Pope Francis Pees on Nuns

pope and nunsOnce again proving our new pope puppy Francis acts friendly but pees on you when picked up Maureen Dowd sees the “malice towards nuns” within.

The cool pope suddenly doesn’t seem so cool, allowing Rome’s grand inquisitors to torque up the derogation this Mother’s Day of the American sisters who have mothered so many — even as an endless parade of ghoulish priests were shielded as they defiled vulnerable kids in their care.

Pope Benedict’s Vatican was determined to rein in American nuns inspired by Vatican II, accusing them of pushing “radical feminist themes” and caring for the sick instead of parroting church teaching opposing contraception, gay relationships and the ordination of women.

Yep, those nuns just don’t get it. They keep working on social justice issues, helping people, making even Buddhism look like a narcissistic belly-gazing boys club. Clearly, these women aren’t Christian. Clearly Vatican II really was a mistaken liberalization of women.

On Monday, we learned that German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Vatican orthodoxy watchdog, upbraided the officers of the largest group of American nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which has already been investigated and reprimanded by Rome. He objected to their plan to honor Sister Elizabeth Johnson, a Fordham theology professor who has written that women are uncomfortable with “the dominant images of God as father, lord, and king” and would prefer “non-authoritarian” female language for God.

Last year Pope Francis said he would let the Vatican’s coercive reform of the nuns’ group continue. And this past week, he was silent following Müller’s mauling of the nuns.

The pope is proving true the adage that sexism is the last frontier of human rights–don’t even dream of animal rights much less planetary rights. Whether the male rights activist block in the atheists or the Catholics or the Protestants or the Buddhists or the Hindi or the Muslim it’s certain the women are still being bashed around with astounding consistency and breadth.

“This latest slapdown raises a big question about Pope Francis’s character,” said Kenneth Briggs, the author of “Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church’s Betrayal of American Nuns.” “Is he content projecting a Mr. Nice Guy image while giving the green light to the Vatican big boys to pursue a hard line? Is he the butterfly who delights everybody, or is he also the strong arm?”

Although the 77-year-old pope has said that women could gain greater power in the church, other comments have been typically atavistic. While praising women for their “sensitivity,” “intuition” and mothering skills, he said flatly that women’s ordination to the priesthood “is not a question open to discussion.”

The pope does send ambiguous messages but which is the real one?

Vallely told me that the pope is “intent on sending ambiguous signals in certain areas.”

He did not contradict Cardinal Müller “because that would be sending out a liberal message rather than an inclusive message,” the biographer said. But in June, the pope reportedly told a group of nuns and priests from Latin America not to worry if they heard from the orthodoxy enforcers because “this will pass!”

Vallely said that the pope was allowing the liberal German Cardinal Walter Kasper to make speeches on changing the rules to allow divorced Catholics to take Communion at the same time he’s allowing conservatives to oppose the same thing. He chose a liberal pope for sainthood to balance the conservative, pedophile-shielding pope.

“The thing he really hates is the way the papacy used to work like a medieval monarchy,” Vallely said. “He wants the church to reach decisions slowly, by conversations within the church. He wants to hear all the different voices. He’s letting a thousand flowers bloom.

At the end of the day the pope still represents and foments the authoritarian, patriarchal, female hating church that bred him.

Or not. Women, gays and dissident Catholics who had fresh hope are going to have to face the reality that while this pope is a huge improvement on the last, the intolerance is still there.

We are still going to be discriminated against, but with a smile instead of a frown.

Hmm, I am  not sure he’s an improvement. At least with the last pope I knew better than to pick him up and hold him close. This one just pees on everyone when they least expect it and the stains just don’t come off.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Moderate Abrahamics Bluster but do Nothing

talk is cheapThe news is full of moderate Muslims and Christians, as well as backtracking radicals, deploring the assignment of harm by Boko Haram to Islam. “That’s not Islam. That’s not my Islam.”  That would be fine but what is Islam? They insist they know yet whenever any attribute is assigned to Islam some group somewhere says that’s not Islam. I’d really like to know what we’re talking about when we talk about Islam. Otherwise it’s just a ramshackle collection of sects and cults that just do as they please and call it Islam–Islam cannot even define itself other than banal and incoherent generalities meaning anything to anyone.

How many people, sects and countries, have to avow their abusive acts as religiously-based righteousness before moderates accept their religion is a problem, too easy to distort?

