic. But Althouse prompted us to reconsider."
"Us" = Best of the Web (James Taranto):
I'm still searching for the perfect hypo that involves upsetting Christians. How about a proposal to protest the sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic church with "Everybody Suck on a Crucifix" day?
"Piss Christ" is not an entirely apposite example, for it prompted no threats of violence or calls for suppression. It was an issue not of free speech but of subsidized speech; people objected to their tax dollars' bankrolling Serrano via the National Endowment for the Arts. But it isn't hard to think of other examples in which speech that is offensive to large numbers of people has occasioned censorship or violence or the threats thereof.I'm glad to see Taranto do what I was challenging my commenters to do. (I said: "If you don't think the 'Piss Christ' or the American flag hypos are sufficiently on point, then make a better hypo. That's my challenge. Make a hypo that is the same but without the Muslim element, and seriously test your thinking on the subject.") Taranto:
Until 1989, it was a crime in some states to burn the American flag as a political statement. In Texas v. Johnson the U.S. Supreme Court held that this is protected symbolic speech. In ensuing years members of Congress repeatedly tried to propose a constitutional amendment permitting the criminalization of flag burning. It is the view of this column that flag burning is and should remain protected speech. We deplore it nonetheless, and we think holding an "Everybody Burn the Flag Day" would be stupid, obnoxious and counterproductive if one seeks to persuade others that flag burning should be tolerated.In my comments, Jason (the commenter) had posed the flag hypo — sarcastically: "If burning an American flag were illegal and there was a 'Burning an American Flag' Day, you can bet I'd be out there burning an American flag, because I believe the right to burn an American flag is what America is all about." Back to Taranto:
"Hate speech"--for example, shouting racial slurs, positing theories of racial supremacy or denying the Holocaust--is illegal in Canada and many European countries. In the U.S. it is protected by the First Amendment--but it has been known to provoke a violent reaction....
This column is also of the opinion that hate-speech laws are pernicious and that the First Amendment does and should protect the expression of even ugly and false ideas. But we would not endorse or participate in an "Everybody Shout a Racial Slur Day" or an "Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day" to make the point."Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" seems different to people, Taranto says:
Because the taboo against depictions of Muhammad is not a part of America's common culture. The taboos against flag burning, racial slurs and Holocaust denial are. The problem with the "in-your-face message" of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others--Muslims--as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world.Okay, all you readers who drove the comments up over 400 trying to push me back. I have Taranto! What say you now?!
***
I'm still searching for the perfect hypo that involves upsetting Christians. How about a proposal to protest the sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic church with "Everybody Suck on a Crucifix" day?
"There is an idea that there is more to judging than looking at sources of law, and Barack Obama has specifically emphasized that part of the judicial role."
That's me, quoted in the L.A. Times article "Why religion could affect Obama's court nomination/With the exit of John Paul Stevens, the court will be without a Protestant for the first time. Catholics dominate. Does it matter?"
"It's true they took stupefying substances; overwhelmed by success they lived dissolute and uninhibited years..."
"... in an excess of boastfulness they even said they were more famous than Jesus; they had fun launching mysterious messages, even Satanic, according to improbable declarations ... sure they weren't the best example for young people at the time, but neither [were they] the worst."
There's some confusion and consternation over whether the Vatican was absolving The Beatles.
There's some confusion and consternation over whether the Vatican was absolving The Beatles.
"The child molester was also a brilliant, generous, talented man — the only person who ever read me a bedtime story."
"I will love him forever, for that, even when I wake up gasping and afraid."
A startling passage — in an essay by Elizabeth Scalia — AKA The Anchoress — that tries to explain — on this Good Friday — how she can be a Catholic after so many revelations about priests who sexually abuse children and the kindly protection they have received within the power structure of the Church.
It occurs to me that these priests — and Scalia's family pedophile — are the opposite of Boo Radley. Boo Radley — a character in "To Kill a Mockingbird" — was the reclusive neighbor who, failing to make a conventional show of friendliness, scared the children. But when the children are endangered, he saves them.
