Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

June 1, 2011

New at H&H: Me Again...on Pr0n This Time


In my first entry for today, I mentioned dashing off a quick piece in response to a tweet from Megan yesterday. It's just been posted online at Heroes & Heartbreakers.

I wrote about so-called Lady Pr0n in response to an article on a website for an NBC affiliate in Utah. Historical context always matters, and given that when I ran AAR we went through a similar controversy way back in 1999 that led to an article in Salon.com, I wanted to add my two cents, in an updated way.

As always, I'd love some feedback on H&H after you read my piece. Even though I had a fabulous, confidence-inspiring birthday yesterday, the lack of comments to my H&H articles, let alone the usual dead-silence here, feeds my insecurities. I can't help it; I need lots and lots of validation!


Share/Bookmark

September 26, 2010

Gay Marriage

It may be hard to believe, but sometimes I actually get fired up about something as a result of watching a show like The Real Housewives...

I turned on Thursday's episode of the D.C. series earlier this evening and watched Stacie and her husband struggle with the idea that gay people should have the right to marry because their religion teaches them that marriage is between a man and a woman. When the gay marriage issue became a big deal as a result of the California proposition, I asked my husband what he thought of gay marriage. He answered that he had no problem with civil unions, but that marriage should be unique to a man and a woman. I don't recall that he had a particularly stellar argument to back up his belief, but he's entitled to his opinions.

I have no problem whatsoever with gay people marrying like straight people do. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry if that is what they so desire. What interests me is the vehemence against this simple, straightforward, democratic concept. My question to those who decry the concept of gays marrying is this: "How does the marriage of two men or two women hurt you?" Since, obviously, it doesn't do anything real other than perhaps offending sensibilities, why does it matter so very, very much?

We don't live in a theocracy; I'm allowed to be a Jew just as my neighbor is allowed to be a Christian, so why should somebody's religious beliefs effect somebody else's rights and liberties? If you believe a marriage should only be between a man and a woman, that's fine, but why should your beliefs take precedence over other people's beliefs if laws are not being broken, nobody is being hurt, and there is consent? If two adult men want to marry, why is it anyone else's concern? Mind your own business, I say. Or, if you must, turn the other cheek.

This is no slippery slope; two men or two women who agree as adults to enter into marriage does not mean that next year it'll be chill for the guy at the CVS to marry a goat...or a minor. Marriage isn't doing so great as an institution these days with only straight people allowed to partake that somehow gay people will "ruin" it. It's not as though we force divorced people who have broken God's Holy Sacrament to wear scarlet embroidered "D's" on their clothing, nor do we force childless couples to break up because they're not pro-creating.

Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it right. Separate but equal never works, and there's always discrimination behind it.


Share/Bookmark

September 12, 2010

Islam

When the "WTC Mosque" protests began, my thoroughly American side came out. First Amendment freedom of religion? Natch. Melting pot? Sure...give me your huddled masses. And when the "let's burn the Quran" crowd came out, I was disgusted, although for once glad it wasn't a Texan making news for intolerance.

Throughout America's history, we've had this push-me/pull-you attitude toward religion and diversity. All of us learn in elementary school that those who settled the U.S. did so partly to escape religious persecution. But it didn't take long for certain Christian sects to be persecuted. The Puritans, after all, for anyone who's ever read The Scarlet Letter, weren't known for tolerance, and visitors to Williamsburg are told that church attendance was mandatory during the colonial period.

Being a Jew in the U.S. today, while certainly better than in the past, remains a difficult proposition. Ours is the only religious country among educated, wealthy nations. All around me I hear about Christianity Under Attack, the War on Christmas, and that the Founding Fathers were misunderstood. Earlier this year the Texas Board of Education grudgingly decided to add Thomas Jefferson back into its list of important thinkers after first removing him for not being sufficiently Christian - that whole separation of church and state thing.

That's the one side of it. The other is that everyone assumes if you are Jewish, you must be pro-Israel...if you are Jewish, you used Blacks "like stepstools to zoom up throughout American society" and "exploited the black civil rights movement" for your own benefit. I can't tell you how embarrassed I was when Jewish Bubbies and Zadies in Florida were shown to be as bigoted as any Texas redneck during the 2008 presidential campaign. I cringe whenever I remember this one old woman who thought Michelle Obama had a horse face and an old coot obsessed over the size of Michelle Obama's backside because, you know, All Blacks Have Junk in Their Trunks.

Let's go back to the pro-Israel assumption. It is quite possible to be Jewish while at the same time not agreeing with Israeli policy regarding settlements and the larger Palestinian question. On the other hand, it's hard to forget the Arab armies that tried to invade Israel upon its creation, during the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, all wars of aggression against Israel simply for existing.

