Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Because this sort of thing deserves all the attention it can get
More about priestly sex abuse, this time showing how Alaska was a veritable dumping ground for priests whose proclivities for child rape (among other things), since it was off the grid and easy to hide them there. A lot of these crimes were still happening into this century (and many were committed on girls and women, which rules out Bill Donohue's loutish theory about homosexuals), and I'll warn you that it is not easy reading.
Katha Politt in the Chicago Tribune has an editorial on the matter: "A papal resignation and pedophile priests" which is worth reading. In Canada, of course, the matter of Graham James shows that there are issues with child sexual abuse that are not related to the church, including decisions seeming made on high regarding the criminal's status. Although with James, at least, he did serve time.
Perhaps next time out I can focus on Protestants, but I'll tell you now there's a new steaming pile of crap presented to me just about every day, and it may be awhile before my gaze wavers.
(Via Pharyngula, which will probably be proof enough to many that this is worth ignoring)
Katha Politt in the Chicago Tribune has an editorial on the matter: "A papal resignation and pedophile priests" which is worth reading. In Canada, of course, the matter of Graham James shows that there are issues with child sexual abuse that are not related to the church, including decisions seeming made on high regarding the criminal's status. Although with James, at least, he did serve time.
Perhaps next time out I can focus on Protestants, but I'll tell you now there's a new steaming pile of crap presented to me just about every day, and it may be awhile before my gaze wavers.
(Via Pharyngula, which will probably be proof enough to many that this is worth ignoring)
Labels: anger, church, crime, religion
Friday, April 02, 2010
Finally, something for me to be angry about
As opposed to just crabby, that is.
The Catholic church has been taking it on the chin lately, and has seemed completely unable to handle this constant barrage of bad news. Unless, by "handle," you read that as "attack and offend."
Just in the past couple of days a number of atrocious things have been said:
In my own personal online orbit (and yes, actually in real, honest-to-goodness person-to-person life as well), much of this has been discussed, and discussed again, hashed out and questioned and brought about eye rolls and wailing and gnashing of teeth. But what I have noticed is that, from the Catholics I know, there has been nary a peep (wait, not true: a friend of a friend on Facebook was quick to note that it can't be just priests, that this problem must exist elsewhere. Of course it does, and police chiefs quite obviously cover up for pedo cops, editors move journalists around rather than them being charged... Actually, no, that's not true. And, I have to say, the 200 kids at the school for the deaf is a new item on the agenda since she brought that up). Anyhow, back to the topic at hand: just because I haven't heard anything from the Catholics I know (family and friends), doesn't mean they haven't been talking about this, either in disgust at the scandal or, conversely, disgust at the rest of the world for bringing this up and pushing it.
And so, I find myself curious. Is anything being said? Or is this the proverbial elephant in the room?
(Added later) I forgot to mention the church calling much of this "petty gossip," which seems a remarkably short-sighted trivialization of all that's gone on. Salon has a good look at what's gone down in the past week.
*And by abuse I mean a young boy being forced to put the penis of an adult priest in his mouth, or perhaps being forced to fondle the same priest's penis, and perhaps worse. Keep this in mind next time you read a media or spokesman-induced euphemism. Or the next time you hear Bill Donohue prove that some humans are no more than enormous wastes of skin.
The Catholic church has been taking it on the chin lately, and has seemed completely unable to handle this constant barrage of bad news. Unless, by "handle," you read that as "attack and offend."
Just in the past couple of days a number of atrocious things have been said:
- Bill Donohue, the head of the Catholic League in the US (and, frankly, a notorious blowhard who gets way more press and air time than he deserves), came on Larry King Live and worked very hard to convince everyone that the crimes committed by the priests (or, at least, the priest at the school for the deaf in Wisconsin) were not pedophilia because the boys were all "post-pubescent." Bonus points for Donohue for upping the anti-gay hysteria with that one.
- The Pope's personal preacher likened the current attacks on the church to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews. Yes, really, he did. Because legitimate concerns about the hideous abuse* of children and about the cover-ups that in fact did occur are indeed the moral equivalent of Kristallnacht, or perhaps a little something called the "Holocaust." (Check Wikipedia, in case you too have forgotten.)
