"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Catholic Church

You would think that the Catholic Church would take a lesson from the recent failed GOP game plan and not publicly disparage women or presume that roles for women haven’t moved beyond older, male-centered views that refuse to see women as social equals. 

 thinking ape from naked capitalism blog 12:6

After a 92-year old priest recently allowed a woman to participate by his side in a church liturgy, the Catholic church, that shielded pedophiles for years, acted quickly to strip Father Bill Brennan of his priestly functions because he dared challenge the church dictum that says women cannot participate in any role designated for men only.  A ruling that has no basis for continuing in todays modern church.

According to Catholic Ecclesiastical Law, Canon 1024, women are unsuited for the priesthood.  They may be suited for many functions within the church but Canon 606 points out that this equality stops at such things as the priesthood because such restrictions are supposedly “evident from the context of the wording or the nature of the matter.”    The nature of the matter appears to be the dated view of old men, unlike Father Brennan, who presumed that if women were intended to be priests then Jesus would have selected one or more to be part of his core group of apostles.  This follows the degenerative thinking of the hayseeds that believed if man was meant to fly God would have given him wings.

Seriously, a judgment call made by the dominant patriarchal culture of the patristic era of the early church viewing choices made within an even stronger patriarchal society in ancient times are going to hold this as an absolute for males only in the priesthood today?  The point of all of this is that times change and so should certain traditions that have no intrinsic value in and of themselves.  If institutional Christianity were to develop from some occult out of the mainstream today, as it did over 2000 years ago, women would clearly be on equal footing with men in their clergy selections because that’s how we roll today. (despite the fact that a few neanderthals like Limbaugh and Santorum still remain)

But the institutional church was formed when men were the only gender that counted back then and like all things that survive more than a generation or two, people become set in their ways and their existence becomes formalized in rules, codes and laws that evolve over time.  The ecclesiastical laws, the antitheses of Occam’s Razor, are an example of decades and centuries of layer after layer of minutia within traditional organizations that tend to obscure the group’s original purpose and thus its attraction to large numbers of people.  The duration of such minutia also tends to give credence to the notion that change is unacceptable and what was originally nothing more than a selective thought of handful of early leaders now becomes so ingrained in its institutional setting that merely willing a change in policy is considered heretical.

Father Brennan’s punishment for trying to bring the church back to its roots and enable it to survive in the 21st century was based on the same premise they claim to judge the offenses of a pedophile.

Pope John Paul II issued a letter in 1994 saying that the church “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women,” and in 2010 the church included the “attempted ordination of women” among the list of grave crimes against its law, under the same category as the sexual abuse of minors. Grave crimes are punishable by defrocking or excommunication.   SOURCE 

So “the church” that established the rule in the first place now declares that it “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”.  Isn’t there some pathological disorder with people who commit harmful behaviors to themselves and others but declare they are unable to control such senseless acts?

Jesus didn’t deliberately exclude women from his close followers.  He had several.  The church fathers that began to formalize christian teaching however, following Constantine’s acceptance of the once outlawed faith, saw fit to delete certain traditions and views that didn’t adhere to an orthodox agenda.

In her book, The Gnostic Gospels,  Elaine Pagels illustrates that as persecuted Christians eased into the mainstream, they themselves began to condemn certain practices.  The views of more conservative christians began to outnumber less orthodox views and ultimately ostracized the gnostic christians who essentially held that God was both father and mother and “believed that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation.  According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within, not without.” 

gnostic

This threatened the church fathers and their hierarchical design which followed the cultural norm of the day that put men at the top of the social pyramid.  The women who played a prominent role during the life of Jesus were down-sized to minor roles.  Culture and time took care of the rest that allowed the male leadership to justify excluding women.  Clearly their control of the message over all this time has allowed this hoax to manifest itself.   By wrapping their machinations around church dogma and doctrine any challenge to alter them are confronted with the alleged authority of God himself.  What God has wrought let no man … try to make sense of.

If the Church really wanted to validate their claim to male superiority they would have killed off the virgin birth myth long before it became part of new testament canon.   Apparently though the humanity of Jesus as the son of God required a human birth which of course requires the presence of a womb.

It seems clear that the new testament allows Jesus to give limited recognition to women but non-canonical sources gave greater latitude to their role and one of the gnostic gospels Pagel’s refers to in her book was the Gospel of Mary.  In it, it shows even the apostle Peter looked toward her for words of encouragement shortly after the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.

mcconnellpope bentdicka dying breed of leaders?

So listen up you silly old men who strut around in your dated robes.  It’s the 21st century and the male-dominated precepts that disparaged the female gender all these years are a rotting carcass whose stench needs to be removed by burying it along with laws that force women to carry unwanted pregnancies and forbid them humane forms of contraception.

Human and social experiences evolve over time and try as you may to prevent this change you only diminish your own authority in attempting to do so.   Time does indeed give value to things that endure but it also erodes those things that are false and cheaply made.   There is no mandate from God that insists women should be excluded from the priesthood just as there is no super-natural authority that insists abortions are likened to murder.

We make the rules.  We can change them.  We read into ancient texts those things that fit our time/space continuum.  Institutionalizing that which is destined to change is simply an admission that we fear the unknown and our own consternation that we can face it with any degree of courage.


In a predominantly Christian culture, why do some continue to stir up the notion of “persecution” when they carry their beliefs too far?

Shooting for humor, I posted an anecdote this last Sunday that poked fun at Georgia Republican congressman Paul Broun and his interpretation of the bible and the venue he used to give his sermon.  But of course what comes across as wild-eyed imaginings to some are dead serious claims by those who make them.  It doesn’t make any difference that there is no factual basis for some of these claims.  All that matters to “believers” is that, well, … they believe it. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”    Such contrived assurances fit nicely into their world view of things and it gathers strength when you get affirmations from other like-minded people as Broun appeared to be getting from his audience.

It’s not an argument that any non-believer really wants to get into with a religious believer.  Because they have an ancient tradition on their side and a thinly credible counter argument of some “biblical authority”, you would be hard pressed to correct any rigidly held beliefs by them.  But Broun makes the mistake of asserting an assumption that has no biblical authority and that flies in the face of some evidence about science that even many Christians have come to accept at varying degrees.

All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.  – Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.  