Which brings up Arabs and Islam, and Islam and the Jews. It's true that Mohammed, who initially didn't focus negatively on the Jews, eventually changed his mind when the local tribes didn't convert to Islam, resulting in the slaughter of three Jewish tribes. But he wasn't particularly thrilled with proselytizing Christians either. In fact, it could be said that the current anti-semitism among Arabs actually grew out of proselytizing Christians, but not those of the 7th century. Instead, Europeans who came to the Middle East in the 19th Century brought their own, home-grown anti-semitism with them.

All of which is an interesting historical tidbit, but not my point...sorry. The fact of the matter is that among Muslims in the Middle East, anti-semitism is de rigueur. So how do I mentally compute my American need for acceptance of Islam when as a Jew I am fearful of the growing anti-semitism throughout the world today?

When I was in high school, I went to Israel on vacation, and one day went sight-seeing with a wonderful old man whose grown son worked for my father in the U.S. The man had survived the Holocaust and now owned orange orchards in Israel. He was a lovely old man, and his son, raised in Israel but educated in the U.S. where he still lives, is the biggest mensch I've ever known. He handles my mom's finances and is a genuinely kind, gentle, and nice man who actually finished first.

He came to visit my mom when I was in California in July, and he spoke about a cruise from which he and his family had just returned. Their very small ship had docked in Turkey and Spain, among other ports, and while he loved Turkey, he was very concerned about what he viewed as growing Islamist influence. Then he went on, shocking me as he spoke about the "loss" of Europe to Islam and his concern about the rise of Islam in the U.S.

Jews are known as being Deep Thinkers. We may have big noses and bad hair, but along with the pretty eyes come some great intellects. Me, though...all I get when I try and resolve these conflicting thoughts is a headache.


Share/Bookmark

May 24, 2010

[Almost] Totally Lost...and Loving It

Perhaps the best bit of dialog in last night's finale of Lost:

"Who died?" Kate asks.

"A man named Christian Shephard."

Kate laughs. "Christian Shephard? Seriously?"

"Seriously."

Until that moment, I'd never realized the meaning behind the name of Dr. Jack Shepherd's father, but in the context of the moment, with Kate seeing the coffin and Desmond acting all beatifically, it hit me like a ton of bricks. Oh...now I get it...Jack's dad has been there all along, in a religious, metaphorical sense, to shepherd his son - Christ-like himself at the end of his Hero's Journey - out of life as we know it.

But even as I write that, I'm still in a state of wonderment and awe about the two-and-one-half hours of television that held me spellbound after I got home from work around ten last night. Generally when I work both Saturday and Sunday nights, I sleep in on Monday mornings, but this morning, even though I stayed up until two or so to watch Jimmy Kimmel Live after watching the finale, I woke up early, and immediately my mind went back to Lost. It's too early to say for certain, but it feels as though my reaction to this finale is going to be as strong as it was to watching Brokeback Mountain, which is to say...profound and long-lived.

I believe this to be the case even though I'm not quite sure what the hell happened last night. And after this morning watching the two-hour pre-finale show, I'm even more confused. Questions I haven't had in years resurfaced, like why did Desmond give himself a shot every day when he woke up in the hatch? And, after having been introduced more intimately to Jacob this season: If Desmond's not pressing the button caused the electromagnetic field to surge wildly and brought the plane down, was he unknowingly re-enacting a script written by Jacob to bring the Oceanic Six to the island?

More than anything, now that I think about it, it seems that the major events on Lost have both a real and a mythological explanation. Which expands the religious component exponentially, particularly if you've ever seen The Naked Archaeologist, in which Simcha Jacobovici often attempts to provide scientific explanations for biblical events. When I view Lost through that lens, it makes more and more sense.

I'm far less interested in explanations for some of the things that seem to bother others, like how the Egyptian statue of Taweret came to be on the island. Ever since Ben turned the donkey wheel, the island disappeared, and he landed in Tunisia, the answer was obvious: At some point in time the island was located off the Mediterranean coast of Africa. This year we learned it also popped up somewhere in the Roman Empire and between the Canary Islands and the U.S.

Answers to the island's mysteries have always been less important to me than the mystery of its characters, and both take a back seat, frankly, to what I believe was the show's biggest draw: its moral ambiguity, the dark and light, and the oh-so thorough investigation of unintended consequences. That said, this season's Sideways world is the mystery that continues to confound me, even after last night (because of timeline issues). Especially after last night. Even after I:

  • Watch the online-only JKL Q&A did after his TV special
  • Read Doc Jensen's wrap-up column sometime later today and his subsequent columns throughout the week
  • As well as ten or twenty other online articles
  • And also re-visit the pre-show, finale, and JKL, all of which I plan to watch again this week...and possibly again once more before erasing it from TiVo and retaining just certain memories in my mind

I'm sure many questions will remain unanswerable for me. And that's alright.