A Tom Toles cartoon:
A startling passage — in an essay by Elizabeth Scalia — AKA The Anchoress — that tries to explain — on this Good Friday — how she can be a Catholic after so many revelations about priests who sexually abuse children and the kindly protection they have received within the power structure of the Church.
***
It occurs to me that these priests — and Scalia's family pedophile — are the opposite of Boo Radley. Boo Radley — a character in "To Kill a Mockingbird" — was the reclusive neighbor who, failing to make a conventional show of friendliness, scared the children. But when the children are endangered, he saves them.
***
A Tom Toles cartoon:
I'm going to write about Obama at the GOP retreat, but only after tossing a bludgeon of law professor debate at Marc Ambinder.
There's a lot of enthusiasm about Obama's appearance at the GOP retreat — enthusiasm among Obama supporters. I skimmed the transcript late last night without finding something I could say. Obama seemed to be haranguing the Republicans about bipartisanship again, as he did during the State of the Union address, and I didn't see what this added, other than that it was nice/bold of him to show up at their event — give them some face time. But obviously, he's reaching out now because he needs them, as he did not before. Why, then, should I be impressed, and, more importantly, why should the Republicans help him now?
But given the amount of enthusiasm — e.g., Marc Ambinder gushing about "An Amazing Moment" — I decided — now that it's not late at night anymore — to take the time to watch the video and, as I go, blog from the transcript. Since that will take a little time, let me end this post now, so you can get the conversations started. Here's the video of the speech, and here's the Q&A section.
To give you something to chew on, here's Ambinder:
UPDATE: Here's the post I promised to write.
But given the amount of enthusiasm — e.g., Marc Ambinder gushing about "An Amazing Moment" — I decided — now that it's not late at night anymore — to take the time to watch the video and, as I go, blog from the transcript. Since that will take a little time, let me end this post now, so you can get the conversations started. Here's the video of the speech, and here's the Q&A section.
To give you something to chew on, here's Ambinder:
The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation."Well, that's a funny contrast to Obama's big theme of bipartisanship!
This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat.Hmm. Who? Some Catholic. Some Catholic who's praying to God that his guys kick the other guys' asses.
Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish...Heh heh... bring it on, baby!
... the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)Okay, I will be looking for the strengthful nuance that knocks down all arguments.
More than the State of the Union -- or on top of the State of the Union -- this may be a pivotal moment for the future of the presidential agenda on Capitol Hill. (Democrats are loving this. Chris Hayes, The Nation's Washington bureau chief, tweeted that he hadn't liked Obama more since the inauguration.)Got it. The Prez's people loved it. Maybe this wasn't really about inspiring bipartisanship but firing up the base. That's fine. If he does anything well, he deserves credit for the thing he does well. Let's just be clear about what the thing is.
During the presidential campaign, it was John McCain who proposed a form of the British Prime Ministers' questions for the president. It was derided as a gimmick. This is no gimmick. I have not seen a better and perhaps more productive political discussion in this country in...a long time. 90 minutes worth!Like the spending freeze, it was a joke when it was McCain's idea.
Maybe since Al Gore debated Ross Perot on NAFTA. Republicans may have wished they had spoken to John McCain about what happened to him in the presidential debates before they decided to broadcast this session.No, it's the Democrats who shut down the cameras when they think things won't look pretty.
The president looked genuinely engaged, willing to discuss things. Democrats believe that he tossed away the GOP talking points and lack of real plans into a bludgeon against them.How do you toss away the lack of something into a bludgeon? To be fair, it was the "lack of real plans." There could have been some fake plans that, when tossed away... but even if the packet of fake plans hit somebody, it wouldn't feel like a bludgeon. Maybe paper cuts.
"The whole question was structured by a talking point," he told Jeb Hensarling...."He"? Who's "he"? Obama? That Catholic guy? (And sorry about that last link. I thought it was "Hensnarling.") And what "whole question"? Is that a way to refer to all the questions?And is Ambinder's whole blog post copied (sloppily) from a Democratic talking point?
