Media Bias is Evident in the Gay Marriage debate.
For example, you can observe that the Huffington Post will call any demonstration against the gay marriage issue in France "homophobic" automatically. Any opposition to oral or anal sex for lifetime is now apparently 'homophobic.' Seriously? Who's the bigot?
Here's what you need to know about the HuffPost- and why they are such huge fans apparently of
oral and anal sex for a lifetime.
The founder of HuffPost- Adriana Huffington was once married to a very prominent Republican politician, whom she subsequently divorced because it turns out he is gay. They have children together. So naturally she wants their children to love and respect their father because otherwise it
affects their self esteem. She has to legitimize gay as valuable-as valuable as straight, otherwise her kids are somehow defective and that won't work. That is what has happened to a lot of people.
They don't want their children stigmatized.
The fact that this has so much coverage at all, and there is a HuffPost LGBT desk covering these issues is a reflection of the passionate desire to legitimize all things gay.
Rather than say, dear Adriana, that something went horribly wrong. Something went devilishly wrong with my marriage. My husband left me for a man and people should just never do that, she is apparently trying to justify why her husband succumbed to the lusts of the flesh and would rather spend his life
in oral/anal sexland than being a good husband and father.
Read 1st Corinthians 69. There is no need or reason to demonize people who believe the bible when it says, your x-husband might just be a creep- and we don't want to turn the country into a land of creeps.
Media watchers pay attention to where this is coming from and how your minds are influenced by reporting. On that issue, I would just turn off the HuffPost and tell Adriana to get therapy.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
France [Gay Parie]
Is a beautiful country
It values liberty, equality, fraternity as we do and they, through Lafayette's friendship with George Washington helped us win the civil war (as viewed from Britain) and the Revolutionary War as viewed from America.
However, France has a very different sexual sensibility than we do and cultural norms- outside spheres of commonality like the Catholic Church. Prostitution is legal there everywhere.
Their women go topless on beaches and this is no big deal.
Half of all the children born in France are born out of wedlock as more or less half the people
who are couples are co-habitating without marriage. And that is all fine with them.
There is a reason 'menage a trois' is a french word, as is 'liason dangereuse' and 'cage aux folles.' There is a reason why the running joke is that france has three national sports:
1. Foote (football, but they mean soccer), 2. Le Greve-the industrial strike, and 3. L'Adultere.
Adultery. It is a hyper sexualized country compared to the US and not much is taboo.
We, on the other hand were founded by puritan pilgrims, and people who read the bible religiously.
They have just become the 14th country to legalize same sex marriage nationally.
Because they haven't figured out that All Behaviors Are Not Created Equal.
The French Revolution did something to cleric and the 'clerical class' that we never did here, because
there was never a 'clerical class' here. We respected religious leaders as integral to the success of
our societies from the beginning. We didn't lock them in the Bastille when we had our revolution,
we didn't blame God for the abuses of King George of England.
We asked our religious leaders to pray for us. We ask them to do it now. We ask them all to pray
for the Supreme Court and have their congregations all pray for the Supreme Court, that they
have the wise judgment and strength to respect the beautiful traditions that make this country
so good.
Someone said that when the country ceases to be good it ceases to be great.
It is right , just , and good, that society honors opposite sex parents who raise children and right
for society to defend their union as sacred if they view it as sacred.
It is not right, just and good that anyone who wants to have oral and anal sex for the rest of their
lives together force everyone in the country to accept that this is just as good .
Forcing someone or a nation to accept what they find morally obnoxious is worse than a denial
of someone's religious liberty, it is a form of slavery, forcing obeissance to an alien or offensive
rule.
We are not that country. We are not France.
Most things I love about France, its a really beautiful place, but their sexual ethics can just break your heart.
It values liberty, equality, fraternity as we do and they, through Lafayette's friendship with George Washington helped us win the civil war (as viewed from Britain) and the Revolutionary War as viewed from America.
However, France has a very different sexual sensibility than we do and cultural norms- outside spheres of commonality like the Catholic Church. Prostitution is legal there everywhere.
Their women go topless on beaches and this is no big deal.
Half of all the children born in France are born out of wedlock as more or less half the people
who are couples are co-habitating without marriage. And that is all fine with them.
There is a reason 'menage a trois' is a french word, as is 'liason dangereuse' and 'cage aux folles.' There is a reason why the running joke is that france has three national sports:
1. Foote (football, but they mean soccer), 2. Le Greve-the industrial strike, and 3. L'Adultere.
Adultery. It is a hyper sexualized country compared to the US and not much is taboo.
We, on the other hand were founded by puritan pilgrims, and people who read the bible religiously.
They have just become the 14th country to legalize same sex marriage nationally.
Because they haven't figured out that All Behaviors Are Not Created Equal.
The French Revolution did something to cleric and the 'clerical class' that we never did here, because
there was never a 'clerical class' here. We respected religious leaders as integral to the success of
our societies from the beginning. We didn't lock them in the Bastille when we had our revolution,
we didn't blame God for the abuses of King George of England.
We asked our religious leaders to pray for us. We ask them to do it now. We ask them all to pray
for the Supreme Court and have their congregations all pray for the Supreme Court, that they
have the wise judgment and strength to respect the beautiful traditions that make this country
so good.
Someone said that when the country ceases to be good it ceases to be great.
It is right , just , and good, that society honors opposite sex parents who raise children and right
for society to defend their union as sacred if they view it as sacred.
It is not right, just and good that anyone who wants to have oral and anal sex for the rest of their
lives together force everyone in the country to accept that this is just as good .
Forcing someone or a nation to accept what they find morally obnoxious is worse than a denial
of someone's religious liberty, it is a form of slavery, forcing obeissance to an alien or offensive
rule.
We are not that country. We are not France.
Most things I love about France, its a really beautiful place, but their sexual ethics can just break your heart.
Monday, April 22, 2013
History Lesson
In the 1700s in Philadelphia
there were no robbers, muggers, waylayers, burglars or crime, rowdy drunken bar fights with guns. True or False.
False. The early cities had crime. They had crime with weapons. The wild west wasn't won until much later and before people ventured west they were the same people.
So why doesn't the Second Amendment state "in the interest of self defense everyone has a right to have a weapon" or "in the interest of protecting the civil order everyone has a right..." or "in the interest of protecting your home from invasion, or in the interest of fending off robbers, etc....
It says explicitly that only in the interest of the STATE with regard to its WELL REGULATED MILITIA should anyone wish to join said Militia, you can be armed.
Recall that before we were technically united as the United States, there were military regiments that came from different states. George Washington led the army but was from the Virginia Regiment.
Also not that the term State isn't specific to just 13 but could also mean State generically as in the Body Politic.
CLEARLY, the Second Amendment Never Ever envisioned arming criminals. It only envisioned arming the Military. The term then before we had a standing army was Militia- the various State Militias that ran the Revolutionary War.
Please READ CAREFULLY the amendment. The NRA is just out of line and a tool of the arms industry. To let that industry dictate policy on arms control is obscene. Murderously obscene.
Anyone who has taken a dime from the NRA should have to recuse themselves and a 2/3rds vote should count without them.
That's not legal advice- its common sense advice. The Supreme Court actually ruled in DC v. Heller that the 2nd amendment did not just pertain to well regulated militias in giving citizens the right to carry guns. If the Supreme Court declared it was impossible to drown in a niagra falls waterfall I am still not jumping in one. The text, and historical context of the 2nd Amendment are clear- it was done in the interest of The State in conjunction with their 'well regulated militias.'
there were no robbers, muggers, waylayers, burglars or crime, rowdy drunken bar fights with guns. True or False.
False. The early cities had crime. They had crime with weapons. The wild west wasn't won until much later and before people ventured west they were the same people.
So why doesn't the Second Amendment state "in the interest of self defense everyone has a right to have a weapon" or "in the interest of protecting the civil order everyone has a right..." or "in the interest of protecting your home from invasion, or in the interest of fending off robbers, etc....
It says explicitly that only in the interest of the STATE with regard to its WELL REGULATED MILITIA should anyone wish to join said Militia, you can be armed.
Recall that before we were technically united as the United States, there were military regiments that came from different states. George Washington led the army but was from the Virginia Regiment.
Also not that the term State isn't specific to just 13 but could also mean State generically as in the Body Politic.
CLEARLY, the Second Amendment Never Ever envisioned arming criminals. It only envisioned arming the Military. The term then before we had a standing army was Militia- the various State Militias that ran the Revolutionary War.
Please READ CAREFULLY the amendment. The NRA is just out of line and a tool of the arms industry. To let that industry dictate policy on arms control is obscene. Murderously obscene.
Anyone who has taken a dime from the NRA should have to recuse themselves and a 2/3rds vote should count without them.
That's not legal advice- its common sense advice. The Supreme Court actually ruled in DC v. Heller that the 2nd amendment did not just pertain to well regulated militias in giving citizens the right to carry guns. If the Supreme Court declared it was impossible to drown in a niagra falls waterfall I am still not jumping in one. The text, and historical context of the 2nd Amendment are clear- it was done in the interest of The State in conjunction with their 'well regulated militias.'
Sunday, April 21, 2013
I hate labels.
Because they never encompass reality.
When i post something on facebook against abortion-on-demand-as-birthcontrol i get people sending me solicitations they want me to 'like' from Concerned Conservatives or other Right Wingnutty groups. Then when i express the slightest disinterest or disdain over whether Butt-F'ing for eternity happily ever after should be a constitutional right for two people who despirately want to Butt-F into eternity I get more Conservative Christian like us like us solications. Then when I express the fact that women should indeed get equal pay for the same work with the same experience and credientials and note that there are women who have to raise kids on their own, sometimes not of their own choice, (and "Justice" is defined in the old-first testament in part as taking care of and pleading the cause of the widow-who would have to work to support children on her own)- i get Leftist "like me like me" facebook posts. Everyone wants to enscript you to their labels. I defy them. I go issue by issue- and on this one- GUN CONTROL AND BACKGROUND CHECKS- I am sorry- you are a TOTAL MORON AND SHOULD BE SHOT if you voted against background checks. Not really-its not a call to violence. Just saying that you are personally responsible for any and all deaths which will be ever caused by someone with a record, criminal or mental, because you allowed them to purchase the gun and in the chain of proximate cause you are an accessory then to a murder and we have the death penalty in several states still. Do you prefer being shot or lethal injection? MORON.
The people who absolutely should NEVER have weapons are those unstable people, demonstrated drug addicts with criminal records who spent time in that school of criminality called prison. Those people you do not want owning weapons to go on their next holdup car jacking spree at the drug store.
Because the car they jack could be yours. If they have a real gun instead of the pointed finger in the pocket you could be dead instead of just out the car with insurance coming later
Do you see my point?
You CANNOT freely give weapons to criminals with records and unstable mental proved psychotic tendancies.
Now let me talk to you as a Constitutional attorney, not someone who knows an above described character who is lucky to be alive to tell you that you need to enforce strict background checks on gun purchases. Common Sense.
The US Constitution, Second Amendment, premises the ENTIRE amendment on the need for a
'well regulated militia' for the security of the country prior to when we had a centralized standing army.
Citizen militias fought the Revolutionary War because we were not a country prior, the only army around was the British Army. Thus the founders felt that for the security of the new country anyone who wanted to be in the militia fighting the Brits had to have the right to be armed. THIS AMENDMENT NEVER CONTEMPLATED GIVING EVERY CRIMINAL THE PERSONAL RIGHT TO WEAPONIZE.
How can I be clearer?
I want every single Republican who voted against background checks to be personally criminally liable for every act of violence using a gun by someone with a criminal record or record of mental instability in an institution. That means if someone with a record shoots someone dead I want every republican congressperson who voted against it criminally liable as an accomplice to murder. Because it is totally forseeable. Check your tort law fellows on forseeable torts.
Call another vote. I am going to start taking names.
Someone call me to testify. I have a story to tell you.
