Wednesday, March 31, 2004
A nation under God?
"We don’t need no education,
we don’t need no thought control" - Pink Floyd
The Supreme Court in the United States will soon decide whether the words "Under God" are acceptable in the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools for children. The question might appear irrelevant to some, but the very fact that a strong debate is going on on this topic is an evidence that it is not. Given the fact that United States is not (supposedly) a theocratic nation and that the Constitution prohibits that a religion be endorsed by public institutions.
In 2002 an atheist, Mr. Michael Newdow, obtained for his daughter the recognition of not being subjected to the words "under God" at her public school. In his appeal, Mr. Newdow stated that: "Those who deny the existence of a supreme being have been turned into second class citizens by a government that continuously sends messages that 'real Americans' believe in God". (to read the source for this and further comments, click here).
A very lucid comment on this was written by Barry Lynn: "As a Christian minister, I certainly have no problem with God. But I respect the right of my fellow Americans to take a different view. And I ardently oppose any effort by the government to undermine the constitutional freedoms that each of us enjoy." And: "I recognize that the majority of Americans probably support the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge. But we must remember that in the United States, the majority does not rule when it comes to matters of faith. Here the individual conscience reigns supreme, and no government official has the authority to mix religion and state. This is not Iran, where the government imposes religion on everyone by decree."
He is right, unless one accepts that religion is endorsed by public institutions and that therefore schools can somewhat control the thoughts of kids, just like in the song of Pink Floyd.
Further readings:
God vs. Constitution
Review of Susan Jacoby's "FREETHINKERS - A History of American Secularism", Metropolitan Books
Article on Michael Newdows stating that the words "under God" are unconstitutional and a means of indoctrination.
Learning through video games
Much to the happiness of the New Continent's fundamentalists, in Old Europe, and precisely in Germany, a new video game has been produced, simulating life of singles: washing dishes, cleaning one's own place, but also kisses, caresses (while under the shower too), intercourses under the sheets and even masturbation. Oh, by the way, there is also the chance of playing in homosexual mode. The game is called "Singles - Flirt up your life."
Darn that must be work of Satan, must it not?
I read the news on the Italian "Corriere della Sera". In Italy the game will be released on April 8th, and only people above 16 will be able to play it (despite the fact that probably, in many cases, they do in real life what the game shows as a simulation).
I don't know much about videogames, and I am not aware whether this game has already reached the US. If not, given the Taliban-like views of sexual (non)education of the Bush administration, I do hope that games like this will be very popular there. They say the best way of learning is through playing, this might make up for abstinence-only (self-fustigation and hair shirts too?) medieval propaganda of some American fundamentalists!
Surely a game about managing one's life in various respects, sex included, is more educational than a war game. But probably not everybody will think the same.
Some screenshots of the game can be seen here (web site of the video game producer).
And they tell me I stereotype Catholics?
I am sorry, but really people have got to open their eyes.
I say it here and clearly: to me some (I am not saying all) priests are blurry-minded individuals, people who have given up hypothetical remains of reasoning skills, to gaily embrace a regimented realm of acquiescent cretinism and who don't even know what they are doing and/or saying, and what's worse, dangerously spreading intolerance and ignorance. Just read here.
Catholics with a bit of brain left should be the first ones to say no to such people who don't even behave consistently with the Gospel as even the article suggests in the starting lines.
Using a condom is a mortal sin, but death penalty is fine for many "Christians"
It is somewhat grotesque to me that not a small number of conservative Christians support George Bush on the sole account of his views on family-planning and gay marriages, while they seem to happily turn one eye blind on his not-so-Christian stand on death penalty (while governor of Texas he presided over 152 executions*) and the fact that he started an illegal and illegitimate war against Iraq, which caused thousands of victims, and made the whole world less safe.
*Read here an interesting article on death penalty in the US
My "stereotypes" on Christians and Catholics
I take as a starting point a letter I received that mentioned my supposed "stereotypes" on Catholics. I deem it important to tackle this point in that I think the accusation of me stereotyping is absolutely false. While perhaps who accuses should more openly, without the thick blurring lens of a faith, consider actuals facts. And facts, not ideology or theology, can be the only base for any discussion.
Suppose you have a guy name Jack who drinks a few glasses of vodka every evening. He often ends up being tipsy, if not drunk. Yet, deep inside, he tells himself he is not a drinker, and he even gets upset if people tell him he is a drinker. Deep inside, he wants to feel that the label of drinker does not apply to him, as he perceives any label as a stereotype that challenges the abstract idea he has of himself of a free being who can decide any moment on his behaviour. He believes drinking is not part of his being. But does it really matters what his abstract idea of himself is? Does it make him less of a drinker? Not really, he is just a drinker that denies his habit. And the stereotype reflects exactly what he is: a person who drinks. Of course it would be very easy for him to prove teh label wrong: he would just have to stop drinking. In such a case, no matter what others say, he would not be in contradiction, and in the long run, confronted with the evidence any allegation on his being a drinker would appear an unacceptable slander.
Let's now consider what has been the object of some of my posts. Catholic priests who are actually, hypocritically, sexually active, and often homosexual, despite their vows and despite the faith they preach. Should the abstract idea they have of themselves count more when describing them, than the actual behaviour? Obviously not. It would be ridiculous to say that a priest is chaste when he is not. He is just in denial (at least in words) of his sexuality, but he indeeds behaves like the rest of humanity who don't bind itself with a celibacy vow.
There is of course a difference between the two examples. In the first case, alcoholism can hardly be defined a natural drive. Rather, it could be defined as the reaction to some problems (reactive behaviour). An acquired addiction, a 'vice', often related to a certain degree of neurosis.
