Wednesday, November 30, 2005
The Big Bad Catholic Church?
Since Consi feels the urge to defend the (American) Catholic Church, it might be helpful to explain what the charges are. I have never made a secret out of my dislike of the CC, which is partly visceral and partly based on objections I can pinpoint. Please note that I’m presenting my personal opinion and not something I can claim to be fact.
The obvious starting point is to define what I believe the CC to be. From my point of view, organized religion implies a religious organization; in this case a multi-national corporation with major tax exemptions. A multi-national that purveys a line of products and services, has wholly or partially owned subsidiaries, that has competitors, customers, target audiences and a marketing plan, boardroom battles and petty squabbles, internal politics and fiefdoms, watchdog groups, you name it. Some customers will benefit from using the product, others will waste their time and money. Like any other large company, there are skeletons buried here and there (in this case, perhaps quite literally so) and sometimes one gets unearthed and refuses to go away quietly.
By the way, Consi, did you ever notice that the CC has virtually the same business model as commercial companies that offer an open-source product? They give the product away for free, source code and all, and hope to turn a buck on product support by way of fee-based service contracts. Since the code is open for all to modify and redistribute, ego clashes and disagreements about long-term development goals sometimes lead to a code fork. The crucial difference is that anybody can ascertain whether or not an open-source product performs as advertised.
So, the CC as a whole is the sum total of the actual corporation, employees and mission statements and all, the members and supporters, the product line, and so on. Just a bunch of people that are buying what they’re selling.
Whether or not it’s meaningful to make a generalized statement about such a large, diverse, and arguably ill-defined entity is something I’ll try to address on a case-by-case basis.
Okay, that’s enough bullshit for one evening and there’s a toddler that wants to play at night.
To be continued…
secret CIA prisons in Europe?
The story below upset Europeans a bit:
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
It’s the kind of thing I wouldn’t put past the current administration. Where things get interesting is that allegedly German airports have been used for lay-overs. If there is ever even a shred of evidence that the former German chancellor and/or intelligence services cooperated in such an operation on German soil, there will be political hell to pay. For that matter, there is a considerable risk for the future of the EU if some major nation like Germany was involved. I have read about threats from the EU commission that sanctions could range up to and including the loss of voting rights in that commission.
Anyway, it’s a story to follow…
For starters: Rice pledges to cooperate with EU prison probe
Rice emphasized that the United States was complying with U.S. and international law in holding of terrorist suspects, he added.
That sounds suspiciously like “I did not have sex with that woman.”...
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Can the Jews Save Christmas? —Slate.com
Hilarious article over on Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2131129/
Every year, forecasters debate the possible impact of Hanukkah’s timing on Christmas sales. But I’m skeptical it will make much of a difference this year. In New York and other regional markets with large Jewish populations, the fact that Hanukkah falls late on the Christian calendar this year could affect the pace and timing of shopping. But given the numbers, Jews would have to perform superhuman feats of consumptionout of all proportion to their population, number of children, and incometo have anything but the most marginal impact on nationwide sales. Over the centuries, anti-Semites (and less frequently, philo-Semites) have endowed Jews with the ability to perform mystical feats. Saving the Christmas holiday shopping season isn’t one of them.
In fact, it’s the soft atheists like us, who will celebrate anything if it involves food, who will “save Christmas”—by buying sets of presents for EACH holiday. (Yes, our kids are spoiled. But we’re shopping, so the terrorists haven’t won. We’re doing our Patriotic Duty.)
now we know!
And number two from The Times:
Petty squabbles cause empty pews
IT ISNT the big questions that stop people going to church җ it is the little irritations, research has suggested.
Most churchgoers who abandon their weekly worship do so because they have had a dispute with a fellow member of the congregation.
A disagreement on a range of issues, from the way the organ is played to the content of the sermon, was the reason that nearly three quarters of respondents to a survey gave for why they felt people had left the Church.
...
Rob Parsons, the author of Bringing Home the Prodigals, said that people who stopped going to church did so for the most trivial of reasons.
He said: “It is not big doctrinal issues. Typical arguments take place over types of buildings, styles of worship, youth work. If not that, then they argue over the flower rota.
“People often tell me they dont feel the need to attend church any more, and I can understand why they may feel that way.”
Of those surveyed, more than half said that the style of church meetings had caused them to leave.
The survey found that people felt the Church was no longer a place where worshippers needed to dress smartly. Only 5 per cent said that it was important to dress smartly for church.
About 74 per cent of respondents thought that people had left the church because of disagreements with other church members while 40 per cent said that the church did not need to be more welcoming to non-Christians.