When i post something on facebook against abortion-on-demand-as-birthcontrol i get people sending me solicitations they want me to 'like' from Concerned Conservatives or other Right Wingnutty groups. Then when i express the slightest disinterest or disdain over whether Butt-F'ing for eternity happily ever after should be a constitutional right for two people who despirately want to Butt-F into eternity I get more Conservative Christian like us like us solications. Then when I express the fact that women should indeed get equal pay for the same work with the same experience and credientials and note that there are women who have to raise kids on their own, sometimes not of their own choice, (and "Justice" is defined in the old-first testament in part as taking care of and pleading the cause of the widow-who would have to work to support children on her own)- i get Leftist "like me like me" facebook posts. Everyone wants to enscript you to their labels. I defy them. I go issue by issue- and on this one- GUN CONTROL AND BACKGROUND CHECKS- I am sorry- you are a TOTAL MORON AND SHOULD BE SHOT if you voted against background checks. Not really-its not a call to violence. Just saying that you are personally responsible for any and all deaths which will be ever caused by someone with a record, criminal or mental, because you allowed them to purchase the gun and in the chain of proximate cause you are an accessory then to a murder and we have the death penalty in several states still. Do you prefer being shot or lethal injection? MORON.
The people who absolutely should NEVER have weapons are those unstable people, demonstrated drug addicts with criminal records who spent time in that school of criminality called prison. Those people you do not want owning weapons to go on their next holdup car jacking spree at the drug store.
Because the car they jack could be yours. If they have a real gun instead of the pointed finger in the pocket you could be dead instead of just out the car with insurance coming later
Do you see my point?
You CANNOT freely give weapons to criminals with records and unstable mental proved psychotic tendancies.
Now let me talk to you as a Constitutional attorney, not someone who knows an above described character who is lucky to be alive to tell you that you need to enforce strict background checks on gun purchases. Common Sense.
The US Constitution, Second Amendment, premises the ENTIRE amendment on the need for a
'well regulated militia' for the security of the country prior to when we had a centralized standing army.
Citizen militias fought the Revolutionary War because we were not a country prior, the only army around was the British Army. Thus the founders felt that for the security of the new country anyone who wanted to be in the militia fighting the Brits had to have the right to be armed. THIS AMENDMENT NEVER CONTEMPLATED GIVING EVERY CRIMINAL THE PERSONAL RIGHT TO WEAPONIZE.
How can I be clearer?
I want every single Republican who voted against background checks to be personally criminally liable for every act of violence using a gun by someone with a criminal record or record of mental instability in an institution. That means if someone with a record shoots someone dead I want every republican congressperson who voted against it criminally liable as an accomplice to murder. Because it is totally forseeable. Check your tort law fellows on forseeable torts.
Call another vote. I am going to start taking names.
Someone call me to testify. I have a story to tell you.
Transatlantic Hugs
Not just to my mum
who is on a cruise as we speak and blog around Northern Europe but to all those who stopped for a moment of silence before the LONDON MARATHON today.
The London Marathon stopped for a moment of 'silence' which you can interpret as pray as you like, in remembrance of those who suffered or died during the Boston Marathon.
Thank You from the bottom of our Yankee hearts:-)
As usual the Huff Post is on it and all over it :-) HERE (click)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/london-marathon-boston-tribute-moment-silence_n_3127351.html
who is on a cruise as we speak and blog around Northern Europe but to all those who stopped for a moment of silence before the LONDON MARATHON today.
The London Marathon stopped for a moment of 'silence' which you can interpret as pray as you like, in remembrance of those who suffered or died during the Boston Marathon.
Thank You from the bottom of our Yankee hearts:-)
As usual the Huff Post is on it and all over it :-) HERE (click)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/london-marathon-boston-tribute-moment-silence_n_3127351.html
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Terror Will Never Succeed
Americans Refuse to Be Terrorized.
The idiots in Boston didn't win. One is dead, the other is caught crawling in his excrement on the bottom of a docked tarped boat.
Someone who creates violence is not a 'martyr'- they are a devilish fool.
America Refuses to be Terrorized. Because we know the One who told us to FEAR NOT. I think our President speaks well for us here:
Thursday, April 18, 2013
EVIL INCARNATE
The People who commit deadly violent acts to create a pretext to mass murder and start wars while saying its for your protection are the most demonic evil people on the face of the earth. Hell will be like a sauna compared to where they will spend eternity.
The Dogs
Of War
Remember the people who sent Anthrax to Senator Tom Daschle's office? It turned out that
Anthrax was made in some military lab in Maryland and the guy who did it apparently or believed to have done it someone from the civilian side of the military?
We have seen the media hype which now surrounds almost non stop the grizzly coverage of Boston's attacks before. It was the 9-11 lead up to the War in Iraq. Patridiocy - a demented unthinking form of Patriotism that causes people to put little flags on their cars as charge-ups and pep rally cries to massacre a people are ginned up to a full frenzy.
People have agendas about fighting wars. It is hugely profitable. Now there is a lot being made about how Boston is the heart of the American Revolution, how the attack happened on Patriot Day (who even knew it was Patriot Day in Boston) how the Boston Marathon is one of our cultural ikons. Who knew that?
People are being disturbingly ginned up. One can only surmise why. Who will they pin it on? Who will they say is behind it? Who will claim credit from the bowels of a CIA film studio this time? Al Quaida again ? Who is our newest enemy "rogue" nation that we have to blister and blunder toward destroying and decapitating its leader? Who are we being fed to Hate from the deepest gut reaction of the belly of the hold-outs.
Someone is behind the attacks. You can be sure that evil incarnate is behind it. But where is this evil?
You should hate Dick Cheney for engineering a pretext to the Iraq war, not the Iraqi people, certainly not Muslims, the large majority of whom are peace loving and hate war as much as we do.
You should hate the deceivers, the press manipulators, the truth benders, the violence provacateurs. Those who inspire blind massacres. Those people are evil incarnate masquarading as your friendly protectors while they go rich off the blood of strangers.
Someone sat down and thought, how can we get the cooperation of the leftist elite behind the effort who usually fight us with their silly peace notions (with an attack which they likely thought would be much more horrific than it was- it only killed 3 or 4 people not thousands as they likely planned but it did enough damage as people lost limbs and body parts and will be surviving to tell of it) - BOSTON- capital of some of the countries best and left leaning Universities. A marathon- where thousands of cheering people congregate, celebrating some of the best things about America-its athleticism, its 'can do' outdoor conquering spirit. What a gut punch. The gory stories are not over. There will be daily stories for months about surgeries and lost loved one's lives gone. They will make movies, and TV-mini-series. They will identify an enemy.
Someone is out to create a run up to another war. Against whom this time? Saudi? who are our difficult deal makers in the oil world? Who are our business enemies? We are decommissioning Iraq and Afghanistan in 2014. We need a new enemy someone is thinking to keep the defense contractors in their second and third houses and Boeing making the latest scary star wars bombers.
We need another enemy soon before we have to come home from Afghanistan in 2014 and we can no longer support the billions in defense authorizations bills in Congress. Someone else has to hate us and want us destroyed- they even said so on Patriot Day in Boston.
But Boston is fighting back. They are saying- you messed with the wrong city. You will not goat and bait us into turning over all our civil liberties. You will not turn us into the mass murderers that you are. You will not steal our souls with your demonic plots against humanity. You will not reduce us to you. Boston Fights Back. Because BOSTON is the heart of everything good and beautiful about America- people who refuse to sell their souls, people who know that a people who trade security for liberty deserve neither. People who are True Patriots, the holders of our truest values. The Fighting Fathers of our Country.
....So then there was Dallas......
Monday, April 15, 2013
HATE (Romans 12:9)
WHAT IS EVIL
HOLD ON TO WHAT IS GOOD. That is what someone said to the Romans -was it Paul? You tell me.
All hatred apparently according to the New Testament is not evil or from the devil. Sometimes some things are despised to purify and rid the earth of them. One should hate someone who rapes a child for example. Its abhorant. One should abhor all forms of abuse.
http://bible.cc/romans/12-9.htm
It is silly to call all hatred or forms of loathing of the devil. That is also a form of defamation.
Look at what is really evil- you should hate it. I didn't say that- someone said it 2,000 years ago to 'The Romans.'
Jesus apparently hated the money changers in the Temple courtyard enough that he flipped their tables on their heads in their own temple.
Jesus isn't some marshmallowheaded 'feelings' guy who can't tell right from wrong and loves everything. Some things must be hated-because they are sick or evil. Hate Evil.
Do you not hate the hollocaust? Or the sexual molestation of thousands of children under catholic 'protection?' or the misleading deceptions of emotionally adolescent priests?
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The ICH Factor
I hate bigotry- of any kind. Like the kind you show me if i say I don't think happily forever- after Butt-F'ing is a Civil Right.
I am more inclined to think if we want to stretch civil rights into the behavioral territory not being Hungry could be a nice civil right, so kids don't go to bed deprived of enough food to keep them alert for school the next day. Or----maybe Housing could be a civil right. Everyone should have decent housing as a matter of a civil right. That's something the UN could get rather firm about.Then lawyers could get rich suing the city for not properly housing homeless people who literally die on the street.
Today in Dupont circle I sat eating a Cosi squaggel (that's a square bagel to the uninitiated) surrounded by gay men couples. In hindsight it was appropriately square as became quickly my mood. In the middle of Washington, DC I looked to be the only single female of the few females that were in the park on a beautiful Sunday afternoon in the middle of the nation's capital. One skinnyboys gay couple were proudly displaying their wedding rings and the other ones were flipping, flying and fawning over them like they just announced a Barneys and Bergdorf half price sale. The merriment got energized with animated wrist-flying skinnyboy hugs and more hugs and 'don't you just love it honey!'
Actually, are you kidding me? We are celebrating the eternal civil right to have anal sex till death do you part? Are you kidding me?
I thought for a second i was backstage at the West Holywood Design Center. But I was in the Nation's Capital. Then it struck me. I can tolerate doses of this or when I want a laugh on TV reruns of Bravo, but I don't want it to be the prevalent norm. That's what laws do-they normalize things when they legalize them. When they normalize them the standards become the norm and it then gets usual. It becomes the rule not the exception.
Abortion once legalized became so normal that people use it for birth control and to avoid child support payments. The people who want to legalize marijuana have an organization called NORMAL (its an acronym for something like normalizing marijuana usage).
When something becomes legal by Supreme Court fiat it does change the vibe. You can call it 'culture.' You can even call it 'culture war' but what they are saying is that do you want the prevalent norm to be open high fiving and kissing in the parks of married same sex people shoving in your face the fact that they won and you have to like anal and oral sex is just as good as the baby making kind.
Anal and Oral Sex Forever-after is now a marital right in some states. Because some states have slightly lost their minds. But just because something is legal does not always mean it is right. It is legal to drink those supersized sugar stuffed drinks but
if you have three in a row you will be in a diabetic coma. Some legalized things are just dumb. It is legal to get drunk but it is dumb.
There is a funny cartoon with that Bravo guy saying "you say that gay marriage will change the fabric of society? Do you really think gays don't know how to pick out great fabric?" Its a joke but of course, changing laws changes the 'fabric' of society. It normalizes things. It means the gay paraders get to be in the Macy's Day Parade or someone gets sued. It means that you get sued if you even want to say you believe in the bible and 1st Corinthians 6:9 (the other '69') says this whole argument looks like it fits right in the end times.
Merely for posting this I will get blacklisted from the Christmas- er no 'holiday' party at the American Constitution Society- and other similarly situated venues. Because I don't believe all behaviors are created equal. I believe that morality is infused in our legal system and
you better be really careful when you normalize something globally that a lot of people think is totally depraved.
Now you see why I eat Squaggles.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Do You Believe
That There Is A Resurrection
Of The Righteous?
There apparently is such a thing as Righteousness. the "Just". We celebrate Easter because we celebrate the fact that Jesus, after he died and was buried for three days, rose from the dead, walked the earth demonstrating with the walk not just the talk that there is a Resurrection.