It would be a stretch at best to link any bible verse to support Broun’s notions that evolution, embryology and the big bang theory are from the devil.  Embryology is not even a theory or belief system but a scientific field of study that’s been around formally since at least 1827.  But interests in embryonic development began with Aristotle hundreds of years before Christianity and the notion of a savior became part of popular thought.  It doesn’t challenge the belief in Jesus as a messiah.  It simply helps describe the  marvelous development from egg to human fetus which Christians are always fond of celebrating.  So why the disparagement of this from Broun?

Let the Flogging Begin

Fundamentalist views have always held that if you were properly indoctrinated with church dogma and later found a different way of thinking that only Satan and his minions could have persuaded you from rejecting biblical truths.  I bought into this myself at one time as a devout “born-again” christian with the aid of C.S. Lewis’ excellent story telling in “The Screwtape Letters”.   Even within the Roman Catholicism I was raised in, the Church taught us that ours was the one true branch of christianity.  As my Dad used to put it, “they’re called Protestants because they protest the original church founded by Peter.”

Christians, which count for nearly 80% of the U.S.population, often cry discrimination when some of the fundamentalists elements within try to lay claim to neutral territory, raising objections from the other 20%.  Much like the white settlers that came here from Europe and claimed land that was long held as the domain of various native Indian tribes, Christians today also impose themselves in the public domain that is shared by other faiths and systems of belief. They simply didn’t then or don’t today see themselves as intruders but as rightful heirs to some divine manifest destiny.  A sense of righteousness often overshadows the reality that theirs is a system of faith not indisputable fact and forgets to allow others the same privilege of putting their system of faith on top of their hierarchical pyramid of choices.  Point this out to them however and the wails of “persecution” ensue.

For people like Paul Broun to suggest that the science of embryology along with the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are the work of the Devil denies that people like me can make that transition out of the faith based almost exclusively on the church’s own historical record.  Even the great intellectual apologetics of C. S. Lewis could not overcome the skepticism that eventually developed within me as I studied the origins of my faith in great detail.   As a strong advocate of the faith years ago and a serious student of history, I discovered in my attempts to fully understand the evolution of Christianity that the institution itself was flawed and their alleged bedrock claims of superiority are marred with historical distortions and jockeying for power within the larger social context.

This revelation was not viewed by me as an attack on some unseen God that may or may not exist but on the church’s position that their insights and only their insights cannot be challenged.  The dogma that has layered over the original core values the earliest Christian groups held and the organized authority of the church over time has created a barrier between the simple truths of “the man from Galilee” and postulations of those who now claim to speak for him.

It’s not that Christians in various parts of the world are not discriminated against by various elements in other cultures but should such persecutions be used to make false parallels in this country?  Only in the U.S. where all other faith systems are dwarfed by Holy Mother Church is it alleged that a very small minority of non-believers are crushing the powerful influence Christianity continues to hold.   The bible and its stories do in fact convey a sense of belonging and can nurture those lost souls whose self-serving values demoralize them and those they are close to.  But when notions become ingrained that allow intolerance and promotes fear, any true disciple of Jesus would have to ask, “who is it here then that is really from the pit of hell”?

If the truths that are claimed to exist in the Bible are infallible then any challenge to them cannot stand up to scrutiny.  Yet this is in fact the weak position many Christians like Broun have put themselves in by relying on ancient texts written by the men of that age to speak to future generations whose world is a far cry from the times the words were first laid on papyrian documents.   There are many relevant messages of hope in scripture but there are also assertions that declare women as property, legitimizes slavery and killing a disobedient child.  If these are infallible truths why aren’t Christians today following them? (not that many wouldn’t like to, I feel)

Scholars have found numerous errors in the Bible

To claim that the bible is “the inerrant word” of God fails to account for the fact that Cain found a wife in the land of Nod shortly after being banished by God. (Gen.4:16-17)  If Cain was the first child of the two original human beings where does this woman come from?   And did God rearrange the universe following the battle between the Jews and the Amorites where supposedly the Almighty stopped the Sun from rotating around the earth until Joshua and his troops had avenged themselves upon their enemies.(Jos. 10:12-13)  If the Christian God is the same “as he was, is now and forever will be” how could his word be in contradiction with certain realties?

People like Broun who hold positions of power in government and declare they will enforce “God’s law” over everything else share that characteristic we see in rigid theocracies like that of the Taliban or in iron-fisted rulers by atheistic despots like Stalin and Pol Pot.  If free will is indeed an inherent part of biblical teaching then what gives Broun and others the right to force their views on those who have equally strong beliefs that contest them?

Legislating MoralityDo rush to judgements hurt the character of religion?

Back in 1985 John Denver testified before the Senate Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation on what he saw as censorship by the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) formed by Tipper Gore and other Washington wives to ban offensive lyrics that referenced sex, drugs and graphic violence in the music of that era.  In his presentation Denver pointed out how some radio stations banned his song “Rocky Mountain High”, thinking the lyrics were violating a FCC censorship order about promoting drug use.   Denver also claimed that  some theaters refused to put the name of his movie, Oh God! on their marquees as did some newspapers ads for the movie out of concern that it may be viewed by rigid fundamentalist as “irreverent”.

If God is really in control then why do religious fanatics undercut this belief by legislating morality?  I was raised to believe that we need God, he doesn’t need us and yet the actions recently taken in many conservative state legislatures aimed at forcing unwanted pregnancies to occur is done by those who claim to be acting on God’s behalf. Is the omniscient and omnipresent God of the bible no longer effectual or too overwhelmed where he was once capable of counting the very hairs on our head and placed more value on each of us than any one sparrow?(Matt. 10:29-31)

As a society it can be destructive if we all act on our own self-interests.  Cohesiveness is vital for survival and this often entails finding good leadership and allowing ourselves to follow their lead as it serves our need for survival.  But we are not sheep and when claims are made to herd us in to a robotic, Stepford-wife direction, then it becomes necessary to raise this concern and challenge those views that would enslave our free wills.

The bible, I found, does indeed have lessons for life and can serve as a guide for many who are as children.  But as we mature we are able to look outside the bounds that an individual or an institution has set for us when it no longer seems to meet the reality of our time.   Women and certain cultures are not second class citizens as ancient scriptures declared.  Nor are claims of “abominations” legitimate when referring to gays today from a view held by people who believed at one time that the earth was the center of the Universe, believing that this too was the will of God.