Catholicism isn’t much better as even the Vatican has said they have such loose control over their leaders and members they couldn’t have possibly done much better dealing with their flagrant sexual abuse issues, much less the many other abuses that no doubt occur, which we don’t even hear about since pedophilia is such sensational news and such caustic abuse. I mean laundering funds, pyramid schemes of donations, and just banal casual abuse typical from those having too much power. The new pope apologizes but also says he has no real power. How can he apologize unless he had some say in it? Just more hand wringing, pointless prayer, and verbal appeal.

These moderates of all abrahamic religious ilk and most others bluster but do little. They will send a few people, make a few threats, and go on with their own business. There’s no money in Nigeria, no one really cares. The  best thing that will come of it will be a good movie like the genocide in Rwanda inspired. Christian evangelicals will flock to Nigeria hoping to convert many sure that their religion is superior to Islam replacing outright abuse with hidden abuse as Christians are so want to do.

If the moderates deplore the extremists and fundamentalists so greatly why do they not control their members?

Seems like the point of a religion is to make people and the world better. From what I can see, what is evidenced, it allows renegades and petty dictators free reign under an umbrella of goodness and spiritual law. It has no means of policing itself. God or Allah certainly hasn’t shown up to help.

What will the moderate Islamics and Muslims do to stop the violence of their self-avowed members?

They can’t ostracize them as everyone must be a Muslim. Apostasy is worse than the worst infraction–death before apostasy. And leaving the group means there is no control whatsoever. They can’t seem to fight this as they fall all over themselves accommodating them thinking that tolerance of their abuse is righteous because peace is what they want and peace means ignoring violence but for exhortations. All of these religions need a new modern prophet, a new modern bible or koran, a new word of law that actually does good, is coherent. A canon of sacred text that isn’t so damned contradictory and vile that one can do anything and find literal and figurative support.

They have no interest in policing others because then they wold have to police themselves and that would be a criticism of Islam, other Muslims without authority–Christianity, the same. While the Hadith and local law are certainly used to allow near any deviation they are not used to stop near any deviation. The koran will be battered about in translation errors. The violence will continue. The moderates will pray and talk to the media  and like pissing into the wind it will only make them look more stupid and ineffectual.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Related articles.

Why Islam is the Issue when Discussing Islam

moderate_muslimIt’s getting so popular now for moderate (?) Muslims to say “not like us,” or “they aren’t good Muslims.” Just what is a good Muslim? Hell, what is a good Christian? What is a good atheist? I am not even sure “what is a good tractor mechanic?” Huh, really? A good tractor mechanic is one who can do their job–fix the tractor, do it when promised, and charge a fair price.

Why is it so hard to evaluate religious mechanics?

What are the means of evaluating a religion, a religious person? It seems obvious what we do with a tractor mechanic. Why is it so hard to evaluate the religious?

The have no standards of excellence. They have no spec sheet that is clear, concise, and able to be revised. There are no standards of a good religion by which to compare and evaluate.

It’s all in the mind and can have no evaluation because there’s nothing there to evaluate but one’s own perception, regardless of how reckless or wild? No, in spite of god or a revelation if such beliefs made us better we would adopt such phantasms. Or at least make recommendations allowing for variance due to personal freedom, so long as harm to others is absent.

5 Facts Islamophobia Deniers Just Don’t Get”

1. No, Islam is not above criticism — it never was and never will be — and neither are Islamophobia deniers

Really? Islam is like all other religions that insist they are true regardless? Only if one denies the religion can it be criticized. That there is a Vatican that attenuates the pope doesn’t mean the canon-bible can be criticized. Just because some parts of a sacred text allows doubting doesn’t deny that other parts don’t. Let’s just evaluate the texts openly by all and see the free for all. Hell, whether the prophet comes from one brother or another incites insane violence.

Since Islam does allow local courts and rules it does by tolerance allow blasphemy laws and all the rest. If you want some sort of local rights should they be able to disavow the most important and basic tenants of the big religion. What you’re saying here is Islam is so renegade it can’t modify local deviance even at its most immoral.

2. The ones denying Islamophobia are often the ones creating it most.

Prove that fear of Islam is unnecessary. Show us how people who follow Islam are better able to live in peace. Show us that it is at least a bit more successful than not having a religion in making people better. Let’s just study it and do the math. If it is shown to be the best at morality then maybe I’ll join or at least praise. Until then it’s just another renegade religion running havoc over the world.

3. We get it. Some Muslims over use the Islamophobia label.

I don’t so much care if an oppressed people make random remarks against their oppressor. I do care when bullies say they are oppressed. Civility is appropriate while addressing greater concerns. Mocking may be necessary but again in the right arena. I write a mean word but I insist on politeness in public.

