John Oliver had a sober and sarcastic look at Uganda and it's anti-gay laws. In the US many of us have been interested in what has been called the Kill The Gays law. But, as we do, we got bored with all of that. And then most of us deleted most of our anger, opinions, and facts of the law from our heads. John Oliver nicely reintroduces us to the matters.
For instance, while Uganda had some social and legal issues with gay people, the last several years has seen a significant and hateful uptick. What started with uptight British colonials is now a matter of American Conservative intervention. The Religious Right has worked to motivate the local religious communities hate, and pushed them to make changes to the law.
And then we had those freaking politicians. Another topic you may have decided to forget about is C Street and The Family. People like Jeff Sharlet did solid work bringing out the truth of this group of politicians who were tied by their religious zeal and interest in making hateful law. They've screwed people over in this country, but always have time for other countries.
So preachers and politicians have worked to bring about their dream of a hateful and homogeneous society. Not to leave out the elements of Uganda society eager to embrace hate and fear.
If you've followed news and conversations in Uganda, you've seen the fear, hate, and ignorance spread about being gay. (Stephen Fry spent some time their and showed the outright ignorance of the anti-gay advocates in his Out There documentary.) They repeatedly claim all gay people are "converting straight people. And, on having sex...You have to doubt they even understand sex between males and females.
But for a mix of stuff that will make you laugh, scream, curse, and try to hope, have some John Oliver. Also, get to know the fascinating and brace Pepe Julian Onziema, an open LGBT advocate in Uganda. He's quite a remarkable man.
From Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:
And in addition to the show, some more of their conversation presented online.
Showing posts with label Jaded Atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jaded Atheist. Show all posts
Friday, July 04, 2014
Monday, March 17, 2014
Saint Patrick's Day: The Céilidh Has Started! *UPDATED*
Cribbing again from last March 17th...You know what that means...
 |
| Sniff my butt, I'm Irish. |
So get yourselves up and get to work aping Irish culture. You know, wearing green, wearing funny hats, talking in a funny accents, and... getting plastered on watery American beer?
And that's the feast day of St. Patrick!
Okay, okay. I know I have been one to point out that holidays grow and change, and break out of cultures or religions. And St. Patrick's has done that to an extent. But it is also odd to me that it's a national holiday as well. All so people can act out certain stereotypes. I'm not fond of perpetuating stereotypes.
Of course, it's also become a day that the Irish like to promote cultural awareness. Like Italians and other cultures that settled in the United States, the Irish struggled on for years to even be considered white. Yes, American culture and politics of that day refused to see many Europeans as white. There were places where the Irish and other cultures (like black and Hispanic people) were denied entrance, living spaces, or use of facilities. (But the Irish and Italians were eventually welcomed as equals ( unlike other groups). So getting people to join in to your celebration can be a point of merging with the greater culture.
As well, like Mardi Gras and Christmas, this day is also just an excuse to have a party, do some dancing, and, maybe, wear some green. ...And I do love green.
But let's get back to it's origins. (Now YOU Must Learn. HAHAHAHAHA!)
March 17th is deemed to be the date of St. Patrick of Ireland's death. It's said he was then buried at Down Cathedral in Downpatrick, Down County. Common for the day, St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was never officially canonized by a pope and church. It was more a regional decision. But from that start his sainthood has been embraced by the Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal and Orthodox churches. It took time for him to gain acceptance, but more and more he was acknowledged in the church. So, he got a feast day, and became a rallying point in Irish culture. But that's the end of the his tale.
Looking at the start is a little trickier. He is considered to be a Romano-Brit, of noble birth. His family had been in the religion business at that point for generations. Early in his life he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland as a slave. He later was able to return to Britain. He entered the Church then, and after rising to bishop was sent back to Ireland to convert the island to Catholicism (and fight crime as a proto-Zorro -- But that may just be my own head canon. Or I may be confusing the Green Bishop with the Green Hornet.). And with that he descends into legend.
The trouble with stories and writing of Patrick's time in Ireland is that it is not necessarily clear what is him and what is others that were evangelizing before and after him in Ireland. As often happens when cobbling together history, legends, or parables, the names may be changed and events altered to protect the innocent...or just make a better/easier to understand story.
Before Patrick was sent to Ireland, Palladius was sent to Ireland on the same mission, becoming the first bishop in Ireland. So some of his writings, words, and actions likely were blended in to the activities of Patrick.
But Patrick is remember for the overall effort to bring Christianity to dominance in Ireland. Which did occur. (And once the Magdalene Asylums were set up, it was smooth sailing for Ireland. We will be taking no questions.) That is where the imagery of St. Patrick driving the snakes out comes from, the conversion of people from Druidic faith to his own (We'll hope it was just converting.). It may be similar to the story of St. George and his "dragon".
It's like the story of his walking stick which would become a tree. The story goes he would plant it in the ground and preach. Then when he found it had taken root in the place, he would move on. Get it! It's alluding to something. It's cute...kinda.
Then their is the embrace of the shamrock, three-leafed clover. It is said that Patrick used it to describe the concept of a Holy Trinity (Insert your own sex act joke here. Whoa hey!), and then carried and wore them as a symbol to people. They say that.
Trouble is, can you actually tie the shamrock to any of his direct teachings. Because it seems to only arise as tied to him more than 1,000 years after his death. So, like with so many tales and legends, St. Patrick may have been rebooted and upgraded. Perhaps shamrocks had started to be used as a symbol of trinity or the crucifix, perhaps it had become more significant to people, and it was decided to go back and tie it to this significant religious figure.
Going back long before Patrick, the shamrock was a revered image in Ireland. It was green, which was an important symbol to them. And it represented the number three, also significant to the early peoples of Ireland. So it is not hard to imagine, like in other lands and times, Christian proselytizers taking advantage of the symbol and it's parallels to further sell the faith. It's just a question of if it was a practice predating Patrick, of his making (but no records survived), or just adopted later on. I could not say. Still, no one cares, and here we are, with a shamrock. And people seem to love them.
But what about the vaunted four-leaf clover then? If the three-leafer represents the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what's the fourth one for then? This...
Yes, yes, their is a corny explanation:
At least it's better than faith, hope, love, and luck...Yeesch.
So, a millennia later all the pieces were falling in place for St. Patrick's Day.
Though I think most of us forget about them. They aren't dragons.
Good for shakes, pendents, and easily recognizable Irish logos.
...Which aren't an Irish or Patricky idea at all... It's an American thing. But the Irish have taken to it...after 200 years. I'll be honest, and say I'm not big on parades. But if you like them, it's your lucky day.
Beer. As I noted in looking at Mardi Gras, we are in Lent now. So I wondered how a St. Patrick feast day would work. And even in Ireland their are times during which bars were required to be closed on the 17th. Apparently, most Catholic churches give dispensation for people to eat and drink on the 17th. A loophole to fasting in the in the Catholic Church, I don't believe it! Still, any out on fasting is a good one. So enjoy!
But let's get back to it's origins. (Now YOU Must Learn. HAHAHAHAHA!)
March 17th is deemed to be the date of St. Patrick of Ireland's death. It's said he was then buried at Down Cathedral in Downpatrick, Down County. Common for the day, St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was never officially canonized by a pope and church. It was more a regional decision. But from that start his sainthood has been embraced by the Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal and Orthodox churches. It took time for him to gain acceptance, but more and more he was acknowledged in the church. So, he got a feast day, and became a rallying point in Irish culture. But that's the end of the his tale.
Looking at the start is a little trickier. He is considered to be a Romano-Brit, of noble birth. His family had been in the religion business at that point for generations. Early in his life he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland as a slave. He later was able to return to Britain. He entered the Church then, and after rising to bishop was sent back to Ireland to convert the island to Catholicism (and fight crime as a proto-Zorro -- But that may just be my own head canon. Or I may be confusing the Green Bishop with the Green Hornet.). And with that he descends into legend.
The trouble with stories and writing of Patrick's time in Ireland is that it is not necessarily clear what is him and what is others that were evangelizing before and after him in Ireland. As often happens when cobbling together history, legends, or parables, the names may be changed and events altered to protect the innocent...or just make a better/easier to understand story.
Before Patrick was sent to Ireland, Palladius was sent to Ireland on the same mission, becoming the first bishop in Ireland. So some of his writings, words, and actions likely were blended in to the activities of Patrick.
But Patrick is remember for the overall effort to bring Christianity to dominance in Ireland. Which did occur. (And once the Magdalene Asylums were set up, it was smooth sailing for Ireland. We will be taking no questions.) That is where the imagery of St. Patrick driving the snakes out comes from, the conversion of people from Druidic faith to his own (We'll hope it was just converting.). It may be similar to the story of St. George and his "dragon".
It's like the story of his walking stick which would become a tree. The story goes he would plant it in the ground and preach. Then when he found it had taken root in the place, he would move on. Get it! It's alluding to something. It's cute...kinda.
Trouble is, can you actually tie the shamrock to any of his direct teachings. Because it seems to only arise as tied to him more than 1,000 years after his death. So, like with so many tales and legends, St. Patrick may have been rebooted and upgraded. Perhaps shamrocks had started to be used as a symbol of trinity or the crucifix, perhaps it had become more significant to people, and it was decided to go back and tie it to this significant religious figure.
Going back long before Patrick, the shamrock was a revered image in Ireland. It was green, which was an important symbol to them. And it represented the number three, also significant to the early peoples of Ireland. So it is not hard to imagine, like in other lands and times, Christian proselytizers taking advantage of the symbol and it's parallels to further sell the faith. It's just a question of if it was a practice predating Patrick, of his making (but no records survived), or just adopted later on. I could not say. Still, no one cares, and here we are, with a shamrock. And people seem to love them.
