justice league: the new frontier

I just watched Justice League: The New Frontier, an animated video based on the graphic novel by Darwyn Cooke. The story is about the founding of the Justice League after the Korean War.

What a wonderful video (and not just because Lucy Lawless voices Wonder Woman). Many characters get their moments, but primarily Green Lantern and Flash. I missed Aquaman, my favorite, who only showed up at the very end. Still, what a thrill when he finally entered, kinda like the last minute of Star Trek: First Contact when the vulcan pullsdown his cap.

Sure, the moral lesson is blunt: war is bad, diversity is good, revenge is bad, self-sacrifice is good, modern factionalism is bad, when the world is at stake “there are no democrats and republicans”, success requires teamwork, and survival is the only justification for killing. Heavy-handed morality comes with the territory, comics being aimed at children, for whom the true complexity of the world has all the traction of a Hillary Clinton speech. In other words, Wonder Woman shouts something real close to “Yes we can!” 

I don’t know how they made the film so engrossing, because of course I know the superheroes are going to win, but I was at the edge of my seat gripping my chair’s arms, anxious to see how they could possibly do it. Same posture I have as a democrat waiting for August.

My daughter thought the video was “wicked awesome” and so did her mom. We wanted to see it again right away. My son is a little disturbed by violence. This film is PG-13, so lots of hitting, gun violence, some blood gore, people actually die. (We moved on to an episode of Caillou instead.) 

And who says comic books aren’t educational? The end of the film provided an audio excerpt from President Kennedy’s acceptance address at the Democratic National Convention, 1960. If your eyes don’t tear a little and a patriotic chill doesn’t race up your spine when you read this, check for a pulse:

For I stand here tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind us, the pioneers gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build our new West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, nor the prisoners of their own price tags. They were determined to make the new world strong and free — an example to the world, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from within and without.

Some would say that those struggles are all over, that all the horizons have been explored, that all the battles have been won, that there is no longer an American frontier. But I trust that no one in this assemblage would agree with that sentiment; for the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won; and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier — the frontier of the 1960’s, the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, the frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled threats.

Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises. It is a set of challenges.

It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride — It appeals to our pride, not our security. It holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

The New Frontier is here whether we seek it or not.

Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink from that new frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric — and those who prefer that course should not vote for me or the Democratic Party.

But I believe that the times require imagination and courage and perseverance. I’m asking each of you to be pioneers towards that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age–to the stout in spirit, regardless of Party, to all who respond to the scriptural call: “Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be [thou] dismayed.”

For courage , not complacency, is our need today; leadership, not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation — A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation. And the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more — more promises to this group or that, more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin as a substitute for policy, more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and the subsidies are always high. But my promises are in the platform that you have adopted. Our ends will not be won by rhetoric, and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand at this frontier at a turning-point of history. We must prove all over again to a watching world, as we said on a most conspicuous stage, whether this nation, conceived as it is with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives, can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure?

That is the real question.

Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction, but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space, and the inside of men’s minds?

That is the question of the New Frontier.

That is the choice our nation must make — a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline, between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of “normalcy,” between dedication of mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we shall do. And we cannot fail that trust. And we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from the first snowy day in New Hampshire many months ago to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes across the United States.

Give me your help and your hand and your voice.

Recall with me the words of Isaiah that, “They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary.”

As we face the coming great challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that He renew our strength.

Then shall we be equal to the test.

Then we shall not be weary.

Then we shall prevail.

what does a good christian bishop wear to church?

A bulletproof vest. I learned that tidbit from a new book.

Remember the split in the Episocopal Church over ordaining an openly gay bishop in 2003? I’ve been wondering how many of those parishioners who left to form their own homosexual-free zone have the sense to be embarrassed now, after all the hysteria has cleared and they can see their reactions through hearts filled with Christian charity. I bet they feel as ridiculous as all those gushing reporters comparing Obama’s speech on race to the likes of Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy – lo’ these ”two score and seven or eight days ago”. (see Mark Steyn: To Obama, ‘we’ means ‘me’).

Or maybe not. Christian charity is about as common today as unbiased journalism. Maybe it was never all that common.

Nevertheless, Bishop Gene Robinson has published a book this spring: In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God. In an interview with Deb Price he reminds us that Jesus told his disciples on the night before his death: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:12-13).

As one still hoping more religious institutions will speak about God as something other than a moral policeman who acts more like an abusive parent, I cling to those words. Men like Bishop Robinson do more than hope, and I admire that.

In July, despite not being invited to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference of bishops in England, Robinson will go in an unofficial capacity to give wary bishops “a chance to sit with a self-affirming gay person of faith,” he says.

The two events, he says, are linked: He wants to ensure his partner has legal rights under the civil union law because “it’s potentially dangerous” for Robinson to attend the conference. (He wore a bulletproof vest at his 2003 consecration.)

On coming out to his conservative father, Bishop Robinson explained In an interview with Ed Bradley, “…it’s part of my faith to believe that the only way you get through Easter is through some Good Fridays. And this was a Good Friday for me.”

“The changes we’ve seen in our understanding of the Scripture over the 19 centuries since it was written have happened through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. … Things that seemed simply ‘the way of the world’ — like slavery, polygamy and the lower status of women — in retrospect seem like examples of humankind’s flawed, limited and mistaken understanding of God’s will. Our ability to better understand God’s will has improved with time, prayer and reflection,” he adds.

