He also sends along these cartoons:
Thursday, July 20, 2006
At Least Grant Saw Combat
My friend Jerry proposes this book title: At Least Grant Saw Combat: Corruption and Mismanagement in the Administration of George W. Bush. It would be an easy book to write...
He also sends along these cartoons:
He also sends along these cartoons:
Good Prose Is Like a Windowpane
Again, some quotations that caught my eye. Most, though not all, are from A Word a Day.
Good prose is like a windowpane. -George Orwell, writer (1903-1950)
One of my greatest pleasures in writing has come from the thought that perhaps my work might annoy someone of comfortably pretentious position. Then comes the saddening realization that such people rarely read. -John Kenneth Galbraith, economist (1908-2006)
The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life. -Muhammad Ali
Disappointed (Temporarily?)
I have been lately disappointed with my lone delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, Stephanie Herseth (D-SD). First she goes and co-sponsors a House Resolution to amend the United States Constitution to ban flag burning (HJ RES10); now she’s gone and voted in favor of an amendment to ban gay marriage (HJ RES 88).
Now let’s get a couple of things clear: I don’t much care how Rep. Herseth feels about these issues. I'm well past the point where I think that "my" representatives at any level of government must agree with everything I think. Personally, I think both of these "issues" are non-issues -- from what I’ve read on the subject, a mere handful of flag burnings occurs in any given year (a number I would expect to actually increase if a constitutional amendment is passed -- sort of like putting a wet paint sign on a freshly painted wall: it’s an invitation to touch it); and I hardly see where the so-called institution of marriage is in any danger from same-gender couples who want to be married…indeed, it seems to me that their desire to be married in fact strengthens the institution, and will do more to promote the benefits of marriage, commitment, monogamy, etc., than to somehow undermine it* -- both are merely political-hay makers, and Ms. Herseth is probably wise to play to her audience, which is mostly conservative and mostly Republicans.
_______
*I also believe, as expressed elsewhere, that if you really want to “save” marriage, you should be looking at a constitutional ban on divorce…but I digress.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Sez Who?
Yes, it's another batch of quotations...
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author
(1743-1826)
Religion--freedom--vengeance--what you will, A word's enough to raise mankind to kill. -Lord Byron, poet (1788-1824)
Adulthood is the ever-shrinking period between childhood and old age. It is the apparent aim of modern industrial societies to reduce this period to a minimum. -Thomas Szasz, author, professor of psychiatry (1920- )
By the age of six the average child will have completed the basic American education. ... From television, the child will have learned how to pick a lock, commit a fairly elaborate bank holdup, prevent wetness all day long, get the laundry twice as white, and kill people with a variety of sophisticated armaments. -Russell Baker, columnist and author (1925- )
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. -Bill Watterson, comic strip artist (1958- ), in his comic strip Calvin & Hobbes
For God's sake don't say yes until I've finished talking. -Darryl F. Zanuck, movie producer, director, and actor (1902-1979)
A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth. -Edward De Bono, consultant, writer, and speaker (1933- )
The object of most prayers is to wangle an advance on good intentions. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1973- )
The man who prefers his country before any other duty shows the same spirit as the man who surrenders every right to the state. They both deny that right is superior to authority. -Lord Acton, historian (1834-1902)
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author
(1743-1826)
Religion--freedom--vengeance--what you will, A word's enough to raise mankind to kill. -Lord Byron, poet (1788-1824)
Adulthood is the ever-shrinking period between childhood and old age. It is the apparent aim of modern industrial societies to reduce this period to a minimum. -Thomas Szasz, author, professor of psychiatry (1920- )
By the age of six the average child will have completed the basic American education. ... From television, the child will have learned how to pick a lock, commit a fairly elaborate bank holdup, prevent wetness all day long, get the laundry twice as white, and kill people with a variety of sophisticated armaments. -Russell Baker, columnist and author (1925- )
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. -Bill Watterson, comic strip artist (1958- ), in his comic strip Calvin & Hobbes
For God's sake don't say yes until I've finished talking. -Darryl F. Zanuck, movie producer, director, and actor (1902-1979)
A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth. -Edward De Bono, consultant, writer, and speaker (1933- )
The object of most prayers is to wangle an advance on good intentions. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1973- )
The man who prefers his country before any other duty shows the same spirit as the man who surrenders every right to the state. They both deny that right is superior to authority. -Lord Acton, historian (1834-1902)
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Conservative Hypocrisy
I have to give them credit, I guess--conservatives in the 21st century are very good at double-speak, very good at convincing people to vote against their own best interests. You can't do that without also being very good at deceit and hypocrisy.
Case in point: Conservatives whine and moan about "government interference." To hear them tell it, they believe in a near-complete right to be left to fend for themselves. In trying to dismantle Social Security, a favorite rallying cry for conservatives is, "They think you're too stupid to manage your own money."
However (and setting aside for the moment the fact that plenty of people ARE too stupid to manage their own money...and that even the smartest person in the world is helpless before, say, a market collapse or the calumny of an Enron, which is why Social Security was devised in the first place), it so happens that I live in the state which has made itself (in)famous for passing the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Basically, you can't get an abortion here--no exceptions, not for the life or health of the mother, not for instances of rape or incest...nothing.
In other words, in their vast, bottomless hypocrisy, conservatives see nothing wrong with the government making health decisions for women (and girls)--they see nothing wrong with hated government interference as long as they get to dictate the terms.
And I choose the word "dictate" with care. As time passes, I view the ringleaders of the modern conservative conspiracy to have nothing less in mind than the complete undermining of the real America--that is, a truly representative democracy of, by, and for the people--and its replacement by a dictatorial one-party regime that will stop at nothing to assume total power over the American people...too many of whom seem, sheeplike, to think it must be all right if "good" conservative "authorities" say so.
One can only hope they come to their senses while there's still something left of the United States.
Case in point: Conservatives whine and moan about "government interference." To hear them tell it, they believe in a near-complete right to be left to fend for themselves. In trying to dismantle Social Security, a favorite rallying cry for conservatives is, "They think you're too stupid to manage your own money."
However (and setting aside for the moment the fact that plenty of people ARE too stupid to manage their own money...and that even the smartest person in the world is helpless before, say, a market collapse or the calumny of an Enron, which is why Social Security was devised in the first place), it so happens that I live in the state which has made itself (in)famous for passing the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Basically, you can't get an abortion here--no exceptions, not for the life or health of the mother, not for instances of rape or incest...nothing.
In other words, in their vast, bottomless hypocrisy, conservatives see nothing wrong with the government making health decisions for women (and girls)--they see nothing wrong with hated government interference as long as they get to dictate the terms.