But what about the vaunted four-leaf clover then? If the three-leafer represents the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what's the fourth one for then? This...
 |
| Finally! A positive image of Ireland. |
"The first is for faith, the second is for hope, the third is for love, and the fourth is for luck."But, come on! Leprechauns. Leprechauns! That's where it's at. It's always the answer.
At least it's better than faith, hope, love, and luck...Yeesch.
So, a millennia later all the pieces were falling in place for St. Patrick's Day.
- We have the snakes.
Though I think most of us forget about them. They aren't dragons.
- We have our shamrocks.
Good for shakes, pendents, and easily recognizable Irish logos.
- We also have parades.
...Which aren't an Irish or Patricky idea at all... It's an American thing. But the Irish have taken to it...after 200 years. I'll be honest, and say I'm not big on parades. But if you like them, it's your lucky day.
- And there's the beer.
Beer. As I noted in looking at Mardi Gras, we are in Lent now. So I wondered how a St. Patrick feast day would work. And even in Ireland their are times during which bars were required to be closed on the 17th. Apparently, most Catholic churches give dispensation for people to eat and drink on the 17th. A loophole to fasting in the in the Catholic Church, I don't believe it! Still, any out on fasting is a good one. So enjoy!
...Unless your gay, apparently.
Many of the parades around the United States are happy to specifically ban gay people and groups from being included. Is this really what those in charge want to represent about their culture? It does not make Irishness or Catholicism look good. Not at all.
At least we know that the mayors of Chicago and New York are boycotting. Also the beer makers, Heineken and Guinness are no longer supporting these parades. If you don't have Guinness approving of your St. Pat's parade, you must be doing something very wrong.
________
UPDATE:
Sometimes people say that Rupert Murdoch is actually liberal, but hides it for the sake of profits.
But then you have times like today. Seems that in the wake of Guinness pulling out support for the New York City St. Patrick's Day parade, Murdoch has gone to Twitter to denounce Guinness, and call for it to be boycotted.
Apparently Guinness is cruelly not supporting a "religious parade". Also, the gays are all bullies.
...So gay people are the ones victimizing? ...And Guinness is obliged to fund religious events that it doesn't want to fund? Is that because of FREEDOM, AND STUFF? And that parade is not religious. It's visited largely by non-Catholics, and is a chance to party. So, please!
Still, if anyone wants to tell you that Murdoch is really secretly a sweetie, you know more surely now that's bunk.
And I do love that he's calling for all Irish to boycott Guinness. Yeah, an Australian who lives in London and New York is lecturing the Irish about their own beloved national drink. HA!
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Religious Exemption. It's Principle, Except When It's Not.
The idea is that some businesses are owned by religious people, and those people may oppose abortion and/or birth control, or common sense. Comprehensive health insurance would help pay for things like those listed. So, they should not have to offer comprehensive health insurance to their workers. They should be exempt from part of the law.
And many people love the idea of a "compromise" on this. The compromise being that you just let religious institutions deny people basic preventative health care...cause [holy writing of your choice]. And you let businesses with religious owners do the same. And in exchange, nonreligious owners can actually take care of their employees. It is interesting how saying you want to deny someone something for religious reasons sound reasonable to so many people...But that's for another post.
In July two federal appeals courts decided that it was ridiculous for a business to have a religion, as opposed to it's owners. But that is not where the story ended. Last week the federal appeals court decided to agree on how unfair comprehensive health insurance is on the pious.
...
Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.
“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.
...It is an interesting point, I grant you. Is it unfair/unconscionable/unacceptable to force people of religious faith to fund and pay money into services that they feel contravene their religious tenets?
Should people be forced to pay for sinful stuff?
Well, I tried to think if there were any other good examples I could draw on for legal rulings. Then I recalled religious pacifism. For some war and fighting is unconscionable, a violation of the will of their god. And, as many point out, tax dollars go to many places in the government, including to the military.
 |
| MPR Photo/Elizabeth Stawicki |
Lucky for us, a Quaker, Priscilla Adams, brought the question to court.
Back in 2003, you may remember it (we were at war), her fight with the government came to a head. Going back to 1996 she had been suing the government, saying that she and others had valid religious grounds to have protections against their money being used to fund the military. As part of her religious convictions. Adams for years had been refusing to pay part of her federal taxes.
The response from the government was to demand that she pay her back taxes, and a 50% penalty. She fought this, and worked to try and keep them from placing a lean on her wages to put money towards wars.
So the fight went up the judicial ladder. And, in 2003, the federal appeals courts rules against her. And then the Supreme Court chose to pass on offering an opinion. The courts had spoken.
The result, you may have religious grounds to not pay a portion of your taxes, but the courts, Congress, and the federal government don't care. Pay the taxes and pray for forgiveness.
That is quite a different view from what we are seeing now. Now when we consider should religious people be forced to fund services that may go to things like birth control, the courts say that it's wrong. (wag a finger) These people cannot be placed in this position. The law says everyone should be able to access the full array of preventative health. But, screw that...Religion. Religion trumps all...now.
Funny.
I wonder if religious pacifist should go to court again? They might have a chance now. Doesn't it follow? Shouldn't these grounds be sound enough for them to fight against tax paying? It does seem like the same strain of argument. Or, do supporters of ACA religious exemptions still hold the old opinion that if religion is getting in the way of funding the military, you should suck it up and fund the military?
I do get a feeling that many might have this attitude. That abortion and birth control are the legit religious concerns, the respectable ones. I'd like to think that's wrong, but at a minimum, I don't see religious conservatives as bothered by the Quaker's plight. They seem like they'd be first in line to condemn the Quakers.
But this ruling may not stand. This will be going to the Supreme Court...hmm. Okay, I' not feeling better with that thought. Will the court have their 90's attitude to religious exemptions? Or, will they have the oppose President Obama attitude?
Half the court is already friendly to attacking access to education, voting rights, and the ACA as a whole. That group will most likely be happy to further establish religious prominence over law. As it is, I think there is already a case coming up that may do this in one way.
I guess we will see. Because we are stuck waiting while conservatives play their petty games. And religious exemptions are such a petty game.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
On Carl Sagan Day
It's Carl Sagan's birthday today. And in remembrance of him and his work today is considered Carl Sagan Day. His efforts to popularize science were invaluable. His advocacy of skepticism, compassion, and appreciation of just how delicate our place ion the cosmos is, inspires so many to this day.
So let's remember him by his words.
What do we do now?
And one of Sagan's last interviews. He talks about his book, The Demon Haunted World (great book), skepticism, faith, importance of understanding science, etc.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
So let's remember him by his words.
What do we do now?
And one of Sagan's last interviews. He talks about his book, The Demon Haunted World (great book), skepticism, faith, importance of understanding science, etc.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Standing up to the Religious Right: Katelyn Campbell
We can loose sight of the people who are putting up the hard fights. People who stand up to authority and peer pressure in places where there is just not much cover, and standing out can mean your life will be made hell.
But once in a while we see someone stand up, and refuse to sit back down and be silent. One such person is Katelyn Campbell of West Virginia. She is standing up to abstinence education with blatant religious content.
A religious spurred speaker came in and began to spout to students. Condoms are bad, and don't work. If you have sex, you will get a disease. If you take birth control, your mom hates you. And that the speaker could tell if you would be promiscuous.
Campbell opted out of the event, but was given a recording of it. Hearing it she was outraged and spoke out, and sought those who would listen.
For speaking out, and talking to the media and the ACLU, the principal threatened her. He told her that he may contact the university that she was going to in the fall, and tell them she was of bad character.
In response, she's called for him to resign.
So there she was, taking a stand, having her future threatened, and she did not back down. Good for her. Thank you. Thank you for standing up and trying to make a difference. For science. For education. For the separation of church and state.
And her future university had some thoughts to.
Smart move Wellesley College. Smarter than that principal.
And, again, thank you Katelyn Campbell. People like you can make a difference, and help make the world a better place. We should all try as hard.
But once in a while we see someone stand up, and refuse to sit back down and be silent. One such person is Katelyn Campbell of West Virginia. She is standing up to abstinence education with blatant religious content.
A religious spurred speaker came in and began to spout to students. Condoms are bad, and don't work. If you have sex, you will get a disease. If you take birth control, your mom hates you. And that the speaker could tell if you would be promiscuous.
Campbell opted out of the event, but was given a recording of it. Hearing it she was outraged and spoke out, and sought those who would listen.
For speaking out, and talking to the media and the ACLU, the principal threatened her. He told her that he may contact the university that she was going to in the fall, and tell them she was of bad character.
In response, she's called for him to resign.
So there she was, taking a stand, having her future threatened, and she did not back down. Good for her. Thank you. Thank you for standing up and trying to make a difference. For science. For education. For the separation of church and state.
And her future university had some thoughts to.
Smart move Wellesley College. Smarter than that principal.
And, again, thank you Katelyn Campbell. People like you can make a difference, and help make the world a better place. We should all try as hard.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
This year Easter is on...Roll 1d4?
I have been tempted to talk about the, what to my surprise exists, War of Easter. But it is too silly (You can see it tore apart here and here.).
And I have talked about the similarly ridiculous War on Christmas here already. Just switch over to magic rabbits, baskets of eggs, chocolate, pastel colors, and baked ham. If your argument is that your religious celebration of Easter is in peril...
And to emphasize that, you can see that Google has a picture of Cesar Chavez up on it's main page.
Google often changes it's main page to acknowledge various people and events (from Star Trek to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to Christmas to famous artist). It's a fun little thing. Today is Cesar Chavez birthday. It's also Easter (this year -- What is with the rolling holiday? Was Jesus hedging his bets on how long he'd take to get out hell?). So Christians, again, are pissed about not getting special coverage...on a little picture on the front page of Google. I'm guessing these people missed church and didn't know their was a big deal there today.
Honestly! Their are devout Christians spending Easter online writing and complaining about people not celebrating Easter. Welcome to Conservative Christiandom.