Science is a method, not an all-powerful force or an absolute measure of what exists.  It is an assortment of peer-reviewed fields of study that seek to make sense of the physical realties in our world and offer reasonably sound answers to phenomena that were once thought to exist only in the realm of the ethereal or metaphysical, such as the sun being pulled around the earth by a charioteer.

Christians can be both scientist and followers of biblical concepts and principles but they can’t claim one has preeminence over the other based on outdated data and ancient texts.  They must assert themselves in light of the here and now and speak to people in a way that allows them to identify with the information both sides present.  Insisting that what one has to offer should not be questioned is not a path that leads to truth but one that leads to suppression.

A couple of years ago I spelled out in an article why I could no longer practice the faith of my fathers.  I concluded it with this which seems fitting for this essay as well.

“If I were to re-write that part of John in chapter 3 that posits Jesus as the final solution, I would do it in the way that I now understand it. For God so loved the world that he sent people into the world like Jesus to serve as a light and a guide to lift you up and fulfill the life you have been given. You are a slave to no man and you are above no man. It is love for the life I have given you and the companionship of others that will strengthen you in times of stress. Without love your existence has no meaning. Without sharing you are the lowest of all species. It is through your interconnectedness that true salvation is found”.  - How I Learned to Move Beyond the God of My Religious Upbringing

RELATED ARTICLE:

The Religious Right and conservatives double down on their efforts to block efforts by women to use pill.

A dramatic new study with implications for next month’s presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies — and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project  – dubbed CHOICE — ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.     SOURCE 

Despite this positive news for opponents of abortion many on the religious right see this as evidence that unwed teen girls are still having promiscuous sex.  Farbus Doolittle, the Southern Baptist director for the Wayward Girls Home in Christian County, Kentucky, said that for rates of abortion to drop that dramatically means only one thing, “young fertile girls are violating God’s law to procreate and populate the earth”.

“We think it’s important that women forego the use of any contraception and forbid anything other than natural abstinence”, the clergyman said.  “If these girls can’t just say no then they should honor the will of God and carry that unborn child to full term.  God doesn’t want them to have sex before they are legally married and will send them straight to hell if they abort any child conceived out of wedlock.”

 

A spokesman for the Catholic Church also weighed in“If, as supporters of the contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services, including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic manipulation,” wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the conservative journal First Things.

An assistant to director White was later heard telling a colleague that the exaggerations uttered earlier by his boss were the result of his prescription lapse for Oxycontin.  That information could not be validated by our reporters.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, said the results were so dramatic, … that [he] pushed the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign”, according to Brian Alexander with NBC News.

Alexander also reported that John Santelli, professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said the study suggested “that it’s totally supportive of the president’s provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women in the Affordable Care Act.”

This outraged some on the political right. Conservative politician Jeremiah Matthews of Lafayette, Louisiana was among those politicians who found this news disconcerting.  “We have been very successful in portraying President Obama and his support for the birth control pill as a usurper of freedom and anti-God.  For this news to suggest that maybe he was right would make him look like he really cared about the health of women and the unwanted pregnancies of young, poor teens.  This would put us at an even greater disadvantage of achieving our number one goal for the American people – making sure that Obama is a one-term president”.

We have not received any response in our attempt to reach TV Evangelist Pat Robertson on this matter.  Members of his staff tell us he has been in fervent prayer with the Lord in an attempt to get Tim Tebow to start at quarterback for the New York Jets for the upcoming Monday Night game against the Houston Texans.

Is 700 Club host Pat Robertson avoiding the controversy over birth control pill to seek divine intervention on behalf of Tim Tebow?


Not all change is good but it is inevitable and some of it is necessary.  The political and Christian right in this country risk appearing backwards as they dig in their heels to fend off 21st century changes.

 

Hostile anti-Obama protesters feel threatened by policies they feel will undermine their traditional American way of life which tends to exclude other cultures and religions.

I have been guilty many times in the past of labeling most extremist on the right as ignorant slugs whose grasp of reality, history and many facts often reflect some levels of mental deficiency.  But I have come to the conclusion that such people, though at times poorly informed, are not always ignorant.  In fact many of them are just as intelligent as the liberals they attack for being intellectual elites.  There are of course those who still hold to debunked notions of global cooling and the President being a practicing Muslim, but these do not make up that larger population I want address this post to.   Liberals are not without their ideologues but unlike their conservative counterpart, change is not something to dread but to embrace and rebuild with.

So what I am finding then is not for lack of a brain from those on the right wanting to “take America back” to a period in our history that has long ago disappeared or who proclaim God is punishing this country with terrorist attacks and mass murders by madmen because we have strayed from some earlier set of values.   It is, I honestly think, a conscious decision they have made to limit their contemporary views to only those notions they locked into at a more immature age, with perhaps some childhood anxiety disorder holdovers.  It’s as if they have gotten a glimpse of a future that resembles nothing like their accustomed to and have made a conscious decision to freeze time in their mind and refuse to allow it to take its natural course.  They then proceed to create an apologetic culture over time to confront the reality of inevitable change.

When you look at the language of Tea Party types and fundamentalist Christians you see notions spelled out in ways that sound more familiar in a junior high school setting; having a more sophomoric argot to them.  Ideas are expressed in more simplistic ways that accommodate an adolescent view and seem trivial in light of broader experiences.  Their mental faculties have not been diminished physiologically and they are quite capable of expressing an intellect with high IQs in most areas.  But in their socio-religious view of life their growth appears stunted and all too ready to reject a social dynamic that develops layers of knowledge over time.  The concept of WASPs – white Anglo-Saxon protestants – comes to mind when considering many on the right today as they try to deal with the changing make up of American families in the 21st century.

Why does the changing traditional image of American families seem threatening to many conservatives today?

The simpler, broader concepts of “mom, apple pie, God and country” still holds a pleasant but narrow image from a past era for today’s hardcore right-wing contingent within conservatism.  To such people however, mom is never a teenage girl who had an unwanted pregnancy, diabetes from too much apple pie is beyond comprehension, the Judeo-christian concept of a universal creator remains the only acceptable view (orthodox interpretations primarily) and many still see the country as it existed for many years as the domain for white male property owners.  Capitalism has been woven into biblical scripture and wealth is nearly universally seen as the ultimate end to one’s pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  To discredit those who have vast fortunes is to engage in a social blasphemy of sorts.