Do a search in Luke and you will read about the Resurrection of the Righteous.
If there is a Resurrection of the just, the Righteous, don't you want to be Righteous?
What is considered Not Righteous? Don't you want to know? Shouldn't you want your neighbors or people you love to know? Should you want the entire country to have to swallow a practice that is considered Not Righteous?
Lets Not Discriminate
Against Speedohaulics Who Run Red Lights
Because they were born that way and can't help themselves. Whenever they see a red light they have to run through it. Get them around a convertible they go 130 MPH. Its a condition in their right pedal foot called lead footedness. They insist they were born that way.
Lets not discriminate against shoplifters. That is a condition also. Kleptomania. They were born coveting cheap lipstick.
Lets not discriminate against people who never met a Big Mac they didn't like and are so fat they take up two airplane seats by not making them buy two airplane seats. They were born with a condition called Adiposesya.
Gayness that wants to marry gayness is a behavior and all behaviors are not created equal. Intrinsic within its insistence as a right is a moral judgment that it is right. When Justice Kagan says she gets nervous when moral arguments are made she really means she gets nervous when moral arguments she disagrees with are made. She apparently disagrees with 1st Corinthians 6:9- the other "69"
Nothing about declaring a white man can marry a black women creating all races equal under the law compels creating all behaviors equal as a constitutional right. Having anal or oral sex is not a RACE.
That is why I do not believe it constitutionally correct to mandate gay marriage be legalized which is another word for the whole country has to recognize as right and legitimate what more than half the country finds morally depraved.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Have You Noticed?
Our Freakish Washington Weather this year?
We had no Spring. It went from snowing a few weeks ago to Washington summer swelter.
Yes, there is dramatic climate 'change.' It is perhaps the understatement of the century to say we have change. Its seasopoalypse.
Did you notice for example that the few cherry blossoms that came out when they should have were met with such a knee-whacking freeze days later that they died on the vine as it were in places. So we only have half the normal canapy of cherry blossoms after that belated freeze?
Apparently the next King of England says we are behind the 8 ball. Republican politicians on this score
are head in the sand ostrichs on this issue.
We had no Spring. It went from snowing a few weeks ago to Washington summer swelter.
Yes, there is dramatic climate 'change.' It is perhaps the understatement of the century to say we have change. Its seasopoalypse.
Did you notice for example that the few cherry blossoms that came out when they should have were met with such a knee-whacking freeze days later that they died on the vine as it were in places. So we only have half the normal canapy of cherry blossoms after that belated freeze?
Apparently the next King of England says we are behind the 8 ball. Republican politicians on this score
are head in the sand ostrichs on this issue.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
SPAIN
A mysterious country.
The bridge between the African continent and Europe some say. Historic home to many mingling cultures. For centuries home to Muslims and Christians living co-existently. Now, have you heard, its in a bit of a crisis. More than just economic, it appears to have spirolled into existential. Well, everywhere in Europe save France and Germany seem to be. But Spain has been particularly hard hit with astronomical unemployment numbers particularly among the youth. So what is a talented young spaniard to do but art.
The Spanish Embassy in DC hosted an exhibition of several modern artists from the region known as
Cantabria called "Meaning Making." People are indeed trying to make MEANING of their lives. Art forms a great dignifying medium by which to do so. This region apparently has towns that form vibrant creative communities and the visual arts is vigorously encouraged there.
The modern art exhibit ran the gamit of expression in non-representational glory. Color spreads evoke brooding moods and others more elated. There was on an LED Large screen TV projection a moving canvas of men pretending to be Marilyn Monroe holding their white skirts in space. Yes, that was rather odd and got attention.
The walled tableaux looked distinctively more inviting if not pleading.
The crowd was an eclectic mix of the usual Embassy workers (an extremely handsome young Spanish attache) and the crowd of what they affectionately call themselves -"the schleppers": e.g. the single dentist from Silver Spring who eats out at Embassy receptions every night to avoid recalling no one cooks for him at home, the "crypt keeper" ancient tall thinner than skeletal lanky attorney who survives off Embassy food because he is too dignified to do doc privilege reviews like the rest of us and doesn't acknowledge his poverty, the immigrant Bolivian former Embassy attache to something serious who ran out his visa and overstayed for fun and games, and the retired government worker who never left living in the downtown schmotel with no kitchen because she eats Embassy wine and cheese every night anyway and I am missing a few. There is a bad B movie subtext here.
If you appreciate non-representational modern art, from a part of the world now struggling and searching for "Meaning" in the midst of an economic melt-down go to the Spanish Embassy to see "Imaginarious Fragmentados De Doce Artistas De Catabria." Ignacio Diego, President of Cantabria will thank you. See also, www.GaleriaEspiral.com
The Schleppers thank the Spanish Embassy for the Spanish Wine.
The bridge between the African continent and Europe some say. Historic home to many mingling cultures. For centuries home to Muslims and Christians living co-existently. Now, have you heard, its in a bit of a crisis. More than just economic, it appears to have spirolled into existential. Well, everywhere in Europe save France and Germany seem to be. But Spain has been particularly hard hit with astronomical unemployment numbers particularly among the youth. So what is a talented young spaniard to do but art.
The Spanish Embassy in DC hosted an exhibition of several modern artists from the region known as
Cantabria called "Meaning Making." People are indeed trying to make MEANING of their lives. Art forms a great dignifying medium by which to do so. This region apparently has towns that form vibrant creative communities and the visual arts is vigorously encouraged there.
The modern art exhibit ran the gamit of expression in non-representational glory. Color spreads evoke brooding moods and others more elated. There was on an LED Large screen TV projection a moving canvas of men pretending to be Marilyn Monroe holding their white skirts in space. Yes, that was rather odd and got attention.
The walled tableaux looked distinctively more inviting if not pleading.
The crowd was an eclectic mix of the usual Embassy workers (an extremely handsome young Spanish attache) and the crowd of what they affectionately call themselves -"the schleppers": e.g. the single dentist from Silver Spring who eats out at Embassy receptions every night to avoid recalling no one cooks for him at home, the "crypt keeper" ancient tall thinner than skeletal lanky attorney who survives off Embassy food because he is too dignified to do doc privilege reviews like the rest of us and doesn't acknowledge his poverty, the immigrant Bolivian former Embassy attache to something serious who ran out his visa and overstayed for fun and games, and the retired government worker who never left living in the downtown schmotel with no kitchen because she eats Embassy wine and cheese every night anyway and I am missing a few. There is a bad B movie subtext here.
If you appreciate non-representational modern art, from a part of the world now struggling and searching for "Meaning" in the midst of an economic melt-down go to the Spanish Embassy to see "Imaginarious Fragmentados De Doce Artistas De Catabria." Ignacio Diego, President of Cantabria will thank you. See also, www.GaleriaEspiral.com
The Schleppers thank the Spanish Embassy for the Spanish Wine.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
The Iron Maggie
Margaret Thatcher Rest in Peace.
Tributes to Margaret Thatcher are rising from all corners, some unexpected because she was after all a Conservative member of Parliament. The equivalent here would be a Republican-and she found a great ally in our Republican President Ronald Reagan. J-Street hails her as a staunch great friend of Israel, and even Democrats are applauding her role in assisting in the eventual demise of communism
in the Eastern block.
But that is not why she was and is important to me. She is a woman who became a Prime Minister of a good old boyish country during a time when a Queen reigned. Two powerful wonderful women running the whole house. I lived in London during the years that Maggie Thatcher, the Iron Maiden
was Prime Minister as I attended the American School in London. I psychologically knew no glass ceiling. Women already did, so everyone knew they could and only the dumbest of idiots would doubt that a woman could run a country because two were.
Her presence was a comfort on British TV or Radio. She had an elegant soft but firm voice that spoke of intelligence and grace. Maggie Thatcher is a Presidential role model for all the right reasons and least of which because she is a woman.
Tributes to Margaret Thatcher are rising from all corners, some unexpected because she was after all a Conservative member of Parliament. The equivalent here would be a Republican-and she found a great ally in our Republican President Ronald Reagan. J-Street hails her as a staunch great friend of Israel, and even Democrats are applauding her role in assisting in the eventual demise of communism
in the Eastern block.
But that is not why she was and is important to me. She is a woman who became a Prime Minister of a good old boyish country during a time when a Queen reigned. Two powerful wonderful women running the whole house. I lived in London during the years that Maggie Thatcher, the Iron Maiden
was Prime Minister as I attended the American School in London. I psychologically knew no glass ceiling. Women already did, so everyone knew they could and only the dumbest of idiots would doubt that a woman could run a country because two were.
Her presence was a comfort on British TV or Radio. She had an elegant soft but firm voice that spoke of intelligence and grace. Maggie Thatcher is a Presidential role model for all the right reasons and least of which because she is a woman.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Mes penses
precisement.
Can you tell T.H.I.S. this young lady is French?
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=0F0J11NU
Can you tell T.H.I.S. this young lady is French?
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=0F0J11NU
Temples
of the Holy Spirit.
Catholics have a lot of rituals involving body motions and movements. I use to call it the 'stand up, sit down, fight fight fight' liturgy. When you walk into a church you can bless yourself with water by making a sign of the cross after dipping your finger in the holy water font or baptismal font. This is supposed to remind you of your baptism- a lifelong sealing of sorts.
Then liturgy opens with a sign of the cross where the entire church at the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" make a cross from their forehead to their heart to each shoulder, covering your entire torso in the cross essentially. Then when the part of scripture (the bible) is read that is called 'the gospel' (Matthew, Mark, Luke John) before the reading everyone makes a small cross on their forehead, then again over their mouth, then again over their hearts. This symbolizes a pledge to keep God's word which you are about to hear forever on your mind, on your lips and in your heart. There are various points in the service where you kneel in reverence. More classical traditions have you bowing at the creed portion when everyone recites that Jesus came down from heaven and was born by the holy spirit of the Virgin Mary. These are signs of reverence, but they are more than that. They are mini-consecrations. They are supposed to dedicate onself, one's whole body, and essentially the mind, the lips and the heart for the work of the Lord.
Physical bodies are significant in scripture. They are not accidents - they are part of who we are.
They are called the Temples of the Holy Spirit. Worship happens in them. Praise of God happens through them.
That is why the Catholic church has an understanding of 'righteousness' that involves correct and incorrect use on earth of bodies. Not because they don't love everyone, but precisely the opposite. They revere everyone as having capacity of being vessels of the Holy Spirit. They have consecratable function.
You wouldn't pour orange juice down your car gas tank would you? That is because you respect the function of your gas tank and know that it operates maximally with gas and anything else will corrode it and eventually your engine. It is possible to pour orange juice down your engine-but is it wise? You can make a cake with ingredients everyone knows, but if you throw a leg of lamb in the cake is it going to rise the same or taste the same? Is it even still cake?
It is like that with things like catholic teachings on abortion, or gay marriage.
It's not a kill-joy attempt to depress anyone. It's the opposite- its the attempt to bring the maximum joy through the most efficacious intended use of one's body.
There is such a thing as righteousness on earth. It's not an 'everything goes' sort of concept. The body is revered and respected as something which has a purpose on earth. One perhaps higher than society at large even contemplates.
Catholics have a lot of rituals involving body motions and movements. I use to call it the 'stand up, sit down, fight fight fight' liturgy. When you walk into a church you can bless yourself with water by making a sign of the cross after dipping your finger in the holy water font or baptismal font. This is supposed to remind you of your baptism- a lifelong sealing of sorts.
Then liturgy opens with a sign of the cross where the entire church at the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" make a cross from their forehead to their heart to each shoulder, covering your entire torso in the cross essentially. Then when the part of scripture (the bible) is read that is called 'the gospel' (Matthew, Mark, Luke John) before the reading everyone makes a small cross on their forehead, then again over their mouth, then again over their hearts. This symbolizes a pledge to keep God's word which you are about to hear forever on your mind, on your lips and in your heart. There are various points in the service where you kneel in reverence. More classical traditions have you bowing at the creed portion when everyone recites that Jesus came down from heaven and was born by the holy spirit of the Virgin Mary. These are signs of reverence, but they are more than that. They are mini-consecrations. They are supposed to dedicate onself, one's whole body, and essentially the mind, the lips and the heart for the work of the Lord.