- US priests who've been accused are sometimes quietly being reinstated. Now, I actually somewhat agree with this, in the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty motif, but I do have issues with them being set loose on more children, or being given new jobs without - at the very least - the people directly involved with them being aware of the current situation.
In my own personal online orbit (and yes, actually in real, honest-to-goodness person-to-person life as well), much of this has been discussed, and discussed again, hashed out and questioned and brought about eye rolls and wailing and gnashing of teeth. But what I have noticed is that, from the Catholics I know, there has been nary a peep (wait, not true: a friend of a friend on Facebook was quick to note that it can't be just priests, that this problem must exist elsewhere. Of course it does, and police chiefs quite obviously cover up for pedo cops, editors move journalists around rather than them being charged... Actually, no, that's not true. And, I have to say, the 200 kids at the school for the deaf is a new item on the agenda since she brought that up). Anyhow, back to the topic at hand: just because I haven't heard anything from the Catholics I know (family and friends), doesn't mean they haven't been talking about this, either in disgust at the scandal or, conversely, disgust at the rest of the world for bringing this up and pushing it.
And so, I find myself curious. Is anything being said? Or is this the proverbial elephant in the room?
(Added later) I forgot to mention the church calling much of this "petty gossip," which seems a remarkably short-sighted trivialization of all that's gone on. Salon has a good look at what's gone down in the past week.
*And by abuse I mean a young boy being forced to put the penis of an adult priest in his mouth, or perhaps being forced to fondle the same priest's penis, and perhaps worse. Keep this in mind next time you read a media or spokesman-induced euphemism. Or the next time you hear Bill Donohue prove that some humans are no more than enormous wastes of skin.
Labels: anger, crime, religion
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
A Couple of Related Links
First, the Ten Commandments as text messages. Sample: "10. dnt ogle ur bf's m8. or ox. or dnkey. myob." And also, the Devil writes a response to Pat Roberts.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Over 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might be (or, Actually, IS) the Anti-Christ
Uh huh. "Resentful because they've been left behind" does sound like a decent description to me. Watch the interview here.
Labels: crazy talk, politics, religion
Saturday, February 16, 2008
A Way to Prove Creationism
On the SF Canada listserve, someone was asking where they might be able to find a mad scientist. Matt Hughes, never one to be slow off the mark, suggested the following:
"I think it's easier to create your own. Go up to one and say that Darwin was a tool of the devil and, anyway, all this science stuff is just a matter of opinion. If you keep it up, they get really mad. Thus you have created your own mad scientist. That's why it's called creationism. Well, at least, that's my opinion."
Sounds simple.
On the SF Canada listserve, someone was asking where they might be able to find a mad scientist. Matt Hughes, never one to be slow off the mark, suggested the following:
"I think it's easier to create your own. Go up to one and say that Darwin was a tool of the devil and, anyway, all this science stuff is just a matter of opinion. If you keep it up, they get really mad. Thus you have created your own mad scientist. That's why it's called creationism. Well, at least, that's my opinion."
Sounds simple.
Labels: humour, religion, science
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Mother (or Father) of All Excuses
It seems obvious to me that any time someone murders someone else, there is at least some small bit of mental illness or incapacity involved. After all, the ability to take a life without hesitation should suggest that the murderer's brain chemistry is different that, say, mine. (Note here that I'm talking about murder, as opposed to self-defense, some aspects of warfare, accidentally running someone down with the car, and likely other ways of taking a life.)
The law, though, sets the bar pretty high in proving "mental disorder," and well they should. If everyone who killed got off light because their rafters weren't installed properly, we'd see even more murders. Do the crime, do the time, unless what ails you is so obvious and so egregious that the law can't help but notice and agree that psychiatric help is more appropriate.
It doesn't surprise me that Blair Donnelly got off with a finding of mental disorder. If you kill your teenage daughter and then insist that your god wanted you to do it, and if that excuse holds up under serious psychological scrutiny, it will raise enough eyebrows to bring on some serious doubts about your mental fitness.