And I choose the word "dictate" with care. As time passes, I view the ringleaders of the modern conservative conspiracy to have nothing less in mind than the complete undermining of the real America--that is, a truly representative democracy of, by, and for the people--and its replacement by a dictatorial one-party regime that will stop at nothing to assume total power over the American people...too many of whom seem, sheeplike, to think it must be all right if "good" conservative "authorities" say so.
One can only hope they come to their senses while there's still something left of the United States.
Independence Day
I sent the following little greeting to some of my far-flung correspondents this past Saturday, July 2, the comemmoration of the Lee Resolution. One of the aforemention FFCs thought I should post it here, which I do--although as near as I can make out, only the FFCs ever read this.
Friends,
On July 3, 1776, John Adams wrote this to his wife, Abigail:
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore."
Well, he had the "pomp and parade" bit right, even if he was off by two days. As you may remember from History class, July 2, 1776, is the date that the Second Continental Congress passed Lee's Resolution, declaring the colonies to be independent of Britain. So you might say that today, not this Tuesday, is the 230th anniversary of US independence. Or you might, as I do, say that this is something worth celebrating twice.
Let us hope, on this commemoration of freedom, that the United States might continue to be truly the land of liberty, dedicated to the ideals of its own Constitution, ever resistant to the tyranny of those who would impose their opinions and beliefs on others, a genuine defender of all freedoms, an exemplar for the rest of the world. And let us hope that everyone enjoys a safe and happy Independence Day...or two!
WJR
Friends,
On July 3, 1776, John Adams wrote this to his wife, Abigail:
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore."
Well, he had the "pomp and parade" bit right, even if he was off by two days. As you may remember from History class, July 2, 1776, is the date that the Second Continental Congress passed Lee's Resolution, declaring the colonies to be independent of Britain. So you might say that today, not this Tuesday, is the 230th anniversary of US independence. Or you might, as I do, say that this is something worth celebrating twice.
Let us hope, on this commemoration of freedom, that the United States might continue to be truly the land of liberty, dedicated to the ideals of its own Constitution, ever resistant to the tyranny of those who would impose their opinions and beliefs on others, a genuine defender of all freedoms, an exemplar for the rest of the world. And let us hope that everyone enjoys a safe and happy Independence Day...or two!
WJR
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
9,000-Plus
If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then these cartoons that have caught my eye of late are worth 9,000...at least: most of them contain words as well, so each would be worth 1,000 words plus however many words are in it, no? Anyway...
Thursday, June 22, 2006
An Exchange of Questions
A friend sent me the following longish item about abortion, and asked, "How come Lutherans aren't considered at all?"--knowing as he does that I work for a Lutheran organization. I suggested that it could be because Lutheran statements on social issues are generally so long-winded that you have to really want badly to read them. Or it could be that Lutherans, although multitudinous where we live, aren't in the "top three", population-wise, that the article quotes. I don't know the article's origins, but here it is as he sent it to me:
The Bible
Abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted under Roman law at the time of Jesus1. Surprisingly, abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced throughout recorded human history. However, a number of Bible passages may be relevant. These verses and others are often cited as evidence that a fetus is truly a living human being, and deserving the same protection:
At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (NIV, Luke 1:39-44)
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (NAS, Jeremiah 1:4-5)
I will say to God: ... "Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? (NIV, Job 10:2, 8-9)
Several other verses are cited as evidence that a fetus is not a living being. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to suggest that a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth:
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
This passage from Exodus seems to say that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person:
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
A literal translation of the Hebrew of this passage would be "cause her offspring to be brought forth." It is commonly thought that a miscarriage was meant, but it could mean an early birth where the child survived. Thus, this passage is cited both for and against abortion.
The Bible gives direct guidance on many, many topics, but not on abortion. None of the passages above (nor the many others often cited) were originally intended as statements about abortion, so any conclusions drawn from them represent opinions rather than Biblical evidence.
Opinions
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, the 50 states are still allowed to regulate abortion during the second trimester and prohibit it during the third trimester2. Since that time, abortion has become one of the most controversial and divisive issues within society.
Anti-abortion activists represent one extreme of opinion. They believe life begins at the instant of conception. Therefore, abortion is murder and is prohibited by the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). They strongly support laws banning all or almost all abortions.
However, the belief that life begins at conception does not have clear support from medical science, the Bible, religious tradition or legal tradition. Early Christians apparently did not view abortion as murder until well beyond conception. In the thirteenth century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and abortion before the time of ensoulment was not considered a mortal sin. The belief that life begins at conception apparently has its origins in an 1869 decree by Pope Pius IX that abortion at any point in pregnancy was cause for excommunication.3,4
English common law apparently tolerated abortion until "quickening," the first detectable fetal movements, around the fifth month. Similarly, abortion was largely unregulated in the U.S. until the mid 1800s. Anti-abortion laws were passed around 1900, but the primary reasons had to do with the injuries and deaths resulting from unskilled abortions and a struggle for control of medical practice.5
3Tricia Andryszewski, Abortion, Rights, Options and Choices, Millbrook Press, 1996, p.63.
4Donald P. Judges, Hard Choices, Lost Voices, Ivan R. Dee, 1993, pp. 87-90.
5ibid., pp. 84, 90-106.
Church Doctrine
Many churches, including United Church of Christ,18 Episcopal,19 Presbyterian (USA)20 and United Methodist, do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control. However, they support the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, if she deems that is the best choice in her circumstances, and they favor keeping abortion legal. Other churches, including Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist, oppose all abortions and favor making abortion illegal. Here is a sampling of official church positions from the three largest denominations in the U.S.:
Roman Catholic:
2270. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271. 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. From Catechism of the Catholic Church, (c) 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/index.htm
Southern Baptist:
Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception. From Position Statements, Copyright (c) 1999 - 2001, Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, http://sbc.net/default.asp/url=position-statements.html
United Methodist:
The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel. From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church--2000, ¶161J. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House, http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/
18"Reproductive Rights," United Church of Christ, http://www.ucc.org/justice/choice/
19"Acts of Convention: Resolution # 1994-A054," The Episcopal Church, http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts_new/acts_resolution-complete.pl/resolution=1994-A054
20"Abortion," Presbyterian Church (USA), http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-abortion.htm
After I sent him my semi-glib reply, my friend wrote back with this:
How can something that was not a sin for roughly 600 years become a sin? If it were the Latter Day Saints I could accept the state of affairs in that the Prophet routinely receives new instructions. Moreover, if I was going for tradition, I would take 600 years over a 137 years twice a day and three times on Sunday.
What you have to understand about my friend is that he doesn't throw things like this at me (and others, sometimes) as a challenge: he genuinely likes to know what people think. And as a retired college prof, he likes to get people to think.
