Wednesday Open Thread

 

20th Century Man - Ray Davies

You keep all your smart modern writers
Give me William Shakespeare
You keep all your smart modern painters
I'll take Rembrandt, Titian, Da Vinci and Gainsborough

We'll dedicate this one to Charles Murray.  After all, it is one of the fifty greatest conservative rock songs of all time. 

It seems like time for a general free for all, so please join in.  Before I resume billing, here are a couple of things that I've been enjoying.

- The epic, albeit entirely predictable, failure of Americans Elect has been a source of much mirth in the lefty blogosphere and deservedly so.  I found myself in the strange position of agreeing with Douthat on this -- that is, there is actually zero appeal to a party geared to the Friedmannite center -- as Atrios would say, no one really gives a shit about the deficit and no one actually wants to have their Social Security or Medicare benefits cut.  I think the most promising route for a third party candidate would be a populist oriented campaign aimed at the white working class -- it would be pro-trade barriers, anti-immigration, pro-gun, and pro-growth, even if that growth was spurred by government programs and employment.  It would be much more Pat Buchanan than Michael Bloomberg.  It certainly wouldn't win -- but it could attract the resentful right who understand that capital gains tax cuts don't do them any good.  There is virtually no constituency for the Simpson-Bowles world view other than the well-heeled folks who spend their Sundays working as talking heads.  

- As a proud Bay Stater by birth, this made me happy.   

- And Ruy Teixeira explains why Obama could win in Arizona.  It may not happen in 2012, but I think the Dems will carry this state in either 2016 or 2020.

- I think the fact that Obama has a small lead in North Carolina right now is a positive sign. 

Jump on in with your thoughts. 

Comments

[Paula B]

Sir C--re: the Slate piece
Several of us already knew this was the place to be long before we had the stats. The spirit of America, where it all began, etc.

Here is something I posted late in Do the Right Thing, which is so far downstream no one will see it. I'm bringing it forward along with a companion link, both related to same-sex marriage issues:

What is a man? What is a woman? Hint: These are trick questions.
Here's somethingto think about if you live in a state that has or is considering passing legislation that limits marriage to a man and woman. Pity NC.

Over 50 employees of a Georgia university run by the Southern Baptist Convention have resigned over refusal to sign an anti-gay and anti-lots-of-things pledge.

This last piece reminds me of the "freedom of religion" argument bouncing around DC these days, part of the ongoing debate over GU inviting Secretary Sibelius to speak at commencement. At what point do we start recognizing quality work/commitment/accomplishments without knowing a person's religion? Kansas just voted to never recognize Sheria law. When will states vote to refuse to recognize Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention laws and practices? That'll be the day we have freedom of religion.

[oddjob]

it could attract the resentful right who understand that capital gains tax cuts don't do them any good

If Gingrich chose the right words in his speeches (& if he wasn't so unappealingly Gingrich in so many awful ways) he would be a plausible candidate to carry this banner in a campaign.

[oddjob]

When will states vote to refuse to recognize Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention laws and practices? That'll be the day we have freedom of religion.

EXACTLY.

[Paula B]

Not to single out the Catholic Church, there's this!
To hell with freedom of religion, what about freedom of speech?

[kathy a.]

roy zimmerman on mitt romney and his hairstyling ways. well, not exactly, but watch.

[kathy a.]

omg, roy zimmerman for the musical accompaniment we need. he is apparently doing an entire series in the various states called vote republican 50.0 -- this link is to oklahoma. a short survey of other state entries shows a new version every location.

[nancy]

Mitt will never recover from those scissors.

kathy -- I like that Zimmerman uses a folkie-friendly sound, probably beloved even by the stodgy, to deliver his message. Woody Guthrie, Glenn Yarborough, Chad Mitchell style. Earnest protest-song sound.

That said, I look forward to hearing soon from Lewis Black on the character known as Mitt. Without edits of course. ;-)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

First, nancy, Lewis Black is also doing a gig as the voice of NY Lottery scratch off games. The bit -- so far just one -- is funny, but don't know any way you can get it -- only heard it on radio (Mets games) and not sure if it is on tv.

Now on the statement:

When will states vote to refuse to recognize Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptist Convention laws and practices? That'll be the day we have freedom of religion.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

This totally misunderstands the use of Sharia Law -- and the equivalent (halacha?) in Jewish Law. They are the basis of agreed arbitrations, in which both parties agree to 'take it and put it before the imam/rabbi.' This should be a right that needs preservation, whatever we think about the rules they choose to use for their own congregations.

I'm an atheist who considers any religion nonsense -- but my right to non-believe rests on my defense of others' right to believe. And I would say that in most cases -- we could argue the border -- a religious group should have the right to make any rules for its own members to obey -- at least as long as the rules do not demand criminal activity or force members to discriminate against other members.

But, for example, when i was a Catholic I briefly considered becoming a priest. I found out there was a rule that 'bastards could not become priests' and since i was one, I couldn't hope to write S.J. after my name.

Now technically such 'discrimination' may be unlawful, but I would see no reason why such a rule -- or even the 'no women priests' rule -- is the concern of the government.

The key is preventing a religious organization imposing its rules on non-members. That's what hurts freedom of religion, not interfering in a Church's relationship with its own members, or its members right to accept such rules.

[kathy a.]

well, you are absolutely on target, prup -- your freedom of religion is just fine, so long as you do not aim to impose it on me, or anybody else.

for an athiest, i'm friends with a lot of believers. ministers, even. it kind of goes w/o saying that my believer friends are the ones who care about a person and her acts, and not a one asks about my godly beliefs.

