Done yesterday (20120509 We)

[mdlbear]

Finally posted my itinerary/tentative schedule for the next couple of months. And, as usual, didn't do all that much else. Well, there were some things accomplished. Including the phone interview with EDD, which I'd been worried about. It looks as though my pension won't affect my unimployment insurance, because Ricoh stopped paying into it in 2010.

I'm continuing to putter, and got a fair amount of book triage done in the office. Most were immediately snapped up by folks in the Wednesday crowd, which of course was the whole idea. The old turntable, too -- now that we've gotten rid of all our vinyl, we really don't need it. End of an era.

I called PODS and got a quote: about $3200 for a 16' pod. The move will be complicated by the fact that we want some of the stuff to go into N's garage; I'm thinking of PODS or some other container company for that. We'll see. Unfortunately moving.com doesn't seem to have any way to compare prices; I'll have to call them all separately. The salesdroid at PODS was rather pushy.

Link of the day, after a nod toward Richard Lugar's statement, is Rachel Held Evans | How to win a culture war and lose a generation. The money quote:

When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”)

Now, I'm part of that 91%; as an atheist and a Democrat I don't see a major shift away from religion as a bad thing. But if you do -- if you're one of the many progressive Christians I know are reading this -- you might want to do something about it.

When I was in college, the churches were hotbeds of radicalism, solidly on the left. They fed the poor, opposed the war in Vietnam, ... Where in Hell are they now?

0509 We
  * up 7:30; W=197.2; d, n, t; hair, dishes, laundry; exercise
  * 10-12 EDD UI phone interview -- looks like my pension won't affect my
    unemployment insurance, because Ricoh stopped paying into it in 2010. 
  * worked with N on her new website
  * post itinerary
    @ mdlbear | Plans: travel and otherwise
  @ Rachel Held Evans | How to win a culture war and lose a generation 
    (via ysabetwordsmith - When people think of Christianity ...) 
    " When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe
      Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was
      “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was
      the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian
      faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next
      most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too
      involved in politics.”)" -- yup.  That.
    (Personally, I don't think people leaving the church is a bad thing.  But
    that's just me.)
  * 15min:  book triage - top shelves in the back left-hand corner
  * 5pm Avoid Avoiding
  @ osewalrus: I surrender - Best Statement of Defeated Candidate/Departing
    Elder I have Seen So Far 
  * PODS: Call 888-847-3792 and provide your Quote #: 14740769 (East coast)

Comments

[kyrielle]

One of them, for what it's worth, is the one we're now attending. They feed the poor, provide school supplies to the needy, help with housing and other such issues, and, oh yes, preach tolerance, support gay marriage, and are firmly part of the progressive church movement. Our pastor leads discussion groups about the questions/issues facing Christianity and the directions that some people are looking to go in, for interested church members. (Darnit, I'm actually interested *despite not being Christian myself*, but my schedule and the kids mean I can't reasonably go. Alas.)

Hey, discussing the serious issues seriously (and usefully) with your church members, instead of acting like referring to Jesus as a shepherd and the church as his flock means they're all supposed to be as dumb as (or dumber than) sheep. Who'd'a thunk?

There's a reason that I like this church, even though it means a 30-minute drive.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

you might want to do something about it.

Which is to say instead of complaining about people lumping all churches together on this issue, you might want to make sure everyone actually sees your church working for gay rights.

It is, of course, hard work to work as hard for gay rights as some churches are working against gay rights. But that's what has to happen to improve Christianity's image on this issue.

[themangoavenger.livejournal.com]

"When I was in college, the churches were hotbeds of radicalism, solidly on the left. They fed the poor, opposed the war in Vietnam, ... Where in Hell are they now?"

I had no idea.

[mdlbear]

Maybe you've heard of the Reverend Martin Luther King? The churches led the civil rights movement.

They were hijacked.

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

SOME of us are right where we've been all along!

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

We hang rainbow banners; we have rainbow ribbons on our name tags. We rally at the Capitol for gay rights. We are seen.

[tagryn]

There's still many movements where the church leads. The pro-life movement in the U.S., social justice movements in many Central and South America (not to mention Africa), freedom of religion in China and other authoritarian countries such as Egypt, its all religious-based and led. Heck, the Solidarity movement in Poland which was a big part in the fall of the Iron Curtain probably doesn't survive without John Paul II's support as Pope. The list goes on and on.

[mdlbear]

I don't consider the anti-abortion, anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-evolution movements to be progressive. The other stuff is all outside the US.

[mdlbear]

Are you having any noticable effect? You're all completely invisible from the outside.

