Infidels of Every Denomination

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Denounces The Vatican

Yes, you read that right.  Earlier this week the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issued a resolution denouncing the Vatican and its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith generally with regard to its teachings about homosexuality, and specifically about it's directive to the Archdiocese of San Francisco (among others) and Catholic Charities not to participate in adoption placements.  (I've included the full text of the resolution at the end of this entry.)  The directive was in response to legislation requiring that adoption services not discriminate against lesbian and gay applicants.

You've already seen my mixed thoughts about such anti-discrimination policies that don't allow exemptions for religious services providers.  I wish I could tell you that my opinion has solidified one way or the other, but it hasn't.  I'm still torn, and suspect I will be for some time.

What's interesting me here is the Supervisors' resolution itself.  The Vatican is a sovereign nation, and it's perfectly legitimate for a nation or one of its political subdivisions to denounce the conduct of a foreign state (which the Supervisors made clear it was doing in the second paragraph -- the first "whereas" clause -- of the resolution).  In that sense, what the Supervisors did was proper.  Where things get sketchy is that it's not just a nation -- it's also the center of a religious body:  is it proper for a government entity to officially denounce the teachings and directives of a particular religion, and the actions of its clergy?

The Big Deal about Big Love

HBO's new series Big Love has gotten quite a bit of press, mostly aimed towards its portrayal of a polygamous family.  The key word being "polygamous."  Perhaps some of their promos mentioned the word "Utah."  One word you most definitely didn't see, however, was "Mormon."

Interesting, that.  Especially since, from where I'm standing, the show's about a Mormon polygamous family -- the most relevant word being "Mormon."

I wonder how the press -- and the Mormon church -- would have reacted to that?

Catholic Charities stops facilitating adoptions in MA

I may have more to say about this later,  but I wanted to at least get things started.

As you may know, Massachusetts has a law prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian families when placing children for adoption.  A few months ago Catholic Charities' board unanimously voted to continue to facilitate adoptions of hard-to-place children in state care, despite the state law.  Last week Catholic Charities announced that, pursuant to the decisions of local bishops, it would no longer participate in adoptions in Massachusetts.

First, kudos to Catholic Charities' board -- especially the members (seven, I believe) who resigned in protest -- for intending to make this decision after careful thought and consideration.  It's my sincere hope that those former board members -- perhaps with the assistance of others still on the board -- have the desire and ability to found a new agency that continues the good work that Catholic Charities had been doing for all children.

Second, was there really no way to work around this apparent conflict?

Intelligent Design is struck down in PA, but what does the opinion foretell about the future of an independent judiciary?

It's been a rough few months for this blogger, which is why you haven't seen me in a while.  This doesn't mean that there hasn't been a lot happening on the legal front -- there has.  And, hopefully, I'll be able to do some catching up during the next few weeks.  Today, though, it's time for current events.

Earlier today a judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania held, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, that the School District cannot require students to hear about Intelligent Design.  The court determined that  "the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."  The court based its ruling, in part, on the fact that plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

In case you're wondering, the judge who decided the case -- the Hon. John E. Jones III -- is a 2002 Bush appointee.

In a striking commentary on the current climate in the US, the court apparently felt constrained to preemptively defend its own decision -- and itself -- from charges of judicial activism.  The court not only protested any such label, but criticized the school board and its attorneys in a manner rarely seen in court decisions.

Propping Up Bushco

As repulsed as I was on so many levels reading about Bush, "Strip Search Sammy" Scalito, and the rest of the racist, sexist Repugnant Party leadership seizing Rosa Parks's corpse a a prop to polish the turd that is their image, there was one thing about it that I found particularly troubling.

See, to me, the symbolic image being presented is not "look how pious and mournful the rich white men are at the death of a remarkable woman", but rather "to us, the only good woman is a dead woman".