[nancy]

But, for example, when i was a Catholic I briefly considered becoming a priest. I found out there was a rule that 'bastards could not become priests' and since i was one, I couldn't hope to write S.J. after my name.

Prup, that was terribly painful to read. I'm so sorry.

[jeanne marie]

I was thinking the same thing, nancy. how sad. how shameful for the church to demean you because of the marital status of your parents.

[kathy a.]

it is sad, and shameful. and nonsensical -- teh big JC was himself not the product of a recognized marriage.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The fact that my mother was in a long-term (30 years) lesbian relationship might have caused problems too, but again, I can't complain that I didn't start something I would never have finished, and I'd have wanted at least to know the reason behind the rule -- probably because of the number of Papal bastards and the like entering the priesthood -- before I condemned it.

[Paula B]

I think you misunderstood me, prup, but maybe I wasn't clear. Let me explain: I have no interest in putting restrictions on what any religious body can do within the confines of its own building or its congregation, just want states to not incorporate their thinking or practices into law.
Do you see the Quakers demanding that we disband the National Guard om the grounds its existence restricts their freedom of religion? I think you could draw parallels with the Catholic Church and their war against health care and benefits providers that offer birth control, in a case like that. What do you attorneys think? Why should people belonging to the Society of Friends have to pay taxes to support a state or federal military, when war is against a core tenet of their religion?
As far as what they do to or what demands they make on their employees, that's their business as long as the people they hire know the rules going in. (I don't think that was the case in the Georgia school story, but I could be wrong about that, too.)
And, I agree with nancy, jeanne marie and kathy that it was shameful of the church to make you feel bad about your birth, prup. That's comparable to saying you have no right to live! So contradictory to anything they say they stand for. Same goes for all the crazy things going on in the name of religion, including Muslim fathers killing their daughters for being raped, and ministers forbidding church softball teams to play another team whose manager is thought to be bisexual. I can't even imagine what anyone affiliated with groups that do such things, could say to defend such inhumane behavior.
Don't you think we're on the same page? I know I am with kathy.

[low-tech cyclist]

Not to single out the Catholic Church, there's this!
To hell with freedom of religion, what about freedom of speech?

Paula - I find that encouraging, perversely enough.

For 10-15 years now, I've regarded SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, i.e. lawsuits to shut people up by suing them, thereby making speech extremely costly) as the biggest threat to free speech in this country.

Every time I open a fundraising letter from the ACLU, I look to see if they say anything about this problem. And they never do; they've seemed to be stuck in older (and less problematic) battles.

So it was good to read that the ACLU has taken on that case. I hope it wasn't just because a church was on the wrong side of the issue; we need the ACLU even more when it's a deep-pocketed corporation that's suing Joe or Jane Blow for having the temerity to criticize them on the Internet. Whether they're fighting that sort of battle is a question I still don't know the answer to, unfortunately.

[low-tech cyclist]

I was driving back to the office from a meeting in Hyattsville yesterday, and as I sometimes do while driving alone, I tune in to a local wingnut radio station to see what they're going on about this week.

Hannity was on in that time slot, and he was going on about an interview with Jeremiah Wright that he found damning.

The most damning things that Hannity brought up were that (a) according to Wright, Obama's been a disappointment because he wasn't doing enough to help black people - yeah, that's gonna get the wingnuts all fired up! - and (b) Wright said Obama said he couldn't tell the truth as a politician the way Wright could as a preacher. Hannity spun that as 'Obama said he'd say whatever he had to, to get elected,' but gimme a fucking break: if I went into politics, I don't think I'd have to lie, but I'd sure become a lot more circumspect about which truths I spoke in public. My freedom to tell the truth as I saw it would be somewhat circumscribed, assuming I wanted to try to win elections and stuff.

But it made me wonder: why would Hannity be talking about Jeremiah Wright at this late date? Was it just sheer desperation on the part of Fox Nation's talking heads to find something, anything, to throw at Obama?

Turns out that Matt Yglesias has the story: there's a right-wing billionaire, Joe Ricketts of Ameritrade fame, who wants to throw his money into this sort of attack on Obama.

I'm not the least bit worried about such attacks - even most grassroots wingnuts surely can't get fired up about Wright at this point in the game - but at least I know why his name is back in play.

[Paula B]

Thanks,l-tc.
Apropos of nothing -- well, maybe the minority birth rate story, in a roundabout way -- l-tc and Sir C will probably understand my excitement over learning my 4 year old grandson will be going to Yu Ying School in the fall. He's too young to understand the value of this lucky break, but I'm thrilled. For those outside the Beltway, YY is a Chinese immersion charter school, part of DCPS. He's already bilingual German/English, so now he'll be trilingual, which can't hurt in the world he'll grow up in. It certainly will be different 20 years from now in the US, and probably in Europe, too. Just the fact that such a school exists indicates the strength of the movement in this country toward diversity and multiculturalism. It's a train that can't be stopped, not even by the GOP.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I think the Times has a front page article on Ricketts' campaign too. I'd like to see some sort of boycott on TD Ameritrade in response.

Paual,

That's great news about your grandson. That article in the Times -- I think I may update and link to it -- needless to say made me very happy. It just seems clear to me that at some point the GOP continuing to double down on the old, the white, and the evangelical is going to bite them in the ass. I feel like I will live to see that day and it gives me great pleasure.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[Warning: Not a rant, but definitely a 'scenic route' post. I think the path is worth taking, but it takes a long while to get where I am going. And this was started before any of this morning's posts went up.]