So silly. As Jim Gaffigan has told us...
For his full bit on holidays:
I think I'll just have some turkey and MST3K. It is feeling like a Turkey Day.
And I have talked about the similarly ridiculous War on Christmas here already. Just switch over to magic rabbits, baskets of eggs, chocolate, pastel colors, and baked ham. If your argument is that your religious celebration of Easter is in peril...
YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.Okay? It is all silly.
And to emphasize that, you can see that Google has a picture of Cesar Chavez up on it's main page.
Google often changes it's main page to acknowledge various people and events (from Star Trek to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to Christmas to famous artist). It's a fun little thing. Today is Cesar Chavez birthday. It's also Easter (this year -- What is with the rolling holiday? Was Jesus hedging his bets on how long he'd take to get out hell?). So Christians, again, are pissed about not getting special coverage...on a little picture on the front page of Google. I'm guessing these people missed church and didn't know their was a big deal there today.
Honestly! Their are devout Christians spending Easter online writing and complaining about people not celebrating Easter. Welcome to Conservative Christiandom.
So silly. As Jim Gaffigan has told us...
For his full bit on holidays:
I think I'll just have some turkey and MST3K. It is feeling like a Turkey Day.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
The trouble with religious medicine.
Writing that title for this post, I wish I was going to just be talking about new age medicine, or faith healing. But no, I am writing about medical facilities set up and run by religious institutions. Erin Matson wrote on this, and I wanted to focus in and expand a little on her piece.
A desire to aid and heal people is a fine agenda to have. The trouble arises when it's mixed with caveats for just how and if someone is going to receive medical services. At Catholic hospitals their is some question as to what reproductive medicine you can have access to. And this has an impact on people's lives.
If you end up at a Catholic hospital following being raped, what treatment will you get? What help will you receive? If you want to receive something to prevent a pregnancy, you may be out of luck, and they may work to prevent you from getting the treatment you want. And if you are pregnant and need lifesaving treatment that could the pregnancy...it can end horribly for you.
When it comes to abortion, Catholic doctrine is clear and cruel. In Ireland last year, under Catholic doctrine, a life saving abortion was delayed until the fetus was shown to have died, leaving it too late to save the woman. The disease progressed to far and she died. Fetus and mother dead. In 2010, following an abortion to end a pregnancy that likely would have killed the mother, the nun who made the executive decision was excommunicated. A warning to hospital executives everywhere. And in 2009, their was furor in the Church when a 9 year-old, raped by her stepfather, was given an abortion in Brazil. It was legal, under the circumstances. But the doctors and family were all excommunicated from the church, as a punishment and a threat to other Catholics, particularly doctors (Don't recall the step dad getting much grief for what he did.).
Where they can make it law, the church stops abortion services. Where it can't make it illegal, they make it inaccessible, or hard to get agreement to it.
But that is just Catholic hospitals. So no big deal. I wish that were so. As much as I would like to think that this issue is one we can handle, I have concerns.
First. Do you know how the hospital nearest to you is run? Is it religious based? In fact, what is the nearest hospital to you that isn't? Do you know? I have for awhile looked at the city I live in, and I've realized that there are two major hospitals, and they are both Catholic hospitals. So, if I was a women, what would my options be? As well, consider how clinics and other outpatient venues for medical support are setup. Many in this region have funding from the these two hospitals. How does that affect service? I am unsure how far, or where I would have to go to get medical aid unaffected by Catholic teachings on reproductive medicine. That troubles me.
This leads to my second concern the move to "religious freedom". In many states they are trying to establish rules of Religious Freedom. It's meant to be a way to circumvent the law and use religious doctrine in it's place. It's a way to deny services to gay people, or anyone you don't like, and it is also a way to justify all sorts of medical providers don't have to accommodate patients. It's, apparently, the religious way.
Now, it is interesting to see very religious people eager to show that they mean intolerant and exclusionary when they call themselves religious. But this isn't helping women.
And women in many places in this country are expected to leap through a series of flaming hoops to even get in sight of an abortion provider. Abortion is a simple basic medical service that is legal in the United States. When you look at how it is treated by most states, you would think it is a dirty secret, or used an amazing amount. But that isn't reality. Just the fiction that some choose to believe. And through those lies, women who need medical aid are made to suffer and endure, to fulfill the religious demands of some. How can any of us see this as acceptable?
I don't care if a religious institution wants to open a hospital to help the sick and be of service to the community. But they should not be picking and choosing the basic medical assistance they will bestow. That is not how one ministers, in the medical sense. If you pick and choose like that, based on personal biases, you are not being a serious provider. And you DEFINITELY should not be receiving tax dollars for your work.
This is why we need national secular medical providers. People will provide the full range of medical services. People who are actually serious about medicine.
I also wanted to include a link from the original piece linked at the top, looking at the trouble happening as Catholic hospitals are merging with other hospitals, bringing over their antiquated rules on women's health. It's good to be informed.
A desire to aid and heal people is a fine agenda to have. The trouble arises when it's mixed with caveats for just how and if someone is going to receive medical services. At Catholic hospitals their is some question as to what reproductive medicine you can have access to. And this has an impact on people's lives.
If you end up at a Catholic hospital following being raped, what treatment will you get? What help will you receive? If you want to receive something to prevent a pregnancy, you may be out of luck, and they may work to prevent you from getting the treatment you want. And if you are pregnant and need lifesaving treatment that could the pregnancy...it can end horribly for you.
When it comes to abortion, Catholic doctrine is clear and cruel. In Ireland last year, under Catholic doctrine, a life saving abortion was delayed until the fetus was shown to have died, leaving it too late to save the woman. The disease progressed to far and she died. Fetus and mother dead. In 2010, following an abortion to end a pregnancy that likely would have killed the mother, the nun who made the executive decision was excommunicated. A warning to hospital executives everywhere. And in 2009, their was furor in the Church when a 9 year-old, raped by her stepfather, was given an abortion in Brazil. It was legal, under the circumstances. But the doctors and family were all excommunicated from the church, as a punishment and a threat to other Catholics, particularly doctors (Don't recall the step dad getting much grief for what he did.).
Where they can make it law, the church stops abortion services. Where it can't make it illegal, they make it inaccessible, or hard to get agreement to it.
But that is just Catholic hospitals. So no big deal. I wish that were so. As much as I would like to think that this issue is one we can handle, I have concerns.
First. Do you know how the hospital nearest to you is run? Is it religious based? In fact, what is the nearest hospital to you that isn't? Do you know? I have for awhile looked at the city I live in, and I've realized that there are two major hospitals, and they are both Catholic hospitals. So, if I was a women, what would my options be? As well, consider how clinics and other outpatient venues for medical support are setup. Many in this region have funding from the these two hospitals. How does that affect service? I am unsure how far, or where I would have to go to get medical aid unaffected by Catholic teachings on reproductive medicine. That troubles me.
This leads to my second concern the move to "religious freedom". In many states they are trying to establish rules of Religious Freedom. It's meant to be a way to circumvent the law and use religious doctrine in it's place. It's a way to deny services to gay people, or anyone you don't like, and it is also a way to justify all sorts of medical providers don't have to accommodate patients. It's, apparently, the religious way.
Now, it is interesting to see very religious people eager to show that they mean intolerant and exclusionary when they call themselves religious. But this isn't helping women.
And women in many places in this country are expected to leap through a series of flaming hoops to even get in sight of an abortion provider. Abortion is a simple basic medical service that is legal in the United States. When you look at how it is treated by most states, you would think it is a dirty secret, or used an amazing amount. But that isn't reality. Just the fiction that some choose to believe. And through those lies, women who need medical aid are made to suffer and endure, to fulfill the religious demands of some. How can any of us see this as acceptable?
I don't care if a religious institution wants to open a hospital to help the sick and be of service to the community. But they should not be picking and choosing the basic medical assistance they will bestow. That is not how one ministers, in the medical sense. If you pick and choose like that, based on personal biases, you are not being a serious provider. And you DEFINITELY should not be receiving tax dollars for your work.
This is why we need national secular medical providers. People will provide the full range of medical services. People who are actually serious about medicine.
I also wanted to include a link from the original piece linked at the top, looking at the trouble happening as Catholic hospitals are merging with other hospitals, bringing over their antiquated rules on women's health. It's good to be informed.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Saint Patrick's Day: Let's Get This Céilidh Started!
March 17th is almost upon us. You know what that means...
...Oh... And it's Saint Patrick's Day season.
So get yourselves up and get to work aping Irish culture. You know, wearing green, wearing funny hats, talking in a funny accents, and... getting plastered on watery American beer?
And that's the feast day of St. Patrick!
Okay, okay. I know I have been one to point out that holidays grow and change, and break out of cultures or religions. And St. Patrick's has done that to an extent. But it is also odd to me that it's a national holiday as well. So people act out certain stereotypes And I'm not fond of perpetuating stereotypes. Of course, it's also become a day that the Irish like to promote cultural awareness, if you keep an eye out for events. As well, like Mardi Gras and Christmas, this day is also just an excuse to have a party, do some dancing, and, maybe, wear some green. ...And I do love green.
So let's get back to it's origins. (Now YOU Must Learn. HAHAHAHAHA!)
March 17th is deemed to be the date of St. Patrick of Ireland's death. It's said he was then buried at Down Cathedral in Downpatrick, Down County. Common for the day, St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was never officially canonized by a pope and church. It was more a regional decision. But from that start his sainthood has been embraced by the Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal and Orthodox churches. It took time for him to gain acceptance, but more and more he was acknowledged in the church. So, he got a feast day, and became a rallying point in Irish culture. But that's the end of the his tale.
