Fun Size Bytes (from @Tj)

Actual footnote that I actually just read

11.20 “People in mourning normally did not leave the house during the first seven days, except to go to the tomb to grieve for the deceased (see note 11.31)”

11.31 “Going to the tomb. See note on 11.20”

Thanks for that.

DAMMIT TUMBLR!

Tumblr posted an incomplete draft of this post earlier about my reply to Abby.

The full version is now available here:

http://funsizebytes.com/post/378251013/tebow-fini

clapifyoulikeme asked: She could have come back to the States. Yes. 1) She had the capability to do that. How lucky for her. Not so much for the average Filipino woman. 2) She only had that choice because abortion is legal here. Focus on the Family does not want abortion to be legal here. They want to remove that choice. If it were up to them, she would not have a choice, and neither would anyone else.

They also think homosexuality should be outlawed. The number of ways in which FotF makes me sick is uncountable. James Dobson is one of the most dangerous and evil men in America. He has influence Pat Robertson can't even dream of, and he comes off as much more benign. Dangerous.

(Abby and I have been discussing the Tebow ad. The “she” above refers to Pam Tebow. I wanted to make some of this more clear in a public way. I expect this will be my last word on The Tebow Ad, so feel free to skip it if you’re already sick of it.)

Abby, you are preaching to the choir :-)

Let the record show that I’m not in any way, shape, or form a supporter of either FotF or James Dobson. Nor do I want abortion to be outlawed.

My problem with the criticism of “The Tebow Ad” was that almost none of it addressed these points.

Instead we got sloppy attempts to accuse them of breaking a commandment, an accusation that they could have done more for the poor, and Richard Dawkins making incredibly weak arguments which masquerading as rational logic.

All of these arguments were made by people who had never seen the ad, but objected to it anyway.

The Washington Post article (Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are) was spot-on. If you are objecting to nothing more than the fact that FotF has the money to place an ad (or that CBS accepted it), you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that your position supports tolerance and freedom of speech.

Ironically, the best criticism I heard all week came from Rev. J. Bennett Guess, spokesman for the United Church of Christ who said:

The reality is that Pam Tebow was presented with a difficult choice and, faced with a moral dilemma, she made the decision which was the right one for her. I am happy the decision was hers to make, both legally and ethically, in consultation with those who love and care for her, as it should be for all women.

Someone said to me, “Yes, but the Tebows don’t see this as a pro-choice message.” That’s almost certainly true, but I think it’s beside the point. Viewed objectively, I believe the message is inherently pro-choice, and if you can help people see that I believe you have a greater chance to actually sway someone’s opinion or way of thinking.

The rest of the criticism was so filled with anger and vitriol that it would only appeal to people who were already pro-choice and who were pre-disposed to reject any ad by Focus on the Family. If the point of criticism is just to mock or dismiss, it seems like a complete waste of time and energy.

The same United Church of Christ, by the way, who had an ad rejected in 2004. They wanted to make it clear that they were open to all people. You can see the ad here:

The UCC is ad is much more “in your face” than the Tebow ad, which was fairly benign, but was clearly meant to drive traffic to the Focus on the Family website (which is not).

Ironically, this message of acceptance was rejected, and very few people (other than religious folks) objected.

Abortion is a nuanced and difficult issue. I’ve met few people who didn’t struggle with it, and I have the most trouble with people — on either side — who consider it a “black and white” issue. It is one of the issues we have most difficulty having any sort of conversation about, because the zealots on the extremes of both sides tend to shout out the middle. Those who have actually been through it are often hesitant to talk about it, and it’s difficult to get any data as to who has abortions and why.

The official stance of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” I agree with that 100%. They have also struggled with the issue of abortion after the point of “viability” (late term or so-called “partial birth” abortions). Again I don’t know any reasonable person who wouldn’t struggle with that element of it.

When we were in SF at SFTU a group of us exited the boat from Alcatraz and found ourselves in the midst of a “Pro-Life” march. Some of the protesters held signs which read “Women Regret Abortions.” Some of the “Pro-Choice” folks got ahold of these signs and changed them to read “Women Don’t Regret Abortion.” There were also signs saying that men regret lost fatherhood.

I think both of these positions are wrong, because they deal in absolutes. All you need to do is find one woman who didn’t (or did) regret abortion, and your absolutist position is compromised. Are there women who regret abortion? I have no doubt. Are there women who are relieved that they were not “stuck” with a child they didn’t want or couldn’t afford? I have no doubt of that either, although I suspect it would be harder for them to come forward and say so. Again, these are simplistic black & white arguments in an issue which is almost completely covered in grey.

(Given the number of “deadbeat dads” in the world, the sign about men regretting the lost opportunity for fatherhood seems to be defeated even before the argument is made.)

I hope that none of this has seemed like I was arguing in support of Focus On the Family. I wasn’t. I was arguing for better criticism than “it’s a waste of money” or “religious people are stupid”.

(Also let me clarify to Plaid Lemur and any other atheists I may have inadvertently offended: my intention was to make a point about atheists joining together to donate money to Haiti or one of the other causes mentioned in that JPG as a way to voice your disapproval of the Tebow ad. It was not meant to suggest that I see all atheists as some monolithic, latte-sipping, potato-chip eating entity. I have no doubt that an equal number of religious folks support Starbucks and eat potato chips. Obviously the intended point was not made well. Like most things I say, it made more sense in my head.)

Ok, now someone show me a funny picture.

Totally awesome

theresa-c:

Me: God, this movie is the worst

Friend: I know

Me: WHY DIDN’T THEY JUST TAKE TURNS LYING ON THE FREAKING DOOR

Friend: And what was the point of throwing the necklace back in the ocean? Sell that shit and put your great-grandkids through college, you old bag

Me: And what about the guy she married and spent the rest of her life with? Guess he wasn’t invited to Titanic heaven

Friend: Ugh

Me: Kate Winslet’s boobs are awesome, though

Friend: For real

This sounds like the only viewing of Titanic that I would have enjoyed.