UPDATE: Here's the post I promised to write.
Should conscientious public servants resign when their job conflicts with their religious principles?
There's been a lot of talk about Martha Coakley's blunt statement that those who want to adhere to religious scruples against abortion and birth control "probably shouldn't work in an emergency room." I put up a long post about it earlier today, and I'm not going to repeat myself here. The point of this post is to compare Coakley's statement to something John F. Kennedy said about the conflict between public service and religion back when he was running for President and questions were raised about his Catholic religion:
Is an emergency room employee a "public servant" to whom Kennedy's resignation imperative should apply? That job is not an "office." You aren't elected to it, but you are, by taking that job, holding yourself out as ready to perform the duties associated with it. Is it right for you to take exemptions for your own sake at the expense of the public you were hired to serve? Maybe your need for an exemption from part of the job is a conflict between personal and public interests that should lead you — if you are conscientious — to resign.
I think Kennedy's imperative becomes too harsh at this point. For one thing, there is a long tradition of religious health care workers serving the public. There is a special energy and altruism that comes from religion that we shouldn't want to lose, even as government money and mandates reach deeply into health care. Nor should we want to alienate and marginalize citizens who belong in the mainstream of American life. Even those of us who believe in the importance and the right of access to abortions and birth control should want to find ways not to brutalize these workers. We shouldn't want to demand that they give up their livelihood unless they are willing to commit what they believe is murder. I hardly think John Kennedy meant for his vision of the separation of church and state to include something so perverse.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all....
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.So, according to JFK, the President is supposed to make decisions "in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates," and if, because of religion, he can't do that, he should resign. Kennedy doesn't limit his resignation imperative to the presidency. Such a limit would make sense, as there is only one President, and the nation's reliance on his judgment and action is extreme and unique. Kennedy applies his imperative to "any ... public servant." If you take a public service job, that is, then what you owe the public is service according to the public interest "without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates."
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise....
Is an emergency room employee a "public servant" to whom Kennedy's resignation imperative should apply? That job is not an "office." You aren't elected to it, but you are, by taking that job, holding yourself out as ready to perform the duties associated with it. Is it right for you to take exemptions for your own sake at the expense of the public you were hired to serve? Maybe your need for an exemption from part of the job is a conflict between personal and public interests that should lead you — if you are conscientious — to resign.
I think Kennedy's imperative becomes too harsh at this point. For one thing, there is a long tradition of religious health care workers serving the public. There is a special energy and altruism that comes from religion that we shouldn't want to lose, even as government money and mandates reach deeply into health care. Nor should we want to alienate and marginalize citizens who belong in the mainstream of American life. Even those of us who believe in the importance and the right of access to abortions and birth control should want to find ways not to brutalize these workers. We shouldn't want to demand that they give up their livelihood unless they are willing to commit what they believe is murder. I hardly think John Kennedy meant for his vision of the separation of church and state to include something so perverse.
If Justice Stevens retires, won't Obama need to appoint a Protestant?
I know people have trouble looking at the issue of religious diversity on the Supreme Court. I raised this question when Justice Souter stepped down, and Obama's nomination put a 6th Catholic on the Court.
Here I am on a May, 4, 2009 Bloggingheads with Emily Bazelon, raising the question question of religious diveristy in the wake of the Souter retirement. (This recorded on May, 4, 2009 , before Obama had nominated Sotormayor.)
Now, Justice Stevens is the only Justice who was raised in the Protestant tradition. The other 2 Justices are Jewish. I anticipate that there will be little discussion of this, but I find it hard to believe that Obama will not see the lack of diversity as a problem and choose a Protestant.
Here I am on a May, 4, 2009 Bloggingheads with Emily Bazelon, raising the question question of religious diveristy in the wake of the Souter retirement. (This recorded on May, 4, 2009 , before Obama had nominated Sotormayor.)