“Let’s be clear. We’ve always had gay bishops,” he reminds us, “All I’m doing is being honest about it.”

honor killing is not the only terrorism against women

Honor killing is not a controversial issue. Nobody likes it. Not even people in Jordan, apparently, as Ellen R. Sheeley explains in her book Reclaiming Honor in Jordan. She says the people there overwhelmingly oppose it, though the government doesn’t punish it like other murders. I haven’t read this book, but I’ve seen the open letter written by Sheeley to King Abdullah II of Jordan.

This letter is obviously not meant to persuade King Abdullah of anything. It’s publicity for the book, to be shared around the feministphere. I mean, an American woman doesn’t write to a foreign king and say haughty things like, “my initial impressions of Jordan as a relatively enlightened country in the region” and expect to get anywhere, even if she does have a tedious amount of good data. But great idea, Sheeley.

Honor Suicide

The most startling thing I discovered from her open letter was that a new phenomenon has been born: honor suicides. In countries cracking down on honor killing, some woman-murderers have begun to accomplish their goal by getting women to kill themselves. My God, I think to myself, we really have succeeded in westernizing the whole world!

Ah, but of course I’m being sarcastic.

Women don’t kill themselves in America. Men kill them. And if men can’t kill them, they kill their children, or they beat them, or they rape them, or they teach them to virtually beat and rape themselves through lives dedicated to performance and pleasing.

Ah, but of course I’m being sarcastic again.

Women have achieved equality. Feminism is dead and, really, just a good thing anyway. It is so unnecessary. My life is a perfect example of why feminism is unnecessary. I have so many choices my mother never had:

• I can work at the same job as my husband and make 30% less — or I can stay home with my children and have no financial recourse if he chooses to dump me for the 20-something who sits near him.
• I can watch television shows with my children if I don’t mind explaining to my 5-year-old what “viagra” is — or I can let her play a computer game with Spiderman, Batman, Superman, or any of the other “mans”.
• I can play sports with her, so when she’s sixteen none of the boys will want to date her, a girl who’s more athletic than them – or I can get her a Dora head with hair to brush, a Barbie, and an Easy Bake Oven.
• I can attend Mass where a man in a white robe attends a man in a green robe who offers thanks to a man hanging on a cross all scrutinized by a man in a funny hat, who tells the women, who fill most of the pews, to have as many babies as God wants you to, which means as many as your husband, who’s not at Mass, wants – or I can attend a service where a woman in a white robe offers thanks to a man hanging on a cross, while being overseen by a board comprised mostly of men, referred to as a ”general assembly,” “synod”, or “council”, before pews once again filled mostly with women.

Ignorance is Deadly

Here’s an excerpt from Sheeley’s letter about — what else? – the ignorance of women, perpetrated by a culture that limits their education and information, that is. When I read this, I don’t see a lot of difference from our own culture.

Of course I’m being sarcastic! We don’t limit education and information here, either.

Nonetheless, there remains a continued need for efforts to educate people in general and women in particular about their rights and the limits of them. In my research, compared to their male counterparts, the female respondents were both less likely to know that “honor” killings in Jordan are not punished as ordinary murders and less likely to be aware of “honor” killings that have occurred within their extended families. And these differences between the genders were highly statistically significant.

Similarly, there is an important role for both parents and religious leaders to play. Twenty-one-and-a-half percent of the survey respondents believe that Islam requires that sexually promiscuous behaviors be cleansed through “honor” killings, while another 2% are unsure. The experts and the imams I have consulted tell me this is absolutely not the case. In the sample, parents and religion/religious leaders (in that order) were named by the respondents as exerting the strongest influence on their attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about “honor” killings. And so it is crucial that they discuss “honor” killings, ensure that any miseducation and misinformation be corrected, and offer better means of addressing this issue. (A HEARTFELT APPEAL TO HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II OF JORDAN)

truth comes through the body

Life is a conversation. Disagreement and agreement are ways of conversing. Only when conversation is stopped, either because someone refuses to speak or refuses to listen, does death cast its shadow. And that death is the essence of sin because the essence of sin is silence.

This belief is why I write a blog. It’s why I write fiction and erotica, too. It’s why I draw – another form of conversing. Which brings up the point that there are many forms of conversing. Which brings me to the title of this post.

Crimson and Clover Over and Over

My own life has taught me the most honest conversation comes from the body. Many people will disagree with that statement on the face of it, but consider how easy it is to lie with words and hard to lie with your body. Have you ever been with someone who said they weren’t shy, but at a party, you knew they were? Have you ever slept with someone who said they loved you, but in bed, you knew they didn’t?

Things like lie detectors rely on the fact that it’s much harder to make your skin lie than your mouth. Those adept at reading body language discern the truth from lies for this very reason, and do you realize how many different interest groups are seeking better understanding of body language, even a science of it? From police and psychologists to fiction writers. Don’t I love the author who can get across this sort of complexity.

Sure, the body can be overcome. Not altered but managed, which seems to be the essence of a great deal of religious morality, from Christians to Buddhists. Overcoming the body? I’ve never been clear on the rationale: you mean, avoiding pain by avoiding pleasure? What’s the point?

Nevertheless, the ability to overcome the body has become so identified as the mark of spiritual athletes that religions believe the failure to achieve it, and certainly a lack of interest in achieving it, is virtually a modern disease.