Physical bodies are significant in scripture. They are not accidents - they are part of who we are.
They are called the Temples of the Holy Spirit. Worship happens in them. Praise of God happens through them.
That is why the Catholic church has an understanding of 'righteousness' that involves correct and incorrect use on earth of bodies. Not because they don't love everyone, but precisely the opposite. They revere everyone as having capacity of being vessels of the Holy Spirit. They have consecratable function.
You wouldn't pour orange juice down your car gas tank would you? That is because you respect the function of your gas tank and know that it operates maximally with gas and anything else will corrode it and eventually your engine. It is possible to pour orange juice down your engine-but is it wise? You can make a cake with ingredients everyone knows, but if you throw a leg of lamb in the cake is it going to rise the same or taste the same? Is it even still cake?
It is like that with things like catholic teachings on abortion, or gay marriage.
It's not a kill-joy attempt to depress anyone. It's the opposite- its the attempt to bring the maximum joy through the most efficacious intended use of one's body.
There is such a thing as righteousness on earth. It's not an 'everything goes' sort of concept. The body is revered and respected as something which has a purpose on earth. One perhaps higher than society at large even contemplates.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Everything is Possible With God
One Man. Only One Man ever Did This. Was hammered with nails to a cross, died and was
buried. Then three days later, got up and walked around spoke to people, touched people,
even cooked for people, and walked with his friends on earth to show them- you can live
after you die, forever.
Only One Man ever did That. Jesus - the simple man, a carpenter from Nazareth in the north
region of Israel, Galilee, about 2,000 years ago and still living today. Only One Man ever did that.
Search for Him and you will find him. He promises.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Everything You Thought Was Wrong
The Easter Message.
to the Pharisees. Guess What, yooo-hooo, I'm still here. You didn't kill me off. I know you wanted to and tried really hard to because you were so threatened by my message. It looked in fact like you succeeded. You liked that barrab-ass guy better than me, I know. But guess what. I'm baaaaaaack. That's what Jesus might have said standing in the garden outside the empty tomb. I'm baaaaaack. (if you are a foreigner it is a reference to a schwartenegger movie).
Jesus, the person who went around doing nothing but amazingly kind, powerfully loving things like feeding people and healing people, raising other people from the dead in fact, the person casting out demons from the tortured, turning water into wedding wine. That Jesus. He's baaaaaaaack. And this time he isn't going away.
But wait- people tortured to near death then strung up on a crossed tree are dead as a door knob. Right? What are you talking about? Aren't dead people supposed to stay dead and just accept that they are dead?
Apparently not- there is life now and forever If you believe it. Everything you thought was wrong. Dead people can in fact live forever, if they believe in Jesus, the simple carpenter from Nazareth, the Cristos, the Christ, the Savior of mankind.
Anyone care for some fish this morning? I am frying up a nice hallibut here care to join me? That is what one dead guy said over three days after they laid him in a tomb.
Down dog, stay dead. Nope-that doesn't work any more. You can try your little power tricks and oppression schemes. You cannot put a good man down like a dog.
He will rise again, and so will you on the last day.
And that Jesus guy- he still lives. And that's the Easter Message.
to the Pharisees. Guess What, yooo-hooo, I'm still here. You didn't kill me off. I know you wanted to and tried really hard to because you were so threatened by my message. It looked in fact like you succeeded. You liked that barrab-ass guy better than me, I know. But guess what. I'm baaaaaaack. That's what Jesus might have said standing in the garden outside the empty tomb. I'm baaaaaack. (if you are a foreigner it is a reference to a schwartenegger movie).
Jesus, the person who went around doing nothing but amazingly kind, powerfully loving things like feeding people and healing people, raising other people from the dead in fact, the person casting out demons from the tortured, turning water into wedding wine. That Jesus. He's baaaaaaaack. And this time he isn't going away.
But wait- people tortured to near death then strung up on a crossed tree are dead as a door knob. Right? What are you talking about? Aren't dead people supposed to stay dead and just accept that they are dead?
Apparently not- there is life now and forever If you believe it. Everything you thought was wrong. Dead people can in fact live forever, if they believe in Jesus, the simple carpenter from Nazareth, the Cristos, the Christ, the Savior of mankind.
Anyone care for some fish this morning? I am frying up a nice hallibut here care to join me? That is what one dead guy said over three days after they laid him in a tomb.
Down dog, stay dead. Nope-that doesn't work any more. You can try your little power tricks and oppression schemes. You cannot put a good man down like a dog.
He will rise again, and so will you on the last day.
And that Jesus guy- he still lives. And that's the Easter Message.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
To Be or Not to Be.....
"To Be A Realist, You Must Believe in Miracles." said John Kerry in Israel.
Here's One: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/phoenix-woman-refuses-abortion-gives-birth-to-baby-carried-outside-womb
Here's One: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/phoenix-woman-refuses-abortion-gives-birth-to-baby-carried-outside-womb
Human Rights
and Human Wrongs
The argument is often misframed in the gay marriage debate as 'i should get to love whomever i want!' I even got a facebook post from the Whitehouse- 'SHARE' here if you think people should get to love whomever they want.
No one argues with that. The argument is -should you get to have gay up the arse or mouth where it doesn't belong conjugal sexual relations with
whomever you want and make us call that a real valid marriage .
The answer to that meets with a resounding "NO" or "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" if you say ANYONE you want. How about your mother, your aunt, your sister or your five year old. Of course not. So what you really mean is SHARE here if you really think anyone should be able to institutionalize formally and officially conjugal gay sexual relations for people who want to have sex up the arse or put their mouths where they don't belong.
Actually, hmmmm. No on that also. Where does that sense of entitlement come from?
There are standards of what is called 'righteousness' in some communities. Most religious communities define them and expect people to live according to them. Huge numbers of religious communities of all faiths have some admonitions against sodomy, sexual relations up the arse or splashing poking body parts where they shouldn't be. These are standards of Righteousness that are codified in scripture. People didn't make them up. They just didn't decide one day- hey, that isn't a good idea. They got the idea that it isn't a good idea because divinely inspired scripture and respected tradition have told them, that is not only a bad idea, it is dangerously wrong.
So now a very vocal loud aggressive group of people want the entitlement to a constitutional right to
up the arse sex conjugality. They are so aggressive many states said- oh what the heck lets just give it to them to shut them all up. If that's how they want to love, let 'em at it.
But that is not what Love means to most people. That is not what God means or scripture means when it says "Love Your Neighbor."
We have given anti-discriminatory protected status to sexual 'orientation' -only in some states- and DC- under the conclusion, whether scientifically valid or not, that an 'orientation' is some immutable that is intrinsic to a person so they cannot control it. Even that is a stretch, but lets give them that 'orientation' is something protectable.
It is still a far far stretch to go from 'orientation' to institutionalized universally recognized gay sexual behavior should enjoy a conjugal entitlement as a civil right.
For that one I think the majority of the country is in the 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME' poll response category.
The argument is often misframed in the gay marriage debate as 'i should get to love whomever i want!' I even got a facebook post from the Whitehouse- 'SHARE' here if you think people should get to love whomever they want.
No one argues with that. The argument is -should you get to have gay up the arse or mouth where it doesn't belong conjugal sexual relations with
whomever you want and make us call that a real valid marriage .
The answer to that meets with a resounding "NO" or "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" if you say ANYONE you want. How about your mother, your aunt, your sister or your five year old. Of course not. So what you really mean is SHARE here if you really think anyone should be able to institutionalize formally and officially conjugal gay sexual relations for people who want to have sex up the arse or put their mouths where they don't belong.
Actually, hmmmm. No on that also. Where does that sense of entitlement come from?
There are standards of what is called 'righteousness' in some communities. Most religious communities define them and expect people to live according to them. Huge numbers of religious communities of all faiths have some admonitions against sodomy, sexual relations up the arse or splashing poking body parts where they shouldn't be. These are standards of Righteousness that are codified in scripture. People didn't make them up. They just didn't decide one day- hey, that isn't a good idea. They got the idea that it isn't a good idea because divinely inspired scripture and respected tradition have told them, that is not only a bad idea, it is dangerously wrong.
So now a very vocal loud aggressive group of people want the entitlement to a constitutional right to
up the arse sex conjugality. They are so aggressive many states said- oh what the heck lets just give it to them to shut them all up. If that's how they want to love, let 'em at it.
But that is not what Love means to most people. That is not what God means or scripture means when it says "Love Your Neighbor."
We have given anti-discriminatory protected status to sexual 'orientation' -only in some states- and DC- under the conclusion, whether scientifically valid or not, that an 'orientation' is some immutable that is intrinsic to a person so they cannot control it. Even that is a stretch, but lets give them that 'orientation' is something protectable.
It is still a far far stretch to go from 'orientation' to institutionalized universally recognized gay sexual behavior should enjoy a conjugal entitlement as a civil right.
For that one I think the majority of the country is in the 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME' poll response category.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Why are the Liberals now Conforming
Jumping on the Gay Parade Wagon
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Romans 12:2
Classifying
Behaviors
You can turn any behavioral predisposition or inclination into a class. Gayness now wants to be a class for protected status purposes. People who like to have sex backwards as some say or People who like to have sex with people with parts like theirs. The slippery slope off a cliff is if you start classifying all behaviors however objectionable as protected status where does that end? People who love to sing loudly on the metro - can that be a protected class so its legal discrimination if we regulate that they not be allowed to sing loudly on the metro during rush hour (simply because it annoys the heck out of others)
How about alcoholics. A percent of the country is a minority -they are alcoholics. Are we discriminating against them when we arrest people for drunk driving? They are always disproportionately affected or impacted (disparate impact analysis). How about left handed people.
Are we discriminating against the class of left handed people when casinos put the lever of slot machines on the right? Should left handed people be a protected class. Should people who don't eat pork be classed as a protected class on that basis. All people of whatever religion who do not eat pork are a protected class- therefore all the hot dog vendors who do not also have kosher beef alternative hot dogs in New York can now be sued for discriminating against that protected class for only serving pork filled hot dogs.
Theologians and religiously defined people have arguments about the sanctity of marriage and preferences for different genders raising kids. I am not in the 'who'se holier' game and leave those arguments to those soliciting your charitable contributions. I am just a lawyer.The legal arguments surround whether constitutionally any group with any behavioral preference should be allowed protected status because they want it so for any behavioral issue they should get it like everyone else.
Discrimination law is tricky this way- This is unchartered legal waters in fact and never before have we given 'protected class status' to anyone for behavioral preferences. Acting out sexually gay is not the same thing as being born black and only a fool would conflate the two logically.
When the matter of Loving v. Virginia was decided in which a black woman and white man wanted legal marriage for themselves the court created a constitutional right to marriage in that case for one man and one woman and nothing in the case made it a fundamental right for every human being or even every adult. The point lambasted during the campaign was that if you extend the right to every human you then have to examine the carved categories and say some adults should but some adults should not have the right to marry. For example, now we already have preclusionary laws in which some adults are not allowed to marry each other, e.g. incest, polygamy, and marrying minors. Those laws would be similarly subject to challenge if people with behavioral preferences get to turn their preferences into class status. The preclusions against marriage now are for people who have sex backwards or with people with the same parts (euphemistically and you know what I mean), polygamy, incest, underage, bestiality, etc. We now want to make one category a protected class status- there then is no logical basis to not create protected class status categories of any other behavioral preference- no matter how odious it may appear to other people, or even the majority of people in the country.
Legally there would be solid constitutional ground to find that 'marriage equality' is not necessarily constitutionally mandated for people who wish to have sex backwards, or sex with people of their same parts --because there is no constitutional requirement to turn behavioral preferences into class status.
