Sunday, August 30, 2015

A Little Consistency? nah!

Australian bar sparks outrage after using naked women as fruit platters


Kim Kardashian could not be reached for comment…

Nor could the owners or patrons of Hooters, Twin Peaks, Tilted Kilt restaurants, or the numerous strip clubs around the country. The state of Nevada also had no comment. The editors of Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Maxim, Esquire, Elle, and Playboy have not returned calls to them.


I don’t think the Sydney Overseas Passenger Terminal is the right location for that sort of establishment, I don't think any public place is. But I can't seem to put my finger on why the objectification of women at a bar in the Sydney Overseas Passenger Terminal should spark outrage and the many other instances of objectification of women, from Sex Week at Yale to the red carpet at the Academy Awards receive not a peep.

Maybe it isn't about women...

Reasonable Discussion?

Is a reasonable discussion even possible with people who cannot see what is wrong with Planned Parenthood as an organization, or more broadly, how PP is a concrete example of how dealing in the deaths of innocents coarsens moral sensibilities. How can you explain how wrong all of this is when they have lost any concept of what the word actually means?

It may be piling on references to cite 2 articles about the same event, but the more I see about the trafficking in human body parts, the less I can stomach the arguments thrown up by its abettors.








Ross Douthat has a regular blog article in the New York Times. Affirmative Action hire, maybe. In any case, he posted an outstanding response to the typical Pro-Abortion questions. The comments to the article were saddening. Few, if any of them,  addressed his arguments directly. Most are tired cliches.

But, again, how can they defend ghouls who find 'happiness is "another 50 livers a week"'? Or who laughs about shipping severed heads? Where is their humanity?
 

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

You Gotta Believe - or not

Atheist minister vows to fight removal from United Church due to her beliefs


“An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor Bible said Wednesday she is prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from the pulpit for her beliefs.

“In an interview at her West Hill church, Rev. Gretta Vosper said congregants support her view that how you live is more important than what you believe in.”

Unprecedented in the UCC. Believe it or not, ordained ministers have been removed for their beliefs in the past. And it still happens occasionally in other denominations today. It’s true! Certain Muslim sects remove more than the preacher from the pulpit; but that is an anomaly.

“What's important, she says, is that her views hearken to Christianity's beginnings, before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.”

Sure, why not? Were any of us there? We don’t know. Or as, Rev. Gretta Vosper said, "It's mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived."

I’m just wondering, who exactly, Rev. Vosper thinks promulgated the Beatitudes and the Golden Rule, and why they should be any sort of guide to ‘how one lived’ if they are the imagined preaching of a mythical person. I think she may have slept through some of her theology – and logic classes back at seminary.

Here is a bit of information that answers a question raised in my mind up in the opening paragraph:
“Vosper made her views clear as far back as a Sunday sermon in 2001 but her congregation stood behind her until a decision to do away with the Lord's Prayer in 2008 prompted about 100 of the 150 members to leave. The rest backed her.”

2/3rds clearly didn’t ‘back her’. 50 people isn’t a lot of backing.
But wait for the big finish:


"If the cost of that is that we are no longer welcome within that denomination, it will be because that denomination has defined us out of it, not because we have defined ourselves out of it."