In the second case, sexual drive is just a part of human beings, it is not an acquired behaviour, learned or reactive. It is simply the way humans are programmed biologically. But it is substantially treated as a vice, and with much suspicion, by the catholic church, and its ministers. They schizophrenically deny it as if it were a vice, extolling celibacy (which, in large part, they themselves are not able to keep despite their vows and despite the evoked condition of 'mortal sin') and expressing long obsessive lists of do's and don'ts regarding sexuality (only admitted in terms of procreation). Interestingly, given the fact that sexuality is indeed part of human beings, priests do have sex only accompanied by guilt and denial, clandestinely.
It would be a sign of intellectual honesty to admit the sexual activity of a large part of Catholic priests, just like it would in the case of Jack the drinker. That could be a starting point to have a true image of humanity, and priesthood too. Not the false image that is stubbornly proposed by the Catholic Church particularly. Because, I repeat, the obsessive abstract image one wants to have of oneself counts nothing compared to actual reality. And really, what Catholics ministers often end up doing is stereotyping themselves as people who don't have sex, and obviously in this case their stereotype does not correspond to the truth, in at least 50% of cases. Not 1 out of 100 "by mistake" or because mentally altered, we are talking about at least 50 out of 100.
Why do I concentrate on these aspects? I hate hypocrisy for a start. But also, I am interested in the reasons why this denial situation has originated. Because from an objective point of view it does not make sense that one should say "I am not a drinker even if I drink". Why not simply admitting the truth? And why, in the case of sexuality, which can hardly be considered a 'vice', not simply accepting it, especially when it is expressed anyway. A behaviour, hidden or not, admitted or not, is something objective, and the fact of describing it properly is not only legitimate but also necessary and, again, a sign of intellectual honesty.
And from the above, the Roman Catholic Church, and its ministers, if they want to have a glimpse of credibility, should draw all necessary consequences: that a millenary tradition based on the denial of the corporeal world does not have any sense and only feeds denial, dissociation, schizophrenia and hypocrisy. That a belief in a God should not necessarily imply the substantial denial of the world, whereas, as it is, for the Roman Catholic Church this is what happens. Moreover, that indulging in such a denial brings with itself indubitable traits of pathology.
It is a difficult path, in that the above-described denial is part of a general strategy, acting in religion, through which humans have dealt with the idea of mortality and the consequent desire of transcendence (See book "Sex and Death" by Beverley Clack, Oxford Brookes University). Nevertheless a necessary path if the stated 'love for God' can ever be matched with the love for truth. And perhaps, once we are rid of the schizophrenic streak represented by religions, at the end, we would have a more balanced and wholesome humanity.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
N&A presented in her blog a very interesting article. I shall here mirror it, as I think it is worth of great attention, and the more it is spread, the better. This is part of it:
The Christian Taliban
During the Taliban rule of Afghanistan the world got a good look at what happens when religious zealots gain control of a government. Television images of women being beaten, forced to wear burkas, and banned from schools and the workplace helped build strong public support for the President's decision to invade Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.
But even as President George W. Bush denounced the brutal Islamic fundamentalist regime in Kabul, he was quietly laying the foundations for his own fundamentalist regime at home. For the first time far right Christian fundamentalists had one of their own in the White House and the opportunity to begin rolling back decades of health and family planning programs they saw as un-Christian, if not downright sinful.
[...]
What is remarkable is that this was accomplished without significant public outcry. The reason is that America's Christian Taliban are more public relations savvy than their Islamic counterparts. No American women are being forced to cover up, beaten for appearing in public wearing make up, or barred from the workplace. The changes being made are more subtle and less visibly shocking. They are incremental, technical, administrative – but far-reaching.
You can read the whole article here. No need to comment it much. Only the picture described is quite frightening: it is portrayed a situation of systematic manipulation and alteration of scientific data in order to make them match to the views of some Bible fanatics, and this is not surely compatible with a modern nation.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
From www.granta.com a presentation of the book Straw Dogs by the author, John Gray:
Straw Dogs
Thoughts on Humans and other Animals
By John Gray
Straw Dogs is an exciting, radical work of philosophy, which sets out to challenge our most cherished assumptions about what it means to be human. From Plato to Christianity, from the Enlightenment to Nietzsche and Marx, the Western tradition has been based on arrogant and erroneous beliefs about human beings and their place in the world. Philosophies such as liberalism and Marxism think of humankind as a species whose destiny is to transcend natural limits and conquer the Earth. John Gray argues that this humanist belief in human difference is an illusion and explores how the world and human life look once humanism has been finally abandoned. Straw Dogs is an exhilarating, sometimes disturbing book that leads the reader to question our deepest held beliefs.
Unique possibility of getting exclusive items from human-too-human!
The (self)award winning drawings of Joe London (me), presented in previous posts in this blog, are now available on posters and t-shirts!
Several items are available (at least until I decide to destroy my virtual shop with a bull-dozer), just on the banner on the left. If you have special requests you can send a mail with the motime e-mailing system.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Something is rotten in the state of ... the Catholic church
What can I say? It is very frequent that, as one reads the news, something like the following is read:
Bishop resigns following claims (12/2/2004)
Former priest pleads guilty to molesting two boys (12/2/2004)
One does not even need to carry out a specific search, such news spring out here and there. And it is not only ironic but also grotesque that the Catholic church pretends to be the guiding light as for morality in sexual behaviour, establishing norms, talking about chastity, abstinence-only education, the sins of premarital sex and so on, when every other day one of their pious and charitable representatives make it to the headlines. Not to mention again (but actually I will) the very well known fact that 50% of the priests are sexually active. They should just shut the duck up.