[tagryn]

Pro-life includes the no-death-penalty movement, which is progressive.

Another interpretation of the pro-life movement is that it is promoting the civil rights of the unborn (or preborn, if one prefers), which is a highly progressive viewpoint in terms of standing up for the rights of those with no voice and no power. Further, given the tendency of abortion to target female children in countries such as China, it can also be interpreted as a pro-feminist standpoint when approached that way. These issues aren't quite as black-and-white as the hardcore advocates on either side make them out to be.

[tagryn]

Also, as a non-state entity, churches aren't limited by national borders, so just dismissing the other examples as "all outside the US" misses one of the big advantages churches have to effect social change across state-defined boundaries. Congregations' influence on one another doesn't end where the border starts. Further, if one is leery of putting lots of power in the hands of a state, having things like NCOs and churches which can operate outside the state's control is also a powerful check when the state is either unwilling or unable to meet its responsibilities to its citizens.

[danceswithlife]

How would you suggest we get visibility when it's much more attractive to news organizations to draw attention by talking about fundamentalism? In the 60's left-wing Christianity was the different and new thing in the view of the public and press. Now, in reaction to a lot of societal liberalism the Christian right is the new thing. Could we be doing more? Most of us could be doing more.

Have you checked out any progressive Christian websites? Try this theologian who is married to my pastor:

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?author=33

Take a look at the writings of my pastor who teaches progressive Christianity at several schools:

http://www.apocryphile.org/jrm/books.html

Try these Facebook pages:

https://www.facebook.com/marysue.foster

https://www.facebook.com/TheChristianLeft

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

That's funny--I haven't seen any opposition to the death penalty among pro-lifers. Indeed, many of them seem to advocate it.

And "promoting the civil rights" of a ball of eight cells oh-so-conveniently *requires* enslaving women to produce unwanted babies as a way of enforcing the double standard of sexual behavior.

Nothing about that is progressive.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It's great that you do that. You're part of the solution and I salute you!

As you outnumber the anti-gays, and play a principal role in changing anti-gay discrimination, especially the discrimination written into law, that perception will change. And I for one look forward to it.

[tagryn]

Religiosity's correlation with death penalty opposition can be seen here. The various religions' positions on the death penalty are stated here. There's a known dichotomy between attitudes on abortion and on the death penalty, but that's not unique to the pro-life folks: that's pretty much across the board.

Rhetoric like "ball of eight cells" avoids the bigger issue by reducing the entity under discussion into a nonperson, which to me is a copout when it comes to wrestling with the civil rights of the unborn and reconciling them with the rights of the mother. Totally dismissing the former as unimportant or nonexistent is extremely nonprogressive, given that throughout history the dispossessed and disenfranchised have usually had their rights suppressed - or worse - with the excuse "well, they're not people like you and me, so its necessary/OK/right that they get eliminated."

[tagryn]

I'm thinking here of the immigrant rights movement, as one example. I'm not a big fan of the sanctuary movement, but I will grant that Christianity has been at the forefront of that.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Totally dismissing the former as unimportant or nonexistent is extremely nonprogressive,

Oh, I don't dismiss them. They should have all the rights to enslave people that anybody else does.

[tagryn]

On the original issue, you could pose the "where are they now?" not just to liberal Christians, but to progressives in general. As soon as the current POTUS was elected, active progressive movements such as the anti-war groups went quickly dormant, despite continued military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan and new involvements in Libya, and while Occupy got some headlines it seems to have fizzled without any significant accomplishments beyond raising awareness; that's been the only reaction to what's been a disaster of inequality for the working and middle class, especially among minorities.

The progressive movement has been co-opted into the Democratic party for a while now, and as long as that party is in power progressives are content to keep quiet. This is a great arrangement for the Democrats, since they don't have to worry about progressives kicking up any fuss, and when election time comes along they just have to blow a few whistles and they know progressives will come running like Pavlov's dog. "Ooooo! Gay marriage? YIPYIPYIPYIP!" That's basically how it looks to me. The fact that Obama was allowed to equivocate on this issue for so long, and gay marriage advocates were OK with that, demonstrates how compromised progressives have become to party politics. Its not about principles or issues, its all about tribalism, us-vs-them. And the elites love it, because as long as people concentrate on Democrat-Republican, they don't have to worry about combinations being formed across that chasm which might actually effect change on the status quo.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Just in case you feel the need for a more nuanced response, I include one here.

"Ball of eight cells" is factually correct. Admittedly only at one stage. I favor "half-inch long worm-shaped obligate parasite" which covers the stage at which the vast majority of abortions are done, but I have been told that is squicky. And I guess being squicky might give people the wrong idea about pregnancy and labor, which are delightful and not in the least squicky.