This state of mind is, I feel, an intentional choice because it preserves a familiarity of the bygone era.  We all harbor this to some degree.  We also all tend to resist most changes.  But for many on the Christian and political right in this country today, the magnitude of change we are inevitably experiencing as a democracy with its emphasis on freedom is change that cannot be tolerated.  No amount of critical thinking seems to be capable of altering this dogmatic stand either.

When it comes time for us all to go out into the world on our own, beyond the control of those who have filled our minds up to this point, we inevitably run into challenges to those perceptions that were narrowly defined in our subconscious during the brain’s formative years. By the time I was seventeen I was sure Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, was the one true religion.  Americans, especially Texans, were the greatest people ever and the envy of the world and that equal economic opportunity was there for everyone who expended the right amount of energy, no matter what your gender, religious beliefs or race were.  Naturally I heard this from the authority figures within a paternalistic white American, christian culture and since I was a physically white male American born in Texas and raised in the Catholic church, I failed to see how women and other people of differing races, cultures and belief systems seldom shared this view.  How could I?  I had never interacted sufficiently, if at all, with such people.

But then somehow the mechanisms of control lost sight of me and allowed me to gain a higher education and this, to the shock and dismay of many, opened doors that had heretofore been closed.  Some of them had in fact been nailed shut.  Perhaps this was the dread of former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum expressed in his campaign about higher education. 

I found that these  countervailing views that grabbed me at a young adult age seem to fit in areas that my traditional upbringing could not quite reconcile.  Not everything I began to absorb satisfied a hidden hunger.  In fact I found some objectionable, at first.  But there was enough there that allowed me to see that perhaps I had in fact not been given all of the information that was out there to make an informed decision.  Just coming to the realization that an open and honest debate on issues was an option was something of an awakening for me.

Deeply held views that demonized and rejected gays, held minorities and women to an inferior status and saw all other manifestations of religious faith as broken and even corrupt, began to fragment.  As this became more unsettling to me, my parents and others would try to assure me that though some customs and tradional views they raised me with were not absolutes, I was not to concern myself with such doubts because the older notions had been around “forever”.  Surely, they presumed, this must carry greater weight that time often honors.  To think outside this preset mold I was warned was to invite Lucifer and Stalinists thoughts into that world that had been carved out for me.

It took about two-thirds of my life to finally accept that much of what I was taught as a child and young adult was subject to debate and some of it, not all, was unlikely to stand up to scrutiny.  I had what I call “a road less traveled” epiphany.  Rather than view this as a failure of family upbringing or a conspiracy of some sort, I found it beneficial to accept this as part of the maturation process in life.  Those adolescent ideas and ideals that got me through my young life served a purpose that allowed me to focus on less complicated matters that tender young brains were better able to handle.  The real failure I have discovered comes in believing too deeply that much of what we are taught are absolutes and are inflexible.  It takes a certain amount of courage to step outside that box we have become too familiar with where pushing the envelope was often discouraged.  The status quo was held up as my security blanket.

Think of the temper tantrum young children throw when their notion of getting a toy is altered because the condition of good behavior gone bad has effected this outcome (provided you have a parent willing to enforce discipline).   Your world is momentarily shattered and you engage in a kicking, screaming fit to re-established that happier moment before Mom or Dad enforced the conditions that prevented you from getting what you wanted.  Such behavior seems harmless at such an early age but when such mechanisms carry over to the adult world,  especially regarding critical matters that will effect long term outcomes for ourselves and others, it can create some conflicts that lead to acts of aggression on local and even a global scale.


When immature christian thinking sees Islam as nothing more than an evil based upon their view of what is or isn’t a “true” religion, then the positive aspects of the Muslim faith are ignored and even twisted to suggest some hidden agenda exists with the consensus.  When immature heterosexuals claim that the legality of marriage was only intended to be between a man and a woman, they ignore the vital element of relationships that strengthen self-esteem and make us productive members of society.  When immature patriots think only older, narrowly defined traditions masked as “original intent” have greater value than those conditions that the social dynamics of today present us, they blind themselves to modern reality and pigeon-hole all cultures to fit out-dated concepts.  All of these reactions limit the gifts and talents that others can bring to the table in making this a more just and free society.

By using the language and promoting the notions that had meaning for us as an adolescent and expecting it to always bear fruit as an adult is a trap that is easy to fall into.  The failure to allow new and varied experiences to refine what was thought to be chipped in stone is a trait that will prevent the human race from advancing and sustaining a quality of life that ensures ours and the other species’ survival.  Not all change is good and we need to move cautiously where angels dare to tread.  But the converse is equally true and we need not be afraid of expanding views once deemed sacrosanct.

We need to take with us into the future those elements that have and will continue to serve us as the needs of a 21st century confront us.  All others need to be either respectfully laid to rest or disposed of in the unceremonious manner that we take out the daily trash with.

“Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another.”  – Immanuel Kant

 

 


Just when you thought the Catholic Church might score a few points for themselves to rise above their miserable handling of sexually abusive priests they go and fumble the ball and show just how distanced they are from those they are supposed to serve.

 

Some of us stood up and took notice recently when some Catholic religious leaders  scolded the GOP’s budget that attacked programs benefitting the poor and disenfranchised.

When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his latest “Path to Prosperity” budget last month, it was immediately admonished as an “immoral disaster” that “robs the poor” by Catholic religious leaders.   SOURCE

 

Being raised in the Catholic Church, this is what I expect of Christians.  It is one of the core values of the faith that works to remove the suffering of those in society who are in need of basic essentials to sustain life

He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done – Proverbs 19:17

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matthew 25:40

 

Though no longer a member of the Catholic faith (or any organized religion for that matter), I couldn’t help but feel a little pride to hear that there were still those within the faith willing to publicly defend what I have always found to be the most appealing aspect of Christianity.

But they couldn’t leave well enough alone.  Their self-absorbed dogmatic selves had to once again show how dysfunctional the church leadership is.

The Vatican is accusing the largest organization of catholic nuns in America of falling out of line with church teachings — while promoting “radical feminist themes”.

The reprimand was aimed at the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a group that represents most of America’s 57,000 catholic sisters. The Vatican praised the nuns for “promoting social justice” but slams them for protesting church doctrine – on women’s ordination and homosexuals. The Vatican also complains the nuns have been “silent” on issues like the right to life and abortion.   SOURCE 

 

What goes on in the minds of some of those in leadership positions within the Church?  For years they cover up the sexual abuses between priests and young boys and try to down play it when it finally becomes public but without any public outcry on how nuns are dealing with some social issues the Church brings umbrage to the fact that many of their nuns aren’t demonizing gays and young girls enough who find themselves faced with an unwanted pregnancy

“As public representatives by their very existence they have an obligation to reflect fundamental church teaching on matters,” said Father Robert Kaslyn of Catholic University.