When will people understand that there is something intrinsically sick in the Roman Catholic Church's approach to life? When will the so-called Catholic Cathechism be called for what it is, an expression of disease and denial of life and corporeal world which gives way almost automatically to perversion and mental disturbance? When will people recognise the integral relation between religion and perversion? Is this the price people should pay to have cheap answers to questions that probably don't have answers at all, and that should probably not even be posed in the first place? What is our rationality and mind like if we content ourselves with the human contrivances these people teach, people who pretend to exclusively hold the absolute truth in their hands, and what's worse at the expense of healthy living and mental balance? Has the time not come yet that we all see how ridicule and grotesque their artful solemnity and piety are? And that this relic of the past be confined to history books, just like it happened to old cults and mythologies? Shouldn't our society finally get rid of their gloomy and pathological vision, so that the places where young humans should healthily grow are not contaminated anymore by their pathogenic presence?
Something is rotten in the state of the Catholic Church.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Sex education: the world is not a Catholic parish
Our fellow blogger, and priest-to-be, DrChrist exhibits the usual dedication and passion when talking about sexual abstinence, which seems one of the favourite topics of Catholic priests (while other topics are ignored, or dealt with in a contradictory way, as my recent posts have proved), but the article he mentions, while showing estremely debatable data far from being eloquent, challenges common good sense.
Anybody, except perhaps Catholics and born-again Christians or some other fundamentalist sect, would understand that a comprehensive sexual education is better than a religion-ridden (non)education in which nothing is said about sexuality and safe-sex but only “Thou shall not do it”. The “Thou shall not do it” is simply not a sexual education.
While it may be true the onset of genital sexuality may partly be induced by cultural models it is a fact that at a certain age sexuality (and not only genital) becomes a powerful drive whose suppression is simply impossible besides being unhealthy. And of course there are not only strictly biological facts involved here but also psychological and moral facts: what type of severe psychological damages the thousands of teenagers, terrorised and bombarded by Catholic fanatics and chastity activists (“through billboards, paid TV and radio ads, an interactive website, posters in schools, educational materials for parents, and sessions in school and community settings”) will develop in the years to come? As I have reported in another post the highest rates of divorce are amongst Christians and the more strict they are the more they divorce, the peak being the born-again Christians. And that of course is not a coincidence: being brought up as fanatic (either born again, or born once) Christians or, worse, having embraced such a faith later as a result of some religious obsession, they are so mentally disturbed and have so much absorbed the Christian prejudice against sex and the idea of sin being everywhere that they make any conjugal life the land of psychosis (“oh no, this is against God, and that too, this yes is ok, but not too much”)
The promulgators of fanatical sexual oppression tend to overlook the presence of the natural sexual instinct and the fact that its expression is an absolutely natural part of the human dimension, so much so that even sin-obsessed people who have officially expressed a chastity vow often have sex, only frequently in a perverted way and with guilt. Because of this, the idea that all teenagers will give up sex is both absurd and foolish. Perhaps some will, exacty the sin-obsessed ones, which is in itself a pathology (and a part of them will probabaly develop sexual perversions later in life and/or become priests). What about the others? The others who will not give up sex will be absolutely without any publicly provided notion on how to protect themselves (since fundamentalists are against proper sex education but only communicate the terrorizing “thou shall not” message) and will have sex but simply in a non-safe way. This really means that abstinence-only education promulagators think: “orthodox Catholics who give up the expression of their sexuality will be ok, the others can go to hell”. A nation shall protect everybody, and shall base laws upon reality not ideology or religion.
The very data contained in the article quoted by fellow blogger DrChrist are far from proving what he intends to prove, in fact they prove exactly my point. The article says that: “Sexual-activity rates among boys plunged 30 percent, and the rate for girls fell plummeted 40 percent.”
If these data are true, this still really means that a quite large number of teenagers cannot be persuaded or induced to unnaturally give up the expression of their their sexuality. And such teenagers will be completely ignorant on safe-sex information thanks to the fundamentalist anti-sex abstinence-only sex (un)education. With obvious dangers in terms of pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
Also, I would be curious to know how the sexual activity of teenagers was measured in the article quoted by DrChrist. Were they filmed non-stop? Or were the results drawn from a questionnaire? If so, would the data be really reliable? I mean how many people bombarded by a campaign criminalizing sex would admit they do have sex? Also, what is defined as sexual activity in the ‘study’? Only genital activity? Many teenagers have sex without that necessarily be genital, and of course even in such a case proper safe-sex education would be necessary.
Catholics and other fundamentalists have to stick in their mind that the world is not a parish (which by the way, as we know, are NOT no-sex zones, but rather a thriving place for perverted sexuality). A public education, should not be biased by unpractical and ideological positions. And a celibacy education is ideological and unpractical for the simple fact that sex is a natural drive, and repression does not work, besides being wrong.
According to studies mentioned in the article I quoted in one of my posts, a lack of proper education actually can increase pregnancies (and, I add, fails to reach the potential of decrease of sexually-transmitted diseases):
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all support comprehensive sex education programs that encourage abstinence while also providing adolescents with information on how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually “may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.* ” (*A. DiCenso, G. Guyatt, A. Willan, and L. Griffi th, “Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials,” British Medical Journal, Volume 324, June 15, 2002. British Medical Journal, Volume 324, June 15, 2002.British Medical Journal).
The above makes a lot of sense. A sexual education should be complete, and reach everybody because not everybody agrees with suppressing one's sexuality. After a complete education is given, teenagers remain free of either being chaste or have sex in a protected and aware way. Whereas ignorance only creates problems.
According to the same article, there are serious perplexities (I am using an understatement) on the scientific approaches of abstinence-only supporters:
”The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.42 In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.”
And:
A fact sheet on the CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) website that included information on proper condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.45 When a source inside the CDC questioned the actions, she was told that the changes were directed by Bush administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Health is too much of an important issue to be subjected to ideology and religion. Scientific facts have to be taken into account. As well as truths regarding the way humans are. An abstinence-only education presupposes that “kids can keep their hormones in check” as DrChrist quoted article says. But that is an idiotic and false presupposition. People cannot fully suppress the expression of their sexuality even if they really want, simply because it is part of themselves. No Einstein is needed to understand that.