4. There’s a right way and wrong way to point out something isn’t Islamophobia.

The wrong way is to deny its existence? I definitely think there is Islamophobia. Usually by wing nut right wingers who haven’t a clue what Islam or the Koran are but just hate others. By studying a religion, its tenants, practices, and results one can evaluate a religion, any religion. At that pojnt recommendations may be made. One can say smoking is bad for you because the Book of Mormon says so or one can do studies that show smoking causes cancer. The first is nonsense and the second is legitimate. Why? Smoking was being castigated by Mormons before they even knew whether it had health benefits of not–it was a call to Protestant deprivation and had nothing to do with health.

I know we’re all just people. But isn’t the point that religion is a tool to make us better people, which can be evaluated.

5. Islamophobia deniers are just as skewed as those who overuse the term.

Yep we’re all biased. So lets get a crew of our best minds out there evaluating religions and their effects on society. Whatever they decide we’ll take as best practice. Are you willing to change your mind? Or is the only real possibility isolation, separatism, and competition on the wrong level?

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Sunday Saints

two popesThe world got two new Catholic Saints today. Aside from the Vatican’s penchant for idolatry, a savvy political move most likely unappreciated by the early writers of the bible much less Christ himself as described, it was a popular event with millions out for the party. Proving once again the people love a party with pomp and circumstance, now, in these hard times, even more with less pomp and more circumstance. A tale of two churches made one.

John XXIII is a hero to many liberal Catholics for his Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s, which sought to open the church to the modern era. John Paul II is a hero to many conservative Catholics — not only for his anti-Communist heroism and personal charisma, but also because of his resistance to liberalizing elements of the church.

By pairing their canonizations, Francis sought to de-emphasize their differences, many analysts said, in the service of trying to reconcile divisions within the church and finding consensus as he prepared for the meetings, known as synods, centered on the theme of family.

Aaah, the pope. He’s a good pope, a pope for the people. Well unless you’re female or male wishing to do a little family planning and reproductive control in which case you’re committing “unspeakable crimes.”

“Abortion compounds the grief of many women who now carry with them deep physical and spiritual wounds after succumbing to the pressures of a secular culture which devalues God’s gift of sexuality and the right to life of the unborn,” the pope said.

So wanting to actually choose to have a child is a result of succumbing to secularism? Really? So unless a women is in a constant state of pregnancy, preparation for pregnancy, or nursing as long as she can in the hopes of not being pregnant, or simply giving up sex since fellatio, sodomy, and masturbation are all forbidden she, he, it, they are secular? How about if they just aren’t Catholic? I forget there is no other church but Catholicism–like all the other churches they think they’re the only ones up there. Allow abortion you must be secular, atheist, because you’re not Catholic. No wonder historians get it all wrong.

Once again our pope puppy, the friendly pope that pees on you when held close, proves that one is an atheist unless a bona fide Catholic in good practice.

I never knew we were such a large group. That would be billions now. I wonder if the others know. I can’t wait to tell them–hey, you’re not a good Catholic. No, you’re not even a Catholic but a secularist, an atheist. If only atheists new how easy it was to swell their ranks.

“Let us remember the words of the Second Vatican Council: From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”

Nice. He uses a liberal pope’s politics to demand a conservative position. He’s so confusing. But how would I know when my spouse was conceiving? Oh yes, I forget. Every act of sex is considered an act of conception. That’s why sex is sacred. It’s actually a mimicry, transmorgriphication, of the union to god. Just like those Greeks having gods have sex with mortals. And we thought those Catholics were different.

It’s not surprising the Vatican wasn’t so worried about pedophilia. Abortion is an unspeakable crime. That sounds pretty bad. Must be worse than pedophilia since that’s just men mentoring boys or some such thing related to propinquity. Oh yes, the new pope welcomes homosexuality as long as they don’t practice it or tell anyone. But abortion is an unspeakable crime?

Be careful  not to hold this pope too close. He gets so excited and friendly he may pee on you by accident. He is awfully cute though.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Christ’s Suicide and Easter

christ's suicideMy daughter returned from a trip with friends and had to listen to christian radio on the way. She lost interest in Easter; it’s about suicide! Our family had to somehow recover it as a spring holiday. An excuse for feasting, lots of protein, consuming our last home raised ham, curried tofu, green beans, potatoes, and being together as family.

Why would churches be against suicide except for a prophet who claims to be the son of god? How could it be a suicide if Christ knew he would be alive anyway? How is suicide bad if the next world is with god as claimed? How would he be giving up his son if he knew he would become alive or if there were some sort of autonomy-connection-awareness within the triune god? Wars and ostracism have been committed based on the appealed veracity of these distinctions. It’s also why faith of immortality cares less about the truth of it but rather the hope for it. It can’t possibly make sense and that’s its value. To be beyond reason. You can’t easily argue the absurd from within.