Where You Begin is Where You End

But it seems to me, if you pursue the goal of overcoming your body, you’re pursuing self-creation rather than self-discovery. Isn’t that more like hubris than humility? I mean, it challenges Creation as somehow deficient, as potentially made better by you.

I know, you want to mention something here. I can see your shoulders tightening, see you leaning forward, your eyebrows flexing with thought. I’m pretty good at reading body language. Wait, you say, what about the Fall? Isn’t trying to overcome yourself only about a return to the real creation, God’s Creation, since we made such a bad show of it the first time?

Don’t know, but I’m beginning to doubt it because, true or not, that myth had to be made, you see. If we each looked to our own bodies for what seemed most true and valuable and desirable, we’d risk anarchy. We’d risk conflict on a Girardian scale (see my posts on Rene Girard for more), where everyone’s fighting for his right to party. That leaves culture bereft of the self-sacrificers it needs for unity.

Culture is built on religion and religion is built on self-sacrifice. Some few or many must accept the limitations others don’t. Those who don’t sacrifice offer palatable reasons to the self-sacrificers, whatever works given the religion’s mindset: you’re heroic, you’ll be rewarded later, you’ll avoid pain, you’re evil and have all you deserve.

If you think this sounds a little Nietzschean, well yeah, a little. I’ve always liked his questions. His answers leave a lot to be desired.

The Sound of Silence

These thoughts came to me recently as I wrestled with the Catholic Church’s many imposed silences.

For example, you won’t see Catholic leaders discussing women’s ordination anymore. Pope John Paul II silenced debate on that. He didn’t just disagree and say his decision was final and let the chatter go on. He told Catholics the world over they must not mention it again on pain of discipline. Did the same with certain voices calling for sacramental inclusion of committed gays and lesbians. No Jesits for the sodomites.

And there are other silences occurring in my life — with family members, with fellow bloggers who don’t like my words, with friends who expect more compromise from me.

I’m guilty of many things, but I’ve never been guilty of silence. I’ve poked a few bears and hope you will, too. I hope you’ll go make some noise. 

the factlikeness of orgasm studies — too bad for educated catholic women

Tired of sex research? No, me either. But I am a little tired of the thrill media gets reporting how some group doesn’t measure up to some other group. And by group, I mean women. And by women, I mean smart women or feminist women or successful women or any other kind of woman who appears to be just a little too independent. 

As science shows repeatedly, whether a man is smart, dumb, unemployed or the governor of New York, he is invariably able to successfully spread his seed with the eye-popping percentage of a Mensan, while smart women are riding the short bus when it comes to coming.

Or is any of this even science?

First, the Studies

New Orgasm Study 2008

BRAINY babes find it harder to have an orgasm – because they are too busy thinking, a study claims.

The German survey found that the more educated a woman was, the less likely it was that she would be satisfied by sex. In the study 62 per cent of women who had completed their education said they often had problems achieving orgasm. Only 38 per cent of women with a lower educational qualification said they had such problems.

The study conducted by a German lifestyle website surveyed over 2,000 women between the ages of 18 and 49. (Clever Girls Have Bad Sex) 

Old Orgasm Study 2006

Women with graduate degrees are more likely to reach orgasm than their less educated counterparts, a new Australian study suggests.

The survey, which interviewed more than 9,000 women, claims that higher levels of education and income are associated with a greater prevalence for orgasm among women. (Educated Women Have More Orgasms).

Yet Another Orgasm Study 2007

A Canadian study found that smart women are also less likely to have orgasms during sex. The study, published in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, found that better-educated women are more likely to have low sex drives and less likely to climax if they can muster the energy to get started. Some 48 percent of university-educated women report problems compared with 31 percent of high-school grads. (Too Smart to Come)

Christine Whelan wrote that piece for Sirens Magazine. She also wrote Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women. In her citation-heavy article, she offered some insight:

I’ve been studying this topic for six years—and if I’ve learned anything it’s that the media loves bad news for successful women. It turns out the reports on smart women and sex are no different.

The Definitive Part

Sex in America: A Definitive Study was published in 1994. I suppose a lot could change in fourteen years. But at that time we were told “who has the least sex (Catholic women) and who has the most (Hispanic men)” and that “if you’re married and feel stuck in a rut and think singles are getting all the action, you’re wrong: It’s married couples who are having the most sex.” (Big Bang)

Sex in America told us that educated women are more likely to experiment and masturbate but not necessarily orgasm, and yet, the big picture, says Lisa Schwarzbaum is that here in America, ”we have moderate appetites, with moderate adjustments made for modernity. “

The New England Journal of Medicine reviewed the social science aspect as hogwash. Maybe. It does seem that for every statistic I read and rule I’m quoted, I can find an exception or even a whole other study that refutes it.

And absolutely NOTHING I’ve seen in the “definitive study” speaks for my life, anyway. Except for that list on page 146.

They Called Them on the Phone? 

Seriously. The recent studies were conducted by phone and website and are actually called research. Self-reporting on sex, and we don’t expect anyone to lie?

The media likes to portray this stuff as science, but statistical comparison of self-reported lifestyles and opinions is not science. This is the scientific equivalent of what pundits call “truthiness.” Let’s call it “factlikeness” and realize the competition for grant dollars is getting so fierce that the poor slobs writing grant proposals have to kick it up a notch.