I mean even priests fail to be chaste, and they expect others to be chaste when they, older and supposedly equipped with stronger theological instruments, don’t succeed (doesn't that mean something DrChrist?). How stupid and hypocritical to think that the expression of sexuality can be suppressed. And yet these facts should lead people to draw logical conclusions, unless one is blinded completely to the level of idiocy: sex is there and cannot be suppressed and laws should protect REAL sexual people existing in this world, irrespectively of faith. Catholics and other fundamentalists should grow out of their blindness and sin-obsessed positions. They are not only full of crap (and hypocrisy) but also immersed in it way above their heads. And what’s worse they spread their crap everywhere.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Nick Anderson, Kentucky -- The Louisville Courier-Journal
Monday, March 08, 2004
Religious fetichism and perversion
The importance stressed on religious liturgies and rituals reveals, particularly by the practitioners (ministers, priests and the like) a fetichistic propensity. There seems to be an immediate irrational pleasure obtained by the mere execution of the ritual (usually complex, iterated and appreciated in that it is not changed) and the handling of objects (incense dispenser, chalices, cups, candelabra, vestments), a pleasure often plausibly present irrespectively of the contemporaneous conscious awareness of the meaning of the act performed. And of course, in the perspective of this analysis, how not to mention the whole-Catholic attitude of worshipping bones, blood, and old relics, and the nearly magic power attributed to religious items?
Priestly fetichism emerges in the visible indulgence in pursuing the objects involved in the rituals (which must be in a given way and 'perfect' in their material aspect, as if the material appearance strongly prevailed on the meaning, an approach comparable to phallic obsessions) and in the apparent propensity to perform rituals almost for their own sake, even though retrospectively some meaning is conferred to them. The pleasure and the indulgence, the gratification for the mere execution of the rituals comes across clearly, and is visible even in the affected postures and voice tones of the practitioners.
If one thinks about it, clear relations between psychiatrically relevant fetichistic syndromes and religious rituals can be established. It comes as no surprise, almost as a further evidence of the above, that priests have often been involved in perverted sexual behaviours.
Il significato più profondo del concetto di vizio, o peccato (laico e non religioso), fa riferimento a qualsiasi circostanza che impedisca la crescita e la piena realizzazione di sé. Sfortunatamente, appropriandosi di questi termini, il cristianesimo ha prodotto risultati paradossali: con esso, vizio e peccato diventa quanto favorisca la piena realizzazione di sé, morale, intellettuale, logica e biologica.
The deepest meaning of the concept of vice, or sin (lay, non-religious), refers to any circumstance that hinders the growth and full achievement of the self. Unfortunately, the embezzlement of these terms by Christianity has produced paradoxical outcomes: vice and sin have become all that favours the full achievement of the self, morally, intellectually, logically and biologically.
Don Wright, The Palm Beach Post, FL
"The U.S. Cardinals said they are going to develop a code of ethics to help them deal with the sexual scandal. Wait a minute, I thought their already was a code of ethics, it's called the Bible." —Jay Leno
* * *
"After all these scandals in the church, many Roman Catholics are calling for an end to celibacy. And end to celibacy, how about starting celibacy? Let's at least try it to see if it works." —Jay Leno
Abstincence-only education does not work.
Abstinence-only education does not work. If legislators and people really care for the well-being of people, they should take real facts and scientific truths into account, and not the false opinions of fundamentalist politicians who artfully distort facts for the sake of their fanatism. To know more about this read here.
Christians have the highest divorce rates, atheists and agnostics the lowest.
"[...] conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.". To read more click here.
Other information can be found here.
I am not going to comment this extensively yet. Only, I find such piece of information quite significant. It seems to prove that some factors in Christian education shape individuals in a way that makes living in a couple more difficult. Probably accepting to live a hell on earth (following anachronistic and absurd religious prescriptions) to gain heaven is not a good idea. I also suspect that religious education is more likely to form immature and disturbed individuals than non-religious one. Of course I am not stating this is an absolute and automatic rule, yet data are there, and they surely are determined by some reasons.
On a side note, certainly the absurd position that Christians have on divorce can be a good subject of reflection and says a lot on the (lack of) realism and psychological intelligence of the church.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
The "PASTORES DABO VOBIS" and the contradictions of some catholics.
Priests preach chastity, and they end up not being chaste (at least 50% of Catholics priests are sexually active). They preach poverty, one of the core messages of the Gospels, and yet desire expensive jewellery with juvenile, lewd and irresponsible "devotion" (mind you, the person of the second link provided will be ordained deacon in a few days, so technically is not a priest yet). This says a lot on the despicable intrinsic hypocrisy of the Catholic world. Nothing new under the sun, but very important to point out in order to understand the deep contradictions in logical thinking and moral standards in people who have, or will likely have, pedagogical responsibilities.
It might be interesting, for those who have followed my recent posts, a document written by the Pope, the Pastores Dabo Vobis, addressed "to bishops, clergy, and the faithful, on the formation of priests in the circumstances of the present day". Basically a document which defines how a priest should be, but that probably not all priests read and/or comply with. These some passages (stress is mine):
[...]
"A particularly significant expression of the radicalism of the Gospel is seen in the different "evangelical counsels" which Jesus proposes in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt. 5-7), and among them the intimately related counsels of obedience, chastity and poverty.(73) The priest is called to live these counsels in accordance with those ways and, more specifically, those goals and that basic meaning which derive from and express his own priestly identity."
[...]