Anyway, I wrote back with this:
It is most passing strange. As I see it, you can coast along for eons thinking something is hunky-dory; then all of a sudden someone in some kind of position of authority decides it is neither hunky nor dory, and is in fact a sin, indeed a mortal sin, and that's that. It's now immutable, and you can't "go back." That's one thing where a church institution is concerned, but I am more than a little concerned about those who would impose such attitudes on so-called secular society--since of course they're always the "authority." Think Leslee Unruh. No, on second thought, don't: it's too close to bedtime and I wouldn't want you to get heartburn.
Here's something you can 'splain to me: If life begins at conception, then why do we (who practice infant baptism) wait till after birth to baptize' Would it not make more sense to take no chances and baptize in utero as soon as the pregnancy is known?
In re excommunication: One wonders if it carries anywhere near the weight it once did. I suppose in some parts of the world, and in some cultures, it does. But I'm not sure that many of us in danger of excommunication subscribe to the belief that the RCC is the One True Faith and that anyone booted out of it is damned. In my case, my attendance at Mass is so slipshod that I'm not sure if I or anyone else would notice if they gave me the bum's rush.
Saints preserve us from everyone who knows what's best for everyone...
The Bible
Abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted under Roman law at the time of Jesus1. Surprisingly, abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced throughout recorded human history. However, a number of Bible passages may be relevant. These verses and others are often cited as evidence that a fetus is truly a living human being, and deserving the same protection:
At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (NIV, Luke 1:39-44)
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (NAS, Jeremiah 1:4-5)
I will say to God: ... "Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? (NIV, Job 10:2, 8-9)
Several other verses are cited as evidence that a fetus is not a living being. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to suggest that a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth:
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
This passage from Exodus seems to say that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person:
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
A literal translation of the Hebrew of this passage would be "cause her offspring to be brought forth." It is commonly thought that a miscarriage was meant, but it could mean an early birth where the child survived. Thus, this passage is cited both for and against abortion.
The Bible gives direct guidance on many, many topics, but not on abortion. None of the passages above (nor the many others often cited) were originally intended as statements about abortion, so any conclusions drawn from them represent opinions rather than Biblical evidence.
Opinions
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, the 50 states are still allowed to regulate abortion during the second trimester and prohibit it during the third trimester2. Since that time, abortion has become one of the most controversial and divisive issues within society.
Anti-abortion activists represent one extreme of opinion. They believe life begins at the instant of conception. Therefore, abortion is murder and is prohibited by the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). They strongly support laws banning all or almost all abortions.
However, the belief that life begins at conception does not have clear support from medical science, the Bible, religious tradition or legal tradition. Early Christians apparently did not view abortion as murder until well beyond conception. In the thirteenth century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and abortion before the time of ensoulment was not considered a mortal sin. The belief that life begins at conception apparently has its origins in an 1869 decree by Pope Pius IX that abortion at any point in pregnancy was cause for excommunication.3,4
English common law apparently tolerated abortion until "quickening," the first detectable fetal movements, around the fifth month. Similarly, abortion was largely unregulated in the U.S. until the mid 1800s. Anti-abortion laws were passed around 1900, but the primary reasons had to do with the injuries and deaths resulting from unskilled abortions and a struggle for control of medical practice.5
3Tricia Andryszewski, Abortion, Rights, Options and Choices, Millbrook Press, 1996, p.63.
4Donald P. Judges, Hard Choices, Lost Voices, Ivan R. Dee, 1993, pp. 87-90.
5ibid., pp. 84, 90-106.
Church Doctrine
Many churches, including United Church of Christ,18 Episcopal,19 Presbyterian (USA)20 and United Methodist, do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control. However, they support the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, if she deems that is the best choice in her circumstances, and they favor keeping abortion legal. Other churches, including Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist, oppose all abortions and favor making abortion illegal. Here is a sampling of official church positions from the three largest denominations in the U.S.:
Roman Catholic:
2270. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271. 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. From Catechism of the Catholic Church, (c) 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/index.htm
Southern Baptist:
Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception. From Position Statements, Copyright (c) 1999 - 2001, Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, http://sbc.net/default.asp/url=position-statements.html
United Methodist:
The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel. From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church--2000, ¶161J. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House, http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/
18"Reproductive Rights," United Church of Christ, http://www.ucc.org/justice/choice/
19"Acts of Convention: Resolution # 1994-A054," The Episcopal Church, http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts_new/acts_resolution-complete.pl/resolution=1994-A054
20"Abortion," Presbyterian Church (USA), http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-abortion.htm
After I sent him my semi-glib reply, my friend wrote back with this:
How can something that was not a sin for roughly 600 years become a sin? If it were the Latter Day Saints I could accept the state of affairs in that the Prophet routinely receives new instructions. Moreover, if I was going for tradition, I would take 600 years over a 137 years twice a day and three times on Sunday.
What you have to understand about my friend is that he doesn't throw things like this at me (and others, sometimes) as a challenge: he genuinely likes to know what people think. And as a retired college prof, he likes to get people to think.
Anyway, I wrote back with this:
It is most passing strange. As I see it, you can coast along for eons thinking something is hunky-dory; then all of a sudden someone in some kind of position of authority decides it is neither hunky nor dory, and is in fact a sin, indeed a mortal sin, and that's that. It's now immutable, and you can't "go back." That's one thing where a church institution is concerned, but I am more than a little concerned about those who would impose such attitudes on so-called secular society--since of course they're always the "authority." Think Leslee Unruh. No, on second thought, don't: it's too close to bedtime and I wouldn't want you to get heartburn.
Here's something you can 'splain to me: If life begins at conception, then why do we (who practice infant baptism) wait till after birth to baptize' Would it not make more sense to take no chances and baptize in utero as soon as the pregnancy is known?
In re excommunication: One wonders if it carries anywhere near the weight it once did. I suppose in some parts of the world, and in some cultures, it does. But I'm not sure that many of us in danger of excommunication subscribe to the belief that the RCC is the One True Faith and that anyone booted out of it is damned. In my case, my attendance at Mass is so slipshod that I'm not sure if I or anyone else would notice if they gave me the bum's rush.
Saints preserve us from everyone who knows what's best for everyone...
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Say What?
Here's another bunch of quotations that have been piling up. I think this time all of them--certainly most of them--are from A Word a Day.