Paula: First, we are on the same page. I was reasonably sure we were, but wanted to make the point explicitly, because of the way 'banning Sharia Law' has become misused.

But I have to make one point. This is literally the first time the rule against bastards has been presented to me in this way, and while I appreciate the sympathy, it is -- and would have been then -- unneeded. And maybe it might be worth while discussing why I never did -- and still don't -- feel the resentment you think I should have.

There are two main reasons, the first dealing with Catholicism and the second with Billie and Claire. Let's start with Catholicism, and the particular type I was lucky enough to get exposed to. Which wasn't the typical Catholicism that gets books written about, the "Growing Up Catholic" stories, or the type of Catholicism that Bill Donohoe, or even Pope Ratzinger talks about. (Or maybe it was, and I was just too oblivious of the 'world outside my books' to get it.)

As with any subject I had during grammar school and high school -- minor note, we had an 8-4 system, not the more customary 6-3-3 Junior High/High School system -- I was never satisfied by the textbooks. I always wanted to know more. (In fact I had a shtick that I always borrowed the books of a kid a grade above me the week before I was to go back to school and read them through, so when the teacher was talking about the day's lesson, I was already reading more deeply if the subject interested me, getting different and more detailed information, and sometimes even arguing with the textbook.)

But it was more than that. This was the Catholicism of Pope John XXIII and Vatican II, before the later Popes screwed it up. It was -- at least in St. Catherine of Bologna and in St. Peter's Prep -- a far more human and humane Catholicism but also one that aimed at the intelligence, not the emotions. (This is why, with all my atheism, and my detestation of Donohoe-type Catholicisn, I still consider my time at those schools one of the most positive things I experienced next to my luck of having Billy and Claire as parents.)

One of the key differences between 'my' Catholicism and most forms of Christianity, Catholic or Protestant, was its attitude towards sin, or how sin was discussed. I literally never remember any 'hell-waving,' any teacher, nun or priest, presenting a moral question and using as a reason to act 'don't do it or you'll go to hell.' )And there were no lasciviously masochistic descriptions of hell -- at another day I'd love discussing the tie-in between most religions and sado-masochism -- or even an attitude of 'do this because we tell you to and we have a line to God.'

(Or maybe it was there and because I was so used to the way Billie and Claire taught me I just had it bounce off me.) Anyway, my memory is that -- certainly for the Jesuits at St. Peter's, but also for the Franciscans at St. Catherine's -- we were never told 'don't do this because you'll go to hell,' or 'don't do this because we ell you not to.' It was always 'don't do this because it is wrong, here's why it is wrong, and we hope that once you understand this, you will choose not to do it.' But the responsibility and the decision -- and yes, the consequences -- were all mine.

(I remind you that what finally 'opened the exit door' for me was, in fact, my 11th Grade religion teacher, who said 'We are Catholics because we believe Catholicism is true, and for that reason alone. If you do not think it is true, you are wrong to call or consider yourself a Catholic.' I heard him, realized that I was unable to accept the first premise of Catholicism, that a God exists, and left, not without a struggle that tied in with other questions in my life. But most atheists I know rejected their own religion first, and then the idea of a God. For me it was the other way around.)

But -- and yes, I'm finally getting back to the 'bastard' question -- there was a very careful distinction made that is why I bever felt resentful at the rule, or felt they were 'attempting to make me feel bad about my birth.'

It took till High School to learn the terms, but there was always a difference between 'malum in se' and 'malum prohibitum,' between things that were 'wrong in themselves' and things that were 'wrong because they were prohibited.' The obvious example was always that 'murder is malum in se; eating meat on Friday is malum prohibitum'

That is, there is nothing inherently wrong in eating meat, there is nothing inherently wrong in eating meat on a Friday -- and a non-Catholic does absolutely nothing wrong in doing it. It is a sacrifice we -- the Church -- demand as a 'rule of the club.' (And we discussed how some areas were free from that rule, that Spanish Catholics had never been subject to it as a reward for something-or-other, etc.)

[two quick side tracks, I think worth reading but you can jump ahead and I won't mind -- as if you don't skip through my screeds anyway.] A nice distinction comes in on something like 'blasphemy' and 'cursing.' Blasphemy was, understandably, malum in se if you believed in a God and meant what you said. Similarly, if you believed in hell and sincerely meant it when you said 'Go to Hell' that would be malum in se as well.

But that was the key point, and to use legal rather than Church Latin, the concept of mens rea was vital. The essence of sin -- at least 'mortal' sin, the kind that gets you sent to Hell -- was in the intention, not the act. You had to understand what you were doing, know that it was wrong and do it deliberately to commit a mortal sin. (They even had a distinction that would go well in the criminal law as well. A person who was drunk could not have the mens rea to commit a mortal sin -- but if he knew that, when he was drunk, he would do sinful acts -- like fighting or fucking -- the act of getting drunk became sinful in itself, and he would in fact be responsible for any foreseeable conduct if he were drunk.)

[pulling off the side road and finishing Part one]

If you've managed to get through the wandering and scenery-staring you may have realized what I'm going to say. Even had I been told directly -- rather than discovering independently -- and after it was no longer an issue -- about the 'no bastards can be priests' rule, I would have felt none of the emotions you think I should have. This was an 'organizational rule' and there was no implication that there was anything wrong in my bastardy, or that it affected me in any other way. It was, seriously, like a height requirement for firefighters or cops. Being short wasn't being a bad person, and certainly there were short people who could fulfill the physical tasks required -- and plenty of 'tall-enough' people who couldn't. But it was a regulation, and if I was 5'3" maybe I couldn't hope to be a firefighter or cop. If I was a bastard, i couldn't be a priest. Neither were things I needed to resent or respond emotionally to at all.

But there was another question that think was in your minds, and that brings me to Billie and Claire's teaching, and that, by now, means a Part II. As usual, hope I get it done without too many household delays.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I think there might have been another argument that some of you were making, that i should have resented the rule because it 'set me apart' or 'made me feel different.' And this is where Billie and Claire came in. (As I mentioned briefly, I could almost hyphenate the phrase, because the one thing that was consistent in my growing up wasd that, whatever their problems, fights, or disagreements, they never let me see any difference in their basic parenting. They'd differ on minor things, and like any kid, I'd learn which argument would work better with which parent -- and because they wouldn't show a parenting disagreement, I knew if I could convince one, the other would agree -- but on anything serious they were a unit, with Claire usually being out front and Billie backing her.)

And, even in the ultra-conformist 50s, they never taught me to 'go along.' They encouraged me to be myself, to make my own judgments about things -- I'll tell the famous kindergarten story -- some of you may remmber it -- if asked -- and to 'be the best me I could be.' (They never phrased it that way, but it's a good description of the attitude.)

And they encouraged me to take responsibility for my actions, as much as i could at whatever stage I was in -- but that meant I had to accept the consequences of them as well. The absolute rules were that whatever I had done I would not lie about it, or try to get out of accepting the consequences of what I'd done. Not in a harsh way, they didn't force me to, they simply taught me to. And while they never 'punished' me, they made me think about what i had done and its consequences, and taught me that if I had caused harm, it was my responsibility to do what i could to correct it.

(Simple example. We always argued about my wanting the radio, or even the tv, on when i was doing homework. They tought it had to be a distraction, and tried to convince me to turn it off, I insisted that i needed it in the background to help me focus. They might disagree, but it was my choice -- but if they were right, and I saw my work slipping and knew it was because of the 'distraction' they knew I'd make the change myself.)

I was always taught i was 'special' and i was. i simply was more intelligent, more bookish, more interested in things in depth than were my classmates. (I was also clumsier, more naive and prudish -- then -- more religious (better, more 'pious'), more arrogant, and more infernally talkative than my classmates.) But that 'specialness' was something to be proud of, but most of all it gave me a responsibility to live up to. (If there is one thing in my life I am ashamed of it is the fact that I was never, as an adult, able to get into a position to actually live up to my potential or anything like it. I got locked into subsistence jobs after the dean's mistake ('oh, go ahead and change majors, it won't affect your National Merit Scholarship') got me out of college, and never was willing to abandon adult 'eccentricities' enough to be willing to work to get 'back on track' if the opportunity had ever really been there to do so -- I blew a lot of ones that came past.

Anyway (yanking myself by the collar) because they taught me how they did, I had a 'push towards perfectionism' that could have been bad -- I've seen the bad versions -- but wasn't because it simply made me want to be who i wanted to be anyway, again, the 'best me I could be.' And I didn;t feel any need to fit in, again because there was always the attitude from Billie and Claire that 'you know who you are, and if they don;t get it, or it bothers them, that's their problem, not yours' and that i should, if anything, feel sorry for them.

In fact, one argument that could always get through to me and cause me to rethink a position -- not necessarily change, just rethink -- was the argument 'Do you really want to act like X, like Tommy Nuzzo or Paul Schaefer' -- to pick two of the more delinquent of the Skyline Lakes residents and my classmates. It never was rhetorical -- I've never been good on rhetorical questions because we didn't use them much -- it was something I would actually think about. And if my answer was "Yes, in this case, I do, this isn;t something they do I consider bad" that was acceptable to me and to them.

So for me there was no insult in being 'set apart' as a bastard. (And remember, no one ever told the rule to me directly, I discovered it on my own later, but it wouldn;t have mattered.) If it was who i was, it was who i was, and if it affected me, it would be because of the way I viewed it, and what i thought it meant, not because it kept me from even considering becoming a priest, or because of whatever anyone else thought about me or my bastardy.

And it is because I was taught like that, allowed to be myself like that, I know how lucky i was in the 'parental sweepstakes' not because of Billie and Claire's gender, genetalia, or orientation, but because they understood what worked -- at least for me -- in parenting.

[you can relax now, I'm tired enough probably won;t have much to say for a while.]

[Paula B]

Wow, thanks for sharing your story, Jim. You were a lucky kid. I bet Tommy Nuzzo and friends didn't have it half as good as you. Poor them.
I don't really remember, and didn't grow up Catholic, but wonder if the whole religious climate might have been less polarized, or at least more reasonable in the 1950s. Or maybe it's just hindsight.

[jeanne marie]

Jim, thankfully you weren't "damaged" in that way by the church.

I was born in 1959 and grew up (naively) believing that the reforms that Vatican II brought about were going to be the first in many that would topple the patriarchal mindset of the church. That justice would prevail. I guess I believed that because it was happening in every sphere of my life - the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and, eventually, the GLBT movement.

But I still had to deal with the Church's stance regarding women. We are considered second class citizens (they would say that we have a "special and sacred" role as mothers) who are not eligible to become priests. This is demeaning. That I don't let it bother me doesn't mean it doesn't cut off opportunities for me or effect how others view me.

I had gone back to the Church several years ago because I wanted my children to grow up with a faith tradition. And although I had issues with the church, it was "the devil I knew". It was the church of our people, our ancestors. We jumped in with two feet, immersing ourselves into the doings of our local church. Our family treasured our faith community.

But, it became evident over the last few years that the Mother Church was not heading in the direction I had assumed. In fact, the reactionaries within had been working to reverse the reforms of Vatican II. Not only that, but they were using church power to push for legislation harmful to women and gays. {And don't get me started on the pedophilia scandal . . .}

So we quit. It makes me sad.

[kathy a.]

prup, thanks for sharing your story. your moms were indeed special and wonderful.

i'm kind of second-generation lapsed catholic, so all i got was random wads of guilt. ;) one of my dad's first cousins was a nun in the pre-vatican II days -- the full habit and everything; i remember visiting her at the orphanage where she worked. she quit and married a former priest. that marriage did not work out, but she never did abandon the thing about trying to do good works for others.

i have thought for a long time that there are tensions within the catholic church -- with some sectors really valuing critical thinking; some sectors really valuing doing the right thing for others; and then there are all these pronouncements from on high that most people kind of ignore (birth control), etc.

it is hard to ignore the pedophile scandals; hard to ignore the place of women in the church even when many other religious traditions have found ways to value the women who serve. seems to me, too, that this and other churches have been shockingly active in secular legislative matters in recent years -- not in that do good unto others way, but in the punitive ways you suggest, JM.

[jeanne marie]

On a COMPLETELY different note. These photos of a youthful Carlos Santana are utterly charming.

[jeanne marie]

I should have mentioned the link was to a blog dedicated to the works of legendary photographer Jim Marshall.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

jeannemarie: Can I question you rather strongly on your statement "I had gone back to the Church several years ago because I wanted my children to grow up with a faith tradition"? What i ewould like to do is ask you a few basic questions, and then to question you on your responses -- almost to the point of 'cross-examination' -- as a colloquy.

Please understand this is being done out of personal confusion, respect for you (there are plenty of people who'd say that and I'd just shrug and ask myself what I would expect from someone like that. But I know you are both intelligent and think things through, which is why the statement fascinates me), and a sincere desire to understand.

I'll ask the first basic questions now, but if you'd rather continue this by email, my email is jimbenton (minus the 'o') and I'm at verizon dot net. So if you'd prefer that or not to try this at all just tell me.

Anyway, the basics are

a:) Why did you want to raise your children in a faith tradition?

b:) What benefits do you think they will receive from this, what do you consider the drawbacks, and why do you think the first outweigh the second

c:) Do you assume you are making a 'lifetime committment' for them, or one they can, with your help, back out of

d:) When they start asking you questions, how will tyou respond to the following:

1) Does God really exist?
2) Was Jesus his son?
3) Was Jesus really 'born of a virgin.'
4) Did he die for our sins?
5) Is there really a Hell?
6) Does God hear and answer our prayers, and if so, why did Mrs. Smithers' mother die when she was praying so hard for her?
7) If God is good, why do bad things happen.

All but the last two could be answered yes or no, or you could explain.

e:) If you made your answers conform to the Church's teachings, do you believe you were telling the truth? If not, how do you justify lying to them, and how will you answer them when they ask you about it?

f:) How are you, at some later date, going to help them 'unlearn' some of the more toxic ideas in any religion, not just in Catholicism, or do you feel it is unnecessary, that they will, if they choose, unlearn them by themselves?

Again, i wouldn't ask you these if I weren't reasonably sure, having read your comments here, that you had asked yourself them before you made the decision. I'll admit, I can't see what the answers might be, but that's why I am asking you.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I will let JM answer your inquiry to the extent she feels like it, but I think there is tremendous social pressure to bring up kids in a faith.

My wife and I chose not to -- very consciously -- but many people I know who strike me as pretty skeptical nonetheless had their kids go to church. I feel like I know a number of Catholics who were completely non-observant or minimally so who nonetheless made a point of having their kids baptized, make their first communions, etc. It's interesting.

Living without a faith in this society requires you to learn to create your own approach to things like weddings and funerals, major life milestones that have historically been deeply entwined with religious rituals.

[nancy]

jeanne marie -- So we quit. It makes me sad.

it is sad. but my guess is that while you can take the girl out of the church, you don't take the church out of the girl. that's what it can depend on. we got an outreach letter today from the bishop. nary a word about the church's recent affronts to the dignity of women, but an appeal to its local catholic charities presences as well as social justice efforts, ongoing and irreplaceable, far and wide.

i always pile these appeals on my desk with a rubber band and never know quite how to act. but then i'm the small c catholic in the family. dad is a server and son a currently lapsed product of a jesuit h.s. education. stuff get complicated, doesn't it?

and prup. i wrote my little response after yours, so not intending to ignore your questions.

[kathy a.]

i can't answer for anyone else, but i love nancy's comment that "while you an take the girl out of the church, you can't take the church out of the girl." i've been agnostic since my mid-teens, now call myself an athiest, but still there are beliefs i hold that i trace back to the church. (episcopalian, in my case.)

we decided to not raise our kids in a faith, but asked them to respect the beliefs of others. we figured that if they wanted to join a religion, they should do that when they were old enough to choose. that actually worked out pretty well, i think. there were a couple of startling moments, like when my son came home from a play date saying he believed in god -- we just talked it out.

but the essentials of treating others right, of respect and caring, of doing one's share -- those were things we talked about a lot. my kids were exposed to a lot of religious traditions, between family and friends: protestant, catholic, unitarian, buddhism, judaism, baha'i, shinto, armenian orthodox.

it is true that religious traditions at least have ceremonies at the ready for those big life events, like marriages and funerals, and we have to make stuff up without them.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I'm so glad that so many people have joined in. It, among other things, gives me a chance to ask pointed questions without jm thinking I was aiming them just at her.

Let me make my basic point here -- with a few addenda -- hey, it's me.

This is probably the single most important decision a parent can make for a child.

The decision will affect the way he -- just saving time and characters -- thinks, the way he perceives the world and how he responds to those perceptions, the way he views and interacts with other people, the way he conducts the sexual part of his life, the way he thinks about himself, his ability to use critical thinking, the type of evidence or authority he accepts, among others.

It will also affect, to a certain extent, the way others view him.

It is also a decision which must be made, initially, by the parent.

"Must" because this is a decision where any of the forms of 'not making a choice' are in fact choices.

This is true whether the 'non-choice' is neutrality until the child asks, exposure to many religious cultures without expressing a preference, straight to raising the child as an atheist.

Unlike, for example, choosing a bride for the child in cultures where this is permitted, encouraged or traditional. A parent can simply refuse and let the child make the choice -- but that's because the choice and effects from it only happen in adulthood. The religious choice happens and affects the child practically from the moment he begins to interact with the world outside his home, sooner if there are conflicting religious influence in the home.

One certain effect of the choice, whatever it is including a 'non-choice' is that it will cause some people to think less of the child, and probably to show that they do.

This is not just because all religions and secularisms and non-beliefs have other groups who look down upon them. It's also that however his actions are affected, the child will act in ways that other people will consider inappropriate.

Examples on that could include anything from PZ Myers' determined blashphemy to Tim Tebow's praying at 'inappropriate' moments.

Okay, so I git a little fancy with the format. But I think the weight of the lettering equals the weight of the decision.

And before we discuss specifics, I have to admit to a 'prejudging.' For various reasons, including, for non-Catholic -- Roman or Anglican -- Protestants, a complicated theological argument that is much more important than it seems, there are only four religions I could imagine the question even being arguable. Except for them -- and possibly some forms of Buddhism -- the drawbacks, mental effects, and warping of interpersonal relationships seem so strong as to make it impossible to defend exposing a child to that religion for the reason given that is, so the child will 'grow up in a faith tradition.' If a parent is him or herself a believer, that is an entirely different question.

(I would, btw, be very interested in seeing such an argument, but I will argue back on the points above.)

The four exceptions are:

Roman Catholicism, (of a type that still is focused on the ideas and ideals of Vatican II and Pope John. They still exist, and should be sought for. One rule that helps is that you have to start by choosing among parishes and schools that are run by religious orders rather than directly under the control of the Bishop. This won't guarantee you'll find what you want, but a Diocesan school or parish certainly won't)

Anglican/Episcopalian Catholicism, (again, be sure that you choose a congregation that is American-centered rather than African-centered -- which has nothing to do with race but stresses homophobia -- especially if the split that has been predicted actually happens.) This has fewer of the drawbacks of Roman Catholicism, but, I'd argue, lacks some of its strengths and rigourous thinking.

Judaism (any group to the left of Orthodoxy, ideally somewhere between the left-wing of "Conservative" Jewry -- which isn't 'conservative' at all in the sense we use it -- and Reform.) (and a suggestion for people interested in exploring these options, two easily-read sources are Diont's JEWS, GOD AND HISTORY and THE INDESTRUCTIBLE JEWS, and, surprisingly, the discussions in the "Rabbi" series of detective stories -- which have been collected in one book called CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RABBI.) I've mentioned the advantages of this various times, the type of reasoning it inspires, the seeing of a 'sacred text' as a book of questions rather than answers, the teaching of 'personal responsibility' and 'gratitude to God' as the reasons for avoiding sin rather than fear of punishment, and the ability to accept a ritual, a rule, or even a belief as a unifying factor rather than as a necessity from God -- the whole 'tradition' thing.

Uniterian-Universalist. The best 'religion for the non-religious' which provides for the desire for ritual, ceremony, and social interaction, as well as fulfilling the 'person of faith' requirement without necessarily requiring any belief, even in the existence of God. Certainly this is the group least likely to question the political beliefs we all accept, and it gives parents the fewest 'awkward questions' to answer. On the otherhand, I question whether the attraction it has for adults is not somewhat lacking for a young child, at least partially because much of it is cerebral.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oops, think I left a blockquote unclosed

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Diont = Dimont

[Crissa]

I hate to take a conversation on a side road for no reason, but... Those pictures of Carlos Santana are mostly how I remember him.

...From my mother's albums and photographs collected through her rambling youth. ^-^;

[jeanne marie]

Jim, I should have time later today to respond.

Crissa - your mother has pictures?! My parents were in their twenties in the sixties, but had chosen to take the raising four kids in the suburbs route. They didn't keep us from listening to the music - and they listened to some of it themselves - but very few albums and certainly no photos.

[oddjob]

Uniterian-Universalist. The best 'religion for the non-religious'

Indeed. There is the occasional joke that the prayers of a Unitarian are addressed "To Whom it May Concern". :)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One quick political one -- and I don't have to even give the source, it's been covered by Benen, C&L, and others. But if there were a bottle labeled 'Essence of Romney' it would contain this, liquified and condensed:

“I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said whatever it was,” Romney said.

[kathy a.]

prup, my childhood parish is one that later split from the american episcopalian church, and is trying to take the church property with it. the change started happening when i was about 13-14, and the new minister turned out to be a hellfire & brimstone kind of guy -- very different from his predecessors. i refused to go any more after some ugly incidents involving the youth group. i think about half the parish left around that time.

we did send my daughter to a catholic high school, as it seemed the best academic fit for her, and i figured studying religion would not actually be fatal. the school was over 50% non-catholic. one of her favorite teachers was one of the brothers, her religion teacher -- just an all-around thoughtful and caring man.

my parents began attending church just as i began kindergarten. i believe they were getting grief from my grandmother because there were three of us kids by then, and we had not even been baptized, and we would all go to hell if something wasn't done. i doubt my parents gave much thought to theological matters.

for the most part, until the hellfire minister showed up, the church provided a sense of community, of caring, and of ritual that i kind of miss. it was a place to think about some of the larger questions -- not, as whozits contends, the ONLY place -- but the one available to us then, and a multigenerational place as well.

i think there would have been more social pressure for us to join a church if we had raised our kids in the south. there is a lot more tolerance for religious differences where we live, near berkeley.

the mom who talked to my boy about god was not an evangelical, but a jew from iran (or persia, as she said). she did not push very hard; i think she worried that there was something missing from my son's life that she valued very much. but that "hole" was filled, for us, in other ways. one need not believe in a higher being to think carefully about what is important in life, about how to treat one another.

[oddjob]

Maryland Supreme Court unanimously rules that same-sex marriages performed in other states are valid in Maryland.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

That's great news.

[nancy]

Oddjob -- that's great great news.

Unitarian local joke -- June Summer Vacation sign: 'See you in September.' Translation, 'Have happy but serious thoughts to which we'll return after hiatus. Namaste. Y'all.'

Le bon weekend. I will be scarce for a while, being dragged kicking and screaming into a kitchen remodel project. Most definitely not my idea. Ugh.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Good luck. Hopefully when it is all done you will be happy.

The spouse and I are contemplating doing the same with a master bath -- which we previously redid only 9-10 years ago, but ended up regretting some of our choices (pedestal sink looks nice, but not very practical -- white tile on the floor -- yes, it shows the dirt to great effect), some pretty mediocre craftsmanship, and some things that just haven't worn well.

[Paula B]

A few years ago, we hired a guy to install ceramic tile floors in kit/baths/foyer. Seemed like a simple project: take up old carpeting and linoleum, put down ceramic tile. HE was also going to lay granite tiles over old formica countertop. Before he got halfway into the job, we realized he installed the wrong tile. No problem, he said, he could remove it (we didn't ask how). He and his guys ground down all the tile with something like a big grinder, plus ground down the edges of the old formica countertop so they could install granite tile on top of it. All that kicked up a huge concrete dust cloud. Realizing they couldn't breathe, they turned on central A/C, which in turn sucked the stuff into every room, covering every blooming thing we owned with a 1/4 inch of toxic dust (even inside closets,cabinets, drawers). I'm wildly allergic to even the smallest amount of this stuff, which also happens to be a carcinogen and a possible cause of COPD. So, we had to move out for 8 months while we haggled with our/his insurance companies, and ultimately hired hazmat cleaners/rehabbers, who practically gutted the place. Threw out and replaced all curtains, blinds, mattresses, linens, upholstered furniture, carpeting, lots of clothes and other textiles because all doors had been removed for the project. Finally replaced all flooring, scrubbed and painted walls and ceilings, cleaned air ducts, bought new furniture and rugs. Most of this was paid for with settlement from his insurance company, which agreed to pay for cleanup, only. What we learned was this:
Make sure your installer is insured (ours was, thank God), ask for DETAILS on what he plans to do and how he will handle mistakes/accidents, have a Plan B for what you'll do/where you'll go if something goes wrong (we had a cabin in VT) and set aside some $ for what can go wrong. If it all works out well, you'll have a few dollars for paint or a party to celebrate your beautiful new place. Good luck!

[Paula B]

I meant to say the machine looked something like a commercial floor waxer.

[nancy]

Paula, you just explained why I am kicking and screaming.

What a nightmare! My husband read the above and he laughs -- then reminds me of Basil Fawlty's dealings with his substitute-discount Irish contractor who didn't know what a load bearing wall was, making for much of the usual from Sybil who had to bring back her original contractor to fix the mess.

I read your tale without seeing any potential humor. One of my favorite old movies is "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" with Cary Grant and Myrna Loy. In our case, I'll be playing the Cary Grant part.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

That's scary. Stone dust is no joke. There are a lot of incompetents out there.

It's good to hire people whose work you've seen and who have good references from people you know. I am hoping to get a tile setter from the union I represent if we go forward with something -- someone with a reputation for good craftsmanship.

The last time we did work around here was during the crazy real estate boom and finding people was difficult.

nancy,

My wife has taken to watching the Housing channel on cable, which has all of these remodeling shows. One our favorites is called "Holmes on Homes" which features a curmudgeonly but lovable contractor who comes in to save the day for people who have had disastrous work done. It's quite satisfying viewing.

[Paula B]

Sir C---This tile setter was a good craftsman, came recommended, had lots of experience plus his own flooring store but appeared to be ignorant of health and safety precautions that go with his trade. None of his crew used any protection from the dust or grout. They acted like I was hysterical for wearing an N-95 respirator and rubber gloves when I went to the house to get some of our things, after I realized what they had done. Tile guy tried to clean up the mess with an ordinary vacuum cleaner, but dust just shot out the other end. Ground up concrete is as fine as talcum powder, and hangs in the air for a long time. When spouse removed the vacuum cleaner bag, he said it weighed about 15 pounds. Naturally, look what it was filled with!
This cavalier attitude toward health and safety should not have come as a surprise to me because I've run into it before in otherwise perfectly intelligent tradesmen who eschew common-sense health precautions. Maybe it's a macho thing?
I know electricians -- including the one I'm married to -- who complain to anyone who'll listen about the stupid OSHA rules that crimp their style, the ones they ignore by not wearing gloves, goggles or protective clothing when they work. Some -- licensed, experienced, certified by all the qualifying agencies -- handle asbestos, PCBs and similar materials during the day, then go home and throw their work clothes in the family hamper. In our home, I insist on after-work showers and separate laundry baskets/loads, even though my husband thinks it's overkill. I know better. I've been writing about the consequences of being careless with hazardous stuff, for a long time.
Sir C, maybe you can encourage your union buddies to take health warnings seriously, especially when we now know that even small amounts of carcinogens that may fall off a tradesman's clothes, shoes and hair can do great harm to spouses and kids, over time. It's really nothing to laugh at.
Speaking of laughing, Nancy, the two of us see the humor in this nutso tale now that we're back in our newly painted and furnished home with the tile floors, but had a hard time working up much of a laugh when it was happening.
We learned so much that year, like how to keep a woodstove running and keep up a steady income at the sane time. This place was supposed to be our no-TV, no-computer, no-nothin-electronic retreat, but, very early in the year, we broke down and put in a land line, just in case. Unfortunately, the phone worked only on sunny, windless days. Then, we needed a fridge, clothes dryer and cable w/Internet so I could keep working, as well as the equivalent of his own private oil well so my husband could drive an additional 80 miles a day to work. In case you have a hankering for a cute little vacation home in Vermont, you might be interested in this one. It's at the end of a dirt road, off a dirt road, off a dirt road in the mountains, where the bears are plentiful, the neighbors are scarce and you won't be bothered by those pesky mail deliveries or trash pickups. We wanted rustic, and we got it. Buying groceries, paying bills and getting rid of garbage took me the better part of a day dodging potholes on 20 miles of unimproved roads over mountains on the way to the town dump.
One of my favorite memories was the one when I needed to set up a telephone interview with a guy in London, for a story I was working on. In our email correspondence, he said he could do the interview on Monday or Tuesday of the following week. I wrote back that I would check my calendar and get back to him. The truth was I had to check the Weather Channel to see which day would be dry and calm, so I could use the phone. If he only knew...
And, Nancy, I don't remember the Mr. Blandings story, but love "The Money Pit" with the very young Tom Hanks(?).

[kathy a.]

open thread: NAACP backs same sex marriage as a civil right. not the end of divide and conquer tactics, but surely this is good news.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

Generally speaking the unions take the safety stuff very seriously. The first courses in apprenticeship programs are typically job safety related.

But sometimes it is hard to overcome macho attitudes and sometimes safety equipment can be hard to work with. I think that younger members are a little more likely to be compliant with the safety rules.

I do a lot of work with trades that once worked with asbestos. It was not unusual for wives of members to get asbestosis from doing laundry. It's a substance to take deadly seriously.

kathy,

That's great news.

[oddjob]

"The Money Pit" with the very young Tom Hanks(?)

Yes, that was Tom Hanks & Shelley Long.

[jeanne marie]

prup, i have not forgotten about you. just haven't had time to pull my thoughts together. great questions, though, most of the answers have evolved over time.

[nancy]

Prup -- Seconding jeanne marie. Time-out here for a while.

Oddjob and Paula -- Mr. Blandings was the inspiration for "The Money Pit." The book (which I found in a second-hand store) has illustrations by William Steig, one of my favorite children's books author-illustrators.

Now, I'm supposed to be ahead of our cabinetmaker with a bunch of decisions requiring making choices, which has never been my strong suit. To put it mildly.

Sir C -- We've have white mosaic tile which was laid in 1912 in our bath. Zero maintenance, ultra-durability. Little six-sided tiles. Just a thought.

Oh. Follow-up to son's Coachella saga from last month. All his stuff -- wallet, glasses, camel-back was turned in to lost and found. Yaya. And the drug mistake he fell into was called 'synthetic marijuana' which is being produced to keep young people from breaking drug laws. Feature that. Synthetic marijuana is hugely dangerous, but legal.

[kathy a.]

nancy, i don't know about the "legal" part of that last tidbit -- the latest ban of which i am aware was signed just last fall. but apparently there is a lot of entrepreneurship out there in the fake drugs that can make you really sick arena.

glad your son's stuff was turned in.

i really hate the decisionmaking around fixup projects. we need to have a bunch of windows replaced, but fortunately i am both too broke and too busy to deal with that until after the current giant work project is done. then we will still be stuck with the "what color should we paint the house" problem, a family staple since we moved here in 1996. (but obviously, the painting cannot happen until after the windows, so nothing is happening now.)

[nancy]

kathy a. -- thanks for that. the illegality, and more importantly, danger, of this 'herbal creation' has evidently not made its way, word of mouth, to the festival-attending crowd yet.

passing that info on, with serious parental warnings. they actually do listen, i find.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

White floors are just too hard to keep looking decent if you are an inconstant housekeeper as I am. (We will not even discuss my wife in this regard.) And six inch tiles have too much grout exposed. (I have four inchers, which are even worse.)

I have found my ideal flooring, which is a kind of long (18 x 6) gray, natural stone like tile with a little bit of sparkle in them. The joints will be few and small and the gray is ideal for not showing dirt. Now I just need to make sense of the money involved.

kathy,

Windows are shockingly expensive. Over 14 years we have replaced all but two of the windows in the house (just an oversight really that those two didn't get done), which was somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 windows and each time, (I think this occurred in three or four batches) I was stunned by the price. New windows though are very sweet to have, especially if you live anywhere with cold winters.