30. On the subject of evangelical poverty, the synod fathers gave a concise yet important description, presenting it as "the subjection of all goods to the supreme good of God and his kingdom.(81) In reality, only the person who contemplates and lives the mystery of God as the one and supreme good, as the true and definitive treasure, can understand and practice poverty, which is certainly not a matter of despising or rejecting material goods but of a loving and responsible use of these goods and at the same time an ability to renounce them with great interior freedom -- that is, with reference to God and his plan.Poverty for the priest, by virtue of his sacramental configuration to Christ, the head and shepherd, takes on specific "pastoral" connotations which the synod fathers took up from the Council's teachings and further developed. Among other things, they wrote: "Priests, following the example of Christ, who, rich though he was, became poor for love of us (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) -- should consider the poor and the weakest as people entrusted in a special way to them, and they should be capable of witnessing to poverty with a simple and austere lifestyle, having learned the generous renunciation of superfluous things (Optatam Totius, 9; Code of Canon Law, Canon 282)."(83)
[...]
Being personally involved in the life of the community and being responsible for it, the priest should also offer the witness of a total "honesty" in the administration of the goods of the community, which he will never treat as ;f they were his own property, but rather something for which he will be held accountable by God and his brothers and sisters, especially the poor.
[...]
The interior freedom which is safeguarded and nourished by evangelical poverty will help the priest to stand beside the underprivileged; to practice solidarity with their efforts to create a more just society; to be more sensitive and capable of understanding and discerning realities involving the economic and social aspects of life; and to promote a preferential option for the poor. The latter, while excluding no one from the proclamation and gift of salvation, will assist him in gently approaching the poor, sinners and all those on the margins of society, following the model given by Jesus in carrying out his prophetic and priestly ministry (cf. Lk. 4:18).
Nor should the prophetic significance of priestly poverty be forgotten, so urgently needed in affluent and consumeristic societies: "A truly poor priest is indeed a specific sign of separation from, disavowal of and non - submission to the tyranny of a contemporary world which puts all its trust in money and in material security."(84)
As regards certain aspects, it looks like not only the Gospels, but also documents written by the Pople for the formation of priests, are empty theory for the priests themselves. Sometimes for ignorance, sometimes because arbitrary and contradictory views prevail, based on irrational drives, morbidity, idolatry, fetichism and, in general, hypocrisy.
Mind you, in absolute terms, Catholics should be free to do what they want. But it is hypocritical to preach one way, to say one should believe in the Bible, and then act in a completely opposite way.
If priests want to have sex (and at least 50% of them are sexually active, often in homosexual situations, even though with words they are against premarital sex and homosexuality) they should take a clear public stand and say "we believe in God, we want to be priests but we don't believe in chastity, and homosexuality is fine".
The same should apply to Evangelical Poverty. They should say clearly that is fine to lust after very expensive items, despite what the Gospels say, and despite the fact that money could find a better use in helping poor people, in whom, according to the Gospels, the image of Christ himself can be seen: "Truly I say to you, (39) to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matt. 25:40).
"Christianity has made more lunatics than it ever provided asylums for." (Robert Green Ingersoll)
Friday, March 05, 2004
My wish list
Since having a wish list is becoming popular, not only amongst webcam girls, but even amonst future priests (other accounts on the topic here and here), who lust after precious items to 'glorify God' (as if God appreciated these golden-calf-like items), I thought about it and decided to have my own wish list (!).
But as I don't have to worry about being consistent with the concept of Evangelical Poverty (which is not in fashion anymore amongst priests either), I decided to compile my wish list expressing sincerely my most materialistic desires for the mere glorification of myself. If anyone wants to satisfy my wishes, he/she shall have my gratitude.
Here it goes:
1st item:
This very simple item is the Imperial State Crown, over 3,000 precious stones, including the 317 carat Cullinan II. It belongs to the Queen of England, but you never know, she may be short of money and sell it for an interesting amount. Cheep and Cheerful as they say.
But think about it: isn't this a truly glorifying item?
2nd item
The Cullinan I diamond, only 530.20 carats, come on people! Just one single stone.
3rd idem
Yes another crown, but what can I say? I must confess I have an attraction to crowns. This is a Longobardian crown (likely 5th century a.d.), also used to crown Napoleon (May 26th, 1805) who said "God gave it to me. Woe to him who touches it".
But notice: lots of gold in it, thus surely very spiritual, so go ahead Catholic people, try to buy it for me. It will make me a better person. More elevated, closer to God.
Even assuming religious faith had a sense from a rational and philosophical point of view, which doesn't, some Christians middle-men and others who define themselves as Christians surely make it easier to reject with a reeking feeling the institutions that claim to be the representatives of God on earth, perpetuating, as they do, absurd fetichistic rituals and morally unhealthy views which carry a stench of morbidity and disease, favouring hypocrisy, mental passivity, blind unconditional acquiescence and sheepishness, and irrational sectarian fanatism.
* * *
A standard Catholic only asks to obey, no matter what, pursuing a sickening alienation of his rational faculties, anxious to immerse himself in a swamp of norms and rules, in order not to choose himself, as the mere fact of dissenting, even as a result of a hypothetical differentiation of personal views, is perceived as the worst sin. In fact, in a religion extolling sheepish obedience to sets of obsessively detailed rules, obedience prevails over a hypothetical rational acceptance of the reasons of the rule: if the middle-men change their views the sheepish undifferentiated members of the flock will follow. Such is the morality of Catholics.
And if the taxonomy of good and evils set by the church is unpractical and absurd (even unhealthily so) the better from the point of view of the church: if there were not a discrepancy between a natural way of being and the rules set, there would be no frequent behaviours defined as sins, thus no power consolidated by the administration of forgiveness. Catholic institutions need frequent sins in order to survive.