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. --Edward R. Murrow, journalist (1908-1965)
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. --Edward R. Murrow, journalist (1908-1965)
One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence. --Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948)
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. --Aristotle, philosopher (384-322 BCE)
Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. --Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Civilizations in decline are consistently characterised by a tendency towards standardization and uniformity. --Arnold Toynbee, historian (1889-1975)
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge. --Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician and philosopher (1861-1947)
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong. --G.K. Chesterton, essayist and novelist (1874-1936)
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. --Horace Mann, educational reformer (1796-1859)
The politician is an acrobat. He keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does. --Maurice Barres, novelist and politician (1862-1923)
The simplest questions are the most profound. Where were you born? Where is your home? Where are you going? What are you doing? Think about these once in a while and watch your answers change. --Richard Bach, writer (1936- )
The greatest part of a writer's time is spent in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book. --Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
Flattery is like chewing gum. Enjoy it but don't swallow it. --Hank Ketcham, comic artist (1920-2001)
Sit down and put down everything that comes into your head and then you're a writer. But an author is one who can judge his own stuff's worth, without pity, and destroy most of it. --Colette, writer (1873-1954)
Look into any man's heart you please, and you will always find, in every one, at least one black spot which he has to keep concealed. --Henrik Ibsen, playwright (1828-1906)
We shall succeed only so far as we continue that most distasteful of all activity, the intolerable labor of thought. --Learned Hand, jurist (1872-1961)
The question why there is evil in existence is the same as why there is imperfection... But this is the real question we ought to ask: Is this imperfection the final truth, is evil absolute and ultimate? -Rabindranath Tagore, poet, philosopher, author, songwriter, painter, educator, composer, Nobel laureate (1861-1941)
There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy. --Thomas Jefferson, third
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution. --Hannah Arendt, historian and philosopher (1906-1975)
Once you label me you negate me. --Soren Kierkegaard, philosopher (1813-1855)
The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time. --Franklin P. Adams, columnist (1881-1960)
We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same. --Carlos Castenada, mystic and author (1925-1998)
I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: 'The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that's fair.' In these words he epitomized the history of the human race. --Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, and author (1872-1970)
One of the oldest human needs is having someone to wonder where you are when you don't come home at night. --Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)
When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to a better world, I am moved to lead a different life. --Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. --Edward R. Murrow, journalist (1908-1965)
When work is a pleasure, life is a joy! When work is a duty, life is slavery. --Maxim Gorky, author (1868-1936)
Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise. --Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
There is only one way to achieve happiness on this terrestrial ball, and that is to have either a clear conscience or none at all. --Ogden Nash, author (1902-1971)
There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. --Leonard Cohen, musician (1934- )
One of the most time-consuming things is to have an enemy. --E.B. White, writer (1899-1985
Sunday, June 18, 2006
And Yet the Myth Persists...
...that Catholic traditions are unchanging.
I refer, of course, to the proposed "new" English translation of the Mass that was foolishly approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops last week. "Foolishly" because, I can only assume, the bishops did not hear their clunky translation actually spoken aloud -- otherwise they would never have approved anything as unmelodic as "the Lord be with you" / "And also with your spirit"--"new" because half of what I've read actually sounds like a return to phrases from the Mass of my childhood ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" is virtually identical to the phrase in use when I took my first communion all those years ago--except it was "come" rather than "enter," and the whole "roof" thing generated a great debate among we second-grade theologians (not second-rate, mind: we were in the second grade) about whether that referred to the roof of one's mouth). Some of it, of course, isn't new at all--there's a reference in this Religion News Service article (via BeliefNet) to the "Dying you destroyed our death" version of the Mystery of Faith: It's not used as often as "Christ has died," but it's used, and it's been in the book forever. Chalk one up for lazy reporters.
However, "the book" brings up another issue that I doubt the bishops have considered, viz., nobody uses the book. I observed quite a few years ago that I was the only one around me who was actually using the throwaway missal that churches go to great expense (I assume) to subscribe to. When that happened, I couldn't say; but it's obvious that everyone has memorized the liturgy, or at least the applicable parts, and have no use of the book. So a change in the wording of the Mass is going to cause a great deal of confusion. The bishops seem to think that an additional expense--laminated cards--will take care of the problem. I think I'd be more in favor of encouraging priests to encourage the faithful to pick up the %$#@! book that's sitting right in front of them, since of course the book will have to be changed if/when Rome approves the alteration, it the publishers want to keep their nihil obstats and imprimaturs and all that other stuff.
Meanwhile, I have to decide if I will "forget" to say "And with your spirit," just as I "forget" to open my arms for the Lord's Prayer. (When did we start doing that? And why, oh, why? Am I the only one who keeps his eyes open and realizes that we look like a bunch of people who are going to start handling snakes at any moment?) The stubborn Irish in me thinks I might just be forgetful; on the other hand, do I want to come off like the old ladies who sit behind us at my wife's Lutheran (ELCA) church and always say, "...one holy, Christian, and apostolic church" in the Apostle's Creed, even though the book has the lowercase catholic and has had for the 25 years I've been hanging around Lutheran churches? Are these women forgetful, stubborn, ignorant, or anti-Catholic? Will I, if "forgetful," be rightly perceived as a poet who detests the bad pacing of "And also with your spirit" (and what the hell does that mean, exactly? The priest does not say, "The Lord be with your spirit" to me; why should I say "And also with your spirit" to him? It not only sounds bad, it's illogical) or one of the old coots who can't/won't keep up with change?
Decisions, decisions. Thanks for nothing, bishops.
I refer, of course, to the proposed "new" English translation of the Mass that was foolishly approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops last week. "Foolishly" because, I can only assume, the bishops did not hear their clunky translation actually spoken aloud -- otherwise they would never have approved anything as unmelodic as "the Lord be with you" / "And also with your spirit"--"new" because half of what I've read actually sounds like a return to phrases from the Mass of my childhood ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" is virtually identical to the phrase in use when I took my first communion all those years ago--except it was "come" rather than "enter," and the whole "roof" thing generated a great debate among we second-grade theologians (not second-rate, mind: we were in the second grade) about whether that referred to the roof of one's mouth). Some of it, of course, isn't new at all--there's a reference in this Religion News Service article (via BeliefNet) to the "Dying you destroyed our death" version of the Mystery of Faith: It's not used as often as "Christ has died," but it's used, and it's been in the book forever. Chalk one up for lazy reporters.
However, "the book" brings up another issue that I doubt the bishops have considered, viz., nobody uses the book. I observed quite a few years ago that I was the only one around me who was actually using the throwaway missal that churches go to great expense (I assume) to subscribe to. When that happened, I couldn't say; but it's obvious that everyone has memorized the liturgy, or at least the applicable parts, and have no use of the book. So a change in the wording of the Mass is going to cause a great deal of confusion. The bishops seem to think that an additional expense--laminated cards--will take care of the problem. I think I'd be more in favor of encouraging priests to encourage the faithful to pick up the %$#@! book that's sitting right in front of them, since of course the book will have to be changed if/when Rome approves the alteration, it the publishers want to keep their nihil obstats and imprimaturs and all that other stuff.