The only thing that comes close now in discrimination law to protected class status for behavior is the anti-discrimination against religion and religious practices law(s). That clearly finds that acts of religious worship enjoy protected status. So to find that institutional gay sexual activity is the sort of activity that should enjoy protected status finds it is more similar to religious protected behavior than blackness, gender or the place of one's birth or national origin. Such a result works a twisted conclusion that even the most ardent gay paraders might find hard to swallow.
Are we discriminating against the class of all alcoholics when we arrest drunk drivers. And there is no end to that tale of reductio ad absurdum -- unless you find that gay sexual expression can be protected as a religion.
The welfare of children, something Justice Kennedy seemed concerned with falls more, in my view with the ability of any adult to house orphans because we should want them in loving homes of any adults rather than in orphanages or in the unstable world of transient foster care. Then there is the matter of the children already being raised by gay parents who as children don't definitionally enjoy the same status of legitimacy because their parents are not married and it seems brutally unfair to penalize children thusly. Will that outweigh the logical constitutional difficulty? I can't wait to find out.
(the author Cynthia L. Butler has practiced Title VII discrimination law for over a decade in several jurisdictions as a federal litigator)
You can turn any behavioral predisposition or inclination into a class. Gayness now wants to be a class for protected status purposes. People who like to have sex backwards as some say or People who like to have sex with people with parts like theirs. The slippery slope off a cliff is if you start classifying all behaviors however objectionable as protected status where does that end? People who love to sing loudly on the metro - can that be a protected class so its legal discrimination if we regulate that they not be allowed to sing loudly on the metro during rush hour (simply because it annoys the heck out of others)
How about alcoholics. A percent of the country is a minority -they are alcoholics. Are we discriminating against them when we arrest people for drunk driving? They are always disproportionately affected or impacted (disparate impact analysis). How about left handed people.
Are we discriminating against the class of left handed people when casinos put the lever of slot machines on the right? Should left handed people be a protected class. Should people who don't eat pork be classed as a protected class on that basis. All people of whatever religion who do not eat pork are a protected class- therefore all the hot dog vendors who do not also have kosher beef alternative hot dogs in New York can now be sued for discriminating against that protected class for only serving pork filled hot dogs.
Theologians and religiously defined people have arguments about the sanctity of marriage and preferences for different genders raising kids. I am not in the 'who'se holier' game and leave those arguments to those soliciting your charitable contributions. I am just a lawyer.The legal arguments surround whether constitutionally any group with any behavioral preference should be allowed protected status because they want it so for any behavioral issue they should get it like everyone else.
Discrimination law is tricky this way- This is unchartered legal waters in fact and never before have we given 'protected class status' to anyone for behavioral preferences. Acting out sexually gay is not the same thing as being born black and only a fool would conflate the two logically.
When the matter of Loving v. Virginia was decided in which a black woman and white man wanted legal marriage for themselves the court created a constitutional right to marriage in that case for one man and one woman and nothing in the case made it a fundamental right for every human being or even every adult. The point lambasted during the campaign was that if you extend the right to every human you then have to examine the carved categories and say some adults should but some adults should not have the right to marry. For example, now we already have preclusionary laws in which some adults are not allowed to marry each other, e.g. incest, polygamy, and marrying minors. Those laws would be similarly subject to challenge if people with behavioral preferences get to turn their preferences into class status. The preclusions against marriage now are for people who have sex backwards or with people with the same parts (euphemistically and you know what I mean), polygamy, incest, underage, bestiality, etc. We now want to make one category a protected class status- there then is no logical basis to not create protected class status categories of any other behavioral preference- no matter how odious it may appear to other people, or even the majority of people in the country.
Legally there would be solid constitutional ground to find that 'marriage equality' is not necessarily constitutionally mandated for people who wish to have sex backwards, or sex with people of their same parts --because there is no constitutional requirement to turn behavioral preferences into class status.
The only thing that comes close now in discrimination law to protected class status for behavior is the anti-discrimination against religion and religious practices law(s). That clearly finds that acts of religious worship enjoy protected status. So to find that institutional gay sexual activity is the sort of activity that should enjoy protected status finds it is more similar to religious protected behavior than blackness, gender or the place of one's birth or national origin. Such a result works a twisted conclusion that even the most ardent gay paraders might find hard to swallow.
Are we discriminating against the class of all alcoholics when we arrest drunk drivers. And there is no end to that tale of reductio ad absurdum -- unless you find that gay sexual expression can be protected as a religion.
The welfare of children, something Justice Kennedy seemed concerned with falls more, in my view with the ability of any adult to house orphans because we should want them in loving homes of any adults rather than in orphanages or in the unstable world of transient foster care. Then there is the matter of the children already being raised by gay parents who as children don't definitionally enjoy the same status of legitimacy because their parents are not married and it seems brutally unfair to penalize children thusly. Will that outweigh the logical constitutional difficulty? I can't wait to find out.
(the author Cynthia L. Butler has practiced Title VII discrimination law for over a decade in several jurisdictions as a federal litigator)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Equal Time
On the Other Hand ---
Today's S.Ct.arguments might come down to the swing Kennedy vote.
Why is the lambasted Rush Limbaugh of the Court Scalia perhaps not off his leather backed rocker on this issue?
The bible actually DOES have a lot to say about homosexuality. It doesn't just say it in the old testament- Sure, we should love everybody, but that does not mean any behavior is loveable- even if someone thinks its in their internal make up. Right?
They may THINK that, and I may THINK I need a half a bottle of wine a day to keep me lucid. There is nothing medically provable that I need half a bottle of red to make me lucid and in fact i have gone for long stretches without it (I say hypothetically) but love it when I drink it.
Someone might love getting drunk- does that mean we have to view all drunken behaviors as constitutionally protected as sobriety?
Intellectual honesty-lets get real people.
I am not a prude or a moralist. But lets be intellectually at least honest with the argument.
In light of the 'religious values' objectors to the gay marriage equality argument some have argued WRONGLY that the bible doesn't actually speak to it or that Christ did not anywhere condemn it and that old Levitican old testament references to homosexuality should be put somewhere in the archives with equal weight to don't eat bacon cheeseburgers. That is wrong.
The NEW Testamant (unfortunately for the equality argument) has STRONG admonitions against it as a perverse behavior. So the question is ARE ALL BEHAVIORS TREATED EQUALLY under the Constitution?= CLICK Here FOR WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%207%20Homosexuality.html
And things that also didn't need spelling out in bold caps and underlined were admonitions to not poke your wife in the eye, not punch your mother in law in the gut, not ritually wash your hands in the latrine and not eat with your mouth full of excrement. Because each of those things would have been so culturally unheard of, so totally unacceptable that they didn't merit mention. Neither did homosexuality -- except one huge strong "DON'T YOU DARE" in both the New and Old Testaments.
So people who take the words of Bible as truth, which is not just fundamentalists, but pretty much main stream everything Christian, have to ponder- why is there a Constitutional Right to any Behavior I
think I am predisposed to engage in.
Kennedy is worried about a 'Cliff." The other conservatives are worried about crashing meteoric hell fires and brimstones.
Expect a decision sometime this July or mid summer.
Today's S.Ct.arguments might come down to the swing Kennedy vote.
Why is the lambasted Rush Limbaugh of the Court Scalia perhaps not off his leather backed rocker on this issue?
The bible actually DOES have a lot to say about homosexuality. It doesn't just say it in the old testament- Sure, we should love everybody, but that does not mean any behavior is loveable- even if someone thinks its in their internal make up. Right?
They may THINK that, and I may THINK I need a half a bottle of wine a day to keep me lucid. There is nothing medically provable that I need half a bottle of red to make me lucid and in fact i have gone for long stretches without it (I say hypothetically) but love it when I drink it.
Someone might love getting drunk- does that mean we have to view all drunken behaviors as constitutionally protected as sobriety?
Intellectual honesty-lets get real people.
I am not a prude or a moralist. But lets be intellectually at least honest with the argument.
In light of the 'religious values' objectors to the gay marriage equality argument some have argued WRONGLY that the bible doesn't actually speak to it or that Christ did not anywhere condemn it and that old Levitican old testament references to homosexuality should be put somewhere in the archives with equal weight to don't eat bacon cheeseburgers. That is wrong.
The NEW Testamant (unfortunately for the equality argument) has STRONG admonitions against it as a perverse behavior. So the question is ARE ALL BEHAVIORS TREATED EQUALLY under the Constitution?= CLICK Here FOR WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%207%20Homosexuality.html
And things that also didn't need spelling out in bold caps and underlined were admonitions to not poke your wife in the eye, not punch your mother in law in the gut, not ritually wash your hands in the latrine and not eat with your mouth full of excrement. Because each of those things would have been so culturally unheard of, so totally unacceptable that they didn't merit mention. Neither did homosexuality -- except one huge strong "DON'T YOU DARE" in both the New and Old Testaments.
So people who take the words of Bible as truth, which is not just fundamentalists, but pretty much main stream everything Christian, have to ponder- why is there a Constitutional Right to any Behavior I
think I am predisposed to engage in.
Kennedy is worried about a 'Cliff." The other conservatives are worried about crashing meteoric hell fires and brimstones.
Expect a decision sometime this July or mid summer.
This is Brilliant
The Good Pope FRANCOIS Has 2 New Books coming:
expressing Ignatian Spirituality.
One on Recovering from Corruption and another on Humility.click here for Vatican News: http://www.news.va/en/news/presentation-of-first-two-books-in-italian-by-pope
Rather than deny that corruption exists as if the church were some marshmallow Easter Peep so as not to offend anyone, he acknowledges the existence of profound corruption, takes it head on, deals with how it undermines the mission and talks about how to recover from it. Reform could very well be real with him.
The other book is on Humility. Because the Greatest of These is a Servant of all.
Long Live Pope Francis.
Rather than deny that corruption exists as if the church were some marshmallow Easter Peep so as not to offend anyone, he acknowledges the existence of profound corruption, takes it head on, deals with how it undermines the mission and talks about how to recover from it. Reform could very well be real with him.
The other book is on Humility. Because the Greatest of These is a Servant of all.
Long Live Pope Francis.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Please
Excuse my French, but sometimes foul language is the only way to express what has to be said. (really I am polite company)
Supreme Court arguments on all that marriage equality stuff today. Say that God's Will Be Done prayer- the answer may surprise you.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
The Best Argument
For a Married Priesthood
SAINT PATRICK.
Universally believed to be the grandson of a Priest- if John the Baptist, son of a priest Zechariah didn't impress you. (who is not getting born because priests can't marry......hmmmmm)
From an official 'Catholic' on line publication.