Looking at the start is a little trickier. He is considered to be a Romano-Brit, of noble birth. His family had been in the religion business at that point for generations. Early in his life he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland as a slave. He later was able to return to Britain. He entered the Church then, and after rising to bishop was sent back to Ireland to convert the island to Catholicism (and fight crime as a proto-Zorro -- But that may just be my own head canon. Or I may be confusing the Green Bishop with the Green Hornet.). And with that he descends into legend.
The trouble with stories and writing of Patrick's time in Ireland is that it is not necessarily clear what is him and what is others that were evangelizing before and after him in Ireland. As often happens when cobbling together history, legends, or parables, the names may be changed and events altered to protect the innocent...or just make a better/easier to understand story.
Before Patrick was sent to Ireland, Palladius was sent to Ireland on the same mission, becoming the first bishop in Ireland. So some of his writings, words, and actions likely were blended in to the activities of Patrick.
But Patrick is remember for the overall effort to bring Christianity to dominance in Ireland. Which did occur. (And once the Magdalene Asylums were set up, it was smooth sailing for Ireland. We will be taking no questions.) That is where the imagery of St. Patrick driving the snakes out comes from, the conversion of people from Druidic faith to his own (We'll hope it was just converting.). It may be similar to the story of St. George and his "dragon".
It's like the story of his walking stick which would become a tree. The story goes he would plant it in the ground and preach. Then when he found it had taken root in the place, he would move on. Get it! It's alluding to something. It's cute...kinda.
Then their is the embrace of the shamrock, three-leafed clover. It is said that Patrick used it to describe the concept of a Holy Trinity (Insert your own sex act joke here. Whoa hey!), and then carried and wore them as a symbol to people. They say that.
Trouble is, can you actually tie the shamrock to any of his direct teachings. Because it seems to only arise as tied to him more than 1,000 years after his death. So, like with so many tales and legends, St. Patrick may have been rebooted and upgraded. Perhaps shamrocks had started to be used as a symbol of trinity or the crucifix, perhaps it had become more significant to people, and it was decided to go back and tie it to this significant religious figure.
Going back long before Patrick, the shamrock was a revered image in Ireland. It was green, which was an important symbol to them. And it represented the number three, also significant to the early peoples of Ireland. So it is not hard to imagine, like in other lands and times, Christian proselytizers taking advantage of the symbol and it's parallels to further sell the faith. It's just a question of if it was a practice predating Patrick, of his making (but no records survived), or just adopted later on. I could not say. Still, no one cares, and here we are, with a shamrock. And people seem to love them.
But what about the vaunted four-leaf clover then? If the three-leafer represents the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what's the fourth one for then? This...
Yes, yes, their is a corny explanation:
At least it's better than faith, hope, love, and luck...Yeesch.
So, a millennia later all the pieces were falling in place for St. Patrick's Day.
Though I think most of us forget about them. They aren't dragons.
Good for shakes, pendents, and easily recognizable Irish logos.
...Which aren't an Irish or Patricky idea at all... It's an American thing. But the Irish have taken to it...after 200 years. I'll be honest, and say I'm not big on parades. But if you like them, it's your lucky day.
Beer. As I noted in looking at Mardi Gras, we are in Lent now. So I wondered how a St. Patrick feast day would work. And even in Ireland their are times during which bars were required to be closed on the 17th. Apparently, most Catholic churches give dispensation for people to eat and drink on the 17th. A loophole to fasting in the in the Catholic Church, I don't believe it! Still, any out on fasting is a good one. So enjoy!
And in ending, I wanted to be sure you knew that, yes, their are people being huge pills about the fun side of St. Patrick's:
 |
| It's the shamrockiest! |
|
| Sniff my butt, I'm Irish. |
So get yourselves up and get to work aping Irish culture. You know, wearing green, wearing funny hats, talking in a funny accents, and... getting plastered on watery American beer?
And that's the feast day of St. Patrick!
Okay, okay. I know I have been one to point out that holidays grow and change, and break out of cultures or religions. And St. Patrick's has done that to an extent. But it is also odd to me that it's a national holiday as well. So people act out certain stereotypes And I'm not fond of perpetuating stereotypes. Of course, it's also become a day that the Irish like to promote cultural awareness, if you keep an eye out for events. As well, like Mardi Gras and Christmas, this day is also just an excuse to have a party, do some dancing, and, maybe, wear some green. ...And I do love green.
So let's get back to it's origins. (Now YOU Must Learn. HAHAHAHAHA!)
March 17th is deemed to be the date of St. Patrick of Ireland's death. It's said he was then buried at Down Cathedral in Downpatrick, Down County. Common for the day, St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was never officially canonized by a pope and church. It was more a regional decision. But from that start his sainthood has been embraced by the Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal and Orthodox churches. It took time for him to gain acceptance, but more and more he was acknowledged in the church. So, he got a feast day, and became a rallying point in Irish culture. But that's the end of the his tale.
Looking at the start is a little trickier. He is considered to be a Romano-Brit, of noble birth. His family had been in the religion business at that point for generations. Early in his life he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland as a slave. He later was able to return to Britain. He entered the Church then, and after rising to bishop was sent back to Ireland to convert the island to Catholicism (and fight crime as a proto-Zorro -- But that may just be my own head canon. Or I may be confusing the Green Bishop with the Green Hornet.). And with that he descends into legend.
The trouble with stories and writing of Patrick's time in Ireland is that it is not necessarily clear what is him and what is others that were evangelizing before and after him in Ireland. As often happens when cobbling together history, legends, or parables, the names may be changed and events altered to protect the innocent...or just make a better/easier to understand story.
Before Patrick was sent to Ireland, Palladius was sent to Ireland on the same mission, becoming the first bishop in Ireland. So some of his writings, words, and actions likely were blended in to the activities of Patrick.
But Patrick is remember for the overall effort to bring Christianity to dominance in Ireland. Which did occur. (And once the Magdalene Asylums were set up, it was smooth sailing for Ireland. We will be taking no questions.) That is where the imagery of St. Patrick driving the snakes out comes from, the conversion of people from Druidic faith to his own (We'll hope it was just converting.). It may be similar to the story of St. George and his "dragon".
It's like the story of his walking stick which would become a tree. The story goes he would plant it in the ground and preach. Then when he found it had taken root in the place, he would move on. Get it! It's alluding to something. It's cute...kinda.
Trouble is, can you actually tie the shamrock to any of his direct teachings. Because it seems to only arise as tied to him more than 1,000 years after his death. So, like with so many tales and legends, St. Patrick may have been rebooted and upgraded. Perhaps shamrocks had started to be used as a symbol of trinity or the crucifix, perhaps it had become more significant to people, and it was decided to go back and tie it to this significant religious figure.
Going back long before Patrick, the shamrock was a revered image in Ireland. It was green, which was an important symbol to them. And it represented the number three, also significant to the early peoples of Ireland. So it is not hard to imagine, like in other lands and times, Christian proselytizers taking advantage of the symbol and it's parallels to further sell the faith. It's just a question of if it was a practice predating Patrick, of his making (but no records survived), or just adopted later on. I could not say. Still, no one cares, and here we are, with a shamrock. And people seem to love them.
But what about the vaunted four-leaf clover then? If the three-leafer represents the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what's the fourth one for then? This...
|
| Finally! A positive image of Ireland. |
"The first is for faith, the second is for hope, the third is for love, and the fourth is for luck."But, come on! Leprechauns. Leprechauns! That's where it's at. It's always the answer.
At least it's better than faith, hope, love, and luck...Yeesch.
So, a millennia later all the pieces were falling in place for St. Patrick's Day.
- We have the snakes.
Though I think most of us forget about them. They aren't dragons.
- We have our shamrocks.
Good for shakes, pendents, and easily recognizable Irish logos.
- We also have parades.
...Which aren't an Irish or Patricky idea at all... It's an American thing. But the Irish have taken to it...after 200 years. I'll be honest, and say I'm not big on parades. But if you like them, it's your lucky day.
- And theirs the beer.
Beer. As I noted in looking at Mardi Gras, we are in Lent now. So I wondered how a St. Patrick feast day would work. And even in Ireland their are times during which bars were required to be closed on the 17th. Apparently, most Catholic churches give dispensation for people to eat and drink on the 17th. A loophole to fasting in the in the Catholic Church, I don't believe it! Still, any out on fasting is a good one. So enjoy!
And in ending, I wanted to be sure you knew that, yes, their are people being huge pills about the fun side of St. Patrick's:
Christian leaders in Ireland have expressed concern about the secularisation of St Patrick's Day. In The Word magazine's March 2007 issue, Fr.Vincent Twomey wrote, "It is time to reclaim St Patrick's Day as a church festival." He questioned the need for "mindless alcohol-fuelled revelry" and concluded that "it is time to bring the piety and the fun together.Trying to ruin a good time. It's just for Christmas anymore. Has someone seen if Sarah Palin wants to write a book on this?
New Pope, Old Problems
New Pope! New Pope! New Pope!
It's a Francis! The first one. He's also the first Jesuit. He's also the first pope coming from the Americas (though an Italian family), Argentina to be precise.
And everyone went mental at the news. He's so nice, so friendly, such a shunner of wealth and privilege. Great. What will change now? What can kind of person...pope is he?
So the good:
In Between:
The church has been hostile to it's advocates for some time now. And it's criticism of church hierarchy and authoritarianism may not be things the pope agrees with. Nor may he care for the view of Jesus as a revolutionary looking to bring upheaval and change to society. Nor it's ties to Marxism.
It is really no surprise to see a pope selected that opposes this view. At least the economic message will be addressed, we hope.
The problems:
All of the above is par for the course within the Catholic Church hierarchy Still, it shouldn't be forgotten that these are stands in the church. They are stands having negative impacts in the United States, and around the world.