Meanwhile, I have to decide if I will "forget" to say "And with your spirit," just as I "forget" to open my arms for the Lord's Prayer. (When did we start doing that? And why, oh, why? Am I the only one who keeps his eyes open and realizes that we look like a bunch of people who are going to start handling snakes at any moment?) The stubborn Irish in me thinks I might just be forgetful; on the other hand, do I want to come off like the old ladies who sit behind us at my wife's Lutheran (ELCA) church and always say, "...one holy, Christian, and apostolic church" in the Apostle's Creed, even though the book has the lowercase catholic and has had for the 25 years I've been hanging around Lutheran churches? Are these women forgetful, stubborn, ignorant, or anti-Catholic? Will I, if "forgetful," be rightly perceived as a poet who detests the bad pacing of "And also with your spirit" (and what the hell does that mean, exactly? The priest does not say, "The Lord be with your spirit" to me; why should I say "And also with your spirit" to him? It not only sounds bad, it's illogical) or one of the old coots who can't/won't keep up with change?
Decisions, decisions. Thanks for nothing, bishops.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Defending Marriage
If the goal of the Republican Party (motto: "We'll Do Your Thinking for You") really is to "defend the institution of marriage," would it not make more sense to float a constitutional amendment that would outlaw divorce? Just a thought...
Rediscovery
Often it seems the joy of rediscovering something is even better than the pleasure of the original discovery. Lately, I've been enjoying two rediscoveries.
The first is Leslie Charteris's Simon Templar, aka the Saint. I first began reading this long series of adventures in high school, in the 1970s, beginning with Vendetta for the Saint...which, I later learned, wasn't written by Charteris at all. Oh well. Although I often cite Charteris as an inspiration in my own writing--most recently in a South Dakota Democratic Party podcast for which I was interviewed--it had been some years since I had actually dipped into my library of Saint adventures. Most of my collection is mouldering paperbacks, many dating from the 1940s and 1950s, lovingly acquired at a used-paperback shop (actually an adjunct to a now-defunct gun shop) during my high-school years. Several more are from the Charter Books republications of the 1980s. And then there's the odd hardcover, usually adaptations of TV scripts, several of them part of the "triple volumes" published by the Detective Book Club, which I think sank slowly in the west some decades ago.
Following a e-mail conversations with a friend, I recently made a trip up into the attic (whence I managed to acquire a grade-one concussion) and retrived the box containing my Saint paperbacks, which I am now re-discovering. I started again with Vendetta for the Saint, though it is some 30 years out of order, and have now ventured back to the beginning, with Meet the Tiger (aka The Saint Meets the Tiger) and Enter the Saint--the former being really the first Saint adventure although the second is usually credited as such, and is certainly more "Saint-like" than the first. Lots of fun. As I have often said, and repeated in the podcast, Charteris is the first author I ever read who seemed to be having fun.
At about the same time, I find that I have been listening once more to the music of Boz Scaggs, whom I discovered in college when his best-selling album Silk Degrees was released, as well as his less-well-regarded but still very well done follow-up, Down Two Then Left. I have several of his works since then, and find his voice and stylings very much unlike anyone else's. I recently downloaded Silk Degrees from Napster--my original LP being rendered useless by an uncooperative turntable--and find I enjoy it as much now as when I used to listen to it in my room in Swanson Hall all those years ago. In those days as well I recall making the trek to Lincoln, Nebraska, to catch Scaggs in concert there--still one of the best concerts I've ever attended.
Looks like everything old really is new again!
The first is Leslie Charteris's Simon Templar, aka the Saint. I first began reading this long series of adventures in high school, in the 1970s, beginning with Vendetta for the Saint...which, I later learned, wasn't written by Charteris at all. Oh well. Although I often cite Charteris as an inspiration in my own writing--most recently in a South Dakota Democratic Party podcast for which I was interviewed--it had been some years since I had actually dipped into my library of Saint adventures. Most of my collection is mouldering paperbacks, many dating from the 1940s and 1950s, lovingly acquired at a used-paperback shop (actually an adjunct to a now-defunct gun shop) during my high-school years. Several more are from the Charter Books republications of the 1980s. And then there's the odd hardcover, usually adaptations of TV scripts, several of them part of the "triple volumes" published by the Detective Book Club, which I think sank slowly in the west some decades ago.
Following a e-mail conversations with a friend, I recently made a trip up into the attic (whence I managed to acquire a grade-one concussion) and retrived the box containing my Saint paperbacks, which I am now re-discovering. I started again with Vendetta for the Saint, though it is some 30 years out of order, and have now ventured back to the beginning, with Meet the Tiger (aka The Saint Meets the Tiger) and Enter the Saint--the former being really the first Saint adventure although the second is usually credited as such, and is certainly more "Saint-like" than the first. Lots of fun. As I have often said, and repeated in the podcast, Charteris is the first author I ever read who seemed to be having fun.
At about the same time, I find that I have been listening once more to the music of Boz Scaggs, whom I discovered in college when his best-selling album Silk Degrees was released, as well as his less-well-regarded but still very well done follow-up, Down Two Then Left. I have several of his works since then, and find his voice and stylings very much unlike anyone else's. I recently downloaded Silk Degrees from Napster--my original LP being rendered useless by an uncooperative turntable--and find I enjoy it as much now as when I used to listen to it in my room in Swanson Hall all those years ago. In those days as well I recall making the trek to Lincoln, Nebraska, to catch Scaggs in concert there--still one of the best concerts I've ever attended.
Looks like everything old really is new again!
Monday, May 29, 2006
Memorial Day
Memorial Day, and once again I find myself uncomfortable over some of the sentiments expressed in editorials and from pulpits. Although I have a great deal of respect for the men and women who serve and have served in the armed forces, the little hairs on the back of my neck come to attention when I hear solemn references to those who have lost their lives in the Middle East "defending our freedom."
Hmm.
There's no denying that they died in service to our country, and for that alone they are deserving of honor and thanks. It's the "defending our freedom" part that puzzles me, since I have yet to discover how exactly Iraq ever posed any threat to the United States at all, let alone our "freedom."
Such statements, although obviously intended to honor fallen troops--a worthy and noble aim--in fact tend to implicitly support a pointless and immoral war, and to gloss over the tragedy that these men and women should have died because of the short-sighted hubris of our political "leaders."
So let's honor those who have died in service to the nation. But let's be accurate about it.
Hmm.
There's no denying that they died in service to our country, and for that alone they are deserving of honor and thanks. It's the "defending our freedom" part that puzzles me, since I have yet to discover how exactly Iraq ever posed any threat to the United States at all, let alone our "freedom."
Such statements, although obviously intended to honor fallen troops--a worthy and noble aim--in fact tend to implicitly support a pointless and immoral war, and to gloss over the tragedy that these men and women should have died because of the short-sighted hubris of our political "leaders."
So let's honor those who have died in service to the nation. But let's be accurate about it.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Who Said That?
A bunch more quotations. As usual, most (perhaps all) are from A Word a Day's e-mails.