The verdict does raise two questions in my mind, however, neither one of which I've seen in the (admittedly small cross-section of) news coverage I've seen. First, how is it that our society can see a visit by the Judeo-Christian god as - while not a valid excuse - a sign that someone is not thinking quite right and therefore as a get out of jail free card, but they can't see the demands made by a different culture (and, let's be honest, therefore religion) that tragically came to an almost identical result as anything other than a moment of legal guilt.
This is a double standard, although perhaps we should fault the defense lawyer in the earlier case for not playing up the demands that Sikh culture (tied inextricably to religion) make of its adherents. Certainly the vast majority of Sikhs do not lead their lives believing that they must murder their daughter if she crosses them, just as most Christians don't. But to set the standard for one and not the other shows just how far we haven't come from our supposed Christianist past.
Secondly, and this I think is even more interesting, does the Donnelly decision crack open the door to show that religious belief is indeed a mental disorder? If your god tells you to shoot dead an abortion provider or to blow yourself up in order to kill a couple dozen children from a competing sect, how does this differ from your god telling you to kill your child? Not a new story, by the way, the bible having given credence to that demand before.
Honestly, though, this crack will only show itself to people already leaning that way. The rest will blithely carry on, and perhaps even accuse Satan of having suckered Donnelly into committing his horrendous crime.
It seems obvious to me that any time someone murders someone else, there is at least some small bit of mental illness or incapacity involved. After all, the ability to take a life without hesitation should suggest that the murderer's brain chemistry is different that, say, mine. (Note here that I'm talking about murder, as opposed to self-defense, some aspects of warfare, accidentally running someone down with the car, and likely other ways of taking a life.)
The law, though, sets the bar pretty high in proving "mental disorder," and well they should. If everyone who killed got off light because their rafters weren't installed properly, we'd see even more murders. Do the crime, do the time, unless what ails you is so obvious and so egregious that the law can't help but notice and agree that psychiatric help is more appropriate.
It doesn't surprise me that Blair Donnelly got off with a finding of mental disorder. If you kill your teenage daughter and then insist that your god wanted you to do it, and if that excuse holds up under serious psychological scrutiny, it will raise enough eyebrows to bring on some serious doubts about your mental fitness.
The verdict does raise two questions in my mind, however, neither one of which I've seen in the (admittedly small cross-section of) news coverage I've seen. First, how is it that our society can see a visit by the Judeo-Christian god as - while not a valid excuse - a sign that someone is not thinking quite right and therefore as a get out of jail free card, but they can't see the demands made by a different culture (and, let's be honest, therefore religion) that tragically came to an almost identical result as anything other than a moment of legal guilt.
This is a double standard, although perhaps we should fault the defense lawyer in the earlier case for not playing up the demands that Sikh culture (tied inextricably to religion) make of its adherents. Certainly the vast majority of Sikhs do not lead their lives believing that they must murder their daughter if she crosses them, just as most Christians don't. But to set the standard for one and not the other shows just how far we haven't come from our supposed Christianist past.
Secondly, and this I think is even more interesting, does the Donnelly decision crack open the door to show that religious belief is indeed a mental disorder? If your god tells you to shoot dead an abortion provider or to blow yourself up in order to kill a couple dozen children from a competing sect, how does this differ from your god telling you to kill your child? Not a new story, by the way, the bible having given credence to that demand before.
Honestly, though, this crack will only show itself to people already leaning that way. The rest will blithely carry on, and perhaps even accuse Satan of having suckered Donnelly into committing his horrendous crime.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Another Marvelous Example of Christian Love
Fred Clark at Slacktivist (himself an evangelical) points out a head-spinning effort by an American baptist pastor to pray for the deaths of their enemies in Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The post wanders elsewhere, but it's all worthwhile. I especially like the suggestion by Fred that he'd "love to see Mr. Learing file a lawsuit against Wiley and his church. All they'd need to do to defend themselves would be to explain that they don't really believe in the efficacy of prayer."
Fred Clark at Slacktivist (himself an evangelical) points out a head-spinning effort by an American baptist pastor to pray for the deaths of their enemies in Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The post wanders elsewhere, but it's all worthwhile. I especially like the suggestion by Fred that he'd "love to see Mr. Learing file a lawsuit against Wiley and his church. All they'd need to do to defend themselves would be to explain that they don't really believe in the efficacy of prayer."
Labels: religion
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]