It seems an orthodox Jewish teenager's davening on a US Airways plane caused the plane to make an unscheduled landing in Philadelphia.
It seems the flight attendant saw the leather boxes of the kid's tefillin with what she thought were wires coming out of them and flipped out. The Captain didn't have an idea of what was going on. The crew in post 9-11 caution decided to land in Philadelphia to have the suspicious objects investigated.
The NY Daily News Article opened with the line "What schmucks".
Although, were the crew being schmucks? They see something suspicious and its their duty to look out for the safety of their passengers. Yes, a little bit of knowledge might have stopped an embarassing situation.
But the US is a Christian nation.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
22 January 2010
18 December 2009
Justin's 100 Treatises
I found this blog through another post on the Secular state.
Justin is a very intelligent young man who likes to cover political, philosophical, economic issues, and the topic of secularism and religion. In fact, part of me wants to defer to him on the topic of secularism and religion as he is wise beyond his age in thse matters.
He has just finished a three part post on Afghanistan that is most cogent and insightful regarding history and nation building. Unfortunately, the west likes to place its constructs upon a society which cannot work. The concept that nations can be built upon geographic, rather than cultural and ethnic lines is the cause of much conflict in Europe (Balkans), Africa, and Asia. Justin addresses the extreme multicultural society comprised by Afghanistan. Actually, Justin doesn't mention that this area combines Iran, Pakistan, and India by the nature of ethnic and cultural identites (e.g., Pashtuns).
I hope that decision makers consider Justin's comments and I hope those who read this take a look at Justin's blog.
I wish young Justin well.
Justin is a very intelligent young man who likes to cover political, philosophical, economic issues, and the topic of secularism and religion. In fact, part of me wants to defer to him on the topic of secularism and religion as he is wise beyond his age in thse matters.
He has just finished a three part post on Afghanistan that is most cogent and insightful regarding history and nation building. Unfortunately, the west likes to place its constructs upon a society which cannot work. The concept that nations can be built upon geographic, rather than cultural and ethnic lines is the cause of much conflict in Europe (Balkans), Africa, and Asia. Justin addresses the extreme multicultural society comprised by Afghanistan. Actually, Justin doesn't mention that this area combines Iran, Pakistan, and India by the nature of ethnic and cultural identites (e.g., Pashtuns).
I hope that decision makers consider Justin's comments and I hope those who read this take a look at Justin's blog.
I wish young Justin well.
05 December 2009
England v. the US
OK, my post here is about religious establishment: a major point in my blogs. England has a state religion, the Anglican Church (and Scotland has the Church of Scotland).
The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches. That means that the US is a Secular State. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion.
The US Constitutional provisions providing for a Secular State are pretty clear cut as I point out in my post: Why do yanks forget this one when they talk about religious establishment???. A State religion is forbidden explicitly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as implicitly in Article VI of the same document.
Another point, why bother breaking from Britain if the US wanted to remain a "Christian Nation"? I mean the UK has its state religion. Wouldn't that system work well for the Colonies?
The problem is that there are fringe loonies who want to turn the US into a Christian nation despite what the Constitution says.
On the other hand, the UK has a State relgion and will push it down your throat at pretty much at every opportunity (says he who is enjoying Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity). And even though I tend to ignore most things religious, I notice that there is an attempt at understanding between Britains Christians and other religions in the UK. For example, Philip Leacock's film Hand in Hand about a Christian boy and a little Jewish girl who become friends despite the prejudice that surrounds them sticks in my mind from when I was a kid.
Currently, Britain is trying to understand its Muslim citizens and make sure they don't feel marginalised. That may be something which is easier said than done. However, what brought this post about from simmering in my brain was that Kurbaan's song Shukraan Allah (Thank you, Allah/God) just made number 1 in the BBC Asian Network Charts! Yeah, that's not Number 1 in the National Charts, but its a start.
One thing that Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity pointed out was that Islam and Christianity (and I would add in Judaism) have quite a bit of similarities. The US, as a Secular Society should would on appreciating the religions other than protestant Christianity that are practised by its citizens.
Otherwise, why should it have bothered to have broken from England?
The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches. That means that the US is a Secular State. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion.
The US Constitutional provisions providing for a Secular State are pretty clear cut as I point out in my post: Why do yanks forget this one when they talk about religious establishment???. A State religion is forbidden explicitly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as implicitly in Article VI of the same document.
Another point, why bother breaking from Britain if the US wanted to remain a "Christian Nation"? I mean the UK has its state religion. Wouldn't that system work well for the Colonies?