Once upon a time a man whose ax was missing suspected his neighbor's son. The boy walked like a thief, looked like a thief, and spoke like a thief. But the man found his ax while digging in the valley, and the next time he saw his neighbor's son, the boy walked, looked and spoke like any other child. -Lao-tzu, philosopher (6th century BCE)
Good books don't give up all their secrets at once. -Stephen King, novelist (1947- )
You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes. -Moses ben Maimon, philosopher (1135-1204)
Experience makes us see an enormous difference between piety and goodness. -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)
Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it. -Rene Descartes, philosopher and mathematician (1596-1650)
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
The horse is not judged by the saddle. -German proverb
Rare is the person who can weigh the faults of others without putting his thumb on the scales. -Byron J. Langenfeld
War loses a great deal of romance after a soldier has seen his first battle. -John Singleton Mosby, confederate colonel in the American Civil War (1833-1916)
Once upon a time a man whose ax was missing suspected his neighbor's son. The boy walked like a thief, looked like a thief, and spoke like a thief. But the man found his ax while digging in the valley, and the next time he saw his neighbor's son, the boy walked, looked and spoke like any other child. -Lao-tzu, philosopher (6th century BCE)
Good books don't give up all their secrets at once. -Stephen King, novelist (1947- )
You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes. -Moses ben Maimon, philosopher (1135-1204)
Experience makes us see an enormous difference between piety and goodness. -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)
Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it. -Rene Descartes, philosopher and mathematician (1596-1650)
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
The horse is not judged by the saddle. -German proverb
Rare is the person who can weigh the faults of others without putting his thumb on the scales. -Byron J. Langenfeld
War loses a great deal of romance after a soldier has seen his first battle. -John Singleton Mosby, confederate colonel in the American Civil War (1833-1916)
Monday, May 01, 2006
You know you're getting old...
...when you start collecting obituaries. Lately, I seem to be doing just that. At least they're mostly not people of my generation...but that day will undoubtedly come. In the meantime, here are recent obits for our former next-door neighbor, Thelma Wickstrom, and a friend of my dad with whom I was friends also, Dick Blashill.
Sad to say, although she was our neighbor for several years, we did not know Thelma very well. By the time we moved in, health problems forced her to keep a pretty low profile. Still, she was a friendly and pleasant woman, and we were sorry when her health prompted her to sell her house and move into an assisted-living facility.
_______________________________________________________
Dick Blashill worked for the phone company. Yes, Virginia, there was a time when you could say that so-and-so works for "the phone company" and everyone knew what you meant since, for all practical purposes, there was but one phone company. Around these parts, that was Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, a component of the Bell System. My dad also worked for the phone company, and that's where I, as a kid, first met Dick. In more recent years, we renewed our acquaintance at his church, where my wife is a member and where Dick was a frequent usher. He always struck me as a friendly, genuine sort of fellow, and I'm sorry that I won't be seeing him on SUnday mornings anymore.
Richard E. Blashill
(May 9, 1928 - April 26, 2006)
Richard E. “Dick” Blashill, 77, of Sioux Falls, died Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at his residence.
Sad to say, although she was our neighbor for several years, we did not know Thelma very well. By the time we moved in, health problems forced her to keep a pretty low profile. Still, she was a friendly and pleasant woman, and we were sorry when her health prompted her to sell her house and move into an assisted-living facility.
|
 Thelma A. Wickstrom(February 18, 1919 - April 25, 2006)
Sioux Falls- Thelma Wickstrom, 87, died, April 25, 2006 at the Good Samaritan Luther Manor Home. Thelma A. Arne, daughter of John and Mary (Thompson) Arne, was born February 18, 1919 in a sod house near New England, ND. At just over three pounds her bed was a shoebox in an open dresser drawer. She graduated from Beresford High School and married Milton Wickstrom on April 9, 1939. In addition to handling calls for her husband’s business, she played in the Plumber’s Auxiliary Korny Kitcheneer’s band that included dances and various fund raisers in the community. She was a Sunday school teacher for many years and active in her church circle. She became known as “MoMo” during her 25 years of providing daycare to many children as well as her own grandchildren and two oldest great-granddaughters. Until health problems arose, her retirement was filled with volunteer work at such places as the Library, Avera McKennan Prestige Plus, VFW Auxiliary, and the Bergland Center. She was active in the Solo Club, RSVP, Widow Awareness group, and helping friends and family when they needed care. She enjoyed many nights of socializing and dancing at the Senior Center, Odd Fellows, and VFW. Grateful for having shared her life are her two daughters, Mary Lee (Don) Williams, Sioux Falls, and Sharon Zocco (Wendell Harms), Tea, SD; five grandchildren, Shane (Becky) Williams, Ames, IA; Brett Williams, Sioux Falls, Kim Hammers, Durango, CO, Tim (Suzie) Hammers, Lino Lakes, MN, Jason (Jodi) Hammers, Sioux Falls; and seven great-grandchildren. Special in her life have been a caring staff at the Home and two guardian angels and tablemates, Elsie and Yetta. Thelma is preceded in death by her parents, infant son, Milton Wickstrom Jr.; her husband, one sister, Annetta Shuck; four brothers, Henry Arne, Arlie Arne, Juel Arne, and Lloyd Arne. Visitation will begin at 11:00 AM on Thursday, April 27, 2006 at George Boom Funeral Home with the family present to greet friends from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. Funeral service will be at 11:00 AM on Friday, April 28 in the Christ The Victor Chapel at First Lutheran Church with burial to follow at Brooklyn Evangelical Free Church Cemetery near Beresford, SD.
|
Dick Blashill worked for the phone company. Yes, Virginia, there was a time when you could say that so-and-so works for "the phone company" and everyone knew what you meant since, for all practical purposes, there was but one phone company. Around these parts, that was Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, a component of the Bell System. My dad also worked for the phone company, and that's where I, as a kid, first met Dick. In more recent years, we renewed our acquaintance at his church, where my wife is a member and where Dick was a frequent usher. He always struck me as a friendly, genuine sort of fellow, and I'm sorry that I won't be seeing him on SUnday mornings anymore.
Richard E. Blashill(May 9, 1928 - April 26, 2006)
Richard E. “Dick” Blashill, 77, of Sioux Falls, died Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at his residence. Richard was born May 9, 1928 in Garden City, SD. He moved with his family to Wallace, SD at an early age, then to Castlewood, SD in 1935 where he grew up and received his education. He graduated from Castlewood High School in 1946. Upon graduating from high school, he began working for Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. He continued to live in Castlewood until he entered military service in March of 1951. Dick served in the US Army until receiving his honorable discharge in 1953.
On September 24, 1951, he married Ramona Krause in Clear Lake, SD. Upon his return from the military, he resumed his career with the phone company. He and Ramona lived in Watertown, SD from 1953 until moving to Sioux Falls in 1959. Ramona preceded him in death on December 6, 1966.
Dick was united in marriage with Evelyn L. Quinn on August 3, 1968 in Mason City, Iowa. He and Evelyn lived in Sioux Falls where he continued to work for the telephone company in various supervisory positions until his retirement on December 31, 1983.
