A Nicer, More Huggable Christian-Conservative Movement

Read this interesting article from the NY Times on the growing sophistication of the Christian-Conservative movement

The article centers around the film "Brokeback Mountain" as a means to describe the new ways Christian Conservatives have debated the issues.

This critical ambivalence represents a change in the way conservative Christians engage popular culture, said Robert Johnston, a professor of theology and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical institution, in Pasadena, Calif. Until recently, he said, Christian groups would have ignored a sexually explicit movie like "Brokeback Mountain" except to protest it.

"Ten years ago, conservatives would say 'Schindler's List' should not be shown because of its nudity," said Professor Johnston, adding that he had not yet seen "Brokeback Mountain." "But just as in the wider culture, evangelicals as a group are becoming more sophisticated in their interaction with popular culture. There's been a recognition within the evangelical community that movies have become a primary means, perhaps the primary means, of telling our culture's stories. For this reason, evangelicals have become much more open to good stories, artfully told, but they also want stories whose values they can affirm or understand."

Be ecstatic over this trend and hope it continues. Hopefully it is illustrating a trend to a more open-minded society. Today, hard-core Christians are giving a film bad reviews. Yesterday, they would be marching in front of the movie theatre, demanding it to be removed, if not beating people up who went to see it. Maybe tommorow, they'll actually go and see a quality film for the experience of getting to see something artistically done as opposed to some big budget hack operation. In all likelihood, a more tolerant and accepting society will arise and sooner than we all think. Isn't it exciting?

Merry Christmas

Happy Holidays everyone. In the spirit of giving, I won't rant in an overly long diatribe over any of the inconsistancies, the blatant consumerism and greed or the lack of holiday cheer in Africa. Woops!

Seriously, though, I hope everyone has a good holiday. Remember the true meaning of the holiday and try to have an open mind about things you normally may not. Peace, noel y felic navidad.

Yikes, 85% in favor of Impeachment...

Well, this was just an internet poll on msnbc, so it isn't scientifically valid, but it sure as heck does show that this is not a popular president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

I have to say, impeachment certainly seems as justified as ever considering the spying, lies before the war in Iraq and the Katrina debacle. While I highly doubt this congress would dare impeach him, I do have to say that it is becoming more and more likely that Bush may not last the full four years at this rate. I wouldn't be shocked if he eventually resigns, especially if information on the KGB - I mean NSA - spying sans warrants keeps getting worse and worse (and I think it will).

Bush Protecting Americans!?!

I think he's spying on us!

WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter declared yesterday that Congress would launch hearings to investigate a report that President Bush secretly authorized warrantless spying on US citizens following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Boston Globe

''There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. He added that the hearings would be ''a very, very high priority" when Congress returns from its winter break in January.

Thankfully, there is at least one or two sane republicans left in the Senate. Best of all, Arlen Specter is in a position to be able to do something about this as chair of the senate judiciary committee.

And Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said: ''This is Big Brother run amok. . . . With these new developments, we must take a step back and not rush the Patriot Act, further risking our civil protections."

The New York Times reported yesterday that Bush had secretly ordered the National Security Agency to intercept international phone calls and e-mails by US citizens. The report said Bush authorized the NSA to spy on as many as 500 citizens at a time without obtaining warrants.

The Death Penalty

I would never have expected the Stanley "Tooky" Williams death penalty case to become such a huge issue, but it did. For those who don't know much about the case, they should read the article I linked. Suffice it to say, he was a former gang leader who was convicted of killing four people decades ago. He became the 12th person to die of the death penalty in California since the state reinstated it in 1977 and the second person this year.

Out of all of the most important progressive issues, the death penalty is probably the only one where the country doesn't clearly agree with progressives. On environmental policies, health care, corporate responsibility and defense progressive positions are supported by the majority of voters. The death penalty, like I said, is one of the few areas it isn't.

The fact is America should be against the death penalty. While Tooky Williams died, serial killers and Robert F. Kennedy's assassin remains alive in California. The system is injust. Black men die in far more frequent numbers than the rate they actually kill people. Women die far less frequently than the rate they actually kill people. Poor people die the most frequently, though, as they can't afford proper legal council which could likely keep them out of the chair.

There have been so many legal mistakes for prisoners on Death Row that several states have placed moratoriums on the process. Innocent people have been killed undergoing so-called justice. In fact, almost half the people on Death Row have either been wrongly convicted or didn't have a fair trial.

