Showing posts with label prejudice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prejudice. Show all posts

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Blind belief

It's not just Christians who have their blind believers and fundamentalists - from fundies say the darndest things -

We Should show Christians that their religion shall not be tolerated. They
should all be put in extermination camps and they shall die. And then they'll
realize they have no soul and the bible is a bunch of crud."
Jtaylor1, Youtube [Comments
(36)
] [2006-Nov-17]


It's a despicable attitude no matter who says it.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Parenting - it's not about gender

Pam's House Blend alerted me to another study, in the continuing trend of actual academic studies, that points out gay, lesbian couples make perfectly good parents. Wait for the load of something or other trying to explain away this study.

Pelosi Smear

The Pelosi smear campaign continues. A request by her security - same sort of request as previous speakers of the house - becomes a smear that she wants something more than the rest of us, like the generals and executive branch. More at Huffington Post.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Holocaust denial

Who in their right mind thinks that approaching someone in an elevator and trying to drag them down the hallway is the way to get them to cooperate? Someone who is denying that the holocaust happened did that. But wait that sort of person is in some sort of mental state that doesn't let the evidence speak for itself. I guess they weren't in their right mind after all.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

What happens

One of my friends was recently chastised for having all men serve communion at one of the worship services. They have women who have helped, most of the time there are somewhere around the same number of men and women. But this time the people who were on the list as not having helped in awhile were mostly men and they all said yes.

And the question, for me, is not whether all men (or all women) happens once or twice, but is it a consistent pattern. One of the similar instances is what happened recently with Isaiah Washington and using the 'f' word about another person or a few years back and Mark Fuhrman denying using the 'n' word. The problem wasn't that Washington used the 'f' word - that can and should be addressed by the producers and fellow workers, but when he denied using that word, then it became a problem. The same thing happend with Fuhrman when he testified under oath that he had never used the 'n' word.

Is there a denial that something offensive happened? Then it's a problem. My age and where I grew up means that it would be utterly ridiculous to deny having used some offensive language - calling others names - yetthe question isn't whether I've used those words, but whether or not I've tried to change so that I don't call people names.

Is it a consistent pattern of having no women helping (or not men)? Then it's a problem. I remember the debate in my denomination when we put in a rule that every congregation had to have at least one woman on the session (governing body) of the congregation.

What I work at is including people whether by making sure that the servers over the year include people from the whole of the congregation. Or watching my language to avoid calling someone by an inaccurate or offensive name.

And one of the rationales or useages that some have a hard time understanding is how people within a group can use a term that is offensive between themselves while being rightly offended by someone outside the group using that term. A term of derision can be used to provoke an attack when used by someone who is not a member of the group and yet still be used to affirm solidarity by those who have had that term applied unjustly.

One of the great examples of this is the term 'gay.' For all the rants about how homosexuals took a perfectly good word and made it offensive, the actual history is of women prostitutes being called 'gay' and by extension homosexuals were also called 'gay'. Taking that term of derision and bringing it into common useage and supportive of a community is one of the examples of changing the meaning. There are still mixed messages with the use of gay, but not the overwhelming message of putting people down that there used to be.

In many ways the counting of women is the same 'holier than thou' that those on the feminist side deride. Yet someone can compete on being 'more of a feminist than you' in the same self-righteous fashion as the 'holier than thou' people. And both attitudes mistake the substance of
the message. We are called to be righteous, but that doesn't mean that we are called to make ourselves out to be more righteous than everyone else. We are called to treat people equally, but that doesn't mean that we put ourselves up on a pedestal for recognizing that people should
have equality of opportunity.

The numbers game is a place to start, but looking at more than numbers is what we are called to do as Christians. The numbers game, like the language game, mistakes the substance of the message. Rules are a way of helping us to live with each other, but mistaking the rules we have
for the ideas equality and justice from which they are formed is the mistake that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. Knowing the rules can be important, but loving God and neighbor is the essence of all those laws and rules.