Yes, we’re all familiar with that part of the new testament that has Jesus condemning social outcasts and deviants, even standing in to be the first to cast a stone at the sinful harlot brought to him by the morally upright crowd who found her simply trying to survive as a single woman in a patriarchal society

So, they expect obeisance on something that challenges the teachings of Jesus but say nothing of priests who rob young children of their innocence as long as they don’t rock their doctrinal boat?

Oy vey!

RELATED ARTICLE:

The Vatican’s Latest Target in the War on Women: Nuns


Perfectionists who have conformed to a strict rigid code usually have a tightly wound sense of morality that sees more evil in others than really exists and who have very little tolerance for behavior that does not come close to the center of their world view

Rick Santorum’s rise to the top of the GOP presidential candidates list appears to have resulted from his appeal to the Party’s conservative christian base, much like George W. Bush did in 2000.  Viable policies and plans to deal with the critical issues our country faces have yet to materialize from the Santorum campaign.  The strategy apparently, as is usually the case, is to identify with the emotional issues of your base then draw curious supporters into the fold.  Allude to details that appear to encompass the moral high ground you are claiming but are not readily available for close scrutiny by the press and policy wonks.

What you are most likely to hear from the campaign stump is not unlike what one hears in most fundamentalist, evangelical churches on Sunday with emphasis on the “woe unto you …” forebodings.  Santorum’s narrative leans heavily towards doomsday warnings for  Americans, telling his audiences that the Obamaites  are “crushing” religious values by “marginaliz[ing] faith in America, [through the removal of] the pillar of God-given rights”. 

What follows then Santorum tells those who listen to him “is the French Revolution.  What’s left in France became the guillotine.  Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, Santorum asserts, but if we … follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”   SOURCE

President Obama’s “overt hostility to faith in America”?  The White House’s recent decision to mandate that birth control products be made available in insurance coverage, including those provided by religious colleges and charities, at no charge to the policy holder may indeed be viewed as an “overt” action that sensitive christians could interpret as hostile to them.  But was this part of a steady course of action by the Obama White House that can be construed as a path “we are headed down”?   Is it not hyperbole to claim that a single action of this nature constitutes an ongoing plan of action?

The clever use of the biblical-sounding term, “Obamaites”, is intended to evoke the image of some adversarial, inferior human being.  It is really nothing more than a demonization of those Americans who no longer see the “traditional definition of marriage” as the sole domain of one man and one woman.  Citizen majorities in some states who have redefined this definition have apparently found that the claim that gay marriage threatens the traditional institution of marriage, is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan without any basis in fact.  Similar views by a national plurality on DADT also affirm that homophobic fears by religious fundamentalists hardly serves as the bellwether for moral decay.

Veiled Theocracy as Democracy

Santorum’s rigid catholicism is on display here.  According to conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, Santorum’s worldview “stems from his allegiance to the Catholic Church’s teachings that every human life has equal value and dignity.”

The church’s objection to birth control is based on concerns that sex without consequences would lead to men reducing women “to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of (their) own desires,” as well as abuse of power by public authorities and a false sense of autonomy.

Within that framework, everything Santorum says and does makes sense, even if one doesn’t agree.   SOURCE  


This argument doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny in light of the fact that many Catholics like Santorum who hold “that every human life has equal value and dignity” do not seem to extend this to the lives of those executed within our penal system.  Nor does this sentiment appear to extend to the innocent civilian elderly, women and children referred to as “collateral damage” by those who would wage war on an entire nation to punish that country’s leadership who are supposed to pose a threat to our national security and the security of our allies abroad.

And to presume as the Church apparently does “that sex without consequences” which leads men to subjugate women as mere instruments of male desires would not occur if contraception were forbidden is laughably naive.  Do such believers not understand that rape has been around long before there were legal and inexpensive means of contraception and that apart from this forced sex women have been socially pressured throughout much of human history to use sex in a male-dominated world to attain some modicum of security and respectability.

The very scripture that the Church uses to condemn all contraception views a childless widow as having much less social value than a woman who bears children.  Thus Judah insisted that after his oldest son, Er, is killed by God it fell on the second oldest, Onan, to impregnate Er’s wife.  Not so much to her own glory but so Onan “could produce offspring for his brother.”  (Gen 38: 6-10)

Despite protestations from Santorum and his more moderate supporters that he will not impose his orthodox Catholic views into presidential policy, it’s not all that clear yet that the presidential candidate from Pennsylvania won’t insist that this nation be led by his perception of biblical principles; principles that some may see are not in step with contemporary Americans, even if that comes into conflict with the Constitution.

For example, in order to condemn homosexual behavior, Santorum has tried to link it to adultery, polygamy, chid molestation, incest and bestiality, where the state has outlawed such acts.   And where the 9th amendment may allow states to do this for such specific acts, it has not been stretched to other sensitive areas that many christians feel “violates the sanctity of marriage”.

Santorum told Bob Scheefer in a recent interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation” program that his rigid moral codes reflect what most Americans think.  “I’ve repeatedly said I believe the president is a Christian.  He’s says he’s a Christian. But I am talking about his world view and the way he approaches problems in this country, and I think they’re different than how most people do in America.  That assumption has yet to be supported however.

The Supreme Court, …,  beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the “liberty” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.  Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.   SOURCE

Who Is The “Good Steward”?

But not only are Santorum’s views sometimes in conflict with the Constitution, they are sometimes in conflict with the very biblical authority he purports to guide his world view.  In that same interview on Face the Nation, Santorum tried to clear up some comments he made about a “phony theology “ he attributed to President Obama.  “I was talking about the radical environmentalists,” Santorum said. “That’s why I was talking about energy. This idea that man is here to serve the earth, as opposed to husband its resources and being good stewards of the earth, and I think that is a phony ideal.”


When Santorum attacks radical environmentalists he is expressing what is common conservative parlance to attack anyone who opposes an energy policy not approved by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and that doesn’t have drilling for new oil wells anywhere and everywhere at the top of their list.  It’s not clear how Santorum thinks that husbanding the Earth’s resources and being good stewards of those resources can be linked to an industry where extraction, transporting, production and dispensing of a toxic substance pollutes the air we breath and the water we drink.