Patrick (385-461) — Patron saint of Ireland and one of the most beloved of all saints. Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a Roman citizen, born in the Roman province of Britain near Bannavem Taburniae (an unknown location, perhaps in the region of the lower Severn, in North Wales),
the son of Calpurnius, a deacon, and a grandson of Potitus, a priest (it was still not uncommon for deacons and priests to be married). Captured at the age of sixteen by Irish raiders, he was taken to Ireland and sold into slavery. He tended flocks in County Antrim (although tradition places him "beside the Wood of Voclut, which is near the Western Sea," near Killala in County Mayo). During the six years he spent in servitude, Patrick underwent a profound religious transformation, and in the summer of 407 was commanded in a dream to escape. He journeyed some two hundred miles to board a ship transporting Irish hounds to the Continent. Upon landing in Gaul (modern France), which was then under assault by the Germanic and Gothic hordes, Patrick came into the spiritual care of the monastic institutions of the region; one of his most notable teachers was St. Germanus of Auxerre. Patrick took to his training, making possible the fulfillment of his absolute longing for an Irish apostolate. As Patrick himself noted: "The voice of the Irish . . . cry out as with one mouth: ‘We ask thee, boy, come and walk amongst us once more.’ " In the Confession, Patrick declares his vocation to be a mandate of the divine and founded not upon human learning, and so his preparation for a return to Ireland was largely a spiritual one. He admitted freely his lack of learning, writing that "I blush and fear exceedingly to reveal my lack of education." Nevertheless, he mastered the essentials of the faith and grew very familiar with Scripture, although scholars have long questioned where exactly his education was conducted. Some agree that he spent time in Gaul, but others prefer Britain as the place of his learning. Regardless of his length and location of learning, Patrick proved a brilliant missionary. Patrick was not the first missionary bishop appointed to bring Christianity to the Irish. Palladius was named to the post in 431 by Pope St. Celestine I (r. 422-432), but he either died or, as seems likely, he met with little success and went to Scotland some time after 431. In his place was appointed Patrick, who was consecrated a bishop and sent to the Irish mission. For the next twenty-nine years, Patrick traveled across the five kingdoms of the island and won the conversion of virtually the whole of the Irish people. It is likely that in his later years he established Armagh as the primatial see of Ireland. He wrote before his death: "Hence, did it come to pass in Ireland that those who never had a knowledge of God . . . have now been made a people of the Lord, and are called Sons of God." His two primary achievements were the promotion of a native clergy and the careful integration of the Christian faith with native Irish-Celtic culture. He used a simple, sincere, biblical style of preaching that won both hearts and minds. Unfortunately, details of his life and labors are fraught with questions owing to the large body of legends that sprang up about him and the general unreliability of the main source available, including the Life of St. Patrick by Muirchu, the Irish Annals, and the Breviarium Tirecham. Patrick himself was the author of Confessio (a moving testimony of his personal faith) and Letter to Coroticus, a troublesome chieftain. Legends about St. Patrick abound, perhaps the most famous being that of his expulsion of snakes from Ireland. National holidays in his honor are held in numerous countries, including Ireland, the United States, and even Russia. Feast day: March 17.
HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY-
And Blessings On All Priestly Progeny - past and future.
SAINT PATRICK.
Universally believed to be the grandson of a Priest- if John the Baptist, son of a priest Zechariah didn't impress you. (who is not getting born because priests can't marry......hmmmmm)
From an official 'Catholic' on line publication.
Patrick (385-461) — Patron saint of Ireland and one of the most beloved of all saints. Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a Roman citizen, born in the Roman province of Britain near Bannavem Taburniae (an unknown location, perhaps in the region of the lower Severn, in North Wales),
the son of Calpurnius, a deacon, and a grandson of Potitus, a priest (it was still not uncommon for deacons and priests to be married). Captured at the age of sixteen by Irish raiders, he was taken to Ireland and sold into slavery. He tended flocks in County Antrim (although tradition places him "beside the Wood of Voclut, which is near the Western Sea," near Killala in County Mayo). During the six years he spent in servitude, Patrick underwent a profound religious transformation, and in the summer of 407 was commanded in a dream to escape. He journeyed some two hundred miles to board a ship transporting Irish hounds to the Continent. Upon landing in Gaul (modern France), which was then under assault by the Germanic and Gothic hordes, Patrick came into the spiritual care of the monastic institutions of the region; one of his most notable teachers was St. Germanus of Auxerre. Patrick took to his training, making possible the fulfillment of his absolute longing for an Irish apostolate. As Patrick himself noted: "The voice of the Irish . . . cry out as with one mouth: ‘We ask thee, boy, come and walk amongst us once more.’ " In the Confession, Patrick declares his vocation to be a mandate of the divine and founded not upon human learning, and so his preparation for a return to Ireland was largely a spiritual one. He admitted freely his lack of learning, writing that "I blush and fear exceedingly to reveal my lack of education." Nevertheless, he mastered the essentials of the faith and grew very familiar with Scripture, although scholars have long questioned where exactly his education was conducted. Some agree that he spent time in Gaul, but others prefer Britain as the place of his learning. Regardless of his length and location of learning, Patrick proved a brilliant missionary. Patrick was not the first missionary bishop appointed to bring Christianity to the Irish. Palladius was named to the post in 431 by Pope St. Celestine I (r. 422-432), but he either died or, as seems likely, he met with little success and went to Scotland some time after 431. In his place was appointed Patrick, who was consecrated a bishop and sent to the Irish mission. For the next twenty-nine years, Patrick traveled across the five kingdoms of the island and won the conversion of virtually the whole of the Irish people. It is likely that in his later years he established Armagh as the primatial see of Ireland. He wrote before his death: "Hence, did it come to pass in Ireland that those who never had a knowledge of God . . . have now been made a people of the Lord, and are called Sons of God." His two primary achievements were the promotion of a native clergy and the careful integration of the Christian faith with native Irish-Celtic culture. He used a simple, sincere, biblical style of preaching that won both hearts and minds. Unfortunately, details of his life and labors are fraught with questions owing to the large body of legends that sprang up about him and the general unreliability of the main source available, including the Life of St. Patrick by Muirchu, the Irish Annals, and the Breviarium Tirecham. Patrick himself was the author of Confessio (a moving testimony of his personal faith) and Letter to Coroticus, a troublesome chieftain. Legends about St. Patrick abound, perhaps the most famous being that of his expulsion of snakes from Ireland. National holidays in his honor are held in numerous countries, including Ireland, the United States, and even Russia. Feast day: March 17.
HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY-
And Blessings On All Priestly Progeny - past and future.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
The First Jesuit
The Pope
Who thought of the Poor, the Spirit of Peace, and of Creation.
Pax, Pais, Paix, Pace, Peace, Done Nobis.
Who thought of the Poor, the Spirit of Peace, and of Creation.
Pax, Pais, Paix, Pace, Peace, Done Nobis.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
AMDG
Everyone in the world will know what that means now. AMDG
CONGRATULATIONS TO JESUITS EVERYWHERE FOR THEIR FIRST POPE.
A JESUIT NAMED FRANCIS.
I'm a believer again :-)
CONGRATULATIONS
POPE FRANCIS!
PAPE FRANCOIS!
PAPA FRANCISCO!
CONGRATULATIONS TO JESUITS EVERYWHERE FOR THEIR FIRST POPE.
A JESUIT NAMED FRANCIS.
I'm a believer again :-)
CONGRATULATIONS
POPE FRANCIS!
PAPE FRANCOIS!
PAPA FRANCISCO!
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
The Pope, Il Papa
Is An Italian hopefully (if it isn't O'Malley)
Click HERE
don't you think Italian when you think Pope?
Stay tuned for Holy Smokes!
and you can actually sign up for the latest breaking on www.popealarm.com
Click HERE
don't you think Italian when you think Pope?
Stay tuned for Holy Smokes!
and you can actually sign up for the latest breaking on www.popealarm.com
Friday, March 08, 2013
Secretary of State Kerry Honors Women Bloggers Around the World
Honoring various Courageous Women around the world live streamed here, and now it posts other live feed or recent events from the State Department.
Among those honored were a Syrian attorney human rights activists, a politically persecuted activist female blogger, an Indian rape victim who spoke against the stigma of rape in her country and a Somali human rights activist who couldn't stop gushing over the First Lady.
It is fantastic to see that John Kerry is deeply committed to betting the lot of women around the world. He was clearly the right choice for the job.
International Women of Courage include blogger in Vietnam, Ta Phong Tan, imprisoned for speaking “Truth and Justice” more: go.usa.gov/22Ze
Thursday, March 07, 2013
OK He Rocks
Chillin
in retirement- Pope Emeritus in a white Baseball Cap. Now we have seen everything :-) i like him better already :-)
He was the main attraction at National's Stadium a few years ago if you recall.
Monday, March 04, 2013
had to post this
awesome adventure from a friend's facebook post. She's having way too much fun!!
Click here----http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
Click here----http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
Évangile de Jésus Christ selon saint Luc 4,24-30.
Dans la synagogue de Nazareth, Jésus déclarait : " Amen, je vous le dis, aucun prophète n'est bien accueilli dans son pays.
En toute vérité, je vous le déclare : Au temps du prophète Élie, ...lorsque la sécheresse et la famine ont sévi pendant trois ans et demi, il y avait beaucoup de veuves en Israël ;
pourtant Élie n'a été envoyé vers aucune d'entre elles, mais bien à une veuve étrangère, de la ville de Sarepta, dans le pays de Sidon.
Au temps du prophète Élisée, il y avait beaucoup de lépreux en Israël ; pourtant aucun d'eux n'a été purifié, mais bien Naaman, un Syrien. »
A ces mots, dans la synagogue, tous devinrent furieux.
Ils se levèrent, poussèrent Jésus hors de la ville, et le menèrent jusqu'à un escarpement de la colline où la ville est construite, pour le précipiter en bas.
Mais lui, passant au milieu d'eux, allait son chemin.
Dans la synagogue de Nazareth, Jésus déclarait : " Amen, je vous le dis, aucun prophète n'est bien accueilli dans son pays.
En toute vérité, je vous le déclare : Au temps du prophète Élie, ...lorsque la sécheresse et la famine ont sévi pendant trois ans et demi, il y avait beaucoup de veuves en Israël ;
pourtant Élie n'a été envoyé vers aucune d'entre elles, mais bien à une veuve étrangère, de la ville de Sarepta, dans le pays de Sidon.
Au temps du prophète Élisée, il y avait beaucoup de lépreux en Israël ; pourtant aucun d'eux n'a été purifié, mais bien Naaman, un Syrien. »
A ces mots, dans la synagogue, tous devinrent furieux.
Ils se levèrent, poussèrent Jésus hors de la ville, et le menèrent jusqu'à un escarpement de la colline où la ville est construite, pour le précipiter en bas.
Mais lui, passant au milieu d'eux, allait son chemin.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Il S'Agit De...
Évangile de Jésus Christ selon saint Luc 16,19-31.
Jésus disait cette parabole : « Il y avait un homme riche, qui portait des vêtements de luxe et faisait chaque jour des festins somptueux.
Un pauvre, nommé Lazare, était couché devant le portail, couvert de plaies. Il aurait bien voulu se rassasier de ce qui tombait de la table du riche ; mais c'étaient plutôt les chiens qui venaient lécher ses plaies.
Or le pauvre mourut, et les anges l'emportèrent auprès d'Abraham. Le riche mourut aussi, et on l'enterra. Au séjour des morts, il était en proie à la torture ; il leva les yeux et vit de loin Abraham avec Lazare tout près de lui. Alors il cria : 'Abraham, mon père, prends pitié de moi et envoie Lazare tremper dans l'eau le bout de son doigt pour me rafraîchir la langue, car je souffre terriblement dans cette fournaise.
Mon enfant, répondit Abraham, rappelle-toi : Tu as reçu le bonheur pendant ta vie, et Lazare, le malheur. Maintenant il trouve ici la consolation, et toi, c'est ton tour de souffrir. De plus, un grand abîme a été mis entre vous et nous, pour que ceux qui voudraient aller vers vous ne le puissent pas, et que, de là -bas non plus, on ne vienne pas vers nous. '
Le riche répliqua : 'Eh bien ! père, je te prie d'envoyer Lazare dans la maison de mon père. J'ai cinq frères : qu'il les avertisse pour qu'ils ne viennent pas, eux aussi, dans ce lieu de torture ! ’
Abraham lui dit : 'Ils ont Moïse et les Prophètes : qu'ils les écoutent !
Non, père Abraham, dit le riche, mais si quelqu'un de chez les morts vient les trouver, ils se convertiront. ' Abraham répondit : 'S'ils n'écoutent pas Moïse ni les Prophètes, quelqu'un pourra bien ressusciter d'entre les morts : ils ne seront pas convaincus. ' »
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Language
of Lent and Love.
The fact that christians around the world are a family is undescored by the language of lent in the western world where words all seem to etiomologicallly play and feed off each other. I came to this awareness teaching an english class to spanish and french native speakers. For example during lent
we are to fast and give alms. The world alms comes from the french aumoniere meaning more or less the same thing. The Spanish world Alma is soul, the french word for soul is Ame. The french word for love Amour, to love Aimer and so giving alms seems to somehow demonstrate love and make the soul what it should be. I dare you to google it all. Alms, Soul, Love in all three languages. Tell me God isn't trying to tell you something. Warning "soul" in French means drunk. It only goes so far.