* * *
Given the fact that every single nation has laws to guarantee the rights of each individual (positive law) and that such laws are generally respected for the most part, and enforced, churches concentrate their attention on behaviours that are more likely to take place (sexual behaviours), in such a way the base of sinners (and the power of forgiveness) is guaranteed. This is also the reason why Christian institutions are so obsessed about sex: it becomes a way of controlling people through mechanisms of criminalization/guilt and subsequent request for forgiveness.
Of course associated to the above strategies is the exploitation of human frailty, the human desire of seeing a sense for physical finitude which humans do not accept. Even in this respect, religions are very efficient, so much so that they are able to induce people to not live in order to have the guarantee of an extra (eternal) amount of life in a hypothetical afterworld. To this end, the rejection of sexuality (again) by the church has somewhat of a logic, if warped: sexuality can be associated to the cycles of biology, to physical finitude and decay and is, therefore, even on this base, rejected. Uncontrolled irrational fears give way to strategies to cope with them. Such strategies appear in the creation of self-consistent, complex, relatively coherent theological systems that necessarily have a rejection for the material world in that they want to establish a connection with an eternal supernatural one, if contrived.
Ok again the anonymous commenter writes a few lines about me in DrChrist's blog:
I'm offended that Mr. London would drag my comment onto his blog and spew a discourse about me, and my views, and then remove it the next day. Personally, I love when someone rails on God and the bible, and then uses it to claim his own points, I ask...who is the hypocrite here?
unlogged visitor (www.smackdown_on_nonsense.com) @ 21:37 on March
Awwwwwww he is offended. I am so sowwwwwwyy. But ... wait... are we talking about the same comment dear anonymous commenter? Because, firstly, I did not remove your previous message (directed to me in DrChrist's blog) after having dragged it onto my blog, and secondly... I did not see any view. Do you have views? Can you articulate your views or can you only attack personally without even trying to contrast the content of what people write? Also, what do you care? You have chosen to be anonymous. Pathetic.
The following is your previous comment, let's see what are your views:
Joe, After visiting your blog, I'm not sure if you are a disturbed individual screaming for attention, or if you are delirious enough to belief your own ramblings. How appropriate you should remove your comments from your blog, no you can spout off without having to face the people you offend with your adolescent criticisms. I wonder if you were slighted by someone to make you so vicious, or if it comes naturally?
unlogged visitor (www.smackdown_on_nonsense.com) @ 14:32 on March 04, 2004
Basically in a few lines this anonymous* weirdo (*Notice: he is unlogged and the URL does not correspond to any real address) manages to tell me that I might be a disturbed individual or perhaps I might believe my own ramblings. This anonymous commenter, from the obscurity of his anonymity, tells me I should not not remove comments from my blog, that if I do it is because I don't want to face the people I offend with my adolescent criticism.
Ok, thanks for your comment, anonymous commenter, but frankly you are just a further evidence of the reasons why it is a good idea not to have comments in my blog: exactly so that I don't have to read wacky comments like yours that don't even takle the subject I talk about. It is pretty much the same reasons why some cities try not to have pigeons around, so that they don't spread their crap everywhere.
Everybody can reply to me, just not in my blog which is not a freaking forum for pathetic fundamentalists who rather leave bashing comments than write articulated replies. I see that DrChrist answers in his blog. People can answer. But comments have proved being misused here, either anonymously or not. I have a different idea of what articulated views should be like. And, by the way, you wacky f duck (I don't mean to use name-calling, but surely the way I call you is better than what you have used anonymously for me), if I mention the Bible it is to raise serious points and with evidence. And surely it is not even the point of trying to make people like you understand that Christians don't have the prerogative of reading the Bible, and that some people might even be inspired by it (just like by many other books, Kamasutra included) without necessarily having a faith. And these people have all the rights to point out that some Christians seem in contradiction with their own faith. Amen.
How handy the Bible: it can be used to justify anything
What's good about the Bible
The Bible is truly a great book and, above all, handy. For a start it is handy to be able to solemnly assert: "this is the word of God". In such a way even the most absurd ideas don't have to be rationally justified: they can simply be considered as part of the mysterious (ah what a sweet word) ways, even if nonsensical.
Another handy feature is that you can provide support for nearly any point of view. I mean if one is into incest (Genesis, 20:11-12), bloody retaliation (Exodus, 21-23-25), massacres (Exodus, 32:27-28), one can find examples in the Bible, as well as their contrary. (Search for "Bible contradictions" on any search engine and you will find many web sites if you care to be informed).
The message on poverty
The New Testament, however, also given its origin, has a better relative consistency. And one particular aspect is particularly coherent: what is generally defined as Evangelical Poverty.
In one of my posts I had listed some points in which such a concept emerges:
Acts, 3:6 "But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, stand up and walk!”
Acts, 20:33 "I have desired no one’s silver or gold or clothing."
Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
Matthew 13:22 "The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing."
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 19:22 But when the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich.
Matthew 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! 19:24 Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already".
And the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
2545 "All Christ's faithful are to "direct their affections rightly, lest they be hindered in their pursuit of perfect charity by the use of worldly things and by an adherence to riches which is contrary to the spirit of evangelical poverty."
The concept of Evangelical Poverty of DrChrist
An item worth $ 4,395: is this what glorifying a God is about?
Now, despite the above points found in the New Testament, DrChrist attempts to reconcile his desire of possessing a $ 4,395-worth gold plated chalice (inserted in his "wish list" for being ordained a Catholic deacon) by saying that "A beautiful chalice and well made vestments do not give glory to the priest, rather they give glory to God.". This is his justification.