The meme that Christ desired to be crucified to redeem the sins of all humans is the cornerstone of christian faith for most. It is what separates the old from the new testament. In order to redeem the Judaic text, the old testament, and not blame Jews for allowing Christ to be killed, Christ has to allow himself to be killed in passive suicide. This has many troublesome issues only the faithful can support. It would have been much less interesting if Christ had stabbed himself to death. The grotesque images of Christ bleeding on a cross resonate deeply. Far beyond the merit of the act. Yet suicide is contagious and becomes its own problem.

The act of living may require more courage than suicide. But for the sake of a good story Christ had to die and the church needed a Paul to create and spread the memes. It is the idea of sacrifice that counts and not how much sacrifice it really is. Confabulating son and father, mortality and immortality, just adds icing to the cake. Think of how a small gesture like taking out the garbage, or doing the dishes, or working late adds to a relationship. Once trusted the gifts need not be so great.

Just how courageous was Jesus? Most men and women would give up their life for their families. Soldiers routinely give up their lives for the group or just for the idea of bravery and courage, to be boldly brave. Terrorist attacks show how individuals will risk all to save the group when if they were passive they most likely would not be harmed. Again and again we have examples of how people will sacrifice themselves for others they do not even know, strangers even.  It’s hard to know who really is a stranger; we all know more strangers than friends and family now.

Would you kill yourself for six friends, 10, 20, 100 or 1,000? If you knew you could stop global warming would you commit suicide? Would you let yourself go when the lifeboat is too full to hold even just one more or would you swamp the raft? Would you jeopardize your life on a  Everest climb by attempting to rescue another disabled climber?

Over and over I hear and read of stories of bravery and courage where the degree of cost, the importance of success, are far less than that of Jesus. If what he believed was true his suicide was a no brainer and hardly merits slight respect. I would bet that nearly everyone would commit suicide if they knew they were saving their entire community. The real question is who would not commit suicide for their family of life?

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Pope Pushes Chastity to Prevent AIDs

tv preview networkPope Francis pushes chastity to prevent AIDS. This clumsy and impossible admonishment is only possible by someone who hates sex, has never or rarely had sex, and has been chaste all of his life. It is as stupid as telling fat people they just need to eat fewer calories. It’s that simple; the elitist bullshit, why can’t you do it, I did. 

A Mormon coworker of mine, an engineer, thought human spontaneous combustion, human lightning strikes, and AIDS were a god’s exacting punishment for homosexuality. Eventually medical staff showed AIDS was prevalent in heterosexual relations as well though controversy abounds. In spite of Africa’s rich pre missionary heritage of bisexuality, actually omnisexuality since beastiality was also common, homosexuality became a single-issue political cause for bigotry. Would that those missionaries were rotting in hell. Arrest them all now for crimes against humanity.

Pope Francis continues this legacy of hating anything but the missionary position with your wife and no birth control for them either. His advocacy to prevent AIDS is a transparent attempt to control all sexuality and promote the “quiverful” movement. A rabid breeding to death of humans hoping to double the Earth’s population every few decades–not to mention the harm to women from constant pregnancy and child rearing. More soldiers for god. And god will appear and tell you when to stop?

Conservatives have said that voting for a president because they are black or a woman is bigotry or racism, reverse bigotry so to speak. But people often vote based on a single issue: abortion, a war, economics, environment, civil rights, or gun control even. Name your favorite cause. The pope has said it’s more than homosexuality, birth control, and abortion but that’s his typical double-speak of saying one thing today and then saying another tomorrow retracting the first.

It’s clear the pope’s favorite cause is chastity except in marriage and then it’s breed until the woman becomes barren and then feel cursed because she is.

Many non-Catholic health care workers advocate condoms as an important weapon to fight the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS. The Vatican opposes condom use because church teaching forbids contraception.

For the pope it is more important to ensure no birth control than to save lives. The legacy lives on.

In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI said male prostitutes who intend to use condoms might be taking a step toward greater responsibility. The Vatican insisted Benedict wasn’t justifying condom usage to prevent HIV’s spread.

Since the pope has no belief in a modern prophet until Christ returns to rapture us after murdering the rest, one has to wonder at the sanity of the entire administration. Even 98% of his sheep use birth control. But that matters little since 100% of us are marked by sin.

It just doesn’t matter whether your Christian, Jewish, or Muslim this idiotic and hateful and Earth destroying immorality would be enough to be my single-issue for which I would not only leave these religions but consider them life-long enemies of humanity. Just too monstrous to be a part  of.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.fronteirsofreason.com