The problem is that there are fringe loonies who want to turn the US into a Christian nation despite what the Constitution says.
On the other hand, the UK has a State relgion and will push it down your throat at pretty much at every opportunity (says he who is enjoying Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity). And even though I tend to ignore most things religious, I notice that there is an attempt at understanding between Britains Christians and other religions in the UK. For example, Philip Leacock's film Hand in Hand about a Christian boy and a little Jewish girl who become friends despite the prejudice that surrounds them sticks in my mind from when I was a kid.
Currently, Britain is trying to understand its Muslim citizens and make sure they don't feel marginalised. That may be something which is easier said than done. However, what brought this post about from simmering in my brain was that Kurbaan's song Shukraan Allah (Thank you, Allah/God) just made number 1 in the BBC Asian Network Charts! Yeah, that's not Number 1 in the National Charts, but its a start.
One thing that Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity pointed out was that Islam and Christianity (and I would add in Judaism) have quite a bit of similarities. The US, as a Secular Society should would on appreciating the religions other than protestant Christianity that are practised by its citizens.
Otherwise, why should it have bothered to have broken from England?
22 March 2008
Why none of the "public interest groups" want a definitive answer on Heller.
Quite frankly, if the SCOTUS does the sane and sensible thing by reiterating US v. Miller in idiot proof, plain English, then there will be an end to the interminable fund raising letters, e-mails, etcetera I receive. Not to mention the road will be indeed cleared for the possibility of a gun ban. Perhaps we will see much needed talk of gun responsibilities, rather than fictitious "gun rights".
On the other hand, finding "an individual right" outside of militia service will guarantee that there will be loads of litigation. We'll see loads more trash written about the "individual right". It'll be the gravy train for "Second Amendment" lawyers and scholars. Someone reading these blogs might offer me a lucrative job, especially if whatever opinion generated is not unanimous.
On the other hand, probably not since I would much prefer that my real Second Amendment right of being free from standing armies were implemented rather than some nonsensical right which never was intended to be part of the whole shebang. I would want to see an end to this and make the Second Amendment the dead letter it is for firearms ownership once and for all.
To be quite honest, I don't mind expanding rights in a Roe v. Wade fashion if it truly impinges upon something which affects only a person and his/her personal life. I do mind when the right leads to high social costs which is undeniable about "gun violence".
The RKBA crowd has a sticker which says "fear the government that fears your gun".
I say "fear the government which tells you how to run your personal life and doesn't care about the welfare of its citizens".
I don't want the government telling someone that she can or cannot have children. Worse, forcing children into this world without parents who want them. Especially if that government is unwilling to shoulder the burden of raising those children. Even more so when it is all too willing to pay to incarcerate those children rather than pay to properly educate them.
The government has no business telling me what I should believe as far as religion goes. Even more so since the Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means public officials should keep their arses out of proselytising.
I agree with Justice McReynolds when he said the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
This means that I can do what I will if it doesn't lead to harming others. Unfettered firearms ownership does harm others. The cost of gun violence in terms of law enforcement, legal process, health care, etcetera is astronomical. Firearm ownership also makes no sense in a city for a multitude of reasons. And if a legislature also reaches that conclusion, it is not the place of the courts to come and second guess the legislative process.
On the other hand, finding "an individual right" outside of militia service will guarantee that there will be loads of litigation. We'll see loads more trash written about the "individual right". It'll be the gravy train for "Second Amendment" lawyers and scholars. Someone reading these blogs might offer me a lucrative job, especially if whatever opinion generated is not unanimous.
On the other hand, probably not since I would much prefer that my real Second Amendment right of being free from standing armies were implemented rather than some nonsensical right which never was intended to be part of the whole shebang. I would want to see an end to this and make the Second Amendment the dead letter it is for firearms ownership once and for all.
To be quite honest, I don't mind expanding rights in a Roe v. Wade fashion if it truly impinges upon something which affects only a person and his/her personal life. I do mind when the right leads to high social costs which is undeniable about "gun violence".
The RKBA crowd has a sticker which says "fear the government that fears your gun".
I say "fear the government which tells you how to run your personal life and doesn't care about the welfare of its citizens".
I don't want the government telling someone that she can or cannot have children. Worse, forcing children into this world without parents who want them. Especially if that government is unwilling to shoulder the burden of raising those children. Even more so when it is all too willing to pay to incarcerate those children rather than pay to properly educate them.