How is the removal of finite, dirty fossil fuels from deep within the bowels of the earth using expensive and accident prone equipment more an action of husbanding our resources over using what’s easily and abundantly available in the form of wind, solar and thermal energy?  This is not a biblical stance by any stretch of the imagination.

This is clearly an attempt to play into the fossil fuel industry’s exploitation of its alliance with conservative Christians to attack Obama’s energy policy.  A policy that seeks to remove the federal tax subsidies to the highly profitable oil and coal industries and works more to develop clean, renewable energy sources that a truly “good steward” of the earth would promote.

This is a two-fer for Santorum.  He get’s to play off of the animosities many conservatives have about man-made global warming while appealing to the money-interests of Big Oil; perhaps hoping their lucrative donations will fill his campaign coffers.  Is it possible that the profits that come from a source of energy responsible for large numbers of individuals with lung diseases and threaten human and animal habitats can be sanctified through the prophets of scripture?

A Pretense of Contemporary Leadership

I see presidential leadership balanced on a three-legged stool that encompasses a broad and rich understanding of politics, science and religion.  Santorum’s apparent animus toward government and science leaves his leadership skills off balance.  And though one can’t help but admire the man’s personal convictions, this doesn’t automatically translate into political leadership skills that serves the varied interests of this nation.  No more than the feeling that George W. Bush would make a good president because he was the type of guy you could have a beer with.

In a NY Times Op-ed piece last December Eric Weiner, author of Man Seeks God: My Flirtations with the Divine wrote, “Though religion contains large public components, it is at core a personal affair. It is the relationship we have with ourselves or, as the British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, ‘What the individual does with his solitariness.’”  It is this personal affair that Santorum would exploit for political gain that grates at me so much with its presumption that he has an advantage over those that don’t share the social context he wraps his religious experiences around.

The former GOP Pennsylvania Senator and his Republican/TeaParty cohorts may object to what they feel is a misguided approach by the man currently occupying the Oval office but would they not be substituting their own form of one man rule by inserting someone who narrows the human scope of what it means to be American in today’s world?  Dragging us back to a time in history where only white, propertied christian men ruled may appeal to the likes of Rick Santorum but it doesn’t keep pace with the unalterable social and economic dynamics of the 21st century.


Rick Santorum’s Sexually Repressed Mind

What kind of thoughts were going on through Rick Santorum over-imaginative brain when he argued that contraception is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

I know he worries a lot about such things as man-on-dog sex but might the picture below reflect a wet dream he has of himself symbolically defeating President Obama this November?

How hard must that be to keep such imagery suppressed while also feeling erotically stimulated.

A lot of Catholics have developed as sexually repressed adults.  I too was raised as a Catholic and I recall the stare downs and being damned to hell by feisty old nuns and sanctimonious priests for even raising the question of sexual urges.

Does the presidential candidate struggle with his awful thoughts when he takes the kids to the “petting” zoo?  Are his kids deprived of this fond childhood memory because Santorum has these delirious thoughts?

For Santorum to expose his concern about doing “things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”,  must surely elicit some awful images from him time to time that would require a visit to the confessional frequently for such impure thoughts

I wonder if the priest who hears his confessions has ever considered a penance to seek psychiatric help to address what thoughts often crowd the space between his hears?


My Catholic upbringing instilled in me that masturbation was a sin.  I thought it had something to do with impure thoughts but according to the Church’s strange twisting of scriptural text it’s condemnation is tied more to a negative view of contraception.  Seems we were never supposed to refrain from God’s command to Adam and Noah about being fruitful and overpopulating filling the earth

Ahh Catholicism.  What fond memories I have about my first Communion, Confirmation, serving my first Mass as an alter boy and best of all, my awareness of sin.  Without sin in our lives there is chaos.  There can be no understanding for our purpose on earth and what lies in store for us afterwards without a sense of our sinful life.  Sin tells us what we are doing wrong and by default what we need to change in order for all to be right in the universe.  Thus saith the clergy who formed my early childhood views of the world.

We learned all about sin in our weekly catechism classes under the tutelage of Father Vogel.  You might not make it into heaven if you die with mere venial sins on your soul.  There’s a place called Purgatory reserved for such tainted people.  But if your sins were “mortal” in nature as you lay dying then hell was your only destiny, unless there was a priest handy who could administer the last rites of atonement and the eucharist.

We were expected not to eat anything before receiving communion and confessional with the parish priest was requisite beforehand in order that your soul was pure enough to accept the body and blood of Jesus.  My typical confessions, which began with “Bless me father for I have sinned …” usually consisted of impure thoughts about the red-head, Alice Henderson, giving the finger to the protestant kid because he called me a papist and lying to my mom when she asked what was taking me so long in the bathroom.

We were told masturbation was a sin though my recollection for the reasons aren’t clear.  However, in light of the controversy that is surrounding the President’s decision to require full coverage for contraception by certain religious entities, I have done a little research to find out why “sinful” masturbation was a part of my religious upbringing.  In the eyes of the Church, wasting your seed, as it is biblically referred to, is a form of contraception.  No.  Really!  Bare with me here and I’ll explain.

First let me get on my soap box.  Such incomprehensible positions were responsible for my drifting away from catholicism in my late teens.  The Church, in its over-reach into every day life, seem to diminish the larger value of the faith that spoke to our humanity while providing a spiritual relationship intended to connect us to an unseen source of strength and wisdom.  I didn’t fully understand the latter part of this relationship until I totally abandoned the church years later.  How ironic, but that’s another story.

I understand the need for restraints and consequences for socially destructive behavior but there has to be a point where attempts to dominate every aspect of our lives has to have more adverse effects than positive outcomes for our personal sanity.  Keep in mind that most of the Church’s rulings on many things they govern their flock by were evaluated by people who isolated themselves centuries ago in monasteries and convents; avoiding the realities of the human experience in this world in the hope that they would be drawn closer to God

Soul searching under such conditions has its merits, but the long term effect of such isolation can seriously disconnect people from the real world.  Even Jesus limited himself to 40 days in the dessert before returning and intermingling with sinful man, only to be put to death apparently by the religious authorities of his day for challenging the status quo while showing concern for those outcasts not welcome in the house of God.

