As I lay in bed struggling to wake up I thought: Christian? Christians aren’t some twee boutique demographic. Christians represent the majority. About 78 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. What NPR and Fox and Sony mean when they say “Christian” is “Christian right” or “Christian conservatives,” terms that adherents don’t like because they think they’re pejorative. “Fundamentalist” and “evangelical” are imperfect substitutes because a) the two categories, though they overlap a lot, aren’t precisely the same; and b) some of these folks consider themselves political liberals. (The worldly Cold War liberal Reinhold Niebuhr called himself an evangelical Protestant.) What conservative Christians really like to be called is “Christians.” Hence “Christian rock” and “Christian college” and now “Christian film.” This strikes me as terribly presumptuous. Bruce Springsteen was raised Catholic but he doesn’t perform anything these folks would accept as Christian rock. Wesleyan was founded by Methodists and named after John Wesley but evangelicals would never call it a Christian university. “Christian” has become a euphemism for “acceptable to the type of Christian (in most instances Protestant) who frowns on homosexuality and wishes Saul Alinsky had minded his own business.”
According to Pew, only about one-third of Christians call themselves “evangelicals.” That’s about 26 percent of all Americans. The other two-thirds self-identify as Catholics (23 percent) and with either mainline (18 percent) or historically black (7 percent) Protestantism. (A smattering of Mormons, Orthodox Christians, and other tiny subgroups make up the remaining 4 percent.) To suggest that conservative Christians are the only Christians is like saying Hasidic Jews are the only Jews. It’s a cartoonish misconception that the Christian right has managed to sell to a largely secular news media that’s too sensitive to accusations of anti-religious bias.
This is what I’ve been saying for as long as I could get anyone to listen.
Out of curiosity, is there any way to rig your script on soundofthebeeputc to take into account daylight savings? Not a huge issue but I keep thinking it's an hour earlier than it is because sotb has become my new clock. Maybe I should wear a watch but that'd be too easy.
UTC doesn’t change with Daylight Saving Time.
Your local offset from UTC may change for DST but that’s different. There are pretty much only two options:
If you are in the USA then you can get pretty much any timezone by following one of the sites I created for this. You can find the list here
Start a new time tumblr for your local time zone (if you aren’t covered by one of the above).
In a statement dripping in irony, were that a thing it could recognize, the Parents Television Council has issued a typically blinkered, hyperbolic call on theater owners to refuse to screen Bully, which it sees as a movie that, “regardless of intentions, sets a precedent that threatens to derail the entire ratings system” — the ratings system being that thin line separating the family-friendly stability of gruesome murder and the lawless chaos of naughty words.
“The MPAA’s job is not to make subjective judgments about the merit of a film or the importance of the film’s message,” the Parents Television Council said, as its own job besides complaining incessantly about television now also includes dictating what the jobs of motion picture ratings boards are, apparently.
I had not heard of this movie until today when someone came to talk to me about it.
For those who may not know either, Bully is a movie about bullying, and (from what I gleaned from the trailer) about two parents who set out to address bullying after their son committed suicide after being bullied.
Despite being a documentary about the real life that these kids live in, the MPAA gave the movie an R rating, thus ensuring that it wld never be shown in most schools.
After a failed campaign to get the rating changed to PG-13, the studio decided to release the movie without a rating, hoping to then drum up public support for the movie.
So now the Parents Television Council has decided to try to bully people into not showing it and not seeing it, because if we ever decided that we didn’t need ratings boards, how would these people keep control of their fiefdoms?!??
If you find any typos/errors/oddities, please let me know.
I hope this of use to some of you. “The Big Book” is recommended not just for people in A.A. but also for people in Al-Anon, which is why I wanted to read it. But I don’t always have an Internet connection available, so I wanted an offline, digital version.
In 1977, the sort of American Protestants who purchased most Bibles couldn’t be summed up in a single word. But by 1995, they could be: “abortion.”
And for anti-abortion American evangelicals, Exodus 21:12-27 was unacceptable. It suggested that striking and killing an unborn fetus was in a separate category from striking and killing a “person.” Strike and kill a free person, you get the death penalty. Strike and kill an unborn fetus, you get a fine.
And so in 1995, like those earlier translators who invented and inserted “Junias,” the translators of the NASB reshaped this passage. “She has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury” would, in consideration of the changes in American politics since 1977, henceforth be transformed into “she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury.”
Politics — specifically, the political desire to control women — shaped the translation of that text. The translators changed the words of the Bible to make it seem like it supported their political agenda. They changed the words of the Bible so that others reading it would not be able to see that its actual words challenged and contradicted their political agenda.