There are dozens of reasons why people should reject the death penalty before they even consider morality. However, morality could be the most important reason to reject it. In discussing morality when it comes to the death penalty, I'm not even talking about the convicted murderers. Maybe they deserve what they get, maybe they don't, but as someone who has had someone close to them murdered I still don't feel a burning desire for revenge.

The real reason society should be afraid of using a death penalty is that it's a very animalistic quality. It's a pathetic attempt at justice that shows humanity hasn't changed since the days of the arenas during the height of the Roman Empire. People would still go to watch criminals battle against lions and tigers. People would love to watch humans convicted of various crimes playing a tragic role in theatre and really die at the end. How can I know people would still go and watch these horrid state-sponsired murders?

They lined up to watch Tooky die. It was sick listening to the so-called witnesses describe the process. There was about a dozen of them all lined up reporting on how he died. It was as if they were giving a post-game play-by-play. In fact, that's exactly what they were doing. They were summarizing the several hour long procedure - game - in an ESPN-like post-game press conference. It could have been well-paid former NFL players describing just how gutsy Tom Brady is as he prepared for the Super Bowl, 'Tom Brady decided not to eat his last meal before the big game and attempted to keep his head up the whole time before he just could no longer do so. He left it all out on the field."

The worst part is that while Governor Arnold over in California was considering clemency over the past few days, he cited as a reason for his rejection the fact that Tooky Williams never admitted to the crimes he was convicted. Yes, that's right, the governor had Tooky killed because Tooky didn't admit to his convicted crimes. That is exactly like the Roman Catholic Church and the Government of Spain killing prisoners of the inquisition because they didn't admit to being heritics. That's like the puritans in Salem, Mass hanging over a dozen innocent men and women because they would rather have died than say they were guilty of witch craft. Tooky said he would rather die than admit to his guilt. Killing someone for not admitting their guilt is worse than feeding a guilty man to the lions. No one should ever be killed because they refuse to admit their guilt. It may just be that they aren't guilty of the crime and at the very least it is a right all Americans are supposed to have, the ability to proclaim their innocence even after a conviction.

Brokeback Mountain

I haven't seen this movie yet, but suffice it to say it's about two cowboys who happen to be in love with each other during the 60s. Without seeing it, I don't really want to describe it in anymore detail. However, I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast how the Drudge Report describes it versus a Huffington Post writer.

Drudge Report Article:

Arriving with nudity and explicit gay sex scenes between two cowboys, UNIVERSAL/FOCUS FILMS's BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN has quietly become an award season frontrunner, interviews with Academy members reveal.

Jesse Kornbluth of Huffington Post:

This is the movie's power --- the ability to make you feel the weight of two decades of desire and guilt, loneliness and recrimination. Ennis and Jack want the sex, but even more, they want the relationship, the dailiness of romantic partnership.

Kornbluth also had this to say:

Those who are all riled up about homosexuality --- to say nothing of those who turned gay marriage into the big issue of the '04 election --- seem to think that homosexuality is only about sex.

Now, I have this question: Has homosexuality become a weapon the right uses against its own party? The Drudge Report clearly attempts to sensationalize the issue. For example, instead of saying 'will a movie so different from typical red state morals sit well with the heartland?' the Drudge had to ring on Modonna's contreversial name by randomly saying "But will a movie even Madonna calls "shocking" sit with the heartland?"

The Drudge wraps up the article by quoting an anonymous women from Wyoming:

[A] playwright and lifelong Wyomingite tells the STAR-TRIBUNE of Casper this week that she has never encountered a gay cowboy, and doesn't think it's right for Hollywood to portray Wyoming as a state with gay cowboys.

Her message to the writers of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN: “Don't try and take what we had, which was wonderful -- the cowboys that settled the state and made it what it was -- don't ruin that image... There's nothing better than plain old cowboys and the plain old history without embellishing it to suit everyone."

My last question: What is more likely, the fact that this woman has never met a gay cowboy in Wyoming or her homophobia helped keep hundreds or even thousands of them in the closet?

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary...

Hillary Clinton continues to frustrate me. Read what Arriana Huffington wrote about her:

Hillary Clinton's attempt to rebrand herself as a red state friendly DLC Democrat -- Bush on Brains -- continues with her decision to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Flag Protection Act, which makes it illegal to desecrate the American flag. It's stars, stripes, and triangulation.