The practice by religious orthodoxy to have a ruling for every thought and act we engage in may provide security for those people who have been beaten down by life and just can’t muster the courage to step out on their own, but for the rest of us, a few basics like charity to all and doing unto others … etc. etc., is sufficient  Contraception was too intricate for our young minds to ingest back then so very little was discussed about it.  But the reality is that it is such a far fetched concept in light of our natural urges that any thinking priest or nun could not defend it I’m sure and merely left the issue standing with the proviso that violators would be condemned.

The Obama administration’s ruling has called for all organizations, public and private, to provide free contraception coverage with their health insurance programs they provide their employees.  Churches and religious schools were excluded from this but hospitals and charities that don’t necessarily employ people who share specific faith values were not.  This has become a tempest in a tea pot and a cause célèbre for those on the right who are trying to foster a “socialist” image of the President and any liberal politician.

The Catholic church and their lay operatives are asserting that their constitutional rights are being violated because they’re being “forced” to participate in an act they view as a sin against God.  To prevent the birth of a child is a sin, even if their is no conception, as the “holy mother church” sees it.

It is this amazing stretch of the imagination that has people like me questioning the true will of an Almighty Creator who no longer tends to his creation since he shut down Paradise almost as soon as he initiated it.  We now have, according to the Church dogma, free will to choose such things as limiting the number of children we want but only if we do it according to what  “the Church teaches … is morally permissible [by taking] into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception”.  

Many American Catholics are also seeing this as somewhat absurd and are inclined to take the Obama administration’s take on this issue.  58 percent of Catholics agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost and 53 percent of Catholic voters agree “that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Let’s be clear however.  Sin, as the Church declares, is not always a specific violation one can pinpoint in the so-called “inerrant word 0f God” – the Holy Bible.  Too often it is an interpretation by old men who base it on doctrine and perceptions of those aforementioned church fathers who isolated themselves from human civilization.

Much of what passes for “God’s word” in catholicism today comes from the Vatican within the last 50 years in two very lengthy documents – Gaudium et Spes, latin for Joy and Hope (a rather Orwellian label) and an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI called Human Vitae which is latin for Of Human life.  It was the Church’s attempt to bring their thinking up to 20th century realities but their hearts were still back in medieval times.  It’s tedious reading and as precise as it is, one get’s the distinct impression that the church has taken quite a leap to take specific versus from scripture and translate them them into absolutes like contraception.

At the heart of contraception’s sinful nature is the passage in Genesis 38 that tells how God was dissatisfied with Onan, the son of Judah for refusing to impregnate his dead brother’s wife in order for her to bear children.  Judah so instructed Onan as was part of their custom but Onan “knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.  What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.” (Gen 38:9-10)

The advantage of being an excommunicant of the Church allows us not to buy into such narrow, rigid references so easily.  Was God mad about the spilled semen or was he mad that Onan refused to obey his father and follow a custom that was part of “an ancient Eastern brotherhood law called the law of the Levirate” described in Deuteronomy 25:5?  Orthodox Catholics lean towards the “spilled semen” scenario where an outsider might view it as an incomprehensible response from a vengeful God.

There is a third possibility that has Judah killing Onan and blaming it on God, falling back on the belief that a parent would be justified in killing a willful child as allowed in Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.  But that’s speculation and conspiratorial in nature and we know all good christians never engage in such practices.

In the thinking of many devoutly orthodox Catholics and other Christian sects it is not considered unreasonable to draw such specific conclusions from dubious text within scriptures.  When one author on this topic posed the hypothetical questionWOULDN’T IT BE HELPFUL IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED CONDEMNATIONS OF CONTRACEPTION THAT WERE MORE EXPLICIT AND MORE FREQUENT?”, the glib, superior response was  “Not really. The lack of multiple references doesn’t disturb the person who has a sense of theological realism.”

And who are these people who have a sense of theological realism?  Old men who isolated themselves from civilization centuries ago and whose successors in the Vatican are not that far removed from them.  Or so it seems.

Bless me father if I have sinned for questioning the authority of the church who has been out of step with their followers for quite some time now.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:

Why Young People Are Fleeing Conservative Evangelicalism 


Raised in the Catholic Church and a one-time professed “born again” Christian, I have since discovered through careful historical readings that the fundamentalist views of some Christians today do not always reflect the reality of this system of faith.

 

I hate to come across as a humbug this time of year so if you are in the “Christmas Spirit” and don’t want to be brought down from it, you might want to skip this post until another time.  The subject matter isn’t necessarily related to this “jolly” season but it was a recent letter to the editor in my local newspaper that activated my response here.

Affirming his belief that we should keep the Christ in Christmas, the writer of that letter seems to ignore the fact as many do that though the season is all about the birth of the baby Jesus as described in the new testament, it is in fact NOT the actual birthday of the Nazarene.  Nobody really knows when that is but historical records indicate that some believed it to be the first week in January.

Bruce David Forbes, author of “Christmas: A Candid History,” says those who delay Christmas festivities can take some comfort in the fact that Dec. 25 isn’t the date of the birth of Christ.

When Christians started celebrating his birth in the 300s after the Roman emperor Constantine converted to that religion, they didn’t know the birthdate, so it appears that they picked a day to coincide with Romans’ midwinter celebrations of their own gods. Meanwhile, Christians in more eastern countries, like Turkey and Greece, were already celebrating on Jan. 6.   SOURCE

It seems we have the pagans to thank for this holiest of Christian holidays.

Also, in a news story back in 2008, astronomers speculated that, based on their calculations of when the “star of David” appeared over Bethlehem a couple of thousand years ago, that the birth of Jesus was sometimes in June.  If that notion had been picked up by the Roman Catholic church initially, all of the “White Christmas” references would never have materialized and Santa’s red suit would now be a tropical shirt and shorts attire.

But this isn’t the part of the writer’s letter that rubs me the wrong way.  It is the notion that we are primarily a nation “founded on Judeo-Christian values”.  There is no argument from me that much of what our laws are based on come from the Mosaic laws and are inherently fitted to some core christian values.  But it is distortion of the worst kind, in my opinion, to presume that everyone who came to this country did so to establish Judeo-christian values.

Sure the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were escaping religious persecution in England but let’s remember that that rigid group of people had a set of values in many ways that resembled more how the Romans treated early Christians than they did the teachings of Jesus.  The most well-known display of such un-Christian behavior was the innocent killing of people that were hysterically deigned as “witches”.  Fear, not compassion, compelled the actions by which people burned some of their own for alleged heretical beliefs.