Counting up how many women and men serve communion is a numbers game. Checking to see who's called someone names and who hasn't is childish tattle-tale. Yes if it is a consistent pattern, then do something. But most often we should just take it easy and forgive seventy times seven - or something like that.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

The vote in Massachusetts

While I am somewhat dismayed that the movement to repeal the ability for all to marry in Massachusetts, basically I say bring on the vote. Every vote brings more gay men and lesbians, more of differing gender and sexual orientations out of the closet. The road to equality has not been smooth for any who lift themselves out of opression, to think that gay men and lesbians, bisexual and transexuals will have anything less than the same amount of work is illusory. Yet with every vote and setback and step forward there is progress. More people know a gay man or lesbain than when I was growing up.

I've seen the signs of change in my family. Homophobic comments weren't rare as I grew up. Yet at a recent family reunion one of my cousins was the one in trouble when she asked (and she knew that I was gay) me, "Is anyone going to carry on your father's name?" All I answered was the truth, "Well, since I've come closer to marrying a woman than either of my brothers... and I'm gay... No, I don't think it's likely."

Twenty years ago the aunts and uncles who supported me would have been on my back and trying to change me. They're not where they need to be, but I'm not where I think I need to be. Yet there have been many steps forward.

I suspect this vote in Massachusetts will turn out very different than those who have brought forth the referendum expect. I certainly hope so. Either way it is a step forward to have the subject discussed in public rather than in whispers in the background and slurs where everyone can hear.

Sunday, December 31, 2006

Santorum

Santorum may have lost an election, but the name lives on. A definition inspired by Dan Savage of Savage Love at The Stranger is still alive. Just think people appreciated the man enough to find a definition for his name... well - appreciated - that may not be the right word once you read the definition.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Goode is not so good

There's a great editorial at Huffington Post on Rep. Goode - the guy who sent out a newsletter badmouthing the election of a muslim to congress. Robert J Ellsberg is correct when he suggests Goode read the constitution. I'd also suggest more reading of scripture, as well as figuring out that the Muslim against whom he's spoken isn't an immigrant.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Left Behind

There's now a video game based on the Left Behind series (and I'm not going to link to the site) that has the player killing anyone who doesn't espouse their religious values. Yes, you do became weaker as you kill, but you can become stronger through prayer. A more ludicrous understanding of the end times and what Christ would have us do is hard to find. If there is a war against Christmas, then this sort of gift item certainly is one of the main offenses against what Christ came to do

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

This is better?

A recent news report is about someone, not associated with the national Republican party, supporting the Republicans by holding Catch an Immigrant party.
Republicans on Tuesday distanced themselves from campaign activities that encourage college students to "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" and shoot cardboard cutouts of leading Democrats with a BB gun or paintball gun.

I'm not sure where the responsible discourse is in this. The article goes with one Republican comparing these actions to the democrats calling the Republican Party 'a white, Christian party'. I just don't get this sort of name calling, but certainly calling each other names is a different level than putting up targets of prominent politicians and shooting at them.

I seem to remember a time when there was a discussion of issues. In fact I was raised by a member of the Republican party and a member of the Democratic party. One year they both got asked to attend the statewide caucuse for their respective political parties, though neither attended nor ran for office. I'd like to see something that isn't a child's display of "You're soft on terrorism" "No, I'm not." "Yes, you are." "No, I'm not." repeated until one person is called home by their parent.

This rhetoric is from both sides. I don't care whether it's the aforementioned shooting at a democrat or Sean Penn calling Bush a Beelsebul. I'm just tired of it and would like to go back to at least some discussion.

Of course this is nothing new. There's been smear campaigns in more than a few elections. One of my favorite historical examples is when opponents sang "Ma, ma where's my pa. Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha." about another of our presidents. It's much more amusing when it's in the past. Today, liveing with it, just isn't quite as nice. Maybe if they started singing songs instead of yelling at each other I'd feel better, but probably not.