These are men (and some enabling, self-hating women) who are doing everything they can to subjugate American women and even endanger their health and safety. These are men who surround themselves with wimpy, meek little yes-women or women willing to play the part in public. These are men who never show a modicum of kindness, respect, or care for the women of this country, who are deeply angry about how those uppity bitches think they deserve rights too. But, lordy me, give them a dead or brain-dead woman who can't talk back, and it's all they can do not to jack off on her inert body. At least it's consistent, considering these are the same people who don't really care about actual living children or (especially if they are poor or non-white) actively despise them as parasites on society, but who loves them some non-sentient zygote-Americans with a fanatical passion.

There's a particular kind of personality that I call "emotional ambulance chasers". These are the people who are so self-absorbed and so obsessed with their own worldview and agenda that the dramas of their own lives are not enough for them. Therefore, they actively (if not always consciously) seek out the struggles and tragedies of those around them and try to force their way into the picture-- to usurp the other person's story and make it all about themselves. This is the person who takes it on themselves to call all your friends and break the news when your mother dies, even though you didn't ask them for any help, because it gives them the chance to sound breathy and teary and important and to soberly inform everyone else about how you're holding up under their care. It's a repellant trait under ordinary circumstances, but becomes downright disgusting when the person whose circumstances they are usurping are ones who can't speak for themselves.

Bush and his cronies are masters at this latter kind of emotional ambulance chasing, whether it's Bush hogging Terri Schiavo's imminent death with a dramatic midnight flight back from the ranch to sign bullshit legislation, or the racist misogynist Scalito shedding crocodile tears for Rosa Parks to bolster support for his SCOTUS nomination. Don't be fooled. If Rosa Parks offered her momentous protest in some comparable fashion today, she'd be humiliated and spat on by the right wingers, arrested by Bushco thugs, and her name dragged through the mud on Fox News.

It's only because she's dead and silent that she's useful to Bushco.

So ladies, there's your cold comfort in Shrub's brave new world-- the more he and his ilk get their way, the less anyone in power will care about your life or happiness or liberty...but man, will they cry you a river at your funeral.

Just as I suspected...

So, now that the water has mostly receded and it turns out the Rita didn't deliver the "two" punch to Katrina's "one", some of the dust (well, maybe mud) is beginning to settle.  And guess what?  It's beginning to look like post-Katrina NOLA wasn't such an atrocity exhibition after all.   This counts as good news, I suppose...

I'm sure that some bad things happened, more of them than should have.  And a lot of horrible stuff probably didn't get reported officially- the locals don't trust the cops or the city government.  Still, it no longer looks like the behavioral sink that was originally reported.

Why the wild exaggeration? The phenomenon is in some part understandable, and even forgiveable.  After all, it was an extraordinarily messy situation by anyone's lights; everyone knows how easy it is to blow things out of proportion, to misinterpret what you see.  The same event gets reported multiple times, details get abraded and lost as rumors fly.  It's part of the human condition.

But parts of the article made me grit my teeth, nonetheless- not the writer's fault, but the content...

National Day of Prayer

September 16th has been designated by Bush as a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Katrina victims. (You know, in case you were living under a rock, or were on vacation or working for FEMA and therefore missed the news.)

Certainly, it is hardly unusual for any political leader in America to call for a day of prayer, particularly in the wake of tragedy. What IS unusual is how often Bush designates them, and frequently for no particular reason (though I'm going to guess lagging poll numbers).

As a spiritual person myself, I know what comfort prayer can bring when one is grappling with grief and confusion. Those of us who believe in such things find it important to offer aid and solace and support to the suffering on a spiritual level in addition to a physical one. I think that everyone who is inclined to should spend however much time they wish in prayer for Katrina's victims; I think it is an appropriate time for spiritual leaders to gather their congregants and for groups to seek time together with their members, and to call privately for prayer or meditation or ritual.

But I find it extremely inappropriate for public leaders to do the same. (In that, I find myself in the company of some pretty cool guys.)