The government has no business telling me what I should believe as far as religion goes. Even more so since the Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means public officials should keep their arses out of proselytising.
I agree with Justice McReynolds when he said the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
This means that I can do what I will if it doesn't lead to harming others. Unfettered firearms ownership does harm others. The cost of gun violence in terms of law enforcement, legal process, health care, etcetera is astronomical. Firearm ownership also makes no sense in a city for a multitude of reasons. And if a legislature also reaches that conclusion, it is not the place of the courts to come and second guess the legislative process.
07 March 2008
Sex and the Old Testament
Changing the subject back to something much more fun: Today's Independent has an article titled "What they don't teach at Sunday school: the joy of Old Testament sex". There is an anecdote about Evelyn Waugh who was trapped in the company of Randolph Churchill, the son of the prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'."
Of course, that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who has read (or seen) A Clockwork Orange in which Alex starts reading the bible for the same things that the younger Churchill discovered: that there are some very dark passages in the Old Testament, stories of lust and cruelty that have no obvious moral. Incest, bigamy, rape, mutilation, deceit, loyalty and love can all be found in the Good Book.
A professor at Bangor University, Nathan Abrams, has put together a book about the sexy bits in the Bible called Sex and the Jews in which he comes up with some pretty interesting observations.
I have found that Judaism is a whole lot more liberated about sex than its bastard progeny, Christianity. For example, abortion is not a problem for Jews who do not believe in life beginning at conception. In fact, the Jewish perspective is closer to the medical perspective which is that the unborn infant's life is purely speculative, but the mother is a living person whose life and well being should be considered.
Written by different authors, possibly at very different times, the Old Testament can be self-contradictory. The story in 1 Samuel of the friendship between David, the handsome young warrior who has just killed Goliath, and Jonathan, son of King Saul, is often interpreted as a tale of gay love. In one verse, it says: "And it came to pass... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." If they were gay lovers, there is no indication that the God of the Old Testament disapproved, a reaction that fits comfortably with modern enlightenment culture.
In other passages, God's attitude to sex seems shockingly repressive, as when, for instance, he pronounces a death sentence on Onan, for pleasuring himself in a way that denied his wife the chance to become pregnant. Hardline theologians might like the idea that all sex is sinful other than for the purpose of procreation, but for the more liberal-minded, it is a tricky story. It arises from a culture in which a woman's standing in the community and sense of self-worth depended heavily on her capacity to produce children.
Dr Abrams, who comes from a Jewish family, was also struck by the curious morality of the Old Testament, as displayed by Lot, a righteous man who offers hospitality to travellers passing through Sodom, and when a mob gathers wanting to rape the men, offers his virgin daughters instead. It is as if the girls' virginity belongs to their father, who is so good that he is prepared to sacrifice this precious possession for the sake of his guests. Later, when the going gets rough, Lot is seduced by those same daughters – another tale of the desperate lengths women went to achieve motherhood.
"I think the lesson to be drawn from this story is about what can happen sometimes when people are set obsessively on a certain path, even if it is the right path," Dr Abrams said. He is now bracing himself for the reaction he can expect to his book, either from traditional Jews or, at the opposite extreme, from people who will see the book as food for their anti-Semitic prejudices.
"I'm not a theologian, and I don't speak for any organisation or community. I just want to start a discussion on issues that might not have been discussed in this detail before. These are serious essays by people who have been studying these subjects for a long time ... These essays haven't been written to shock and they're not sensationalist or purely prurient.
"There are parts of the Jewish community that don't like us airing our dirty laundry in public ... and there are anti-Semites who will like what we are doing. They will say it justifies their view of Jews as sexually corrupting. I don't think these people should stop us having a healthy debate."
On the other hand, I question where Christian theology has come up with its perspectives upon the Bible which vary greatly from Jewish scholars. Talmud scholars spend most of their time debating the fine points of the Bible, and have been doing so for long before most Christian scholars ever knew Hebrew. I mean it IS the Jewish holy book which has had extra texts added on to it.
This isn't the essay to get into what parts of the "New Testament" are valid or not, but there are apocryphal texts out there which have a different take on Christianity (e.g., the Gospel of Mary Magdalen). The Baptists criticise the Mormons for adding on texts to a perfect Bible, but who decided which of these texts were valid? Was the Council of Nicea divinely inspired or politically motivated? Likewise, who is to say that texts which go against Judaism are valid?
Whatever the case, Judaism has a totally different attitude toward sex and Childbearing than does Christianity. An attitude which is much more tolerant toward sex.