He was a member of First Lutheran Church, the American Legion, the Moose Lodge, and Telephone Pioneers. For hobbies, Dick enjoyed hunting and fishing.
Grateful for having shared his life are his wife, Evelyn, of Sioux Falls; one daughter, Ann Marie Guernon and her husband, Tom, of Sugar Grove, IL; one grandson, Jacob Guernon, of Sugar Grove, IL; and a sister, Helen (Ronnie) Brown of Vermillion, SD. He is also survived by several nieces and nephews.
Dick was preceded in death by his parents and one brother, Donald Blashill.
Funeral services will be 1:30 pm Monday at First Lutheran Church. Interment will be in Woodlawn Cemetery. The family will be present to greet friends from 2:00 – 4:00 pm Sunday at Miller Funeral Home, Main Avenue location.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Just as Funny as Ever!
About a month ago, I sent a letter to my local newspaper, and it went like this:
At last!
I have waited for years for the resolutely unfunny, one-note comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" to produce something even marginally amusing (as a rule, "Rex Morgan, M.D." engenders more laughs), and it has finally happened! The punch line in the March 7 installment--"But first we're gonna go right on beating the Dick Cheney hunting accident story to death"--is absolutely hilarious...simply because that item disappeared out of the so-called liberal media at least a week before, and it is in fact dim-bulb right-wring extremists such as "Fillmore"'s creator who are keeping the story alive. What a hoot!
Even funnier is that "the story" never was about the hunting accident, which could have been a real tragedy--the story always was about Cheney's high-handed, arrogant "handling" of the incident. But I typically find as much accuracy as humor in "Fillmore"--which is to say, almost none--so no surprise there.
The "comic" strip in question was this:
Amusingly, before my letter even appeared (some weeks later, by which point I would think it no longer timely), the "creative" "mind" behind Mallard Fillmore decided to keep alive the issue he was accusing "liberals" of keeping alive:
By the time that one appeared, the issue was dead and gone, and yet with typical monotony, this exemplar of right-wing indignation insisted on revisiting it. Quite astonishing.
Typical of the inherent inconsistency with which the mindless faction of the radical right-wing must live is this more recent entry in the ongoing saga of "The World's Most Unfunny Comic Strip":
Now, think about this a moment. Obviously unable to craft or sustain an independent thought, the "author" of the strip once again, and as usual, falls back on hackneyed cliche (is there any other kind?), viz., irresponsible, free-spending liberals. Okay. But at the moment, both the executive and the legislative branch of government are in the hands of the Republican Party, and have been for several years now. Somehow, though, these "conservatives" managed to blow through the budget surplus left by the free-spending Democrats of the Clinton administration, and are diving ever deeper into red ink. So, to follow the "logic" of this strip: Spending money like it grows on trees is wrong. The federal government is spending money like it grows on trees. Republicans are in control of the federal government. Therefore, Republicans are wrong.
Okay. Works for me.
Still leaves me with the question: What are conservatives conserving? Not money, at least not federal money.
And why? Could it be that spending the country in the hole is a good excuse for cutting social programs while giving corporations and wealthy individuals all kinds of tax advantages?
Hmm...
At last!
I have waited for years for the resolutely unfunny, one-note comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" to produce something even marginally amusing (as a rule, "Rex Morgan, M.D." engenders more laughs), and it has finally happened! The punch line in the March 7 installment--"But first we're gonna go right on beating the Dick Cheney hunting accident story to death"--is absolutely hilarious...simply because that item disappeared out of the so-called liberal media at least a week before, and it is in fact dim-bulb right-wring extremists such as "Fillmore"'s creator who are keeping the story alive. What a hoot!
Even funnier is that "the story" never was about the hunting accident, which could have been a real tragedy--the story always was about Cheney's high-handed, arrogant "handling" of the incident. But I typically find as much accuracy as humor in "Fillmore"--which is to say, almost none--so no surprise there.
The "comic" strip in question was this:
Amusingly, before my letter even appeared (some weeks later, by which point I would think it no longer timely), the "creative" "mind" behind Mallard Fillmore decided to keep alive the issue he was accusing "liberals" of keeping alive:
By the time that one appeared, the issue was dead and gone, and yet with typical monotony, this exemplar of right-wing indignation insisted on revisiting it. Quite astonishing.
Typical of the inherent inconsistency with which the mindless faction of the radical right-wing must live is this more recent entry in the ongoing saga of "The World's Most Unfunny Comic Strip":
Now, think about this a moment. Obviously unable to craft or sustain an independent thought, the "author" of the strip once again, and as usual, falls back on hackneyed cliche (is there any other kind?), viz., irresponsible, free-spending liberals. Okay. But at the moment, both the executive and the legislative branch of government are in the hands of the Republican Party, and have been for several years now. Somehow, though, these "conservatives" managed to blow through the budget surplus left by the free-spending Democrats of the Clinton administration, and are diving ever deeper into red ink. So, to follow the "logic" of this strip: Spending money like it grows on trees is wrong. The federal government is spending money like it grows on trees. Republicans are in control of the federal government. Therefore, Republicans are wrong.
Okay. Works for me.
Still leaves me with the question: What are conservatives conserving? Not money, at least not federal money.
And why? Could it be that spending the country in the hole is a good excuse for cutting social programs while giving corporations and wealthy individuals all kinds of tax advantages?
Hmm...
Monday, April 03, 2006
Absolutely!
I have been reflecting on a sermon I listened to (don't worry: it doesn't happen often) yesterday morning. The preacher, as is typical, wove his point around an anecdote concerning a late acquaintance of his, a big old salt-of-the-earth Wisconsin farmer. In describing him, the preacher included a comment along the lines of "He knew what was right and what was wrong, and there was no question in his mind about them," adding, "In this relativistic age, the world needs more people like X."
Indeed.
As a (moderate) relativist from way back, I object. The absolutist attitude--"I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then you're wrong"--is not, as this and so many other preacher would have us believe, a refreshing breath of moral certitude in a venal, sinful world. It is rather a recipe for moral and religious intolerance. And to any preacher who thinks that's a virtue, I refer him to the events of 9/11/01.
Of course, preachers as a group are opposed to what they like to call relativism because church institutions are by their very nature absolutist. Churches, most of them, do no hold that there might be a God who may have created the universe and who could have sent his son to redeem the world, and so on. To open the door to possibilities is to risk undermining the pulpit in which they stand. So, naturally, they turn to absolutism: perhapsthis is the way it is; what preach is what is right; weour church has the answers.