Yoo-Hooo Over Here
I'm the one with the hat!
Am I alone in thinking that those pointy conehead hats on higher catholic clerics looks like a saturday night live spoof on the Coneheads who came to dinner? They look really wierd in America, don't they. They don't really resonate with anyone you see or think of in scripture - Jesus walking along the Jordan dismantled his tall pointy top hat the size of an opened umbrella on his head and gave it to Peter to hold while he healed the blind man bending over his flowing lacey robes to pick dirt from the ground to make mud to smear on the man's eyes. Huh? OK-you are right, I made that up. Jesus didn't wear tall pointy conehead hats.
He probably did wear a yamulka- probably not a flaming pink one. Shall I wear my fuschia yamulka or my hot red lipstick colored one? Hmmmm.
I can't speak for the Fuschia Yamulkas (although I know no Jewish color regulation on them so-hey, go wild)- but I can imagine where the conehead hat tradition comes from.
Before the days of great sound systems and microphones, when a preacher preached in a great huge gothic cathedral with high arches, the hat simply identified who was talking-because if you are sitting anywhere from the middle to the back you cannot see or identify who is speaking from the front. The hat mirrors the arched pinnacle above his head where he likely would be speaking. And likely there were a number of clerics surrounding him concelebrating or doing various other things on the altar-so you couldn't tell who in fact was talking. When you can see who it is who is speaking you can sometimes hone in and listen better.
So the hat could have originally been a - Yoo-Hoo Over Here- I'm the guy talking! kind of visual aid.
It attached to the guys giving the sermons (homilies)- who were the highest clergy available in the area. When the church migrated from those magnificent European gothic cathedrals the hats went with them.
And that's when they started to look goofy as all get out. But if you go to a real Mass in a real European
Gothic Cathedral, and hear a guy in the hat, you start to appreciate that you can see who is talking by identifying that Cat in the Hat.
So that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Here Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran wears more head appropriate gear in India with the Sikhs. By covering his head with a napkin. Like all the Sikhs around him there. When in Rome......
I like this guy. click Here to learn a little more
So in Yankee Stadium a bishop should wear a baseball hat. Talking to a bunch of miners in West Virginia he should wear a miner's cap, in talking to policemen he can wear a police hat (no, you can't impersonate one.) A cardinal in a baseball cap - that works if you are in America pretty well. Wouldn't you like to see it?
Am I alone in thinking that those pointy conehead hats on higher catholic clerics looks like a saturday night live spoof on the Coneheads who came to dinner? They look really wierd in America, don't they. They don't really resonate with anyone you see or think of in scripture - Jesus walking along the Jordan dismantled his tall pointy top hat the size of an opened umbrella on his head and gave it to Peter to hold while he healed the blind man bending over his flowing lacey robes to pick dirt from the ground to make mud to smear on the man's eyes. Huh? OK-you are right, I made that up. Jesus didn't wear tall pointy conehead hats.
He probably did wear a yamulka- probably not a flaming pink one. Shall I wear my fuschia yamulka or my hot red lipstick colored one? Hmmmm.
I can't speak for the Fuschia Yamulkas (although I know no Jewish color regulation on them so-hey, go wild)- but I can imagine where the conehead hat tradition comes from.
Before the days of great sound systems and microphones, when a preacher preached in a great huge gothic cathedral with high arches, the hat simply identified who was talking-because if you are sitting anywhere from the middle to the back you cannot see or identify who is speaking from the front. The hat mirrors the arched pinnacle above his head where he likely would be speaking. And likely there were a number of clerics surrounding him concelebrating or doing various other things on the altar-so you couldn't tell who in fact was talking. When you can see who it is who is speaking you can sometimes hone in and listen better.
So the hat could have originally been a - Yoo-Hoo Over Here- I'm the guy talking! kind of visual aid.
It attached to the guys giving the sermons (homilies)- who were the highest clergy available in the area. When the church migrated from those magnificent European gothic cathedrals the hats went with them.
And that's when they started to look goofy as all get out. But if you go to a real Mass in a real European
Gothic Cathedral, and hear a guy in the hat, you start to appreciate that you can see who is talking by identifying that Cat in the Hat.
So that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Here Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran wears more head appropriate gear in India with the Sikhs. By covering his head with a napkin. Like all the Sikhs around him there. When in Rome......
I like this guy. click Here to learn a little more
So in Yankee Stadium a bishop should wear a baseball hat. Talking to a bunch of miners in West Virginia he should wear a miner's cap, in talking to policemen he can wear a police hat (no, you can't impersonate one.) A cardinal in a baseball cap - that works if you are in America pretty well. Wouldn't you like to see it?
Thank God
For the Jesuits.
Father James Martin graciously provided the archived livestream of the Christian Education Conference in California on his Facebook page (where all the action is) so I post
HERE (click)----https://new.livestream.com/randomhouzeproductions/recongress2013/videos
You might have thought all Jesuits the dry dull professorial type- but Father Martin proves that there are few more down to earth hilarious folk than those trained at the Gregorian in doing his order proud here at this conference and everywhere he lectures.
You can also buy his book Heaven and Mirth. -or Living with the Saints- or a number of other great ones.
HERE (click)----https://new.livestream.com/randomhouzeproductions/recongress2013/videos
You might have thought all Jesuits the dry dull professorial type- but Father Martin proves that there are few more down to earth hilarious folk than those trained at the Gregorian in doing his order proud here at this conference and everywhere he lectures.
You can also buy his book Heaven and Mirth. -or Living with the Saints- or a number of other great ones.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Do You Know Where Your Children Are?
In the World.
There are many many abandoned, neglected parentless children. They roam garbage dumps in Guatemala City, they are warehoused in orphanages in the Dominican Republic, they are war orphans, traumatized in Palestinian territory, they are desolutely existing in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia and every eastern european eastern block country in conditions you wouldn't put a dog in some cases, understaffed, underfinanced orphanges. They are in China-there are pregnant women in China running from the one child policy. They are in India scraping off the streets. They are in orphanages and foster care in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They are AIDS orphans from every African country on the continent.
If you want to adopt a child. Faire un effort. Find one. They are everywhere.
The debate over whether gay people can legally adopt is colored by the perspectives of the advocates on how hard it is to adopt. A french gentleman lamented that it was really hard to adopt in France because the child is not considered abandoned if a parent writes one letter in a year defeating any adopting procedure. Some laws can be tricky with regard to international adoption. If you believe there is a shortage of adoptable people and you are a heterosexual couple you want to make sure you and those like you have first bid in a limited supply. Fine. You want preference because you believe children should have male and female role models both and both gender parenting. Fine. But a child in an adoptive situation is already not in a best case scenario and there are far far more children in the world needing parents than there are heterosexual couples willing to adopt them.
The fact of the matter is that heterosexual couples are not all lining up to go to Africa to get AIDS orphans, willing to battle the guatemalan government for the garbage dump children who are traumatized victims of violence in some cases. They are not lining up to wait in line in China for abandoned chineese girls (the disfavored gender there) and they are not visiting the eastern european orphanages at a rate that is emptying them.
However, there is a population of people who are and will go to any length in the universe to find an unwanted child and make them wanted and loved-and those people are willing to do that because they cannot have their own naturally as they are gay. Or they are Angelina Jolie.
If there is one child left sitting in an orphanage anywhere in the world every effort legally should be made to place that child in a stable home with loving parents- of any gender-
And who are you to say that the child should not get the best care and attention because you don't like what the parents' sexual orientation is? How is that in the 'best interest' of the children of the world?
And unless you are willing to adopt children what gives you the right to say someone else cannot have that child? Further, what gives totally childless clerics any right to say other people cannot care for children and take them in their loving homes?
Something about this argument, and marching and manifestations and demonstrations strikes me as obscene. Have any of you visited an orphanage lately? Have any of you taken those children home?
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Measure of a Man
and the Meaning of Honor.
An honorable man. What does it mean? Intrinsic in the definition is someone who knows how
to treat women with respect. Someone who does not is simply not an honorable man. Some man who forces or coerces an abortion on a vulnerable woman, most people would agree is not an honorable man. Some man who brings unfounded disgrace on a woman or creates scandal toward a woman or maligns, slanders or abuses a woman is not an honorable man. There use to be a civil tort claim in American jurisprudence which may still be on the books, called 'Slander of Virtue' of a woman. Any woman who is slandered in her virtue, meaning called a slut, whore, loose, promisciuous, etc. who isn't in fact may sue the person who maligned them in that fashion. It may still be on the books-
The way a man treats a woman is integral to the honor of a man. Many societies hold this to be the case.
The all male catholic church hierarchy, however, does not seem to. That is because it sometimes takes gossip for truth and peddles guilt as an occupational qualification. Women often get maligned unfairly, dissed and demeaned unfairly and this is completely OK according to any arbitrariness any priest wants to engage in for whatever ego protecting reason he wants to. He can act on what someone wants to convey in a 'confession' which can be thinly veiled slander and presume the correctness of it because the person came so repentantly- falling hook, line and sinker. Some people are quite devious that way.
The all male, all SINGLE male priesthood and Cardinali won't use that definition of honor when considering who should reign over a billion people's spiritual lives. In fact it is sometimes considered virtuous to demean and destroy women when necessary in some circles when they pose a threat for whatever perceived reason, rightly or wrongly. Show me a priest who threatens women deemed too powerful and I'll show you a Bishop. I can name at least one.
This is not the Joseph model of priesthood so much as the Herod model. Perhaps praying more to Joseph who took care to make sure Mary saw no social rebuke would be the better saint to pray to. Then perhaps more honor would come to the priesthood and church.
An honorable man. What does it mean? Intrinsic in the definition is someone who knows how
to treat women with respect. Someone who does not is simply not an honorable man. Some man who forces or coerces an abortion on a vulnerable woman, most people would agree is not an honorable man. Some man who brings unfounded disgrace on a woman or creates scandal toward a woman or maligns, slanders or abuses a woman is not an honorable man. There use to be a civil tort claim in American jurisprudence which may still be on the books, called 'Slander of Virtue' of a woman. Any woman who is slandered in her virtue, meaning called a slut, whore, loose, promisciuous, etc. who isn't in fact may sue the person who maligned them in that fashion. It may still be on the books-
The way a man treats a woman is integral to the honor of a man. Many societies hold this to be the case.
The all male catholic church hierarchy, however, does not seem to. That is because it sometimes takes gossip for truth and peddles guilt as an occupational qualification. Women often get maligned unfairly, dissed and demeaned unfairly and this is completely OK according to any arbitrariness any priest wants to engage in for whatever ego protecting reason he wants to. He can act on what someone wants to convey in a 'confession' which can be thinly veiled slander and presume the correctness of it because the person came so repentantly- falling hook, line and sinker. Some people are quite devious that way.
The all male, all SINGLE male priesthood and Cardinali won't use that definition of honor when considering who should reign over a billion people's spiritual lives. In fact it is sometimes considered virtuous to demean and destroy women when necessary in some circles when they pose a threat for whatever perceived reason, rightly or wrongly. Show me a priest who threatens women deemed too powerful and I'll show you a Bishop. I can name at least one.
This is not the Joseph model of priesthood so much as the Herod model. Perhaps praying more to Joseph who took care to make sure Mary saw no social rebuke would be the better saint to pray to. Then perhaps more honor would come to the priesthood and church.
And in the Please Tell Me This is Not True
Category,
The French legislative body it appears passed a constitutional amendment of sorts in which
all the sexual harassment laws were mooted or voided in such a manner that caused all the sexual harassment claims to be dismissed on constitutional grounds 'tout a coups'- all at once. So protection in France for sexual harassment claims is non-existent in the workplace. Dieu Tout Puissant.