Of course, that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who has read (or seen) A Clockwork Orange in which Alex starts reading the bible for the same things that the younger Churchill discovered: that there are some very dark passages in the Old Testament, stories of lust and cruelty that have no obvious moral. Incest, bigamy, rape, mutilation, deceit, loyalty and love can all be found in the Good Book.
A professor at Bangor University, Nathan Abrams, has put together a book about the sexy bits in the Bible called Sex and the Jews in which he comes up with some pretty interesting observations.
I have found that Judaism is a whole lot more liberated about sex than its bastard progeny, Christianity. For example, abortion is not a problem for Jews who do not believe in life beginning at conception. In fact, the Jewish perspective is closer to the medical perspective which is that the unborn infant's life is purely speculative, but the mother is a living person whose life and well being should be considered.
Written by different authors, possibly at very different times, the Old Testament can be self-contradictory. The story in 1 Samuel of the friendship between David, the handsome young warrior who has just killed Goliath, and Jonathan, son of King Saul, is often interpreted as a tale of gay love. In one verse, it says: "And it came to pass... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." If they were gay lovers, there is no indication that the God of the Old Testament disapproved, a reaction that fits comfortably with modern enlightenment culture.
In other passages, God's attitude to sex seems shockingly repressive, as when, for instance, he pronounces a death sentence on Onan, for pleasuring himself in a way that denied his wife the chance to become pregnant. Hardline theologians might like the idea that all sex is sinful other than for the purpose of procreation, but for the more liberal-minded, it is a tricky story. It arises from a culture in which a woman's standing in the community and sense of self-worth depended heavily on her capacity to produce children.
Dr Abrams, who comes from a Jewish family, was also struck by the curious morality of the Old Testament, as displayed by Lot, a righteous man who offers hospitality to travellers passing through Sodom, and when a mob gathers wanting to rape the men, offers his virgin daughters instead. It is as if the girls' virginity belongs to their father, who is so good that he is prepared to sacrifice this precious possession for the sake of his guests. Later, when the going gets rough, Lot is seduced by those same daughters – another tale of the desperate lengths women went to achieve motherhood.
"I think the lesson to be drawn from this story is about what can happen sometimes when people are set obsessively on a certain path, even if it is the right path," Dr Abrams said. He is now bracing himself for the reaction he can expect to his book, either from traditional Jews or, at the opposite extreme, from people who will see the book as food for their anti-Semitic prejudices.
"I'm not a theologian, and I don't speak for any organisation or community. I just want to start a discussion on issues that might not have been discussed in this detail before. These are serious essays by people who have been studying these subjects for a long time ... These essays haven't been written to shock and they're not sensationalist or purely prurient.
"There are parts of the Jewish community that don't like us airing our dirty laundry in public ... and there are anti-Semites who will like what we are doing. They will say it justifies their view of Jews as sexually corrupting. I don't think these people should stop us having a healthy debate."
On the other hand, I question where Christian theology has come up with its perspectives upon the Bible which vary greatly from Jewish scholars. Talmud scholars spend most of their time debating the fine points of the Bible, and have been doing so for long before most Christian scholars ever knew Hebrew. I mean it IS the Jewish holy book which has had extra texts added on to it.
This isn't the essay to get into what parts of the "New Testament" are valid or not, but there are apocryphal texts out there which have a different take on Christianity (e.g., the Gospel of Mary Magdalen). The Baptists criticise the Mormons for adding on texts to a perfect Bible, but who decided which of these texts were valid? Was the Council of Nicea divinely inspired or politically motivated? Likewise, who is to say that texts which go against Judaism are valid?
Whatever the case, Judaism has a totally different attitude toward sex and Childbearing than does Christianity. An attitude which is much more tolerant toward sex.
06 March 2008
Musing on the religious right
There are three constituencies in the US which do not represent the American public, yet have more power than they should: the Israel Lobby, the RKBA crowd, and the religious right. Despite the talk of democracy, and the Constitution, these three groups are the most open in running the American political scene. I could add the Oil Companies in here as well, but they aren't as vocal or counterproductive to US interests as these three special interest groups.
I said in an earlier blog that I thought Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee, which has proven to be wrong. My reasoning was that the religious right appears to be a significant factor in US politics. The real reason may be much simpler in that most citizens of the US are pretty apathetic with the exception of these three groups. The Average American is pretty much fat, dumb, and happy with loads of debt and kept in isolation by too much television which is pretty much crap. To quote Bruce Springsteen, whose music I hate, but has bang on politics: "500 channels and nothing's on". Loads of ESPN rubbish. Bread and circuses for the plebians.