What I don't get is why she is trying to appeal to the Red right now, at least in this way. Clearly, the country is looking for something a little different, including traditional Red States. Instead of appealing to people in red states by signing onto propaganda bills, Hillary should stand up for something truly important. Saying no to burning the American flag won't win Hillary a single state in the next election, standing up for Americans who can't find jobs may just have a shot.

Republicans have constantly criticized Democrats for never standing up for anything; to an extent, they are right. The Hillary Clintons of the party really are spineless. No Republican is going to believe Hillary actually would agree with this bill, they can see right past it - whether it's true or not.

The truth is, Hillary would have a better chance to win more votes in red states for voting against the flag bill. At least that way she could have the integrity to be able to go into a Tenessee or, get this, her former state of residence (Arkansas) and tell everyone, "As President, you may not always agree with all my decisions, but at least you can know that I will always act in the way that I think is right for America and never give up what I believe in."

Americans didn't vote for President Bush last election because they agreed with his positions, they voted for him because he seemed like a decent person who would vote his gut even if Americans disagreed with it. Within reason, Americans appreciate conviction in the face of public opinion. Of course, Bush is a liar, but at least he's a convincing one. Hillary Clinton can't even say that.

American Map Based on Bush's Approval Ratings

 

It appears as if we have a new Red State/Blue State map in town, from Daily Kos.

More on Catholicism and Gay marriage

Okay, at first I didn't want to post about the Vatican's new edict that bans gay men from becoming priests - even if they're completely celibate - but I read a great column by Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe that has compelled me to write something.

Goodman wrote a great piece on the new center of debate for gay rights, Nature vs Nurture. Here's what she so eloquently points out:

Well, it turns out that the more you believe homosexuality is innate, the more accepting you are of gay rights. A full 79 percent of people who think human beings are born with a sexual orientation support gay rights, including civil unions or marriage equality. But only 22 percent of those who believe homosexuality is a choice agree.

Okay, so people who tend to be accepting of gay men and women - what almost all scientific data on the subject has pointed out - are also more understanding of gay men and women. What does that have to do with the Catholic Church?

Thirty years ago the Catholic Church accepted the view that some [priests] were definitively gay. Church teachings said 'they do not choose their homosexual condition." Nevertheless, the new document doesn't just ban gays who 'practice" homosexuality, breaking the vows of celibacy. It bans all those with homosexual tendencies."

After the sexual abuse scandal, the church has shown that it is willing to do anything to avoid taking responsibility in its massive mistakes. Instead of admitting their sin, they blame it on gay men. Instead of admitting their fault, they categorize countless hardworking and innocent men with the perverted priests who committed the crimes. Meanwhile, those individuals - who were usually known to the church as sexual predators - were shuffled church to church by archbishop across the country. I'm certainly not saying that the sexual abusers who did these crimes aren't guilty. However, the church's solution should have been to purge sexual abusers from the church, not gay men who are completely celibate. It's not as if only gay men are sexual predators and dangers to the lay-people, just look at this case in Massachusetts:

SWAMPSCOTT -- The Rev. Jerome F. Gillespie resigned yesterday as pastor of St.John the Evangelist Church in Swampscott after he was accused of asking a 12-year-old girl and her mother to perform a sex act at an Italian restaurant in Chelsea Tuesday night.

Priest Resigns After Sex Act Accusation

The Catholic Church is quickly becoming morally bankrupt. As someone who has been raised Catholic and is currently still a member of the Church, I have become very disappointed. I don't know if I can remain Catholic if this is what it means to be one.

Catholic Charities

Archbishop Sean O'Malley, head of Boston's Archdiocese (the largest in the country) decided it was more important to be a bigot than charitable.

O'Malley decided that instead of supporting Catholic Charities, an organization that is part of the Archdiocese of Boston, he would not go to one of their most important events of the year because Mayor Thomas Menino is the guest of honor. According to the Boston Globe, "Menino, like other supporters of Catholic Charities, focuses often on job training, affordable child care, housing opportunities for the poor, feeding programs, and summer camps for needy youngsters."

Why would O'Malley refuse to go to such an event? Because Menino also happens to support equality in marriage and women's privacy.

Well, Archbishop O'Malley, I have one question: What would Jesus do?