In the meantime, whether we’re intellectually gifted or not, whether we’re educated or not, whether we’re Catholic or not, we have only one decision to make, ladies: Are we going to live in Germany, Canada, America, or Australia? 

Um hm. All the smart chicks can join me in Australia. Apparently, it’s not called down under for nothing.

presidential candidate summaries on the issues show that conservatives are screwed

The pundits keep telling us Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are identical on the issues. So I went over to On The Issues and waded through their extensive list of votes and quotes broken down by issue. Know what? The pundits are right. Mostly.

ON THE ISSUES

In the summary, On the Issues rates each senator as Hard Core Liberal. What that means, of course, is that Clinton and Obama would each “answer personal questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.” In other words, leave social choices alone but level the playing field by managing economic activities.

Conservatives are just the reverse, more concerned with managing our personal activities and leaving the money game with as few rules as possible. Of course, we all know giving tax breaks to the rich doesn’t create jobs, lack of regulation fueled the housing crisis, and as Larry Beinhart points out in The Myths and Harsh Effects of Bush’s Economic Class War, the recession of 2001 never ended and the growth that President Bush and the Republicans have been touting for seven years is really a debt bubble.

Conservatives use the rhetoric that liberals are immersed in a politics of envy: we’re jealous of the money those rich guys have and want to take it away. We know the truth. Those conservatives are just immersed in a politics of envy: they’re jealous of all the privacy and sex we free-thinkers have and want to take it away.

So for comparison purposes, I’m including Senator John McCain, as well, although he’s not exactly the opposite of a Hard-Core Liberal. He’s a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

PERSONAL ISSUES

• Abortion Is A Woman’s Right
  Barack Obama STRONGLY SUPPORTS
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY SUPPORTS
  John McCain OPPOSES
• Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law
  Barack Obama STRONGLY SUPPORTS
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY SUPPORTS
  John McCain SUPPORT
• Organized Prayer In Public Schools
  Barack Obama OPPOSE
  Hillary Clinton OPPOSE
  John McCain SUPPORT
• Death Penalty
  Barack Obama OPPOSE
  Hillary Clinton OPPOSE
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Mandatory “Three Strikes” Sentencing Laws
  Barack Obama OPPOSE
  Hillary Clinton OPPOSE
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Drug Use Is Immoral: Enforce Laws Against It
  Barack Obama NO OPINION (2001: questions harsh penalties for drug dealing)
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY OPPOSE (Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison, Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts)
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Allow Churches To Provide Welfare Services
  Barack Obama SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton SUPPORT
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Link Human Rights To Trade With China
  Barack Obama STRONGLY SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY SUPPORT
  John McCain STRONGLY OPPOSE

ECONOMIC ISSUES

• Require Companies To Hire More Women/Minorities
  Barack Obama STRONGLY SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton SUPPORT
  John McCain SUPPORT
• More Federal Funding For Health Coverage
  Barack Obama SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton SUPPORT
  John McCain SUPPORT
• Privatize Social Security
  Barack Obama STRONGLY OPPOSE
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY OPPOSE
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Spend Resources To Stop Global Warming
  Barack Obama STRONGLY SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY SUPPORT
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Make Income Tax Flatter And Lower
  Barack Obama STRONGLY SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY SUPPORT
  John McCain OPPOSE
• Immigration Helps Our Economy - Encourage It
  Barack Obama SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton SUPPORT
  John McCain SUPPORT
• Support and Expand Free Trade
  Barack Obama OPPOSE
  Hillary Clinton OPPOSE
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORT
• Continue Foreign Aid to Russia, Israel, Others
  Barack Obama SUPPORT
  Hillary Clinton SUPPORT
  John McCain STRONGLY OPPOSE

In the summary provided by On the Issues, they leave four questions out of the philosophy because, they say, they do not fit the above general liberal/conservative theory. The four questions are very interesting.

• Absolute Right To Gun Ownership
  Barack Obama STRONGLY OPPOSES
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY OPPOSES
  McCain STRONGLY SUPPORTS
• Parents Choose Schools Via Vouchers
  Barack Obama OPPOSES
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY OPPOSES
  John McCain STRONGLY SUPPORTS
• More Spending On Armed Forces Personnel
  Barack Obama SUPPORTS
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY OPPOSES
  McCain SUPPORTS
• Reduce Spending on Missile Defense (”Star Wars”)
  Barack Obama SUPPORTS
  Hillary Clinton STRONGLY SUPPORTS
  McCain SUPPORTS

RATINGS BY INTEREST GROUPS

Bold are issues of particular importance to me, and you can see the differences among the candidates. Find your most important ones and look up the interest groups online.

Hillary Clinton:
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal justice. (Dec 2005)
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)

Barack Obama:
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal justice. (Dec 2005)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

John McCain:
Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 61% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 29% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 85% by the NCJA, indicating a “tough-on-crime” stance. (Dec 2005)
Rated 45% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 18% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 15% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 33% by the AU, a mixed record on church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Rated 40% by the ARA, indicating a mixed record on senior issues. (Dec 2003)
Rated 72% by NTU, indicating “Satisfactory” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 50% by CTJ, indicating a mixed record on progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)

WHAT THIS TELLS ME

The only real difference between Obama and Clinton was on Armed Personnel Spending. The rest seems to be a matter of degree. But it reinforced my decision to vote Democrat, no matter what. That means if my girl loses(!), I suppose I’ll go to the booth for Obama. I still think she’d get the job done ten times better, but at least Obama would be fighting the same fight, just not as well. Of course I picture the dream team: Hillary/Barack 2008.