It's not that I'm such a Lost fangirl that I think the show's producers could do no wrong. Two weeks ago, for example, Jacob was revealed as a whiny mama's boy. And last night I found some of those Sideways "ah-ha!" moments a little too sappy, including those moments in the church at the very end, even as I lay crying in my bed. But during season one of Lost, I decided to sit back, enjoy the ride, and let the show's creators take me where they wanted to go. I have none of the animosity exhibited by many fans after the Across the Sea episode, just as I wasn't at all upset that David Chase chose to end The Sopranos as he did. It's interesting because I'm a professional critic and certainly don't have that attitude toward the books I review for Publishers Weekly, but it's how I approached Lost - likely because watching television is a more passive experience than reading a book - and I'm glad I did. Because now that the show has faded to black, I am sad that it's over, but glad for its many powerful memories, and indeed, for its many mysteries, answered or not.


Share/Bookmark

May 9, 2010

Bibles

Last night as I was helping recover the store after closing, I wondered anew about the astonishing number and varieties of Christian bibles we stock. A small sampling includes:

  • New Women's Devotional Bible
  • Holy Bible - English Standard Version
  • Holy Bible - New International Version
  • Holy Bible - King James Bible
  • Holy Bible - Contemporary English Version
  • Deluxe Text Holy Bible : New Living Translation
  • NAB Student Bible : New American Bible
  • ESV Study Bible
  • Holy Bible (NIrV) for Adults - New International Reader's Version
  • Catholic Gift Bible
  • New American Bible - Saint Joseph Edition
  • The American Patriot's Bible : The Word of God and the Shaping of America
  • The Daily Bible: New International Version (NIV)
  • Comparative Study Bible, Revised Edition : New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Bible Update (NASB), Amplified Bible, and King James Version (KJV)
  • The Life Recovery Bible, Personal Size Edition : New Living Translation (NLT)
  • Chronological Study Bible

I went to B&N.com and searched for "Christian Bibles." There were 20944 links provided. FYI, on a search for "Jewish Bibles," 2165 links appear.
Share/Bookmark

April 5, 2010

The Church

Over the past several years all of us have gotten used to reports of child sexual abuse at the hands of priests within the Catholic Church. We've read about stories of cover-ups, lawsuits filed years later, and of monies awarded that required the sale of Church property. And for years the rest of the world sort of hung back, sure that the abuse was simply a "U.S. problem." We've shaken our heads, gotten angry, then forgot about it until the next cycle.

And then...and then reports began to surface about similar abuse throughout Europe. As reports began to multiply, the Church began to lash back at the media reporting the abuse. Last week things came to a head when a spokesman at the Vatican compared all the negative reporting to the persecution endured by Jews during the Holocaust.

As a student of organizational behavior, this tone deafness didn't surprise me. As organizations age, they become insular and concerned with protecting the status quo. Even though the Catholic Church is a religious organization, it is also close to two thousand years old. Then too, one gets the sneaking suspicion that for some in the hierarchy, this sort of abuse is undoubtedly built in; it's happened for so long that it may not be considered sex...or abuse, but something boys experience as they grow up. About that last I have no proof, but it seems a reasonable proposition, so I'm stating it.

The reason I'm writing about this today? Another in a series of articles, this one about a priest who'd served in an American diocese, been accused of sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl, who'd returned to his native India where he's effectually been given sanctuary against the charges. What struck me about this particular article was a set of comments made by the area's bishop. Though the Vatican has known about the accusations for at least three years, the bishop's response is simple: "We cannot simply throw out the priest...he says he is innocent. What else can we do?" Not "Whether the priest is innocent or guilty, we believe in the rule of law and have sent him back to face the charges against him."

The Vatican's fall-back position seems to be that nothing in Church directives prevents bishops from heeding local authorities, but because the Pope hasn't issued any guidelines requiring them to do so, they can use that lack as a loophole, throw up their hands, and declare, "What can we do?"

Nowhere in this are the thousands of abused children taken into account, just protection of the priests and their higher-ups. Now that this corruption has reached the highest levels - the Pope himself - and is not simply an American problem, the shit is really hitting the fan. And yet all we've heard is more of the same shifting of blame onto the media. One report I read yesterday blamed the "New York Jewish lobby" (aka The New York Times) for smearing the Pope.

One wonders where it will all end now that the scandal has gone global. The circle the wagons mentality, the tone deaf attitude continues to grow. If Jesus threw out the money lenders, what do you suppose he would do here?


Share/Bookmark