It was a complex thing in those years. Religious groups were drawn in, obliged, threatened, and/or in league with oppressive rulers. Some priest were present at torture sessions. Some shared information with the military. Some argued against people's treatment. Some were brutally murdered. All of this is part of the reason Liberation Theology arose.
One journalist has written a book that says the pope, while in Argentina, hide away political prisoners of the military. He was hiding them for the military. He placed these prisoners at his holiday home on the island El Silencio, while human rights delegates were in the country. This would mean he worked with the military to hide prisoners so they would not be seen or talked to by outsiders. This is all claimed by the book.
I have not heard this story verified, or if there is another side to the story. He has said that he spoke up for some priest that were arrested to get them freed, and helped some escape the government. This is his position, and what he's been willing to talk about. There is obviously more to the events of this period in Argentinian history.
Sadly, I have not seen any news people here in the US look into it.
 |
| Pope Francis I: Lovechild of Alec Guinness and Jonathan Pryce. Really, doesn't he look like George Smiley undercover? |
And everyone went mental at the news. He's so nice, so friendly, such a shunner of wealth and privilege. Great. What will change now? What can kind of person...pope is he?
So the good:
- Long standing concern with poverty and inequality.
"We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least. The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers."This is nice. A stand on poverty and how it impacts people is good. And if the pope is speaking out on economic inequity, that will be grand. Maybe some of the conservatives in the US will listen and learn. (No. I know they won't listen or learn.)
- He's been refusing a many of the trappings of his post as cardinal up to now. He takes the bus. He lives in smaller rooms in Buenos Aires.
- Spoke out against priest that won't baptize children born out of wedlock.
- Has shown sympathy for those suffering from AIDS.
In Between:
- Opposes Liberation Theology
The church has been hostile to it's advocates for some time now. And it's criticism of church hierarchy and authoritarianism may not be things the pope agrees with. Nor may he care for the view of Jesus as a revolutionary looking to bring upheaval and change to society. Nor it's ties to Marxism.
It is really no surprise to see a pope selected that opposes this view. At least the economic message will be addressed, we hope.
The problems:
- Opposes gay marriage.
“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
- Opposes gay people adopting children.
- Opposes abortion access.
- Opposes birth control.
He has talked, in relation to abortion and contraception, of "the culture of death".
- There are questions on whether he collaborated with the military dictatorship of Argentina in the 1970's in actions that lead to numerous deaths, including priests.
 |
| Remembering those that disappeared. |
One journalist has written a book that says the pope, while in Argentina, hide away political prisoners of the military. He was hiding them for the military. He placed these prisoners at his holiday home on the island El Silencio, while human rights delegates were in the country. This would mean he worked with the military to hide prisoners so they would not be seen or talked to by outsiders. This is all claimed by the book.
I have not heard this story verified, or if there is another side to the story. He has said that he spoke up for some priest that were arrested to get them freed, and helped some escape the government. This is his position, and what he's been willing to talk about. There is obviously more to the events of this period in Argentinian history.
Sadly, I have not seen any news people here in the US look into it.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
It's almost St. Patrick's Day...So let's talk Christmas!
Or, Christ's Mass with the Palins.
Sarah Palin is trying to get into the limelight again, following her fall from the heights of punditry. And, one could go into her, her family, and the sad pursuit of fame. So many posts, pieces, and tweets cover it. Still, her ridiculous schemes for validity offers a chance to talk on some of the tired fears and claims that Conservative Christians like to trot out annually.
This morning I went on twitter and was presented with the suggestion that Sarah Palin (late of FOX News, later of governing, even later of failed campaigning, and never of relevance) would be writing a new book. This time it would be on the great and dire War of Christmas.
Oh, Christmas. Forever the pawn of villainous secular progressives, out to destroy you.
It is a favorite refrain for conservatives. It implies liberals are all godless (or non-Christian, which is the same thing) and trying to take away presents from kids. It's kind of like the way they say the president wants to take away people's health care, money, and then place them education camps. Both statements have no real bearing on reality.
So let's considered how Christmas is being bombarded by secularism. As people like Palin suggest, it's being homogenized, it's being commercialized and it's marginalized or ignored. Hmm? Interesting points. They are bull pucky, but scary to some people.
Christmas, as a religious event...is a religious event. That should be self-evident. If you are a church goer, you know how yours treats the day and the season. You have hymns, passages, and rituals you turn to, year after year. In the home's of the most pious, things no doubt run just as when dad and granddad ran things. So what is the wartime attrition being dealt with? It seems churches and homes seem to be able to operate, in their space, as always. Christians remember the day and tale well enough.
No. What is obviously meant is the public space, and business space. Once Christians could be assured that they were exclusively catered to, and now they have competition for attention. Sometimes people will put up menorahs (They don't understand them, but they want to be friendly.), or snowmen and Santa, to be inviting to all. But being inviting to all isn't what Conservative Christians want from Christmas. It is all supposed to be about them.
Christians are not getting the preferential treatment they are used to. Suddenly it's harder for them to see and receive to their preferential seating in the great banquet of society. (Though don't worry. Many places still give Christianity special dispensation in the community.) Suddenly, city halls, city parks, and town squares are not automatically handed over to church interests for the month to use as they have in the past. Instead, these spaces are seen as the property of all Americans. So, in some cases, anyone can put up messages or imagery on public property, to celebrate their tradition. In other cases, it is left neutral to the season. And in other cases, it is left open and unused.
Mangers/creches aren't being guaranteed funding or center stage status in towns. And for some this is a great crime against religion. It's an affront to the faithful (Christians). And, yes, that is silly. It's ridiculous to hear. In my city, in a very red state, I saw no manger scenes at city hall or in the major park that had Christmas lights up. But mangers were EVERYWHERE, on front lawns, at churches, etc. , it's just not being sponsored by government. (Side note: I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that none of the lights at the park were set up to reflect any religious scene, just reindeer, snowflakes, etc. And they blasted Christmas music through the park, and I noticed it was all nonreligious. It was way too much country music, but it was about the winter and the secular holiday stuff. Because that is what it is all about these days. And I also noticed how everyone would pass through the park and enjoy it. And they could do this before or after going to church, if they wanted. But I saw a place where people of all cultures and traditions were welcomed. And, to some, that is a bad thing.)
Christians are not getting the same level of priority and deference. And this, to Conservative Christians, is victimization. Instead, other faiths are also acknowledged, or just seasonal frivolity is enjoyed. And, to Conservative Christians, this is victimization.
Society has changed. We no longer just tolerate Others in our communities. We celebrate them, just as we celebrate ourselves (Whoever "them" are, or "ourselves" are.). Things are not centered just on the white christian male perspective (THIS REALITY IS STILL BUFFERING.).
And, is "it" commercialized? Yeah. Welcome to how every holiday and event is treated. And, welcome to Capitalism. You don't like? Ha ha ha ha ha! But, really, how many of the people complaining also sell Christmas items to make a buck? ...Like a book on the War on Christmas?
It is all silly. But it is also a go to paranoid money maker. From Palin to Bill O'Reilly to Bryan Fischer. It's all about a silenced voice. The excising of Jesus from society, the evil plot of it all. And when you're raised to not be aware of the world outside your home, home school, or church/megachurch, it can be damn scary to hear.
But I have to break this to you, societies change. American society, and even Christian societies, change and shift over time. Religion often desperately works to keep things frozen in place and time, but it's inevitable
Do you know why more and more people say "Happy Holidays" now? Looking passed fear of "PCness", other religions, and evil liberal agendas, we've simply changed as a people. That's it. Some people found it annoying to say "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years". Then some people found it awkward to wish Jewish people a "Merry Christmas", and Jewish people no doubt didn't care that much for it. And then the holiday expanded to swallow the month, and...for a lot of people it just became natural to say. Society shifted. And I know people, from Sarah Palin to Richard Dawkins, are pissy about the change in greetings. Sorry, old timers, the world's moved on. And soon enough it will move on in someway, leaving me behind. As it is, I noticed that I still use terms like Christmas tree, Christmas lights, etc. Many don't say that now, but they are terms I've used since childhood. My vernacular may prove to be anachronistic before long. And I am fine with that. That is life. Sadly for Conservative Christians, it's war.
This change does anger some faithful. Faithful who want communities to honor their faith before all, who want a one day holiday honored in daily greetings for a whole flipping month, and who want to kill Santa (Yeah. It can go both ways.).
But, you know, that is fine. If you don't like all the fancy and alien affectations glomming onto your special day, you can celebrate it how you like, in church and at home. And many groups do that, sticking to their ways and shunning the modern and impure. But, Sarah Palin, and others like her, don't want that. They want the world to revolve around them. They don't want to do without TV, cars, reality shows...buttons. The only people that actually find really standing heading off are nutty as Glenn Beck.
The reality is that they don't care that much.They don't care about Santa Claus, or Easter Bunnies. All the new bits and pieces that have been added over centuries are fine to them. The Christmas tree is a weird little tradition from Germany, that came over to England with Prince Albert, and became trendy. So it has no ties to Christ, at all. But the Palins put one up every year. Santa? A European tradition. But even O'Reilly will defend the idea (Though their are stories to the contrary, where he'll fight Claus.). And gift giving? Yet, everyone is up for some presents. Today most of us, Christians and non-Christian, like the secular side, the side that has grown and evolved. But it wasn't always so.
Back in the day, when the Puritans landed in America, they took Christmas serious. How serious? They banned it. That's how a serious Christians handles that. No drinking. No parties. No gifts. Nothing...Except church and prayer. Want to know what folk are actually supposed to call for, when they say they want to put the "Christ in Christmas"? That's what they are supposed to mean. On Christmas, you go to Church and pray. Otherwise you work, sleep, and pray.