I can believe in his 'good faith' to an extent: the enthusiasm emerging in his examples of female devotion (ointment of Jesus, and the desire of the perfect item in marriages. "A woman doesn't wear blue jeans and a t shirt for her wedding, she wears a beautiful dress - one that in many cases costs more than the chalice on my wish list.", he says elsewhere) seem to suggest a somewhat sincere intention. But I think his enthusiam is misplaced and should be mitigated by deeper theological and spiritual stands, at least if he deems that spiritual values are more important than material ones, and if thinks consistency with the Gospels matters.
His justifications appear as poor attempts of reconciling the desire of a wordly "glorifying' item (made of cold metal, precious to the world, not necessarily to a God), and are not consistent with the message of the Gospels, which holds wordly signs of wealth as unimportant, if not originating sin. Moreover, a minister of God does not sound theologically and spiritually credible if he uses the example of the behaviour of a loving woman (who did not offer vulgar gold, however, the example is completely different) mentioned in the Gospel to upturn a fundamental message of the Gospels, that of the central value of spiritual values against material ones. I suspect that consummerism and capitalism rubs off on such a choice too.
More specifically DrChrist mentions Mark, 14 (stress is his):
"And while he [Jesus] was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabster jar of ointment of pure nard, very costly*, and she broke the jar and poured it over his head. But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred danarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her. But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me."
As priests often do, DrChrist finds a biblical "escamotage" to asserts what he wants, despite the massive evangelical passages against, and despite the contradictions involved, let alone the disgusting contrast between such a desired expenditure and the existence of a large mass of people in the world who cannot surely glorify god with these items, let alone their stomach with food. And by the way, since the example of marriage has been used, I know of some couples who get married and tell their friends: "Please use the money you would have used for gifts for charity instead".
A mature religion should be firm in rejecting symbols of materialism and idolatry, and indulgence in the lust after material objects. Should be more consistent, at least philosophically. I am sorry, but the way DrChrist interprets the 'glorification' of God is a spiritual put-off.
A spiritually more credible religion, not keen on fetichistic idolatry and materialism, should be more consistent, and privilege deeds and spirituality over material objects and vulgar gold. Would God be offended if a beautiful brass chalice was bought instead (likely $ 200), and $ 4000 were used to help some people? Only a lewd and incoherent vision would lead to answer yes to this question.
I think some passages I found online, by Ken Raggio, are quite eloquent:
"The personal possession of jewelry or ornaments was shown to induce vanity, pride, sensuality and idolatry - vices no Christian would want. Alternately, we are offered the privilege of wearing the most beautiful of all ornamentation: the virtues of Godliness, which are many and multi-faceted. While the natural eye relishes outward garnishing, and criticizes comeliness and shamefacedness, the Spirit of the Lord scarcely acknowledges store-bought beauty, but lavishes praise on spiritual virtue.
While no one can deny the natural beauty of a fine piece of jewelry, nor berate its value in material terms, it is important to remember whose eyes we seek to please. The ornaments He thinks are beautiful have never been crafted by even the finest jeweler!"
This I find more consistent with the Christian vision.
*On the very costly perfume: on a side note, not that it matters completely, but as a curiosity, it has been written that the value of the perfume mentioned would correspond to "fifty-one dollars of our money, but the purchasing power of money was then nearly ten times as great as it is now." In ointing Jesus with a perfume, however, the personal act prevailed on the value of the perfume itself, and it appears credible to think that the spontaneous affection showed by the woman touched Jesus. But, in my opinion, an object of vulgar gold might even appear offensive to the eyes of whom thinks the real offering should be spiritual and the money better spent in different ways. Indulging in a precious object only reinforces an old, pagan, materialistic mentality (idolatry). As an idea for a gift is even aesthetically ugly, in this respect.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Oh, by the way, I would be more than delighted to read some criticism from DrChrist, in his blog. I mean if he really thinks I am wrong on the Catholic fetichism about expensive jewellery, nobody stops him from explaining why. On a side note, using an expression used by a friend, I find it liberating not being able to read wacky comments from some of DrChrist's sectarian beloved co-faith fellows in my blog (but DrChrist too appears to be a first order issue-dodger: apparently, he would rather leave a brief elusive comment than write a real answer in his blog, for instance). Of course they can stuff their own blogs with their omnipotent comments and with their prayers and charity. Amen.
"Joe, After visiting your blog, I'm not sure if you are a disturbed individual screaming for attention, or if you are delirious enough to belief your own ramblings. How appropriate you should remove your comments from your blog, no you can spout off without having to face the people you offend with your adolescent criticisms. I wonder if you were slighted by someone to make you so vicious, or if it comes naturally?"
The above was written by an unlogged visitor in DrChrist's blog. I happen to be sure 99.99% who wrote it because I have a web site access meter which gives me a quite precise idea on who reads my blog. But ok, I will respect his anonimity, for the time being. But I think some considerations on the above comments are necessary.
1. The above is exactly the type of comments that now and then I have received in the past. Even in the presence of argumented posts, people would 'drop' comments without actually seriously tackling the points raised. Basically dodging issues.
2. What the unlogged visitor calls ramblings are actually opinions supported by studies that exist on priesthood and religion, or posts that raise real contradictions that some religious people have. Of course in some cases some of my posts might be just quick notations, but isn't a 'blog' a journal? Do people expect journal writers to write foot notes and so on? Frankly in my opinion people should write what the heck they want in their journals. Of course, the way it is, it is very common that 'bloggers' post comments on what they read in other blogs. Catholic 'bloggers' do the same.
3. People who don't agree with what I write can always: 1) not read; 2) write well-argumented (hopefully) replies in their blogs, which is much better than dropping bashing unuseful comments. In this respect, not being able to use 'comments' is an opportunity to express dissenting views with increased depth. Nobody is going to stop them from exerting their free expression. And in case they tried, I would be at the Catholics' side (!) to defend their right to express themselves.