Now, Justice Stevens is the only Justice who was raised in the Protestant tradition. The other 2 Justices are Jewish. I anticipate that there will be little discussion of this, but I find it hard to believe that Obama will not see the lack of diversity as a problem and choose a Protestant.
"Why treat racial diversity as more important than other forms of diversity at a place like the Supreme Court?"
Conor Clarke tries to restate a question I asked. My question was:
Strangely, though, we are circumspect on the subject of religion. A lot of people seem to think it's wrong to talk about the number of Catholics on the Court, or to state simple facts like: Once Sotomayor is confirmed, there will be 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant on the Court. Perhaps this is because it is a quality of mind, internal to the individual. That makes it seem like a private matter. And who knows whether a given individual remains devout in the religion of his or her childhood.
Is it rude to ask? Is atheism still a secret? Why not be open about it, especially when we are inspecting a Supreme Court nominee? This is a mind that is going to be imposing its thoughts on us, probably for decades.
If a diverse array of justices is desirable, should we not be concerned that if you are confirmed, six out of the nine justices will be Roman Catholics, or is it somehow wrong to start paying attention to the extreme overrepresentation of Catholicism on the court at the moment when we have our first Hispanic nominee?I think religious diversity is particularly important, because it has more to do with the individual's mind. It's part of one's thinking, and legal analysis is thinking. Race and ethnicity might have an effect on your thinking — in that it may involve various personal experiences and feelings of identification — but it is not a characteristic that you have by deciding to have it or by believing you have it. Religion is different.
Strangely, though, we are circumspect on the subject of religion. A lot of people seem to think it's wrong to talk about the number of Catholics on the Court, or to state simple facts like: Once Sotomayor is confirmed, there will be 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant on the Court. Perhaps this is because it is a quality of mind, internal to the individual. That makes it seem like a private matter. And who knows whether a given individual remains devout in the religion of his or her childhood.
Is it rude to ask? Is atheism still a secret? Why not be open about it, especially when we are inspecting a Supreme Court nominee? This is a mind that is going to be imposing its thoughts on us, probably for decades.
"I've liked women but I've never felt I wanted to give up my life completely. I've never wanted to go to bed with anybody."
"My life" is the life of a celibate priest, and the speaker is Cardinal Keith O'Brien.
"I am father of this family in the diocese, the family who were entrusted to me 24 years ago. I think I would be neglecting one or other family if I had my own blood family."Is it the case that anyone who has sex — or who has a family — has less to devote to his work?
Hannity interviews Limbaugh.
The transcript.
Here's the part about Sotomayor:
Here's the part about Sotomayor:
And I got a little grief from people for saying that there's no such thing as reverse racism, just call her a racist, so - and they're right. That ["wise Latina" remark] is a racist thing to say and it's bigoted. And she would bring, no question about it, racism and bigotry to the court, if she is confirmed.
But, Sean, I've been thinking about this, and there's something else going on with Sonia Sotomayor. We don't know what she thinks about Roe versus Wade. She hasn't said. Now we know that she's Catholic. We know that she's Puerto Rican - Hispanic Catholic. They tend to be devout.
She has no record. She hasn't said much about it. If, and I'm speaking for me personally, if I learned, if I could be assured, that she is actually a pro-life person and does think that Roe versus Wade is bad constitutional law, and if she would rule on the right side on the life issue, I might look past this racism and even deal with that, but that's something very, very important to me, and she could be stealth in that regard.
And I know that - well, there's no record. Normally most liberals, they love to tell you how pro-choice they are and abortion. She doesn't have any of that.
When (if?) Sotomayor is confirmed, there will be 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court.
And 2 Jews. Only 1 Protestant (the elderly Justice Stevens). Isn't that strange! Now, much as I think that's a problem, I don't think it's a problem you can suddenly get exercised about at the very point of the first Hispanic nominee on the Court. Otherwise, all those previous Catholic appointments that we didn't talk about would block the one Hispanic appointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