But nobody wants that. It's part of the reason no one cared to have them in England in the first place (Their was also the whole civil war, killing the king. etc.). People want to have a party. And people, before and after Christians, will want to celebrate the end of the year and the midpoint of Winter. It is a happy holiday. And that's why, despite the complaints of commercialism and "add ons", most Conservative Christians take full advantage of the holiday season. But they aren't satisfied.
They just want you to treat them as the superior. Teach their religious views in school. Place their commandments in the courts and town squares. Write law by their vision of their holy book. And, fucking, say "Merry Christmas" to them, and smile while you're doing it. Okay? Thanks.
Now that that is finished. Let's get back to some proper religious celebration. It's almost St. Patrick's Day. Where's the green dye and the massive keg of beer?! Let's party like Christians! Woo!!!
 |
| Pay attention to me! |
This morning I went on twitter and was presented with the suggestion that Sarah Palin (late of FOX News, later of governing, even later of failed campaigning, and never of relevance) would be writing a new book. This time it would be on the great and dire War of Christmas.
 |
| Hey! A Christmas tree! Just in time for... World Kidney Day. |
It is a favorite refrain for conservatives. It implies liberals are all godless (or non-Christian, which is the same thing) and trying to take away presents from kids. It's kind of like the way they say the president wants to take away people's health care, money, and then place them education camps. Both statements have no real bearing on reality.
So let's considered how Christmas is being bombarded by secularism. As people like Palin suggest, it's being homogenized, it's being commercialized and it's marginalized or ignored. Hmm? Interesting points. They are bull pucky, but scary to some people.
Christmas, as a religious event...is a religious event. That should be self-evident. If you are a church goer, you know how yours treats the day and the season. You have hymns, passages, and rituals you turn to, year after year. In the home's of the most pious, things no doubt run just as when dad and granddad ran things. So what is the wartime attrition being dealt with? It seems churches and homes seem to be able to operate, in their space, as always. Christians remember the day and tale well enough.
No. What is obviously meant is the public space, and business space. Once Christians could be assured that they were exclusively catered to, and now they have competition for attention. Sometimes people will put up menorahs (They don't understand them, but they want to be friendly.), or snowmen and Santa, to be inviting to all. But being inviting to all isn't what Conservative Christians want from Christmas. It is all supposed to be about them.
Christians are not getting the preferential treatment they are used to. Suddenly it's harder for them to see and receive to their preferential seating in the great banquet of society. (Though don't worry. Many places still give Christianity special dispensation in the community.) Suddenly, city halls, city parks, and town squares are not automatically handed over to church interests for the month to use as they have in the past. Instead, these spaces are seen as the property of all Americans. So, in some cases, anyone can put up messages or imagery on public property, to celebrate their tradition. In other cases, it is left neutral to the season. And in other cases, it is left open and unused.
Mangers/creches aren't being guaranteed funding or center stage status in towns. And for some this is a great crime against religion. It's an affront to the faithful (Christians). And, yes, that is silly. It's ridiculous to hear. In my city, in a very red state, I saw no manger scenes at city hall or in the major park that had Christmas lights up. But mangers were EVERYWHERE, on front lawns, at churches, etc. , it's just not being sponsored by government. (Side note: I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that none of the lights at the park were set up to reflect any religious scene, just reindeer, snowflakes, etc. And they blasted Christmas music through the park, and I noticed it was all nonreligious. It was way too much country music, but it was about the winter and the secular holiday stuff. Because that is what it is all about these days. And I also noticed how everyone would pass through the park and enjoy it. And they could do this before or after going to church, if they wanted. But I saw a place where people of all cultures and traditions were welcomed. And, to some, that is a bad thing.)
Christians are not getting the same level of priority and deference. And this, to Conservative Christians, is victimization. Instead, other faiths are also acknowledged, or just seasonal frivolity is enjoyed. And, to Conservative Christians, this is victimization.
Society has changed. We no longer just tolerate Others in our communities. We celebrate them, just as we celebrate ourselves (Whoever "them" are, or "ourselves" are.). Things are not centered just on the white christian male perspective (THIS REALITY IS STILL BUFFERING.).
And, is "it" commercialized? Yeah. Welcome to how every holiday and event is treated. And, welcome to Capitalism. You don't like? Ha ha ha ha ha! But, really, how many of the people complaining also sell Christmas items to make a buck? ...Like a book on the War on Christmas?
It is all silly. But it is also a go to paranoid money maker. From Palin to Bill O'Reilly to Bryan Fischer. It's all about a silenced voice. The excising of Jesus from society, the evil plot of it all. And when you're raised to not be aware of the world outside your home, home school, or church/megachurch, it can be damn scary to hear.
But I have to break this to you, societies change. American society, and even Christian societies, change and shift over time. Religion often desperately works to keep things frozen in place and time, but it's inevitable
Do you know why more and more people say "Happy Holidays" now? Looking passed fear of "PCness", other religions, and evil liberal agendas, we've simply changed as a people. That's it. Some people found it annoying to say "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years". Then some people found it awkward to wish Jewish people a "Merry Christmas", and Jewish people no doubt didn't care that much for it. And then the holiday expanded to swallow the month, and...for a lot of people it just became natural to say. Society shifted. And I know people, from Sarah Palin to Richard Dawkins, are pissy about the change in greetings. Sorry, old timers, the world's moved on. And soon enough it will move on in someway, leaving me behind. As it is, I noticed that I still use terms like Christmas tree, Christmas lights, etc. Many don't say that now, but they are terms I've used since childhood. My vernacular may prove to be anachronistic before long. And I am fine with that. That is life. Sadly for Conservative Christians, it's war.
This change does anger some faithful. Faithful who want communities to honor their faith before all, who want a one day holiday honored in daily greetings for a whole flipping month, and who want to kill Santa (Yeah. It can go both ways.).
 |
| Oh, yeah. This is way better than being part of a moving and changing modern world. |
The reality is that they don't care that much.They don't care about Santa Claus, or Easter Bunnies. All the new bits and pieces that have been added over centuries are fine to them. The Christmas tree is a weird little tradition from Germany, that came over to England with Prince Albert, and became trendy. So it has no ties to Christ, at all. But the Palins put one up every year. Santa? A European tradition. But even O'Reilly will defend the idea (Though their are stories to the contrary, where he'll fight Claus.). And gift giving? Yet, everyone is up for some presents. Today most of us, Christians and non-Christian, like the secular side, the side that has grown and evolved. But it wasn't always so.
Back in the day, when the Puritans landed in America, they took Christmas serious. How serious? They banned it. That's how a serious Christians handles that. No drinking. No parties. No gifts. Nothing...Except church and prayer. Want to know what folk are actually supposed to call for, when they say they want to put the "Christ in Christmas"? That's what they are supposed to mean. On Christmas, you go to Church and pray. Otherwise you work, sleep, and pray.
But nobody wants that. It's part of the reason no one cared to have them in England in the first place (Their was also the whole civil war, killing the king. etc.). People want to have a party. And people, before and after Christians, will want to celebrate the end of the year and the midpoint of Winter. It is a happy holiday. And that's why, despite the complaints of commercialism and "add ons", most Conservative Christians take full advantage of the holiday season. But they aren't satisfied.
They just want you to treat them as the superior. Teach their religious views in school. Place their commandments in the courts and town squares. Write law by their vision of their holy book. And, fucking, say "Merry Christmas" to them, and smile while you're doing it. Okay? Thanks.
Now that that is finished. Let's get back to some proper religious celebration. It's almost St. Patrick's Day. Where's the green dye and the massive keg of beer?! Let's party like Christians! Woo!!!
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
FOX News. Always eager for something new to bully.
FOX News manages to not surprise us with it's ways of being offensive and dismissive of those they think can be safely picked on. It's mostly a matter of being asses to generate a feel good atmosphere for the close-minded viewers at home.
On this occasion it was a chance to attack and mock Wiccans and Pagans. And the problem isn't with something these people were doing. No, it is a matter of them have holidays in the religion being acknowledge at one university.
It seems banal enough. But FOX's best and brightest saw an easy and quick way to throw out some red meat to it's paranoid Christian, ignorant Witches Are Real, and the Schools Are Indoctrinating Our Kids audiences. Trouble is, this isn't the 1980's. So literal witch hunts are just not in vogue today. (Don't get me wrong, various Wiccans and Pagans are facing discrimination and intolerance in some small towns and small-minded communities.)
Oh, and yes, Tucker "Look, Ma, no bow tie!" Carlson is along to amplify the jackassery.
The University of Missouri, in it's guide to religions, acknowledges Wicca and Paganism, among many other religions. FOX gets a bit petulant and snarky at the idea of them getting seen as in anyway equivalent to Christianity. If you acknowledge pagans, you must hate Christ! You are out to destroy America!
How dare anyone recognize their holidays! Witches! With their...witch things... Lucky that we have Tucker to explain what Wiccans are (About witchcraft and D&D playing and divorced old women and Halloween.), such a smart man. How dare these pagans get any respect! Right? In particular, they get pissy at the number of religious days and celebrations they have. They seem upset that they get any consideration, like having their holiday dates written down and shared. So let's look at that what is shared.
Pagan/Wiccan holidays noted by the U of Missouri:
- Mabon / Autumnal Equinox
- Samhain
- Yule / Midwinter / Winter Solstice
- Imbolc / Candlemas
- Ostara / Spring Equinox
- Beltane
- Litha / Midsomer / Summer Solstice
- Lammas / Lughnasadh
That's 8 holidays. I would like to note that in the listings they mention the general practices for the holiday, and also any recommended accommodations for students that are of a given faith at the time of the holiday. These holidays ask for no special accommodations they are just special days. So they don't get you out of class or tests or anything else. They only matter if you give them significance. But that is too much for FOX
FOX acts like it's weird or a big deal. You could note, Judaism has 11 holidays, and some accommodations asked for. Christianity has 7 holidays (with the Easter Orthodox having 4 holidays in variance) and accommodations requested. And there are other religions acknowledged from the Baha'i to Shinto Buddhism. But as dense and bigoted as FOX can be, it isn't going to point a mock the Jewish faith, it messes with their agenda of using Israel to push war.