The people who have no candidate this election year are the conservatives. Happy happy day.

the sueppel murder: scandal for the faithful

Other posts on the Sueppel murders:
the sueppel murder: scandal for the faithful
the sueppel murder: avoiding facts, avoiding scandal
the sueppel murder: anger is evil not crazy
the sueppel murder: rivalry and redemptive violence

——————————————

Hushing Up The Questions

As the Diocese of Davenport seeks to heal the remaining family of Steven Sueppel, they have forgotten about the rest of the community.

But maybe you can help.

As I’ve written in previous posts, I submitted a Letter to the Editor of The Catholic Messenger that was first rudely rejected and then followed by an ad hominem attack saying I didn’t have the credentials to question the paper. A few days later, an apology followed. Why the sensitivity around my questioning of the unsubstantiated “fact” that Steven Sueppel was mentally ill? Why not just give us the evidence?

A canon lawyer has weighed in at his blog:

One of the reasons we have rules is to help us guide our decision-making when circumstances make it difficult to think clearly. The horrific murder of the Sueppel family by their husband-father Steven, who then finally succeeded in killing himself, is nothing if not a difficult circumstance. My read, in any case, of 1983 CIC 1184.1.3, in light of the gruesome facts of this case, leads me to conclude that Steven Sueppel should be denied ecclesiastical funeral rites.

Because Canon 1184 does not require us ‘to read the soul’ of someone, but instead focuses our attention on observable actions, there is, in my opinion, no doubt but that Steven Sueppel’s actions qualify him as “a manifest sinner” who in turn “cannot be granted [an] ecclesiastical funeral without scandal for the faithful.” ( In the Light of the Law )

Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD, is clear to offer caveats in his blog — that what he’s read in the press is accurate, that this is his reading of canon law and not the official Church, but in an endnote writes: “Who is the final authority over the funeral question? The ordinary of the diocese concerned (1983 CIC 1184.2). Could one reach a conclusion different from mine? Sure, but on the facts as known by me, I would have to disagree.”

Hiding the Truth

In the final analysis, the Sueppel murder-suicide made victims of the entire community, and the Diocese is perpetuating the scandal. It’s hard to trust an office more interested in hushing things up than giving them the light of day, which this Diocese knows all too well.

The Diocese of Davenport has already taken a severe blow for the decades-long sex abuse and — more importantly — the cover up, and our parishes of this mostly rural diocese are still having to come up with money to pay off the settlement costs that the Bishop didn’t cover with insurance and building sales. See the grisly details from bishops archives and survivor accounts at Bishop Accountability.

Now, there are questions about the burial of Steven Sueppel, a man from an Iowa City family that is prominent in local business and Catholic education. The mentioning of “mental illness” by Sueppel’s pastor, as quoted in The Catholic Messenger, was emphasized for a reason — hence the editor’s harsh response to my questioning of the “fact” of mental illness. No lawyer, family, friend, or other professional has suggested Steven Sueppel was mentally ill, but the Diocese has continued to ignore the concerns from parishioners.

Why isn’t this Diocese a little more eager for transparency after its appalling history? A little more humility before the faithful seems appropriate.

If you’re one of the Catholic parishioners in the Diocese of Davenport and would like an answer to the questionable decision of burying Steven Sueppel with ecclesiastical funeral rites, please email me ( remove spaces from author @ teresawymore . com), and I will get you in contact with a reporter writing about this story.

Bishop Amos has refused an interview with that reporter, but he could easily settle the concern that Steven Sueppel was given special treatment because of his family’s standing by explaining the decision with canon law or simply by providing evidence that Steven Sueppel was, indeed, mentally ill.

What You Don’t Know Might Kill You

As I’ve emphasized in my posts, Steven Sueppel was almost certainly a family annihilator, not mentally ill at all, and this should be admitted. The reason?  Because family annihilators are not rare. Because there are women and children out there right now risking their lives and hearing nothing about warning signs that might save their lives. Because Sheryl, Ethan, Seth, Mira, and Eleanor might be alive if one of Steven’s friends or family had themselves ever heard about family annihilators. These crimes don’t get much press despite their regular occurence because with the suicide, there is no trial.

Pope Benedict XVI, who was here in America last week, emphasized that

This emphasis on individualism has even affected the Church, giving rise to a form of piety which sometimes emphasizes our private relationship with God at the expense of our calling to be members of a redeemed community. If we are truly to gaze upon him who is the source of our joy, we need to do so as members of the people of God… (Zenit)

The community needs an answer.

don’t miss the ‘is it obama or jesus’ quiz

The quiz is mostly making fun of Senator Obama, but you may learn a few things about Jesus, too.

Fun, but I was disappointed to be reminded that David Brooks, a NY Times reporter I’ve come to admire in the last few months, once made the same sort of gushing remarks about Senator Obama that Chris Matthews did.  

Click the image to take the quiz, and for more on Jesus vs. Barack, see my post Obama Anonymous: Take the Twelve Steps to Reality.

energize your faith through questions, not answers

A new author at Cross Left has a post that has helped me frame a contrast I see between my more traditional Christian friends and my more progressive ones. More than that, it helped explain why my faith sometimes dies, only to return at the moment the answers all fall apart.

In excusing god, bluegrassrambling (David H.) writes

If I go to the Bible looking for answers, I am doomed. What I will find are excuses for God. If I go to the Bible looking for inspiration from others who have wrestled with my own questions (and not found answers), then I am saved. Then, I might encounter God.

Why Catholic?

People who are not Catholic make certain assumptions about my beliefs and lifestyle. Depending on how informed they are, they may expect, since I’m Catholic, I pray to the saints. They may expect I attend Mass and confession every week. They may expect I don’t use birth control and that I excoriate premarital sex, homosexuality, and any sort of sex that doesn’t allow for the possibility of procreation. They may expect I attend bingo and craft fairs and send my children to a Catholic school.

Well, some of that is true. Okay, none of it is. Wait…I do attend craft fairs. But the point is, there are many kinds of Catholics, and no one knows that better than another Catholic.

If you ask a group of Catholics what makes them Catholic, you’ll get a variety of answers. Most will mention participation in the sacraments and their attachment to the culture (family, a lifetime of habit). A man once emphasized his profession rested only on the Nicene Creed! I have yet to meet a Catholic who claims to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Except me. But then, I read the Bible, too. No, not very Catholic of me.

Because of this divergence within the religion, parishes are always looking for new programs to educate their adults in the faith. Locally, we’ve had the program “Why Catholic?”, which is a seasonal exploration of the Catechism in a small group format.

I attended one session when these started, and found little of interest. That may have been more because I joined a group whose members seemed incapable of introspection and analysis. A process for examining one’s faith became little more than the adult version of the Baltimore Catechism. In other words, the chance to develop personally significant questions about faith and religion became merely a new venue for uninspired answers — Catechism Lite.

The Old Question: Why Do We Suffer?

I’m not the only Catholic I know so disenchanted with the Church as it is. As I mentioned above, there are a great variety of practicing Catholics. The sexual abuse scandal and, more importantly, the bishops’ cover-up have taken their toll on believers. The attempt by every Pope in the forty years since Vatican II to roll the Church back to its medieval disposition has also had its effects. 

It wasn’t a century ago that “Americanism” — that is, democracy — was considered a heresy by the Church, despite how Pope Benedict XVI now compliments the U.S. on it’s freedom of religion. As with everything said by the Pope, that compliment is a veiled criticism. After all, freedom of religion has also come to mean freedom from religion.

But I started this meandering post with a reflection on the difference between people who want answers and people who want questions. I agree with the Cross Left post that the Bible is a sorry place to find answers. Maybe that’s why my more traditional Christian friends seem to be more hostile, more blamers. There’s a lot of blaming going on in the Bible, especially of disappointed believers blaming God for something they should have gotten or should have been spared.

The lesson there, so Rene Girard suggests, is that Jesus came and died for the very purpose of showing us the result of all that blaming. To get us to see that blaming is a sort of violence that can escalate to things like murder and war, though God never commands such harm.

In “excusing god”, David H. mentions a book that says the Bible never tells us why God allows suffering in the world. Bart Ehrman, author of God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer, ”found his faith unraveling” as he looked for answers in the Bible but found only excuses for God’s failure. This question is one I’ve asked, too. From a previous post of mine:

The best part of Love Your Enemy: Within a Divided Self is the way [James] Alison has answered one of the hardest questions put to any theist: why does God allow good people to suffer? Until reading this, I was settling for the old answer that it’s all because God allows free will, so, like a reality television show, God’s constrained from interfering in ‘real life.’ A gameshow run by a sadist.

Alison acknowledges that God seems detached from judgments, sending ‘the sun to rise on the evil and on the good’ and the ‘rain on the just and on the unjust.’ But this indifference, Alison says, isn’t the kind we suppose it is. It’s not that he’s left us on our own until Judgment Day, nor that we’ll get our due in the next life, nor that the best among us will be revealed by their suffering (all the Sunday School answers I remember). God isn’t responding to our morality. God doesn’t react to what we do. God doesn’t react at all.

‘On the contrary,’ [writes Alison,] ‘God is able to be towards each one of us without ever being over-against any one of us. God is in no sort of rivalry at all with any one of us, is not part of the same order of being as us, which is how God can create and move us without displacing us. Whereas we who are on the same level as each other can only move each other by displacing each other.’ (Mirror Neurons Don’t Mean a Girardian Revolution)

James Alison is a Catholic priest and theologian, and perhaps the best interpreter of Rene Girard’s anthropology of religion. His answer to suffering is that God doesn’t allow suffering because God doesn’t participate in that kind of relationship. When I first read this, I had a sense of God’s remoteness and felt a loss of that personal God who had always companioned me. But over time, she returned and, when she did, she brought better questions.

The New Question: How Do We Interact Without Reacting?

If there is this grand divide between human life and divine life, a difference so profound that God can interact without reacting, what must the New Creation be like? I mean, how can anyone possibly interact without reacting? It’s a strange thing to imagine being towards your friends and family — let alone strangers — without a sense of competition, envy, or rivalry; without a need for fairness, justice, or payback. How would it look to simply be towards someone?

The closest I could think of was that of a mother for her children. Yet, there’s no lack of reaction in that! So, not an answer. A better question, one about Heaven that might have an answer right here. Better questions, not better answers, always energize my faith. If you find your faith dwindling or dead, maybe it’s just because you’ve been given too many answers and need to find a few questions instead.

bill maher’s apology was better than the pope’s apology

Subtle. Brilliant. Manipulative. Not Bill Maher. The Pope.

Pope Benedict XVI has come to America and apologized for the sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests. He may have apologized for the truly heinous sin of the bishops’ coverup, too, but I’m not really sure. In fact, I’m not exactly sure what he said, because his logic makes me feel like I’m crazy. Nevertheless, don’t let his humble, mild-mannered appearance fool you. He’s a wiley man, and he managed to apologize for the Church by blaming us.

Here’s what I mean, a few quotes from the Washington Post via Get Religion:

• the abuse of minors…had to be eradicated in a broader attack on the degradation of modern-day sexuality
• to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores
• What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes

Why should the sex abuse scandal be addressed in the “broader attack on the degradation of modern-day sexuality”? The sex abuse scandal has little to do with sex and everything to do with power and lies. And is he suggesting we’re hypocrites to go on and on about protecting children from priests because “pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes”?

His assumptions are outrageous. His implications are just plain wrong.

Torturing Reason

First, the Pope’s framing of the issue implies that sexual abuse by priests is a modern thing, a result of the decay of morals in the modern world. All we can say for sure is the revelation of it is modern. Do any of us really believe pedophiles, molesters, and rapists entered the Church only in the 20th century? Anecdotes have reached us throughout history of such things, but we weren’t ready to believe the children in those Golden Days the Pope harkens back to. Clearly, it didn’t take modernity to create abusers and a cabal of men to hide it. It did take modernity to speak truth to power.

Secondly, the framing implies the abuse and cover ups were the result of sexual desire. But sex between authority and its subject doesn’t exist by mutual consent and is therefore more appropriately examined as a power relation. Like rape is about violence, not sex, these priestly transgressions are about eroticized inequality, whether the victims were children or teenagers. Dominance, not relationship, is the turn-on.

Pope Benedict XVI is a brilliant thinker, so this framing is deliberate, and therefore, shameful. He means to imply abusive priests arise from a culture with a liberal sexuality, so he’s using the scandal to further his agenda against our “moral relativism.” This, of course, doesn’t begin to explain the coverup, and you’ll notice he wants to make this a conversation entirely about sex to avoid the real discussion about his bishops.

The more his notion of “moral relativism” is spoken of in the press, and the more it’s linked to sex and abuse, the less culpable the Church will appear. Already, one commenter on another blog took up the Pope’s message, blaming our liberal culture for priest/boys “sex parties” she had heard about. Who really believes such liaisons have only occurred in our modern “liberal” culture? And what about the bishops who said they never happened?

Better than Barack

I’m not sure the Pope is as charming as Senator Obama, but he’s certainly better at torturing logic in his speeches. The Pope’s preferred method of argument is an indirect maneuvering, a perversion of the Socratic method that gently pushes you toward a conclusion that makes no sense until he’s linked tenuous premises and broad generalizations together.

His book Jesus of Nazareth was so brimming over with this style of arguing that I could barely finish it. I’ll save that analysis for another post, as there’s lots to say about his idea of freedom and obedience, but one example I’ll share is his analysis of the Beatitudes.

For 29 pages the Pope examines Jesus’s message to the people; you know, the meek shall inherit the earth, etc. Jesus was talking to the people, addressing individual suffering, but by the end of his analysis, the Pope has made Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount about the Church:  

The people who are persecuted for righteousness’s sake are those who live by God’s righteousness–by faith. Because man constantly strives for emancipation from God’s will in order to follow himself alone, faith will always appear as a contradiction to the “world”–to the ruling powers at any given time. For this reason, there will be persecution for the sake of righteousness in every period of history. This word of comfort is addressed to the persecuted Church of all times. In her powerlessness and in her sufferings, she knows that she stands in the place where God’s Kingdom is coming. (p89)

Emphasis is mine. 

The Pope is writing on the persecution of people and their powerlessness in the world as described by Jesus, but then he suddenly transposes “people” with “Church” (and, yes, that is his capitalization). The Pope calls the Church “powerless” and “set apart” from the world. Are you kidding me? And who’s persecuting whom?

The Heart of the Maher

Bill Maher is just damn funny. And he hates religion. I don’t blame him for that. His criticisms are well-founded. In his sarcastic style he compared the Pope to the leaders of the FLDS and neither fared well. Outcry over his comments forced him to apologize. I like his nonapology much better than the Pope’s.

For now, I’ll leave you with Bill Maher, who doesn’t mind being direct.

why are the polygamist men hiding?

Don’t get distracted by the polygamists’ argument.

Although it’s easy to use the seizure at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas to voice religious beliefs, this seizure of children has nothing to do with religion. It’s not about having multiple wives but about making wives of minors. It’s not about freedom of religion but pedophilia.

Why are the FLDS polygamist men hiding? Why don’t they stand up for their God and their beliefs — speak out, attend a press conference, show us who they are and why they believe as they do? Their lawyer already sent photos of the raid to the AP, and then the leaders sent the pitiable mothers to the morning television shows. They’re willing to use the media. 

If polygamy “brings glorification to heaven”, shouldn’t the men stand up for their beliefs instead of hiding in the shadows? Or do they know that, if we saw these old men beside these young women and girls, the lie of “spiritual” marriage would be made clear to all?

If FLDS leaders think seeing these sad mothers will gain public support, they’re mistaken. We already know that some girls taken were pregnant.

A Cult of Polygamy

And now we’ve seen the condition of the grown women living in this lifestyle. Not the lifestyle of polygamy, mind you, but the lifestyle of a cult of polygamy. I mean, have any of you noticed how thin and slow-speaking these women are? How passionless? How pale and unhealthy? In fact, the women seem drugged, but their strange communication can be accounted for by poor diet and abuse.

I bet the men are healthy-looking. I bet they’re angry and self-righteous. I bet they can also speak with independent thoughts in phrases of their own. I bet they’re wearing suits, not drab hand-made dresses. I bet they leave the compound for work while the women rarely leave their houses. 

They Say They Love Their Children

The women interviewed this morning on ABC, NBC,  and Fox say they’ve never seen abuse. They say that they act out of love. 

Love.

Some parents beat their children — to make them obedient, they say. Some parents starve their children — to make them grateful, they say. Some parents cut off their girls’ clitorises — to get them husbands, they say. Some parents kill their children — to end their suffering, they say.

It’s tragic how much some parents love their children.

 

christian-righting the secular world

Those Savage Kids

My daughter is quite aggressive. She likes to hit and can escalate quickly into a joyful frenzy of “Spiderman stopping the Bad Guy” by wrangling her brother to the floor and then bounding away arms raised in triumph. Yeah, I’m working on channeling that enthusiasm into creative pursuits and maybe labor (when I need the house vacuumed).

So, I had a talk with her about hitting her little brother. Can’t do it. Wrong. Yeah, Spidey hits the Bad Guy, but only when the Bad Guy hits him first. Besides, that’s pretend. Actors, movie, story. Yeah, I know your brother was pinching you, but he’s not a Bad Guy, just a pretend Bad Guy when you play together. No hitting! Anyway, if you want to punch, hit a pillow or your Tigger.

Tigger?!? Never!

The notion of “hurting” her stuffed animal pal she’s had since she was a baby mortified her. She’s not exactly feeling the same emotional abhorence to hurting her brother because her brother hurts her, and because rivalry is alive and well in her 5-year-old mind. But you see, she has empathy and love for something. Just not her brother. (Yet, says the hopeful mom.)

Original Sin = Sociopathy

After this experience, I read what familiy psychologist John Rosemond wrote in 2006:

toddlerhood is a pathological condition that demands ‘cure,’ accomplished through a combination of powerful love and powerful discipline. … The toddler mindset and the sociopathic mindset are one and the same

In Going Behind Closed Doors in Christian Right Households, Jeremy Adam Smith writes of an email he received from Rosemond to clarify that statement:

Rosemond invoked the DSM-IV, the diagnostic bible of mental health practitioners, to justify his views and give them the veneer of scientific authority, but later in his response he made it clear that there is only one Bible that guides his parenting advice. ‘In every passage of Scripture that refers to the discipline (disciple-ing) of children, the central theme is leadership,’ he writes. ‘I am, first and foremost, a believer in and follower of Jesus, The Christ.’

Now, I’ve come to expect that Christian conservatives believe they embody the love of Jesus through their self-righteous diatribes on America’s godless secularism, manipulative threats from a phantom authority they call “Natural Law” whom only they can see and only they can speak for, and, of course, the fact that women are meant to obey and serve men, because, as we all know, men sin less and judge better. (This is, by the way, demonstrated in the world’s history of abuse, war, torture, crime, and tyranny — those darn women running amok!) I’m not even sure why we call these people “Christian” since their appeals to Truth almost always tie to the Old Testament, not the Gospels.

That’s old news, but what I had never heard before was the Christian conservative take on children. They’re “sociopaths.”

As I mentioned above, Havana can be quite a little savage. The problem with Rosemond’s argument, of course, is that my daughter has feelings, whereas sociopaths don’t. This was pointed out in the article and in Havana’s protective stance over her Tigger. The other problem is that her brain is still growing. I mean, she’s not able to read, either, so does that make her “mentally challenged”?

Science Can’t Answer Questions of Morality

In facing a “godless secularism,” Christian conservatives have found a need to appeal to a new authority: SCIENCE. That’s because their entire world-view is not about thinking for themselves but about obeying some designated authority. 

Not that their appeals to science are valid in any way. Too many people attach their personal prejudices to some authority when their ideas can’t stand on their own. Just look at the newest argument made by “Evolutionary Psychology” (EP). You newcomers may not realize EP is more accurately described as ”Enterprising Patriarchy,” doing for the secular world what the Christian Right could only dream. In Pseudo-science Blames Coming Depression on Boobs you’ll see how the language of science is tortured to become an authority in matters psychological and spiritual, if only by those who don’t have a clue what real science is.

Don’t get me wrong. This is a defense of science. I don’t want real science to be sullied by desperate believers toying with the human need to trust in something bigger, whether that’s cosmology or Jesus. I see the trend of Christians telling us that science can answer questions of morality – first, in the contrivances of “Natural Law” and now, the DSM-IV.

In any case, I’m worried less that my daughter and son remain slaves to original sin than that one day they may be told Jesus hates them by people who call themselves Christians. 

 

too much integrity causes suicide in iraq

Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]–You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff–no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied–no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wi