Yet another reason why most serious academics require the NRSV, a scholarly translation of the Bible that doesn’t paint over these kinds of issues. Compare the NRSV and the NIV (the latter being a preferred “conservative” translation):
In other words, when volunteering his biggest objections to the health care law, Romney raised four complaints, and three of them are ridiculous.
Love it or hate it, the ACA a moderate reform package, designed by those who shaped Romney’s Massachusetts law, and is entirely in line with what moderate Republicans endorsed in the Senate in the 1990s. There’s no socialized medicine, and private insurers remain the backbone of the system.
Let me add two things to the third point from above:
Third, churches are exempt from preventive-care mandates, and religiously-affiliated institutions won’t have to cover the costs directly.
Point A: There are some denominations, including my own (Presbyterian Church USA) which require churches to included medical coverage for their full-time employees. They even have their own plan (the Presbyterian plan is called the Board Of Pensions).
For most churches, that expense is the 2nd largest budget item each year (after the pastor’s salary).
This is an enormous burden for most churches, and it causes no small amount of friction in the congregation, because most church members have never seen what it costs their employers to provide them with health insurance, so they don’t realize that the companies they’ve worked for have had a similar expense for them, because it never appeared in a line item in the budget as it does for in most church budgets.
If the current health care reform removed that burden from these churches by creating true socialized medicine (which it doesn’t, but I’m just saying if…) it would be a huge benefit to thousands of churches.
Point B: When I was in Florida, the church I served was in the midst of a huge renovation project. During that project I learned that churches* are exempt from requirements to make their buildings accessible. The reason for this is that most church buildings are very old, and they don’t have a lot of money, and forcing them to renovate to be accessible would be impossible for most of them. It was not impossible for this congregation, however there were some people who resisted putting in an elevator to allow everyone to get to the 2nd floor of the Education building. Ironically even some people who would have benefitted from an elevator were against it. Why? Because it was expensive and it took up space which could have been used for more classrooms (something we needed). The argument was that the 2nd floor of the Education building was used mostly for kids. They didn’t want kids taking the elevator (and messing around with the elevator) instead of taking the stairs.
* that may just be true for churches in Florida, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true in most states.
Fortunately there were more people who said “Even if we do not have to make our building accessible, we want to make it accessible. We may not have any kids who need an elevator today but we might someday and we want them to be able to get anywhere they want to go in the building.”
Less than a year after the renovation was complete, we had several kids who were temporarily on crutches from sports-related injuries, and people realized “Oh… right, sometimes kids are on crutches or in wheelchairs temporarily too!”
We also had our Elders meetings upstairs, and we had people on the board of Elders who had knee/hip replacements (and others who should have) who also benefitted from the elevator.
Several years ago I read an article about how “accessibility” features such as curb cuts, ramps, etc which are often originally intended for people with disabilities turn out to be beneficial to lots of people. For example, curb cuts aren’t just helpful for people in wheelchairs, they’re also helpful to parents with children in strollers, delivery people wheeling dollies, etc. (BTW, I looked for that article online but couldn’t find it. If you know where it is, let me know!)
When people are first introduced to these issues and the changes that they may have to make, the initial response is usually resistance due to cost or other complications (“How will our building look if we have a ramp out front?”). Those initial hesitations are understandable, but I suspect that most people will eventually see the benefits of them. However, there will probably always be a contingent who object any time they perceive some group as getting “special treatment.” These are people who complain about having to “push 1 for English” in telephone routing systems, or people who complain that “the handicapped get the best parking spaces.”
(I haven’t actually heard that latter one said by anyone who wasn’t joking, but I bet you could find people who would.)
That said, It completely baffles me that people are opposed to others having affordable health care. Do they not realize that it would be better for the economy as a whole if people had more discretionary spending money available? Have they never watched someone go bankrupt (or worry about going bankrupt) when they or someone they love gets sick?
But then I remember the elevator. Until it was in place and everyone saw how much better it was to have one than to not have one, some people simply couldn’t imagine the benefits that it would bring.
(Dramatic re-creation of an actual conversation I had last week)
Her: “People keep telling us that we should have a Facebook page. They said they don’t remember to visit our website [which they have been working on for building for several years], but they’d visit a Facebook page. Does it cost anything to have a Facebook page?”
Me: “Time and attention.”
Me: “It costs time and attention… Someone will has to maintain it and monitor it every day.”
Her: “We really don’t have anyone who can devote time and attention to that.”
Benjy Sarlin, reporting for TPM on Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett’s support for a law requiring women to undergo mandatory ultrasounds before terminating a pregnancy:
The quote in question came after Corbett was asked at a press conference whether “making [women] watch” an ultrasound went “too far.”
“I don’t know how you make anybody watch,” Corbett said. “You just have to close your eyes.”
"Close your eyes and think about England" is not just for enduring loveless marriages anymore, it’s also for when you’re being violated with a foreign object against your will at the request of the Republican party.