Now, when the "our church" in question really is "our" church, then that may strike us as all well and good. Indeed, my own Catholic church is extraordinarily good as positioning itself as "the one true faith" (as we were taught in Catholic school...and which, my observation has been over the years, more lay people than priests are willing to buy into. I find it interesting, all these years later, than even as a second-grader at St. Joan of Arc school in Omaha, that assertion did not have the ring of truth to it. As fond as I am of the Catholic faith, and as much as it suits me, I have never believed it to be God's denomination, nor have I ever subscribed to the idea that it's the only path to salvation. Indeed, as soon as anyone starts telling me that his is the only path, I start looking for another path).
However (to return to the point), when the church in question is not "our" church...well, then, absolutism becomes a problem. When the "church" in question--more accurately, faith in question--is, say, radical Islam, and the absolutist attitude is "I know what's right and I know what's wrong"--exactly what my preacher friend held up as a virtue in his sermon--then we have a problem. Because the absolutist cannot easily say, "I know what's right and what's wrong, and if you disagree, well, that's the way it goes." As indicated above, absolutist mentality says, "I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then wrong"--and this is not a recipe for tolerance and understanding. In fact, the "Christian" right continuously reminds us that "tolerance" is a bad word. If "tolerance" is bad, then you'reintolerance must be good, right?
And intolerance is what led to the events of 9/11/01.
As a (moderate) relativist, I tend more toward statements like "I know what is right and what is wrong for me" and "I know what is right and what is wrong in this context." The one-size-fits-all attitude of the absolutist is abhorrent, and rife with danger.
Too, there is a hypocrisy to be found in so many ministers' harangue against "relativism": much of what our churches teach is relativistic. As I learned the Sixth Commandment, it was "Thou shalt not kill." But it was and is not taken literally--certainly not absolutely--because most churches of my acquaintance have, with greater or lesser degrees of relish, allowed exceptions: Self-defense, war, the death penalty. Pat Robertson, that great Christian, not long ago suggested that the United States go and "take out" Hugo Chavez. I don't think he mean to take him out for an ice cream. Whither the Sixth Commandment?
So what we really say in teaching the Sixth Commandment is, "Don't do this. Unless..." Which I consider a relativistic point of view. An absolutist, black-and-white, right-or-wrong point of view, so highly prized in theory by so many preachers, would say, "The Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' and the circumstances--the relative circumstances--don't enter into it. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the Commandment tells us that killing is wrong. Period."
But that is certainly not the attitude in most quarters. Why? Because despite all the denouncing of it, our churches in the main have adopted a relativistic attitude toward killing. Indeed, I have noted as my kids have been educated in churchy things that the Sixth is today often rendered, "Thou shalt not murder"--an important and interesting bit of fudgery. Sixth Commandment a little too absolute, perhaps? That's all right--just rewrite it. It's obviously what God must have had in mind. Relatively speaking.
"I know what's right" is the seed from which religious intolerance sprouts. Religious intolerance is the stem from which "holy wars," "sectarian violence," and jihads grow. Absolutism, in matters moral and religious, probably makes life easier for folks who don't like to do a lot of thinking, or who don't like to have their beliefs questioned. But it makes it a helluva lot more dangerous for everyone else.
Indeed.
As a (moderate) relativist from way back, I object. The absolutist attitude--"I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then you're wrong"--is not, as this and so many other preacher would have us believe, a refreshing breath of moral certitude in a venal, sinful world. It is rather a recipe for moral and religious intolerance. And to any preacher who thinks that's a virtue, I refer him to the events of 9/11/01.
Of course, preachers as a group are opposed to what they like to call relativism because church institutions are by their very nature absolutist. Churches, most of them, do no hold that there might be a God who may have created the universe and who could have sent his son to redeem the world, and so on. To open the door to possibilities is to risk undermining the pulpit in which they stand. So, naturally, they turn to absolutism: perhapsthis is the way it is; what preach is what is right; weour church has the answers.
Now, when the "our church" in question really is "our" church, then that may strike us as all well and good. Indeed, my own Catholic church is extraordinarily good as positioning itself as "the one true faith" (as we were taught in Catholic school...and which, my observation has been over the years, more lay people than priests are willing to buy into. I find it interesting, all these years later, than even as a second-grader at St. Joan of Arc school in Omaha, that assertion did not have the ring of truth to it. As fond as I am of the Catholic faith, and as much as it suits me, I have never believed it to be God's denomination, nor have I ever subscribed to the idea that it's the only path to salvation. Indeed, as soon as anyone starts telling me that his is the only path, I start looking for another path).
However (to return to the point), when the church in question is not "our" church...well, then, absolutism becomes a problem. When the "church" in question--more accurately, faith in question--is, say, radical Islam, and the absolutist attitude is "I know what's right and I know what's wrong"--exactly what my preacher friend held up as a virtue in his sermon--then we have a problem. Because the absolutist cannot easily say, "I know what's right and what's wrong, and if you disagree, well, that's the way it goes." As indicated above, absolutist mentality says, "I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then wrong"--and this is not a recipe for tolerance and understanding. In fact, the "Christian" right continuously reminds us that "tolerance" is a bad word. If "tolerance" is bad, then you'reintolerance must be good, right?
And intolerance is what led to the events of 9/11/01.
As a (moderate) relativist, I tend more toward statements like "I know what is right and what is wrong for me" and "I know what is right and what is wrong in this context." The one-size-fits-all attitude of the absolutist is abhorrent, and rife with danger.
Too, there is a hypocrisy to be found in so many ministers' harangue against "relativism": much of what our churches teach is relativistic. As I learned the Sixth Commandment, it was "Thou shalt not kill." But it was and is not taken literally--certainly not absolutely--because most churches of my acquaintance have, with greater or lesser degrees of relish, allowed exceptions: Self-defense, war, the death penalty. Pat Robertson, that great Christian, not long ago suggested that the United States go and "take out" Hugo Chavez. I don't think he mean to take him out for an ice cream. Whither the Sixth Commandment?
So what we really say in teaching the Sixth Commandment is, "Don't do this. Unless..." Which I consider a relativistic point of view. An absolutist, black-and-white, right-or-wrong point of view, so highly prized in theory by so many preachers, would say, "The Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' and the circumstances--the relative circumstances--don't enter into it. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the Commandment tells us that killing is wrong. Period."
But that is certainly not the attitude in most quarters. Why? Because despite all the denouncing of it, our churches in the main have adopted a relativistic attitude toward killing. Indeed, I have noted as my kids have been educated in churchy things that the Sixth is today often rendered, "Thou shalt not murder"--an important and interesting bit of fudgery. Sixth Commandment a little too absolute, perhaps? That's all right--just rewrite it. It's obviously what God must have had in mind. Relatively speaking.
"I know what's right" is the seed from which religious intolerance sprouts. Religious intolerance is the stem from which "holy wars," "sectarian violence," and jihads grow. Absolutism, in matters moral and religious, probably makes life easier for folks who don't like to do a lot of thinking, or who don't like to have their beliefs questioned. But it makes it a helluva lot more dangerous for everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)