Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Body: A Few Thoughts on Abortion for Voting Catholics Like Me.
I'm going to write about this at length, but not today.
This is truly an issue where I believe both major party lines are seriously flawed, although Democrats have made more headway recently then Republicans.
The Democrats often decry the practice of abortion while refusing to legislate on the subject. Since these declarations are often offered without a solution proposed, they amount to platitudes, though there are signs of improvement. Some Democrats (the Presidential ticket among them) are encouraging reductions in the number of abortions through social levers. Some may say that this is an ineffective compromise; from the standpoint that life is sacred prebirth, it is certainly a compromise. However it is not ineffective; the nations with the lowest abortion rates have, in fact, legalized abortion in the context of a health care system that provides medical and financial assistance to new mothers.
The Republican Party takes a stand on the legality of the subject, but it is a sanctimonious, self-righteous stand that offers nothing, not even crumbs, to those they would bar from abortion. This is borne out, as the role of poverty is often the decisive factor in whether or not to have an abortion, while Republicans tend to slash welfare programs that respond to these problems, regardless of the program's effectiveness, and even while other spending proliferates under their watch. This is worse than a platitude; it is a sort of open-book hypocrisy. If conservatives really value the lives of the unborn, they'll be willing to make real sacrifices in other policy positions to advance this issue: universal health care, provisions for the poor and disenfranchised, and comprehensive sex education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
From the point of view of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, abortion is a non-negotiable issue. That is fine, and is in agreement with the Catechism:
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law... (2771)
What can and must remain negotiable is the way in which this issue is addressed. Solutions which pass the buck, which demand compliance on the part of others without asking us to scrutinize our own lives and obligations are the easy way out, and have more to do with keeping our own conscience clean according to some minimum standard than leading a true life of faith. But solutions which spread out the sacrifice, where we "do unto others" and take on a portion of the burden as a sign of our commitment are not only more effective; they speak for themselves as a more genuine living out of God's vision. For "if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing," (1 Corinthians 13:3).
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law... (2771)
Labels: abortion, Bible, BODY, Catholicism, Christianity, religion
0 comments.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Body: Compelling Intangibles.
from my journal:
Last Thurs. 10/18... before Mark and I went to see Unkle I hopped from one Barnes and Noble to the next and it was like the past. That moment of darkness when fall has finally fallen thick and dense and dead. Tonight it is familiar too.
Then I was at work then various B&N, sky shadowed and heavy and I knew that the B&N on Union Square was the place to be (even if it didn't have the books I wanted) because the light as so bright. Elsewhere, light seemed to have a film in front of it making it dusty muffling and sepia toned.
[a sketch of this]
The right Barnes & Noble. The Place to Be.
And now tonight I'm at a coffee shop on A (before I go to Guerrilla Lit - I hope to be terrified). It is very dark dim. Just the tiniest chandelier candle lights above and candles on the tables. I sit alone – far back – black coffee – candle – RWC3: The Church in the Roman Empire – Village Voice – pencil. Spoon. The place is dark wood and orange Christmas light for Halloween. And it's gray and gimy and rain and moldering outside. Christ. I feel besieged like always, but now I feel it most strongly.
[two sketches, one of the room, one of my table and its accoutrements]
There is a tradition in all this. More than I will remember but at the front of it: the Hamlet reading at UT in the 3floor Theater directed by SMH where Judd was the Prince of rotten Denmark. Sometimes (rarely) at St. Thomas the Apostle. Then also at listening to Poison (a bit) by Laurie Anderson. The UT moment was potent. Another potent: Jr. High Drama Club. And the Nintendo Power rendering of FFII (so the beginning of 7th grade. So Drama Club. I do believe that it has to do with October/November... and also lots of umbral dark pitch black dark and beaten wood.
In 7th grade, Auditions at the Gym.
[sketch of this]
black ceiling
blue mesh net ->
volleyball ->
practicing ->
watching ->
auditioning ->
watching ->
black floor
Overheard here: "...and my body is deteriorating..." "no focus" "no focus" "only think, like, that I can initially connect to."
Two related things – strong for NYC. (I think) – have to figure out. It's dense. Hard.
1. from Cricket/ghoststories (clock, etc.)
[sketch of the below]
sewar grate
far overhead
This was the prison in NYC where a demihuman antediluvian was kept and he was so old that his emotions had all eroded and dissolved away. He was also deeply ambivalent about his captivity seemed a cathedral w. the grate cover above working like stained glass.
(Also: Watership Down)
2. from Flint: "The Flushing/Eastside. Bizarre.
3. from NYC? Or Europe? Out of time. More later.
Quick Schematic.
[sketch of this]
Neoclassical official
bldg.s and maybe a brick tenement or two
Italian-style
Romanesque.
Medici. Ominous.
Cold/Forbitting town square where the ghosts whistle by
Statue of
Death as a
Beautiful
Woman
Darby O'Gill and the Little People.
To Guerrilla Lit.
Then I was at work then various B&N, sky shadowed and heavy and I knew that the B&N on Union Square was the place to be (even if it didn't have the books I wanted) because the light as so bright. Elsewhere, light seemed to have a film in front of it making it dusty muffling and sepia toned.
[a sketch of this]
The right Barnes & Noble. The Place to Be.
And now tonight I'm at a coffee shop on A (before I go to Guerrilla Lit - I hope to be terrified). It is very dark dim. Just the tiniest chandelier candle lights above and candles on the tables. I sit alone – far back – black coffee – candle – RWC3: The Church in the Roman Empire – Village Voice – pencil. Spoon. The place is dark wood and orange Christmas light for Halloween. And it's gray and gimy and rain and moldering outside. Christ. I feel besieged like always, but now I feel it most strongly.