Somehow, the religious right's message is fading away, but I am not sure about their influence. These groups are pretty good at subverting the Constitution. Article VI says that no religious test should be applied, but woe upon Mitt Romney for belonging to a "Cult" (see Mitt Romney post). I'd hate to think about a Jew, or, worse, an ATHEIST running for office.
Fortunately, the Republicans are just that and not democratic, or the squeaky wheel crowd might be fielding Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate. I'm not sure Huckabee is out of it yet, as he could be in line for being veep. That would be the true test of whether the religious right has any power.
But, it's people like my sister in law, who was born Jewish, yet supports the republicans out of fear of things like "socialised medicine". She is less afraid of the religious crowd and voting with her purse. That is the only reason the religious right has appeared to have so much sway. "Conservatives" believe that it could never happen here, forgetting the lesson of Adolph Hitler, who was democratically elected by people who were more afraid of Communism than Hitler's anti-semitism.
The religious right and RKBA crowd work on the politics of fear. Fear that gays will erode the institution of marriage, destroying the family. On the other hand, what are they doing about the high rate of divorce? Isn't that eroding family values? There is this myth of a golden era of the church, the family, hardy individuals, and other things which make the US feel good about itself. Never mind Ben Franklin had a bastard son and Thomas Jefferson diddled his slave.
The problem is that the fear mongers are the ones we should be afraid of, as they are taking us farther and farther from a safe world. FDR said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". The world has become a scarier and scarier place under the right wing. We have lost the Communist bogyman who was keeping things safe in Eastern Europe under Bush Senior and lost a Bogyman who kept Iraq under control. Would 9-11 have happened if the Communists were still there to keep a reign on the Islamic world, and we hadn't given aid to the Mujahadeen who later became Al-Queda?
The problem is that the Genii is out of the bottle due to Americans not thinking and letting the special interests control us. Better yet, maybe our leaders will realise that these groups are not representative of the Ameican people and stop pandering to them.
I said in an earlier blog that I thought Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee, which has proven to be wrong. My reasoning was that the religious right appears to be a significant factor in US politics. The real reason may be much simpler in that most citizens of the US are pretty apathetic with the exception of these three groups. The Average American is pretty much fat, dumb, and happy with loads of debt and kept in isolation by too much television which is pretty much crap. To quote Bruce Springsteen, whose music I hate, but has bang on politics: "500 channels and nothing's on". Loads of ESPN rubbish. Bread and circuses for the plebians.
Somehow, the religious right's message is fading away, but I am not sure about their influence. These groups are pretty good at subverting the Constitution. Article VI says that no religious test should be applied, but woe upon Mitt Romney for belonging to a "Cult" (see Mitt Romney post). I'd hate to think about a Jew, or, worse, an ATHEIST running for office.
Fortunately, the Republicans are just that and not democratic, or the squeaky wheel crowd might be fielding Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate. I'm not sure Huckabee is out of it yet, as he could be in line for being veep. That would be the true test of whether the religious right has any power.
But, it's people like my sister in law, who was born Jewish, yet supports the republicans out of fear of things like "socialised medicine". She is less afraid of the religious crowd and voting with her purse. That is the only reason the religious right has appeared to have so much sway. "Conservatives" believe that it could never happen here, forgetting the lesson of Adolph Hitler, who was democratically elected by people who were more afraid of Communism than Hitler's anti-semitism.
The religious right and RKBA crowd work on the politics of fear. Fear that gays will erode the institution of marriage, destroying the family. On the other hand, what are they doing about the high rate of divorce? Isn't that eroding family values? There is this myth of a golden era of the church, the family, hardy individuals, and other things which make the US feel good about itself. Never mind Ben Franklin had a bastard son and Thomas Jefferson diddled his slave.
The problem is that the fear mongers are the ones we should be afraid of, as they are taking us farther and farther from a safe world. FDR said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". The world has become a scarier and scarier place under the right wing. We have lost the Communist bogyman who was keeping things safe in Eastern Europe under Bush Senior and lost a Bogyman who kept Iraq under control. Would 9-11 have happened if the Communists were still there to keep a reign on the Islamic world, and we hadn't given aid to the Mujahadeen who later became Al-Queda?
The problem is that the Genii is out of the bottle due to Americans not thinking and letting the special interests control us. Better yet, maybe our leaders will realise that these groups are not representative of the Ameican people and stop pandering to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