4. Being able to criticize is a necessary aspect of our society. My posts are not meant to be "ad personam" for the mere sake of personal attack, they are based upon convictions and intend to tackle general issues. Criticism by catholics is supposedly moved by convictions too (though often irrational, in my opinion). I have read much criticism in Catholic blogs. But Catholics sometimes say they "get offended". I have a feeling part of the 'being offended' depends on their presumption of possessing the absolute truth, of being exclusive guardians of the only truth, an attitude which I consider wrong.
5. Catholics keep 'offending' normal people who just have different life-style and views, definining them sinners, or perverted or else. And yet Catholics cannot bear a bit of criticism?.
6. Why do I care about religion? I have explained that in another post (read here). Religion is the great excuse for everything, wars included. A great generator of intolerance ("We are surely right, God has revealed himself in our religion, we possess the only truth, the other grope in darkness"). And a factor of alienation and, often, real pathologies.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
EVANGELICAL POVERTY
A whole new interpretation (above picture) of Evangelical Poverty. Price: $4,395.
I now and then read DrChrist's blog because it allows understanding how surreal and contradictory religion can be. The above picture, is an object contained in the wish list of Catholic DrChrist, for his ordination. Price: $ 4,395. When I saw it I thought it was a joke, I could not believe my eyes. Then I realized it was not a joke. It is probably normal for many Catholic priests to desire that so much money is spent on these jewellery. What a brilliant start for new priests! How well this reflects the teachings of Christ!
People could wonder what Evangelical Poverty is really supposed to mean. Is this the way Catholic priests show the depth of their spirituality? By disgustingly displaying human-made jewellery whose cost corresponds to what the poorest men on earth spend in 12 years? (some data found here: "It has been estimated that in 1999 1.2 billion people world-wide had consumption levels below $1 a day -- 23 percent of the population of the developing world and 2.8 billion lived on less than $2 a day.").
How disgusting.
This Catholic idolatry (or shall we call it fetichism?), which should not exist if spiritual values actually mattered, does not seem to be perceived as a contradiction by them.
They probably think spending 4,395 US dollars is consistent with what can be read below:
Acts, 3:6 "But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, stand up and walk!”
Acts, 20:33 "I have desired no one’s silver or gold or clothing."Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
Matthew 13:22 "The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing."
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 19:22 But when the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich.
Matthew 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! 19:24 Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already".
And the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
2545 "All Christ's faithful are to "direct their affections rightly, lest they be hindered in their pursuit of perfect charity by the use of worldly things and by an adherence to riches which is contrary to the spirit of evangelical poverty."
If the above words found in the Gospels and in the teachings of the catholic church are not mere words, if "Evangelical Poverty" has a meaning, if idolatry and golden calfs have actually been abandoned, if piety and compassion exist, and if deeds matter, priests should behave differently, without indulging in a hardly evangelical wordly lust of the eyes after precious objects. I thought the highest concern for a Christian should be to receive Christ in a precious faithful heart rather than in an expensive cup of metal precious for the world. That is if coherence and spirituality mean something for Christians.
Some web sites consulted:
On religion
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Holypoverty.html
http://kenraggio.com/KR-Ornaments.htm
Income Inequality
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/mission/up2.htm
The worship of the phallus
It is well known that in ancient religions phallicism was quite common.
A large number of Catholic priests seem to maintain a form of worship of the phallus. Only, such a worship is not official, and is carried out clandestinely despite its incompatibility with the (unnatural) vow of chastity and despite the well known condemnation of sexuality perpetrated by the Church. A real apotheosis of hypocrisy.
To the readers (if any): I have decided to de-activate comments. This site was never meant to be a forum nor a place for extemporaneous discussions. Had I had interest in the above, or patience, or a proselytising vocation, I would have opened a real forum. Switching off the comments helps maintaining the original intention.
The queerness of priests
Anybody who has frequented a Catholic church, without giving up his (or her) own critical faculty and capacity to observe things, must have surely noticed some features that many priests seem to have and that are not easily described if not, at least initially, in an indirect way. That is by describing the feelings their personality conveys. In many cases, their presence evokes feelings of creepiness, smarminess, duplicity. Many talk and look in a strange, somewhat obliquitous way. In other words they have features that cause uneasiness. Is it because of their spirituality or righteousness? No, if we are sincere with ourselves we must admit that the uneasiness derives from a perception of pathology, alteration, perversion, disease that they suggest.
On the other hand, the relation between 'queerness' and priesthood has been object of studies. As I have said elsewhere, studies seem to suggest that some psychological features (morbid raptures, trances, sexual perversions, deviations etc.) have traditionally raised respect and awe in common people because of their being somewhat not ordinary, and therefore are often detectable in priests. (August Horneffer, Der Priester: Seine Vergangenheit und seine Zukunft, Erster Band, Jena 1912.).
But once again, even in the light of continuous scandals involving Catholic priests, a question emerges spontaneously: is it right and acceptable that Catholic priests have pedagogical responsabilities? I don't think so.
And aren't Catholic teachings in themselves soil of alienation and disease due to their insistence against sexuality and their pathogenic obsession with sin? They are, most definitely.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Poetry gives us a hint of how moral we can be, a disturbing example for ordinary discomposed life.
It goes without saying that if morality is an order, it should be our order not an external order or, worse, an order laid down by words of other human beings. If it were not so, behaving morally would simply be the dull acquiescence to a rule, a series of acts void of conviction, the movements of an idiot. And it can hardly be seen anything noble or ethical in this.
If God existed and suggested a rule which does not convince us and we were complying with it, we would be incommensurably less ethical than behaving according to what we think is right without abiding by the divine words, but being personally persuaded by our idea of good.
After, we can burn in hell with wholeness and self-respect, if God, childishly resented for disobedience, will stubbornly punish the human who has decided not to be a sheep.