For FOX and Tucker Carlson, Wiccans seem like an easy target of mockery, humiliation, and bullying. A group you can just call witches, then say anything you want with no one harm to you. And, of course, with the core demographic for FOX News, calling pagans and Wiccans witches is a plus. (They also like it when you demonize all Muslims to. shhhh!)
AND if all this wasn't enough. Tucker Carlson takes a swing at Halloween. Tucker? You can say a lot of crap. But. Never. Touch. Halloween. I have no religion interests, but I love Halloween. And a weenie like you has no place mocking it. You gibbering hyena of psuedo journalism. Candy, kids, costumes, spooky movies and sights. It a day for fun, character playing, and laughing at the macabre.
And, Tucker, being the good Christian you play at being, you have heard of All's Hallow Eve, right? Sorry the actual celebration isn't banal enough for you. I'm guessing you also have a bug up your butt about Fat Tuesday to then?
Tucker actually says in the video, "Call me a bigot." And I am happy to. Tucker is a stuffed suit with a tiny dull prep school bully squirming around in it. You just up and call these people and their religion fake and sad, not based on any facts or insight, just based on your ignorant contempt. It's the same insight he brings to politics. And it's why he's an easy fit with the rest of FOX News. At least in the video, the woman in the middle by the end looks a little uncomfortable when they get to the point where Carlson is just out and out venting and mocking women. But that's what Tucker is about. Eager and excited contempt of people not like him. He's always giddy to get a shot at that, he thinks it makes him look big. (Really, it's a lot like Joe Scarborough.)
He's since apologized. But in it he shares that he thinks their holidays are weird. Nice guy. So classy.
Too bad Wicca doesn't have a holiday where they celebrate a figure resurrecting from the dead by eating ham and looking for hidden eggs placed by a magic rabbit. You know, non-weird religious festivities.
I am not religious at all. I have qualms with all the different faiths. But I don't see a need to criticize or fight unless their is a problem or danger worth talking about (or I think of something damn funny). But I definitely have no taste for bullies at anytime. We all know what bullies really are, and if you don't, just look at Fox & Friends and Tucker Carlson. See how pathetic they really are. These are the type of people we have to stand up to.
Sadly, we live in a world with FOX News. A station always up for a witch hunt, literally. (Yes. I had to go there.)
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
No Ash Wednesday *UPDATED*
Sigh.
Do I have to talk about Ash Wednesday as well?
...
...
...
...
...
Good. It's silly.
____________
ADDENDUM:
Well, I was going to get serious now on Ash Wednesday, consider the ashen cross on the foreheads. Because they are interesting to consider as overt presentations of faith.
And Bob Novak (Late King of the Douche Bags was a man who loved nothing more than hang his moral and religious superiority over anyone and everyone. He loved to go on TV to display the ash as a debate weapon. He could make it feel a distasteful display.
But as I was looking for a picture of him, I was looking at various people, including Vice President Biden, who are photographed with ash on the forehead. And when you think of this as a temporary one day affectation, that most people don't bother keeping on their faces way. Why should I be bothering with it? It is harmless. Why bother with him? He was never not harmful.
Screw him.
Instead, like many others are doing today, let's hail to the king.
Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
Do I have to talk about Ash Wednesday as well?
...
...
...
...
...
Good. It's silly.
____________
ADDENDUM:
And Bob Novak (Late King of the Douche Bags was a man who loved nothing more than hang his moral and religious superiority over anyone and everyone. He loved to go on TV to display the ash as a debate weapon. He could make it feel a distasteful display.
But as I was looking for a picture of him, I was looking at various people, including Vice President Biden, who are photographed with ash on the forehead. And when you think of this as a temporary one day affectation, that most people don't bother keeping on their faces way. Why should I be bothering with it? It is harmless. Why bother with him? He was never not harmful.
Screw him.
Instead, like many others are doing today, let's hail to the king.
Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
On Valentine's Day
Shoot. Well, I'm guessing I will do anything to not sit down and get my brain working.
So let's talk about another holiday hitting us. VALENTINE'S DAY.
...ugh...
So, Valentine's. As we all know the saccharine day exists to celebrate the events of February 14th, 1929. When a collection of mobsters were "hugged to death" by some rival mobsters after they'd received their lovely gift of a new puppy...
Wait, I probably shouldn't be getting my history from the Citizen Radio Definitive Source on History, Vol. 6. Sorry.
Oh, yeah. It's another one of those kinda sorta religious things.
Valentine's Day, or St. Valentine's Day, as you could guess, is in honor of someone named Valentine. A saint even. Now I'd get more specific with this, but...It isn't really clear who Valentine is.
I know, if you do know much of the holiday's history, you've heard some story. How he'd been a really great guy. He married soldiers that were, under law, meant to stay single. He was preaching the faith. Yadda yadda. But out of the early history of the Christian faith, there were many Valentines (like how there are so many Johns, Jesus, and Beyonces now). A number of figures from early history could be the original. They have differing tales that may be of the same person, or different ones, or just be stories. (Luckily this never happens again in all of religion.)
But a story did form. All the familiar beats, along with a nice grisly end. Saints need their dire exits. He's taken to the Roman emperor, offered friendship and freedom if he'll convert, and refuses. Then, before execution, he heals the jailers blind daughter (Aw!). Every saint needs that occasional moment of magic power to do all sorts of wonders...Just never really escape prison or execution (But, hey, no one made them join the faith big on martyrdom.). And then the final act, beaten horribly, and, since still alive, beheaded.
Isn't that a great basis for a mandatory date night? Isn't symbolic? (Don't answer that married folk! It's trap!) Well, it worked nicely for early Christians.
And at some point, well the end of the 5th century, a pope created the Feast of St. Valentine. Now, if you've read my recent posts, you may also remember it's now Lent. So, I am a little confused how in the 6th century a Feast of St. Valentine worked during a time of fasting. I'm sure it involves miracles, or something quantum.
Still we had that for awhile. It's not much. And, eventually, the church decided Valentine was a vague enough figure to pull back in the observance of his special day. No idea why the Church would have an issue with a big date night.
But, as usual, the Church didn't really get what they had on their hands. (To be fair, all the off shoot churches didn't get it either.) You see, Valentine, with a little poetic spin could be quite useful. It was not until people like Geoffrey Chaucer (Canterbury Tales, etc.) got to work on the saint and the feast day that it really started to take shape as the day we know now.
This point in the Middle Ages was a big launching point for chivalry, courtly romance, and, if you read storybooks, the fad of women wearing large pointy hats with veils trailing off. There was a surge of romantic tales and poetry.
Chaucer wrote one of the earliest Valentine poems:
It was a shift in how the day was perceived. Valentine had been reallocated to matters of love. The romantics needed a day, and he was conveniently available. Just as he had been to early Church leader.
So, traditions began. Flowers were exchanged. Then sweets (And, I hate to pause again, but...Lent?). And, of course...the greeting card came in to the picture.
So, yes, today greeting card companies, candy makers, and jewelry pushers do have a vested interests in pushing Valentine's Day, hard. But we should all take comfort. They follow in a long line of people doing this, going back to the early Church that sainted this fellow named Valentine...
...You know, I can't help feeling this fact should offer up some critique of romance...
...DAMN! I'm just not a jaded enough a person to see what it would be.
eh.
So let's talk about another holiday hitting us. VALENTINE'S DAY.
 |
| Knows Valentines is coming, or saw that Marco Rubio is stealing his "Take a drink" meme franchise. (Topical!) |
 |
| from Chicago Tribune |
Wait, I probably shouldn't be getting my history from the Citizen Radio Definitive Source on History, Vol. 6. Sorry.
Oh, yeah. It's another one of those kinda sorta religious things.
Valentine's Day, or St. Valentine's Day, as you could guess, is in honor of someone named Valentine. A saint even. Now I'd get more specific with this, but...It isn't really clear who Valentine is.
I know, if you do know much of the holiday's history, you've heard some story. How he'd been a really great guy. He married soldiers that were, under law, meant to stay single. He was preaching the faith. Yadda yadda. But out of the early history of the Christian faith, there were many Valentines (like how there are so many Johns, Jesus, and Beyonces now). A number of figures from early history could be the original. They have differing tales that may be of the same person, or different ones, or just be stories. (Luckily this never happens again in all of religion.)
 |
| Do I need to caption this? |
Isn't that a great basis for a mandatory date night? Isn't symbolic? (Don't answer that married folk! It's trap!) Well, it worked nicely for early Christians.
And at some point, well the end of the 5th century, a pope created the Feast of St. Valentine. Now, if you've read my recent posts, you may also remember it's now Lent. So, I am a little confused how in the 6th century a Feast of St. Valentine worked during a time of fasting. I'm sure it involves miracles, or something quantum.
Still we had that for awhile. It's not much. And, eventually, the church decided Valentine was a vague enough figure to pull back in the observance of his special day. No idea why the Church would have an issue with a big date night.
But, as usual, the Church didn't really get what they had on their hands. (To be fair, all the off shoot churches didn't get it either.) You see, Valentine, with a little poetic spin could be quite useful. It was not until people like Geoffrey Chaucer (Canterbury Tales, etc.) got to work on the saint and the feast day that it really started to take shape as the day we know now.
 |
| La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Sir Frank Dicksee |
Chaucer wrote one of the earliest Valentine poems:
...
The Parliament of Fowls is perhaps the first St. Valentine's Day poem ever written. Brewer suggests that it was begun in May of 1382 and finished for Valentine's day in 1383. ...
...