There was recently a documentary on French TV in which one particularly chauvinist gentihomme
lamented how a bad joke can be misinterpreted and bring scandal. That opinion prevailed apparently.
Nevermind the women who get mauled, groped and literally felt up while attempting to type.
Its now open season on 'do me or you are fired' in one of the most Catholic countries in the EU.
So what does that say about respect for women in traditional catholic societies??? Women's 'liberation' if you can call it that in the US has its benefits. People are allowed to do a job in peace, with dignity and respect for their talent and skill wholly aside and apart from their sex-appeal or desire to use it at work. Moreover it says you have a right to a paycheck for the work you do, not the prostitution you won't.
I beg and plead the French Ministry of "Excuse Me, You Have To Be Kidding" to set this right before we have to create an EU separate court to which these women can appeal as a fundamental matter of human rights and dignity.
The French legislative body it appears passed a constitutional amendment of sorts in which
all the sexual harassment laws were mooted or voided in such a manner that caused all the sexual harassment claims to be dismissed on constitutional grounds 'tout a coups'- all at once. So protection in France for sexual harassment claims is non-existent in the workplace. Dieu Tout Puissant.
There was recently a documentary on French TV in which one particularly chauvinist gentihomme
lamented how a bad joke can be misinterpreted and bring scandal. That opinion prevailed apparently.
Nevermind the women who get mauled, groped and literally felt up while attempting to type.
Its now open season on 'do me or you are fired' in one of the most Catholic countries in the EU.
So what does that say about respect for women in traditional catholic societies??? Women's 'liberation' if you can call it that in the US has its benefits. People are allowed to do a job in peace, with dignity and respect for their talent and skill wholly aside and apart from their sex-appeal or desire to use it at work. Moreover it says you have a right to a paycheck for the work you do, not the prostitution you won't.
I beg and plead the French Ministry of "Excuse Me, You Have To Be Kidding" to set this right before we have to create an EU separate court to which these women can appeal as a fundamental matter of human rights and dignity.
James Martin
For Pope
He jokes, sort of. Because secretly I think he wishes it could be so. "Can a Pope be someone NOT already a Cardinal?" my friend asked, as if I am any expert on the subject. Ask Tom Reese-he's the expert. If someone could be
James Martin, SJ (meaning Jesuit) surely should be the prime contender.
At the recent Christian Education Congress in Anaheim (near LA) California, dubbed by Fr. Martin as
"the Happiest Place on Earth" and, he resounded "Better than Disneyland" he described how God has a playful sense of humor and we should have fun with him in life. If you can get your hands on a copy of his talk which was live streamed watch it- it's both hysterical and insightful.
For evidence that Jesus has a sense of humor he recites the passage where Nathaniel is introduced to Jesus and he says "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" which is a put down- and likely a snicker evoking common saying then given Nazareth's town character at the time. (currently it is a fairly unremarkable tradestown where factory supply places and quasi-industrial warehouses abound, known more for Jesus having come there than anything else supporting tourism.) And Jesus doesn't declare 'Nathaniel-it shall be better for you than if hellfire rained on your head 'or any such rebuke for making a dig at Jesus. He says-here is a guy with no guile in him. Basically-this is a guy I can work with. He was honest. Jesus didn't hammer slam him into the ground for the slight mocking dig-he didn't kick him out of his path and off the journey- that is something Herod might do or a haughty emperor who 'offed' the heads of anyone who didn't tickle his fancy. Jesus, it appears had Ha Ha moments.
James Martin, SJ makes the stunning revelatory admission, something protestants have known for years, that God doesn't view any position in the church as a better more special place- we are all supposed to be servants -and all people really are equal in God's eyes. We are all in need of his Grace, Forgiveness and Blessing. It was a pitch for humility, as he joked that one can be too proud even in their humility and he is the No.1 most humble person qualifying him for Pope:-) A prominent Presbyterian Pastor and Theologian now the President of Princeton University's Theological Seminary Craig Barnes once said that Presbyterian Ministers wear robes when they are giving a Sermon which are simple black robes resembling academic robes of higher established academia because the only thing distinguishing those people in the eyes of God and the people to whom they are preaching is that they are more learned and educated-they went to Seminary.
Jesus clearly thought that the greatest would be the one who served more- the greatest is the greatest servant. Jesus himself took this role as the servant of humanity in sacrificing everything to serve the need of their atonement and thus salvation. He starts his ministry turning water to wine- to "keep the party going" as Martin muses. He was there the God- bartender. Martin wonders how the church would have been different if priests at every Mass washed feet as Jesus did at the last supper. Wouldn't that get people thinking. Of course then it was a necessity because people wore sandals around dirt roads and so feet were always dirty. What would be the equivalent now? Who has bad credit? Let me clean that up for you? Whose garage needs cleaning out? Garage sale anyone?
He ended with a few classic jokes. I will tell you two more, he kept saying after finishing each one.
And they are all great, while you probably heard a few already. So find the link or better yet, get his book "Heaven and Mirth" which has lots of them in it. Amazon -or Booth number something at the Congress, as he kept reminding people:-)
I vote for James Martin for Pope- and for Cardinal O'Malley. If I only had a vote. Sung to the tune of 'if i only had a brain' from the Wizzard of Oz :-)
He jokes, sort of. Because secretly I think he wishes it could be so. "Can a Pope be someone NOT already a Cardinal?" my friend asked, as if I am any expert on the subject. Ask Tom Reese-he's the expert. If someone could be
James Martin, SJ (meaning Jesuit) surely should be the prime contender.
At the recent Christian Education Congress in Anaheim (near LA) California, dubbed by Fr. Martin as
"the Happiest Place on Earth" and, he resounded "Better than Disneyland" he described how God has a playful sense of humor and we should have fun with him in life. If you can get your hands on a copy of his talk which was live streamed watch it- it's both hysterical and insightful.
For evidence that Jesus has a sense of humor he recites the passage where Nathaniel is introduced to Jesus and he says "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" which is a put down- and likely a snicker evoking common saying then given Nazareth's town character at the time. (currently it is a fairly unremarkable tradestown where factory supply places and quasi-industrial warehouses abound, known more for Jesus having come there than anything else supporting tourism.) And Jesus doesn't declare 'Nathaniel-it shall be better for you than if hellfire rained on your head 'or any such rebuke for making a dig at Jesus. He says-here is a guy with no guile in him. Basically-this is a guy I can work with. He was honest. Jesus didn't hammer slam him into the ground for the slight mocking dig-he didn't kick him out of his path and off the journey- that is something Herod might do or a haughty emperor who 'offed' the heads of anyone who didn't tickle his fancy. Jesus, it appears had Ha Ha moments.
James Martin, SJ makes the stunning revelatory admission, something protestants have known for years, that God doesn't view any position in the church as a better more special place- we are all supposed to be servants -and all people really are equal in God's eyes. We are all in need of his Grace, Forgiveness and Blessing. It was a pitch for humility, as he joked that one can be too proud even in their humility and he is the No.1 most humble person qualifying him for Pope:-) A prominent Presbyterian Pastor and Theologian now the President of Princeton University's Theological Seminary Craig Barnes once said that Presbyterian Ministers wear robes when they are giving a Sermon which are simple black robes resembling academic robes of higher established academia because the only thing distinguishing those people in the eyes of God and the people to whom they are preaching is that they are more learned and educated-they went to Seminary.
Jesus clearly thought that the greatest would be the one who served more- the greatest is the greatest servant. Jesus himself took this role as the servant of humanity in sacrificing everything to serve the need of their atonement and thus salvation. He starts his ministry turning water to wine- to "keep the party going" as Martin muses. He was there the God- bartender. Martin wonders how the church would have been different if priests at every Mass washed feet as Jesus did at the last supper. Wouldn't that get people thinking. Of course then it was a necessity because people wore sandals around dirt roads and so feet were always dirty. What would be the equivalent now? Who has bad credit? Let me clean that up for you? Whose garage needs cleaning out? Garage sale anyone?
He ended with a few classic jokes. I will tell you two more, he kept saying after finishing each one.
And they are all great, while you probably heard a few already. So find the link or better yet, get his book "Heaven and Mirth" which has lots of them in it. Amazon -or Booth number something at the Congress, as he kept reminding people:-)
I vote for James Martin for Pope- and for Cardinal O'Malley. If I only had a vote. Sung to the tune of 'if i only had a brain' from the Wizzard of Oz :-)
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Authority
From God
When the scribes and pharisees who didn't like that Jesus questioned his authority-because they were off the rails- and asked where on earth Jesus' authority came from....what was his answer.
It's like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity- You know it when you see it.
To change the authority structure you cannot be co-opted by the authority structure.. When the authority is wrong it has to be challenged from the outside.
Where was Jesus' Theology Degree? From which Theological College or Rabbinical Institute did he get his diploma?
When the scribes and pharisees who didn't like that Jesus questioned his authority-because they were off the rails- and asked where on earth Jesus' authority came from....what was his answer.
It's like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity- You know it when you see it.
To change the authority structure you cannot be co-opted by the authority structure.. When the authority is wrong it has to be challenged from the outside.
Where was Jesus' Theology Degree? From which Theological College or Rabbinical Institute did he get his diploma?
Mandatory Qualification
For Next Pope
When asked which is worse- a priest standing with women who wish ordination or a convicted jail inhabiting child rapist priest, he must answer the later is way worse without a question. The later is a moral reprobate beyond description. The former is doctrinally in disagreement.
What total lack of respect for women and lack of appreciation for the gifts God gave them (as there are no male nor female in Christ Jesus and all the baptized have gifts of the spirit)- to be even slightly
morally confused about this.
Yet apparently the last Pope was because Wuerl the DC Cardinal went on a PR rampage to justify the
theology of believing it was right to automatically excommunicate a priest who tried to ordain women while many child rapists and molesters priests sitting in jail are still priests under the 'once a priest always a priest' rubric. And here's the kicker- they've actually done it. A priest, shortly after his father died, who had served his order faithfully for about 40 years with one curt letter told him he was excommunicated. His crime? Attempting to ordain a woman. They threw the book at him.
Beyond twisted-its evil.
And someone who might be considered legally a co-conspirator shielding child rapist and molesters in California is getting to go hang out in Rome, sip wine in trattorias, schmooze and pick the next guy.
Batshine off their rocker Crazy.
Is it possible you still don't get that the 'what's a little child molestation amongst friends' mentality has to go.
That there would even be five seconds of deliberation over which is considered more condemnable- a child rapist or a woman who wished ordination- means we need new leadership- and it CANNOT be the same crappola we have had from the Dementican House of Studies.
When asked which is worse- a priest standing with women who wish ordination or a convicted jail inhabiting child rapist priest, he must answer the later is way worse without a question. The later is a moral reprobate beyond description. The former is doctrinally in disagreement.
What total lack of respect for women and lack of appreciation for the gifts God gave them (as there are no male nor female in Christ Jesus and all the baptized have gifts of the spirit)- to be even slightly
morally confused about this.
Yet apparently the last Pope was because Wuerl the DC Cardinal went on a PR rampage to justify the
theology of believing it was right to automatically excommunicate a priest who tried to ordain women while many child rapists and molesters priests sitting in jail are still priests under the 'once a priest always a priest' rubric. And here's the kicker- they've actually done it. A priest, shortly after his father died, who had served his order faithfully for about 40 years with one curt letter told him he was excommunicated. His crime? Attempting to ordain a woman. They threw the book at him.
Beyond twisted-its evil.
And someone who might be considered legally a co-conspirator shielding child rapist and molesters in California is getting to go hang out in Rome, sip wine in trattorias, schmooze and pick the next guy.
Batshine off their rocker Crazy.
Is it possible you still don't get that the 'what's a little child molestation amongst friends' mentality has to go.
That there would even be five seconds of deliberation over which is considered more condemnable- a child rapist or a woman who wished ordination- means we need new leadership- and it CANNOT be the same crappola we have had from the Dementican House of Studies.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)