[two sketches, one of the room, one of my table and its accoutrements]
There is a tradition in all this. More than I will remember but at the front of it: the Hamlet reading at UT in the 3floor Theater directed by SMH where Judd was the Prince of rotten Denmark. Sometimes (rarely) at St. Thomas the Apostle. Then also at listening to Poison (a bit) by Laurie Anderson. The UT moment was potent. Another potent: Jr. High Drama Club. And the Nintendo Power rendering of FFII (so the beginning of 7th grade. So Drama Club. I do believe that it has to do with October/November... and also lots of umbral dark pitch black dark and beaten wood.
In 7th grade, Auditions at the Gym.
[sketch of this]
black ceiling
blue mesh net ->
volleyball ->
practicing ->
watching ->
auditioning ->
watching ->
black floor
Overheard here: "...and my body is deteriorating..." "no focus" "no focus" "only think, like, that I can initially connect to."
Two related things – strong for NYC. (I think) – have to figure out. It's dense. Hard.
1. from Cricket/ghoststories (clock, etc.)
[sketch of the below]
sewar grate
far overhead
This was the prison in NYC where a demihuman antediluvian was kept and he was so old that his emotions had all eroded and dissolved away. He was also deeply ambivalent about his captivity seemed a cathedral w. the grate cover above working like stained glass.
(Also: Watership Down)
2. from Flint: "The Flushing/Eastside. Bizarre.
3. from NYC? Or Europe? Out of time. More later.
Quick Schematic.
[sketch of this]
Neoclassical official
bldg.s and maybe a brick tenement or two
Italian-style
Romanesque.
Medici. Ominous.
Cold/Forbitting town square where the ghosts whistle by
Statue of
Death as a
Beautiful
Woman
Darby O'Gill and the Little People.
To Guerrilla Lit.
Labels: agnosticism, BODY, esotericism, hermeticism, religion, syncretism
0 comments.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Body: Today is the Feast of St. Luke.
Labels: BODY, Christianity, religion
0 comments.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Syncretism.
Meandering thoughts this Thursday morning.
One of the major reasons I ultimately left the Unitarian Church was because its defined search for truth was so unfocused that it didn't offer me much by way of spiritual nourishment.
That said, looking back at the changes in religion and religious organization over the last millennium, and then considering the present and future, I wonder what changes are ahead. Straightforward syncretism is rarely fruitful. There has to be tension involved (ie. a questing) involved in building any religion with cultural staying power. Religious progress always seems to happen in the context of a struggle to articulate something intangible and difficult, and to reconcile it with different classes, regions, and world views. Formulaic syncretism neither benefits from nor adequately confronts these complexities; it simply aligns correspondant tropes and concepts and equates them with each other. Since this does not force a spiritual reckoning, neither does it engender a fertile field of religious contemplation or inquiry.
I think, however, that religious syncretism has a role to play in the future. I've been struck recently by certain similarities and differences between Buddhism and Christianity as expansive "missionary" religions. By way of similarities, both sprang from ancient, ethnically defined religions, achieved dramatic success far from home, and proved as durable and elastic as their predecessors. Among interesting differences, and those which to me suggest the most fruitful syncretic possibilities, are not overlaps, but in fact points of difference in their resort to elaboration and austerity. For example, in theravada Buddhism, the Buddha abjures any claim to godhood or messianism, defining his precepts as a moral code and an approach to enlightenment. As against this, Christianity, which is epistemologically explicit, could possibly benefit from the very nuanced, and in some ways very different, Buddhist understanding of humility and obligation.
But this is all I can say about this without learning much much more.
Labels: BODY, Buddhism, Christianity, religion, syncretism, theology
0 comments.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Body: Driveby on Newton, Evolution, and the Boston Globe.
Sam sent me this Op-Ed from the Boston Globe and this more coherent rebuttal.
Here's what I contributed to the discussion:
You are 100% correct. And here's the real irony. Newton would surely have rejected today's creationism both with and without the benefit of today's better science.
I say "with" because as a scientist Newton understood the need to look at evidence impartially and objectively. In his day there was compelling evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, though the Bible essentially states the opposite. Newton accepted this, however religious he may have been. There was, however, little of the compelling evidence available today that suggested evolution or the age of the Earth, which is why he (and pretty much everyone) was a comfortable creationist.
I say "without" because the premise of a "young-earth" today is not what it was a few hundred years ago. Taking every word of the Bible literally is largely a product of the 20th century - most typically the latter 20th century, and has more to do with politics than with an honest wrestling with the word of God. In the 1600s, a lot of the Bible was accepted as metaphorical and allegorical, as invested with truth and not necessarily fact: camels through the eyes of needles and all that. Todays' creationism is an abomination that flies in the face not only of accepted science but also of respectable and rigorous theology. I think that Newton would be repulsed by creationism today.
I say "with" because as a scientist Newton understood the need to look at evidence impartially and objectively. In his day there was compelling evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, though the Bible essentially states the opposite. Newton accepted this, however religious he may have been. There was, however, little of the compelling evidence available today that suggested evolution or the age of the Earth, which is why he (and pretty much everyone) was a comfortable creationist.
I say "without" because the premise of a "young-earth" today is not what it was a few hundred years ago. Taking every word of the Bible literally is largely a product of the 20th century - most typically the latter 20th century, and has more to do with politics than with an honest wrestling with the word of God. In the 1600s, a lot of the Bible was accepted as metaphorical and allegorical, as invested with truth and not necessarily fact: camels through the eyes of needles and all that. Todays' creationism is an abomination that flies in the face not only of accepted science but also of respectable and rigorous theology. I think that Newton would be repulsed by creationism today.
Labels: Bible, BODY, Christianity, evolution, religion, science, theology
0 comments.