A gardyn saw I, ful of blosmy bowes
Upon a ryver, in a grene mede,
There as swetnesse everemore inow is,
With floures whyte, blewe, yelwe, and rede,
And colde welle-stremes, nothyng dede,
That swymmen ful of smale fishes lighte,
With fynnes rede and skales sylver bryghte
....
It was a shift in how the day was perceived. Valentine had been reallocated to matters of love. The romantics needed a day, and he was conveniently available. Just as he had been to early Church leader.
So, traditions began. Flowers were exchanged. Then sweets (And, I hate to pause again, but...Lent?). And, of course...the greeting card came in to the picture.
So, yes, today greeting card companies, candy makers, and jewelry pushers do have a vested interests in pushing Valentine's Day, hard. But we should all take comfort. They follow in a long line of people doing this, going back to the early Church that sainted this fellow named Valentine...
...You know, I can't help feeling this fact should offer up some critique of romance...
...DAMN! I'm just not a jaded enough a person to see what it would be.
eh.
 |
| NOW you know why he drinks. |
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Pancake Tuesday
PANCAKE TUESDAY (alternatively known as Shrove Tuesday)
The origins of the name (shrove) comes from old English term, shrive, which means to confess all sins and to be absolved of them. That makes some sense historically for the start of a celebration like Lent. Before the fasting begins, set down what you are at fault for and need to right. So...Yeah...Not as much fun to think about or get into as Carnival or Mardi Gras.
But what about the pancakes, you're thinking about and salivating over.
Well, as I noted in the previous post, Mardi Gras is the french for Fat Tuesday, meaning eating up fatty foods before fasting. Pancakes tie into this. To make pancakes you need milk, eggs, sugar, and butter. All perishables that were banned in many places during the Lent of olden days. So people would use these items to produce a supply of batter and make pancakes. Lots of pancakes. Again, not really the same as parades, drinking, dancing, music, etc. But it can be a far tamer takeit has persisted. Still to this day some make an effort to have pancake meals, keeping the tradition alive.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Let's Carnival the Mardi Gras out of this Lent. *UPDATE*
A bit of a delay in writing, so let's start back in with something light.
How about some more discussion of upcoming holidays?! That's fun. ...Though I have just missed that big festival wash up in the Ganges. Shoot. Biggest festival going to...Though it's about scrubbing up.
So...What else do we have coming up. ...Oh! Lent. Great.
Well, in India they go wash off the sins. Christians are "giving something up for a bit." Kind of the same. And, a lot of people do it...By which I mean a lot of people say they've given something up for Lent...Christianity needs more pilgrimages. Of course, for Lent, some people like to take long walks...with crosses on their backs. I could also bring up the faithful that engage in self-flagellation, like on Good Friday. Or the people that actually get themselves NAILED TO A CROSS. How about the guy that somehow nailed himself up? ...I believe the big idea is that Jesus died for your sins, right? That's kind of key to why Lent, Easter, etc are so important, right? ...So, why are you all trying to kill yourselves?
Actually, let's consider Lent, but even more fun, the party before it...
But first, the Lent thing. Now, if you aren't Christian, or don't pay attention while the boring people up front at church jibber jabber (That's fine. It's why the quiet mode on your phone exists.), Lent is a 40 day period of fasting, by which people mean they give something up (chocolate, beer, cigars, brussel sprouts, etc.). The reason being, that Jesus went into the desert for 40 days and did without. It's like what the mystics in some areas of Asia do. And not at all does someone slips the mystic the occasional Big Mac when no one is looking. And I'm not saying Jesus was slipped a Big Mac. They hadn't been invented yet.
So, 40 days in the desert for Jesus and 40 days without something you choose to do without. True, in olden days things were more severe, and enforced. They worked to keep people from eating animals or animal products. Though it varied from place to place, and pricks in power to pricks in power. (And, of course, St. Patricks occurs during Lent, which led to some modified rules. But maybe we can discuss that in March.)
And don't worry, their are nutters who still take it way too serious and try to outdo each other. But I'm not sure if that makes them more pious or not. And, of course, this being religious numerics, 40 days will vary in length depending on your given denomination. And that's Lent. Yeah, it's boring.
Fun time! Let's talk about what you do before Lent. And by you, I don't just mean the overly pious and eager to sacrifice for 40 days crowd. Oh no. We ALL enjoy a bit of pre-Lenten religion. This means FAT TUESDAY/Shroves Tuesday. Yeah, okay, their is a certain love of giving days of the week quirky adjectives. Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday. It's sad, such a busy schedule so there's no room for Manic Monday or Ruby Tuesday.
But Fat Tuesday is really what people care about.
It's the day before the start of Lent (Ash Wednesday), so, like with many deprivation rituals throughout human history, before going without, you gorge and gorge and party hard. Before Ash Wednesday starts, you got to taste and partake, and overdo it, with the various foods that would no longer be available for 40 days. In most cases, it was fatty foods, hence the name it's been given.
Of course people don't go without as much now. And many of us like the idea of Fat Tuesday for it's core, an excuse to have a party. But that's how most cultural/religious celebrations go, they start serious, then if they are worth repeating they get shone down to their best aspects, the fun (Fat Tuesday is a reason to celebrate, Christmas is a reason to celebrate, Halloween is a reason to celebrate, etc.).
And as Fat Tuesday has persisted, and the whole give it all up for Lent waned, the party didn't shrink. But, come on, who would race to cram in as much of whatever they're giving up this year on Fat Tuesday? Screw that! We all want to drink and party? So, now, it's more a reason to party and puke. And it has become an artistic exercise. It's taken on bigger and grander traditions that are something worth partaking.
For centuries it's done in Europe, in some particularly famous spots along the Mediterranean. But where it is more famously done today is in the New World. In Rio De Janeiro, Brazil it's known as Carnival, speaking to the days of celebration leading to the finale on Tuesday. In New Orleans, Louisiana it's Mardi Gras (the French for Fat Tuesday). While it is called this in New Orleans, it is a long raucous celebration there as well. And as you can see in the images it's far more now then food and drink. It is a spectacle. It's a chance to congregate (with friends, family, and people you've just met), to sing, to dance, to step out of the normal of your life. From Samba to bead collection to the particular floats abound to the new sights, tastes, and sounds, these can quite an experience (Though I haven't been myself.). Of course Rio and New Orleans are not the be all and end all of the Carnival experience. From the rural parishes of Louisiana to Moscow, plenty celebrate in their own ways. So, please, feel free to share the experience in the areas you live in.
I also feel I'd be remiss to not note that there have been some unsavory aspects that have arose in these celebration. It's much of what you find at every festival. And if you go looking for images and videos of these events, you will see the less seemly side quickly. In the mix of crowds, noise, drinking, and excess, if you do go, always be smart and aware.
But, even if you won't be leaving your apartment or snow bound farm this week. Take some time to celebrate, find what brings you joy.
We all deserve any excuse to do so.
_____________
ADDENDUM:
Valentines Day! That's a holiday I could have covered. ...Gee. No idea why that one slipped my mind.
How about some more discussion of upcoming holidays?! That's fun. ...Though I have just missed that big festival wash up in the Ganges. Shoot. Biggest festival going to...Though it's about scrubbing up.
So...What else do we have coming up. ...Oh! Lent. Great.
 |
| You expecting me to put up pictures of flagellation or people nailed up on crosses? Hmm? You'll have to go elsewhere to fulfill that fetish. |
Actually, let's consider Lent, but even more fun, the party before it...
 |
| You deserve a miracle today. And if you eat one of these, you'll need it. |
So, 40 days in the desert for Jesus and 40 days without something you choose to do without. True, in olden days things were more severe, and enforced. They worked to keep people from eating animals or animal products. Though it varied from place to place, and pricks in power to pricks in power. (And, of course, St. Patricks occurs during Lent, which led to some modified rules. But maybe we can discuss that in March.)
And don't worry, their are nutters who still take it way too serious and try to outdo each other. But I'm not sure if that makes them more pious or not. And, of course, this being religious numerics, 40 days will vary in length depending on your given denomination. And that's Lent. Yeah, it's boring.
Fun time! Let's talk about what you do before Lent. And by you, I don't just mean the overly pious and eager to sacrifice for 40 days crowd. Oh no. We ALL enjoy a bit of pre-Lenten religion. This means FAT TUESDAY/Shroves Tuesday. Yeah, okay, their is a certain love of giving days of the week quirky adjectives. Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday. It's sad, such a busy schedule so there's no room for Manic Monday or Ruby Tuesday.
It's the day before the start of Lent (Ash Wednesday), so, like with many deprivation rituals throughout human history, before going without, you gorge and gorge and party hard. Before Ash Wednesday starts, you got to taste and partake, and overdo it, with the various foods that would no longer be available for 40 days. In most cases, it was fatty foods, hence the name it's been given.
Of course people don't go without as much now. And many of us like the idea of Fat Tuesday for it's core, an excuse to have a party. But that's how most cultural/religious celebrations go, they start serious, then if they are worth repeating they get shone down to their best aspects, the fun (Fat Tuesday is a reason to celebrate, Christmas is a reason to celebrate, Halloween is a reason to celebrate, etc.).
And as Fat Tuesday has persisted, and the whole give it all up for Lent waned, the party didn't shrink. But, come on, who would race to cram in as much of whatever they're giving up this year on Fat Tuesday? Screw that! We all want to drink and party? So, now, it's more a reason to party and puke. And it has become an artistic exercise. It's taken on bigger and grander traditions that are something worth partaking.
 |
| Rio De Janeiro |
 |
| Bourbon Street, New Orleans |
But, even if you won't be leaving your apartment or snow bound farm this week. Take some time to celebrate, find what brings you joy.
We all deserve any excuse to do so.
_____________
ADDENDUM:
Valentines Day! That's a holiday I could have covered. ...Gee. No idea why that one slipped my mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