Expressing the Christian virtue of Tolerance?

The social structure back in the early colonial days was strictly paternalistic and the legal codes “especially in the Puritan north – served as enforcement arms of religious orthodoxy.”  Women and non-whites were viewed as lesser human beings.

Community leaders acted as stern fathers to the children God had entrusted to their care. Members of the community were supposed to be taught God’s paths for their lives and brought back into the fold when they strayed – but the rod was not spared.

Laws against Quakers were … worse than those against Anabaptists – they could be executed if they dared to return after having been banished. Quakers appear to have been especially feared as threatening to “undermine & ruine” the properly instituted authorities of the colony. Two Quakers were made examples of and hanged in 1659, but they weren’t the only ones.

Blasphemy was another crime which merited swift and harsh punishment – as with the previous examples, any act which might undermine unquestioning faith as promoted by the local religious leaders was regarded as threatening to undermine general social stability. Blasphemers could, at court discretion, be put in the pillory, whipped, have his tongue bored out with a hot iron, or be forced to stand in the gallows with a rope around his neck.  SOURCE

People like this letter writer cherry pick those parts of our socio-religious culture to create an illusion that is a far cry from what life was really like back when.  If they were really so adamant that our nation should reflect the Judeo-christian tradition then they should be putting to death their disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18) and punishing bankers that have profited greatly from loans to people of low income. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37)

A closer reading of the founding fathers who put our constitution together will show that many of these men were not great men of faith and many, like Ben Franklin, were Deists, not Christians.  Their primary concerns as they spelled out the laws of this land were based more on property rights than on concepts found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount since they were pretty much all land-owning aristocrats and not humble men who “fear the Lord”.

Enjoy your religious holidays and prescribe to those tenants in your faith that reflect compassion and tolerance but don’t presume to be a victim in a society where most people claim to be Christians while giving more support to Wall Street bankers than Occupy protesters and attack all Muslims because of the radical views of a minority.  I can’t be sure, but it’s possible that that is not what the baby Jesus would want.

Related Articles:

The Tea Party, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers: An Argument Without End 

How I Learned to Move Beyond the God of My Religious Upbringing 


After so many serious posts here lately I thought we could stand some comic relief. Enter Donna Cavanagh.  Donna has allowed me to repost two other selections from the AC Yahoo site we both contribute to.  I like to refer to her as a contemporary of the great female humorist, Erma Bombeck.  For her treat today, Donna speculates on who else might be a possible candidates for the hit reality TV show “DANCING WITH THE STARS” after it was discovered that the ever quixotic Christine O’Odonnell was considered a likely candidate.

***********************************************************************************

I read rather recently – translation — five minutes ago, that Dancing With the Stars has asked witch-turned-tea party political hopeful and diva, Christine O’Donnell, to be a contestant. I am starting to wonder about this show. I thought it might have jumped the shark when it invited Bristol Palin, but now I am sure of it.

First of all, it wouldn’t be a fair contest. How do we know that Christine won’t use her sorcery to get top scores from the judges and television audience. Oh, you scoff do you? Well, let me just say two words to you: Kate Gosselin. If there is any evidence of witchcraft among us, it is that woman. How else do you explain her meteoric rise to fame and her appearance on DWTS? What did she do to earn her place in the show? She gave birth. I gave birth, and no one has invited me to the show. Okay, I had a six-pound baby and she had six babies at one time, but so what? Six of one; half a dozen of the other. It’s true; I have no math skills.

Anyway, to help Dancing With The Stars in their search for new talent, I have come up with a short list of possible contestants for future seasons. Now, these suggestions are not written in stone, but I have done research – I asked my neighbor, Nona, who is an avid DWTS fan about my list, and she assured me that these additions would set the show’s ratings on fire:

  1. Muammar Gadaffi – I think he will soon have some free time on his hands. The trouble-ensconced leader might follow the path of some of the other leaders of the Arab world and leave the office that he had won through nothing but fair and honest elections. If he needs a partner for the show, he can call Hosni Mubarek who also has decided the presidency was not for him. I am not sure if DWTS allows same-sex partnering, but I bet they would make an exception for this duo.

2. Pope Benedict XVI – If there is any institution in need of a good Public Relations campaign, it is the Catholic Church and what better way to promote your faith than on DWTS. I think it would do the Pope good to show off those Prada shoes and look like he can let it all hang out and relax a bit. He already has the wardrobe and jewelry, and the DWTS audience would appreciate the effort, and he would do a good job counteracting Christine O’Donnell’s witch powers.

3. Barbra Streisand – I think she would be fabulous to watch on this show. No one enchants an audience like Barbra and if her dancing isn’t up to par, she could sing and that would just wow the whole place. A double advantage: She is Jewish and that would balance out the Muslim presence a bit. Everything in the world needs to be balanced be it international politics or a TV show dedicated to ballroom dancing.

4.Julian Assange or WikiLeaks – Come on, tell me you wouldn’t tune in for this guy? The problem is no one would want to be his partner because he can’t keep a secret and there is also the possibility that he might not show up for his performances.

5. Charlie Sheen – Another one headed for the unemployment line, and I think he would get on rather well with the Arab contingent although he and the Pope might have some issues.

6. Madonna- Need I go into this one? Dancing, singing, thrusting and possibly swearing — she has it all.

7. The Democrats in the Wisconsin State Assembly – They are obviously not needed and unwelcome in their state political arena for a while, so like Sheen and the Arab leaders, they have a lot of hours left in the day that need to be filled.

I am sure there are more famous folk who would like a stab at a new career, and even if you don’t make it on DWTS, there is always that ice skating show that takes celebrities with damaged or dead careers. If that doesn’t work, Celebrity Boxing is hoping for a comeback.

**********************************************************************************

I had suggested Susan Boyle over Barbara Streisand but then everyone might become upset if Susan forgot to shave.

Thanks Donna

Donna is a published humorists who has written two books - “Reality: Fantasy’s Evil Twin” now available on Amazon and “Life on the Off Ramp” She is also the author of “Poems for a Positive Day II” which like her “Life on the Off Ramp” was named as award-winning finalists of the Best Books 2010 Awards, sponsored by USA Book News. She is also a featured guest humor writer for More.com and Divine Caroline as well.



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers