Every year we have random high school graduates (I think, anyway) wander through our building trying to get “points” towards some trip by selling overpriced magazine subscriptions. That’s the pitch anyway. It’s typically prefaced by the fact that they’re working on their public speaking or something, as well.
In any case, they’re annoying and I think it’s a scam. This year is different in that there’s a sign on the door to my building that says “no solicitation.” I, apparently naively, assumed that would be the end of them knocking on my door. Not so. When I mentioned the sign, he said “I didn’t know what that meant. I thought it was for the church people.” So clearly he noticed it and at least sort of knew what it meant. And let’s face it, I’d much rather be greeted by church folk than a salesman (as it stands, they just leave fliers on my door).
So, do kids really not know what solicitation means? That’s hard to believe, isn’t it?
Pretty much the only reason to read TNR these days is Johnathan Chait, who’s one of my favorite liberal writers. His review of Naomi Klein’s recent book is a good read.
There’s a post over at Montana Headlines complaining about people attacking Bobby Jindal’s apparent belief in exorcisms. It’s a fun exercise in how we balance secularism and religious beliefs.
Whatever the phenomenon was that the youthful Jindal observed, the net effect was that it left him believing in “the reality of spirits, angels and other related phenomena…” Shocking, truly shocking, that any Christian might believe in the reality of the spirit world.
It seems to me that there’s a strange balance going on with some religious public figures. On the one hand, they do believe in lots of supernatural-type phenomena. On the other hand, it’s a little weird to attribute certain things to the supernatural. Maybe a Christian believes that God can talk to people, but does he believe God is telling Pat Robertson what the future holds? I would hope not, generally. Maybe he believes in demonic possession, but does he believe that random bad person x is possessed? Every year some fundamentalist comes out and says some natural disaster is the wrath of God. Christians believe God can influence world events, right? Things are getting a little fuzzy. For better or worse, our society generally accepts and defends those who believe in such things in the abstract. But there’s less protection for those who believe in concrete examples.
MH seems to glide past this feature of our discourse when dismissing those who criticize Jindal. Are we to accept any assertion of a real example of supernatural phenomena? It’s not shocking for a Christian to be a creationist. Should we not criticize creationists? It’s not shocking for a Christian to believe in angels that protect people, so what if someone believes President Bush is under the guidance of the divine? Would it be intolerant to wonder if that person is fit for office?
While the event Jindal relates appears to be from his early days of being a Catholic, and took place within the loose structure of a generic college Christian organization, it is worth noting that exorcisms are, unless things have changed recently, a standard part of every Catholic baptism. Pope John Paul II approved a specific rite for exorcisms in the late 1990’s. A belief that there are demonic forces that can specifically oppress an individual, and that prayer has efficacy in dealing with it is not something that comes from the fringes of Christianity.
The counterpoint to that is that the Catholic Church only recognizes exorcisms performed by an authorized priest and warns against confusing possession with mental illness. Exorcism in the abstract is mainstream Catholicism, but you’re on shaky ground when you’re dealing with a handful of typically credulous believers outside of Church control. Jindal also seems to believe that the rite cured the possessed’s cancer. Not shocking for a Christian, I guess, but shouldn’t he be a bit skeptical about faith healing after all the scams and obvious self-delusion? Jindal’s credulity goes beyond standard Catholic doctrine.
MH is right when he says bringing this up won’t help Democrats, but his defense of Jindal is troubling. Even if you’re inclined to accept Jindal’s faith as a normal human belief system, religion shouldn’t be a free pass for people avoiding critical thinking and skepticism about everyday events.
I see the person with the world’s lowest merit to fame ratio is out and about. I wonder what he has to say?
“A new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected, and cherished — not rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed,” the pope told a congregation estimated by the organizers at 400,000 gathered at a Sydney racecourse and nearby park.
Yes, they’ll build a world where God’s “gifts” are welcome and denial of such things will be rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed. I look forward to it.
“In so many of our societies, side by side with material prosperity, a spiritual desert is spreading: an interior emptiness, an unnamed fear, a quiet sense of despair,” he warned.
The Pope knows this because of his extensive interaction with your average member of such societies, which is done via telepathy from the Vatican. I guess.
He said that in the absence of God, “what was ostensibly promoted as human ingenuity soon manifests itself as folly, greed and selfish exploitation.”
Well, it’s nice that he’s admitting there’s an absence of God in the Catholic church.
“Our world has grown weary of greed, exploitation and division,” the pope said, “of the tedium of false idols and piecemeal responses, and the pain of false promises.”
And now he’s explaining to us why we shouldn’t be Catholics. I’m sold!
Despite the presence of hundreds of thousands of young visitors, 125,000 of them from overseas, there was almost no trouble. The police reported only one arrest, of a young Australian Catholic who punched a demonstrator who was throwing condoms into a crowd of pilgrims to protest the church’s stand on birth control and its opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Really? Throwing condoms at people gets you decked? Presumably they weren’t used condoms…
But wait, that wasn’t the dumbest religious babbling of late. This might be worse:
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has called on followers of the world’s main religions to turn away from extremism and embrace a spirit of reconciliation.
He said the great conflicts of history were not caused by religion, but by the misinterpretation of religion.
Yes, that’s the leader of Saudi Arabia promoting religious tolerance.
Man, he sounds just like those fluffy, moderate religious apologists, doesn’t he? It’s almost like those are just empty platitudes.
Regardless of the ridiculous controversy over the cover, this New Yorker article on Obama is worth reading.
It’s not flattering, but it’s by no means a negative article. The man is smart and he figured out how to work Chicago’s political landscape and propel himself into the U.S. Senate. He learned from mistakes and made it to the top. A bit ruthlessly, maybe, but politics isn’t for timid folks like myself. The story also does a good job showing just how absurd the allegations that he’s some kind of left wing radical are, as well.
It does cut against his idealistic message of hope change a little, though. He used Chicago’s political machine when he needed it, he didn’t try to change it. He didn’t push sweeping changes at any level. I’m tempted to say that’s really what the controversy over the cover is for – to redirect attention from this article – but it doesn’t seem like it’s worth the trouble.
UPDATE: Jesus, I should read these more carefully before I post them.
Seriously, is it November yet?
I’m trying and failing to not care about this election for at least a few more months. There’s pretty clearly nothing I can do to change anything about the way things are going (which seems ok, so far, but not where it should be, in my opinion), especially now. So I have to just sit back and watch the fake media scandals and awkward campaign responses. It’s not fun. I can barely muster enough energy to mock McCain’s failure at the Internets. Or even the unrelated matter of Bill Donahue’s claim that it’s hard to come up with a more vile act than desecrating a communion wafer. Mr. Donahue, meet Cardinal Law. I’m sure you’ll be fast friends.
On another subject, this song is awesome.
You know that McCain web ad that asks if you think we should meet unconditionally with anti-American foreign leaders? There’s a yes and a no box. I clicked on the yes box and I was taken to a McCain page asking for my email or my money. It’s surprising that McCain endorses that kind of thing, isn’t it?