Only 5% say it’s important to dress smartly for church? Floral rota?!
tell me it ain’t so…
One of two articles I found at The Times:
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
...
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
...
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Oy vey.
those impious Austrians
On my way to work this morning, I passed a new billboard. Normally I don’t bother to look at them, but I stopped when I saw it was an ad for the radio station 3, because they are often charming and imaginative.
On the left was Santa, jolly as all get out. He was smiling at a little girl on the right, who was dressed in white and had angel wings. She was sticking her tongue out at Santa gleefully and saying “Dich gibt’s ja gar nicht!” (You don’t even exist!)
It struck me that I would probably never see such a billboard in America, because of the sensibilities it would offend…
Monday, November 28, 2005
Kissing Hank’s Ass
Don’t know who wrote this… Found here
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: “Hi! I’m John, and this is Mary.”
Mary: “Hi! We’re here to invite you to come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”
Me: “Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who’s Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?”
John: “If you kiss Hank’s ass, He’ll give you a million dollars; and if you don’t, He’ll kick the shit out of you.”
Me: “What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?”
John: “Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can’t until you kiss His ass.”
Me: “That doesn’t make any sense. Why…”
Mary: “Who are you to question Hank’s gift? Don’t you want a million dollars? Isn’t it worth a little kiss on the ass?”
Me: “Well maybe, if it’s legit, but…”
John: “Then come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”
Me: “Do you kiss Hank’s ass often?”
Mary: “Oh yes, all the time…”
Me: “And has He given you a million dollars?”
John: “Well no. You don’t actually get the money until you leave town.”
Me: “So why don’t you just leave town now?”
Mary: “You can’t leave until Hank tells you to, or you don’t get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you.”
Me: “Do you know anyone who kissed Hank’s ass, left town, and got the million dollars?”
John: “My mother kissed Hank’s ass for years. She left town last year, and I’m sure she got the money.”
Me: “Haven’t you talked to her since then?”
John: “Of course not, Hank doesn’t allow it.”
Me: “So what makes you think He’ll actually give you the money if you’ve never talked to anyone who got the money?”
Mary: “Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you’ll get a raise, maybe you’ll win a small lotto, maybe you’ll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street.”
Me: “What’s that got to do with Hank?”
John: “Hank has certain ‘connections.’”
Me: “I’m sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.”
John: “But it’s a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don’t kiss Hank’s ass He’ll kick the shit out of you.”
Me: “Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him…”
Mary: “No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank.”
Me: “Then how do you kiss His ass?”
John: “Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl’s ass, and he passes it on.”
Me: “Who’s Karl?”
Mary: “A friend of ours. He’s the one who taught us all about kissing Hank’s ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.”
Me: “And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?”
John: “Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here’s a copy; see for yourself.”
preaching by vehicular assault…
Looks like this story makes the rounds - to what lengths may proselytizers go?
“Proud to be an Atheist”
...was printed on the bumper sticker I followed for several stop lights a few weeks ago. [...] I guess it shouldn’t shock me, but yep… it shocks me that someone could believe there was no God. As I followed his truck on my way home from work I just prayed for him. I didn’t know what else to do (although I did think about getting into a wreck with him so that I could try and work God into the ensuing conversation). I wanted to talk to him to see if I could reason with him.
...
I feel such a passion for this. I’m totally serious here… I was actually trying to figure out how I could talk to this guy! If I didn’t think he\‘d punch me for wrecking his truck I probably would’ve done it!
It boggles the mind. Two thumbs up for impulse control, though.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Mmmmm….
GM and elwed sent me a Texan care package some time ago, and I finally got around to making posole from the peppers and hominy they sent me, along with some good Viennese shoulder of pork. Mmmmm! Thanks from myself, Mrs. Zilch, and from Miss and Master Zilch too! I guess Texas has some socially redeeming features after all…
Friday, November 25, 2005
Whodunnit?
A list of quotes Deadscot forwarded to me, turned into a quiz.
Who said what when about whom?
[list=1]
[*] “President XXX is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These XXX do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
[*] “No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
[*] “American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
[*] “If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
[*] “I had doubts about XXX from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
[*] “You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to XXX.”
[*] “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
[*] “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
[*] “I don’t know that XXX will ever raise a white flag”
[*] “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
[*] “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
[*] “This is President XXX’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
[*] “You can support the troops but not the president”
[*] “For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in XXX is a farce”
[*] “XXX a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
[*] “These international war criminals were led by Gen. XXX ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, XXX.”
[*] “This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the XXX. Ask all the people in XXX that we’ve killed. Ask the refugees that we’ve killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals.”
[/list]
Atom
RSS 2.0