"Baby," on the other hand, is rhetoric. See the difference?

I know what a baby is, and so do you. A baby gurgles and coos and snuggles and nurses and opens big eyes wide with wonder on a brand new world and we all go "aww" and feel warm and fuzzy inside.

We also know what a baby is not. A baby is not a half-inch long worm-shaped obligate parasite. A movement that tries to get you to confuse the two is trying to use your emotional response to babies to trick you into enforcing sexual purity on women and women only by making sex carry the risk of being enslaved to produce an unwanted baby.

In the process they harm a real human being--always provided you even see a woman who has had sex as a real human being--in the service of an entity that, real human being or not, has no human mind, because it has no brain big enough to produce the behavior that is a mind. The entity that benefits cannot, at the time the harm begins, experience love, or compassion, or joy. It has no hopes, or dreams, or fears. For the first six months of development that entity cannot even suffer, which any dumb animal can do, because its nerves have not grown all the way to its brain.

They harm a human being by forcing her to offer up her tissues to be robbed of nutrients her own body needs. If she cannot replace them, she loses teeth and her bones become brittle. They harm a human being by forcing her to offer up her bloodstream to have someone else's metabolic wastes deposited into it. No wonder she feels nauseated.

It is unfortunate for fetuses that they must parasitize women to live. But other people are not allowed to hijack someone else's body to preserve their life. If my kidneys give out I am not allowed to mug you in an alley and take one of yours. I am not allowed to drag you to the hospital and hook myself up to your bloodstream for your kidneys to handle my wastes. And if I managed it, by force or by stealth, you would have an unalienable right to disconnect me again. And I have a human mind. Why should an entity without one get rights to enslave people I lack?

Progressive my foot.

[danceswithlife]

Not to mention that the theory that life begins at conception is a recent development in *religious* thinking. It has no relationship to the hard science that Cat talks about above. It's the fruit of the convenient black and white thinking which characterizes fundamentalism. If the rules are clear, people don't have to make nuanced decisions. They just obey.

Bringing in abortions to choose the sex of a child as a reason to ban abortion begs the question about how to change those societies' attitudes towards gender and is not in any way a viable way of encouraging social change--and so can't be called progressive in my book. It's a fairly well thought out *excuse* to limit or end abortion. Cogent arguments should address real issues not serve as propaganda for a particular viewpoint.

Where are your real and progressive suggestions about how to deal with unwanted children financially and emotionally? For most right to life movements (the Roman Catholic Church is a prime example of this) being pro-child ends with the birth of the child. Mother and baby are then abandoned to do their best using the shrinking safety net set up by progressive governments.

If you want to protect those with no voice do so--after they are human beings and not when they are a collection of pre-cognative cells. That people like you choose to put so much energy into defending embryos takes away from serving those with no voice struggling to survive and feed and care for their children, and their parents and their friends.

And the most necessary argument against the religious "pro-life" is that most of those groups oppose birth control. That is contemptible and those like the Pontiff who advocate no birth control should be despised as hypocrites and ignored as not relevant to modern *progressive* culture.

I left the Roman Catholic Church shortly after John Paul II was elected pope since I suspected (and rightly so) that he would spend his papacy undoing Vatican II and discouraging those progressive Christians who were so effective in the 60's.

[mdlbear]

Actually, it's all about how disastrously worse it would be under the Republicans. Lesser of two evils, and all that.

[tagryn]

...which is why progressives tend to get taken for granted. In fairness, the Evangelicals have the same deal-with-the-devil thing going on with the GOP: they can't get what they want, but they've got nowhere else to go that isn't much more hostile to their beliefs. In both cases - Evangelicals and progressives - their numbers on their own are too small in the U.S. to win political power on their own, so they've been forced into coalitions.

If once in a while they didn't toe the party line on everything, so it appears as though they might go their own way, it may gain them a lot more influence than they have. The votes for Nader as the Green Party rep were met with so much hostility because it was seen in part as a betrayal of the "tribe," but it was also a warning shot that progressives could go elsewhere if such an alternative were available.

[tagryn]

I agree with you regarding the erosion of the safety net, especially for children, but see it as a separate issue from whether the unborn have civil rights or not. It is quite possible that we can't have both rights for the unborn and complete reproductive freedom for women, and that we as a society choose the latter over the former. OTOH I don't think that means that we can rationalize it by assuming that the unborn have no rights, just that we haven't been able to find a way that doesn't harm one or the other.