Uncategorized

Speaking of Christians and Righteous Indignation…

This is not completely on-topic re Paul Ramsey, but it does seem to be part of the same pathology.

There is a growing trend among ultra-conservative Christians toward claiming the “right” to abuse those whose way of life they do not condone. There is an interesting, um, scary, article in the LA Times on the subject. For example, Christians are charging that the laws that protect gays are actually illegal because they impinge on Christians’ “right” to “freedom of expression.”

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she’s demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

By freedom of religious expression, she means “carte blanche to harass and abuse.” Nice. Apparently, conservative Christians feel that their right to be “Christian” is being hampered by their inability to harangue others. Who knew that Christian = intolerant godbag? Jesus, I feel sure, is weeping.

I see very little that is compassionate in the behavior of most conservative Christians–certainly not from those who are in power. I think the upper eschelons–like BushCo–are not in the least bit Christian. In fact, my understanding is that W had an epiphany of the political sort prior to becoming “reborn.” He knew what a large and maleable political base like the conservative Christians, could do for his career. His religious persona was well orchestrated, and had nothing whatsoever to do with faith and everything to do with greed and lust for power.

Anyway, BushCo–a divider, not a uniter!–has done its damnedest to polarize this country. Everything he’s done has been toward that end. The more people are polarized, the more they distrust and hate each other, the less they trust each other, the less they are willing to actually listen to each other. That suits BushCo just fine, thankyouverymuch.

What that has done is make people–especially hard-line conservative Christians–paranoid that anyone who isn’t also hard-line and conservative and Christian, is out to get them. If you aren’t for them, you’re against them, and are part of a liberal (or Muslim, take your pick) plot to destroy Christianity.

It’s hard to come back down to earth, and to look at things objectively, when you’re consumed with paranoia that The Other Guy is out to destroy your way of life, so it’s no wonder that those who believe that their religion and way of life are under attack would also be willing to buy into the justification for an all-out holy war upon those folks they believe are on a mission of world domination: Muslims. If you make a large enough mountain out of your little mole hill, the ends suddenly seem thoroughly justified. Because, remember, it is a Christian’s right to harass (or drop bombs on) those who are perceived as threatening said Christian’s right to abuse them. How’s that for nice, circular, um, logic?

Photography

There falls no shadow where there shines no sun

Image from page 141 of "Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences" (1902-1971.)
Solar Eclipse with Corona
Credit: Internet Archive Book Images
Image from page 141 of “Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences” (1902-1971)

If I ever become rich and famous, the very first thing I’ll do is invest in a telescope. Living in the middle of nowhere provides some wonderful opportunities for sky watching (which is a damned good thing, because it sure as hell doesn’t provide for other forms of entertainment, like cable teevee and broadband internet access). I would live to take even more advantage of it, and eventually would love to get a halfway decent telescope.

Letters to Esther

Those Wacky Mormons

So, as I’ve been going through all this genealogy BS, I’ve come across a metric ass-load of references to the phrase “sealed to parent/child,” along with recent-ish dates. Wondering what on earth that might mean, I went a-Googling. Lo and behold, it refers to LDS baptism and binding. Basically, no matter when you died, or, apparently, what your faith was when you keeled over (boggle), your present day descendants, if they are endowed[1] LDS members, can opt to have you baptized and sealed to them. In other words, your spirits are then eternally bound together.

Now, I’m all for folks practicing whatever sort of religious nonsense floats their boats, but I think it’s of the utmost importance for people to have free choice of which flavor of Kool-Aid they prefer to drink. I’m squicked out by the thought that hundreds of years after someone’s death, their descendants can fool around with their eternal souls. I think that definitely qualifies as spiritual “Bad Touch.”

I’m just trying to imagine how some of the Quakers I’ve been researching would react if they found out their souls were being enshrined against their wills in some sort of Mormon death cult. I mean, these were folks who took their own brand of religion seriously enough that they were willing to come to the “new world” in order to practice it freely. They also don’t strike me as folks who were into super secret rituals.

They’ve also tried to co-opt CS Lewis’ immortal soul. And, not just once or twice, either. There have been multiple endowments (again, whatever the hell that means), posthumous baptisms, and sealings performed on his, um, behalf. It’s not like he was some sort of vaguely spiritual person who might’ve converted to Mormonism if he’d gotten half a chance. It would have been plenty bad enough if he were. However, he was devoutly C of E. I can’t imagine that he would’ve consented to being converted to Mormonism.

____________________________________
[1] What endowment means is anyone’s guess. It apparently entails participating in an uber-s00per-s33kr1t ceremony that none must speak of ever after.

Pets

Ball Redux

Ball has returned.  I found it while sorting the pile of stuff that accumulates under the coffee table.  Harriet was overjoyed, and much hilarity ensued.  Alas, I was too busy laughing to take pictures, but it looked a little like this.  Harriet is an enthusiastic jokester, but her sense of humor does not extend to Ball.  Ball, she takes very, very seriously.  Do not mess with Ball, pleaseandthanks.  Of course, that didn’t stop me from torturing her.  That’s what dogs are for, right?