BAGging the Bushies

I'm a big fan of BAGnewsNotes in general because I'm fascinated by the analysis of photographs, and the work there is always thought-provoking and often startling. These two recent posts, though, I felt merited particular mention:

In Laura: Just Say N.O., a series of pictures of the First Lady "comforting" victims of Katrina gets dissected to show how imperial and patronizing she comes across in even official White House photos. I noticed this post particularly because the first image was one that had struck me when I first saw it attached to a news item about how "disgusting" Laura Bush thinks it is that anyone would suggest her husband was a racist or that it has anything to do with how he handled the aftermath of Katrina. I thought it was interesting, given the content of the article, that not only did the photo make her look cold and remote from the people she's supposedly consoling, but also that she is wearing all *white* while sitting amongst black people in dark clothes. I'm not suggesting it was intentional, but rather that it seems ironic that in a piece about her dismissing claims of racism, she looks about as cluelessly patrician and as photo-negative from the people around her as it is possible to be.

The second, 9/11 All Over Again, shows an image presumably from the imperial propaganda march held to pimp the war comemmorate the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Great analysis including another racial element, but what struck me was a fairly small (size-wise) detail that got picked out in this post-- the memorial display beside Bush shows a fireman's badge upon which has been placed a Christian cross. It's not clear who placed the display, but visually it does reinforce Bush and the right's constant, often insidious push for theocracy.

Lots of great stuff over at BNN-- go check it out!

Brownie, You Did A Heck of a Job

Michael Brown is resigning from FEMA. It's about damn time, just too bad he didn't get fired first. I'd be more excited, except that he's just going to be replaced by some other resume-padding underqualified flunky per Bushco policy. Is it that Bush is so incompetent that he can't bear to appoint anyone in a position who might show him up by actually being good at their job?

And I loved this:

The president ducked questions about Brown’s resignation. “Maybe you know something I don’t know. I’ve been working,” the president said to reporters on an inspection tour of damage in Gulfport, Miss.

Oh, excuse US, your highness. And, it's about time you got cracking. What, you aren't due for another vacation yet? Hasn't it been like a week already?

Katrina Roundup

There's been some really amazing blogging going on in the aftermath of Katrina-- informative, touching, inspiring, witty, snarky, obscure. I can't hope to capture it all, but here are a few highlights (plus a couple of article links) for your reading pleasure:

• If you haven't seen the vid at Crooks and Liars of Jefferson Parish President Alan Broussard breaking down in tears as he relates one of the many tragic stories coming out of this disaster, go. Your heart will break, but go. (And stay to check out the many enlightening clips posted there.)
• AMERICAblog has been all Katrina, all the time since this hit, so do check them out for continuous updates, but in particular they will be getting updates from Kyle, the blogger they've hired to go down to New Orleans and cover as much of the scene as he can as long as he can.
• Atrios has a great comeback for Mary Hudak, who criticized the firefighters who refused to wear their FEMA shirts out of disgust with their PR assignments.
• SZ at World O' Crap fisks the hell out of a column by the ever-ignorant John Stossel as he tries to explain why price gouging is a GOOD thing. Beautiful!
• BAGnewsNotes has a number of great posts analyzing the images coming out of the disaster area (including commentary on the attempted censorship of said images by FEMA), but I loved this piece taking apart the infamous "Bush strums while the Gulf Coast drowns" photo.
• Sisyphus Shrugged's massive link list has an amazing amount of information about the catastrophe and its aftermath, including a timeline.
• Tom Burka reports on Bush's planned introspection-- very funny!
• Via Feministe, this beautiful, touching story about seven tiny children banding together to get out of New Orleans and reunite with their families.
• Twisty Faster has a great post about the class issues Katrina brought out complete with a stinging visual comment on Bush's remarks about Trent Lott's house.
• Jesus' General writes to Jonah Goldberg. It's funny because it's true.
• This story by a pair of EMT's trapped in New Orleans has been making the 'net rounds but makes for some very illuminating reading. An EMT friend of mine just barely got out of the city from that convention in time...
• A disturbing article about white reactions to the race issue...
• Billmon puts Rick Santorum's disgusting hypocrisy into stark relief.
• From MyDD, a fantastic and passionate open letter to Sen. Landrieu.
• Josh Marshall with prescient and depressing insights into the potential for corruption in rebuilding New Orleans, here and then here.
• Wonderful, touching letter reprinted in TalkLeft.

Edit: This just in-- so wrong it's right: Katrina the Gathering Cards