Jan. 22nd, 2008

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Bible Riots:


When Christians Killed Each Other Over Religion in Public Schools


By Rob Boston
Originally published in Liberty: A Magazine For Religious Liberty May/June 1997 edition, this article was located in the Liberty archives at www.libertymagazine.org/html/riots.html. Since that link has now expired, we have received permission from the author to re-publish it here.

On a warm spring day more than 150 years ago George Schiffler died on a street in Philadelphia. Though history didn't record much about the 18-year-old, except that he was a "leather worker," it does tell a great deal about the circumstances surrounding his death. Young Schiffler was the first to die as rampaging mobs of Roman Catholics and Protestants shot, clubbed, and otherwise attacked one another in what was known as the "Philadelphia Bible Riots."

Interestingly enough, the issue that incited the violence remains controversial even today, and that is religion in public schools.

In fact, the parallels between the rhetoric of nineteenth-century America's Protestant majority and today's Religious Right are startling. As Roman Catholics and Protestants battled more than a century ago over prayer and Bible reading in public schools, Protestants relied on the same arguments uttered by modern-day TV preachers: Protestant practices in public schools were "traditional"; those who don't like the exercises could get up and leave the room; a little religion never hurt anyone; and finally, Protestants were the majority and should have the right to do whatever they wanted.

Like the modern Religious Right, ultraconservative Protestant leaders of the nineteenth century insisted the United States was a "Christian nation." Only one catch: by "Christian" they really meant "Protestant."

Statistically at least, the view was correct. Although Roman Catholics had lived in the country since the Colonial period, they were few in number and politically impotent. A great wave of immigration from Ireland in the 1830's and 1840's threatened to change that. Most of the Irish were Catholics fleeing the potato famine, and their arrival on these shores in large numbers caused near panic among the Protestant majority.

Catholics were considered a threat; they resisted assimilation and were accused of owing their loyalty to a foreign potentate - the Roman pope. Their religion was widely misunderstood, and rumors circulated. Priests were accused of sexual depravity. Priests and nuns, it was said, had engaged in illicit affairs and killed the offspring, burying them beneath the floors of convents. As bizarre as these stories sound today, they were taken seriously by many Americans in the 1840's.

Each side had extremes. In 1842 more than 50 clergy formed the American Protestant Association, a group dedicated to halting the spread of Catholicism in the United States.

The Catholic Church, meanwhile, dogmatically clung to theological precepts that only widened the chasm between the two groups. The church's official stance was that separation of church and state was an erroneous principle; governments, the church maintained, had an obligation to submit to Rome. There was no salvation outside the church, and "error" - that is, other religions - had no rights that the pope was obliged to recognize.

In 1843, just a year before the riots, a wave of Protestant fervor swept Philadelphia. Church leaders joined forces to bring the community back to God, which included restoring a sense of the sacred to Sunday. Philadelphia clergy joined a burgeoning national movement to suspend Sunday train travel and stop mail delivery. Philadelphia clergy also launched a special campaign to halt Sunday liquor sales.

Against this backdrop tensions over religious activity in the city's public schools rose. Pennsylvania's public schools reflected generic Protestantism. The school day began with the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, readings from the King James Version of the Bible, and often group singing of Protestant hymns. In addition, the Bible was frequently used as a textbook in spelling classes and to teach other secular subjects.

Bible reading occurred "without comment." The teacher simply read a set number of verses - usually 10 - without elaborating or interpreting them. Most Protestant groups found the practice acceptable, because it echoed their own theology. But Catholics - who look to church leaders to interpret the Scripture - considered the practice alien and heretical.

As the Catholic population increased, the Protestant majority decided to draw a line in the sand at the public school door. In 1838 the state legislature passed a law mandating that the Bible - and by that everyone knew they meant the King James Version - be used as a public school textbook. The new law was a deliberate slap in the face to Catholics, because it was unnecessary: public schools all over the state were already relying on the King James Bible for daily instruction.

Also, some textbooks had a clear anti-Catholic bias. One even referred to the pope as the anti-Christ. Catholic clergy finally began planning a protest.

Read more here:http://candst.tripod.com/boston3.htm
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
My brain, it is mashed potatoes at this point. But, I really do want to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Roe vs Wade. So, hear the words of LJ user [livejournal.com profile] muliebrity in the community [livejournal.com profile] ljforchoice .

My take on Blog for Choice
Why I Vote Pro-Choice

I vote pro-choice because I don't think busybody politicians or their friends in the Christian Right have any business telling me (or any other woman) that I'm SOL if I get pregnant when I don't want to be.

I vote pro-choice because abstinence-only sex ed and scare tactics don't work.

I vote pro-choice because I think women are smart enough to decide for themselves whether or not they are in a position to be a mother.

I vote pro-choice because I know that adoption isn't a cure-all, especially if the baby is non-white, sick or handicapped, not to mention the impact on the woman.

I vote pro-choice because every child should be a wanted child, not a punishment for daring to have consensual sex.

I vote pro-choice because abortions will happen whether or not they are legal, and women and doctors are not criminals.

I vote pro-choice because I don't think an embryo/zygote/fetus should have more rights than born people in terms of the ability to demand use of another person's body to survive.

I vote pro-choice because women deserve better than empty promises and a few cans of formula.

I vote pro-choice because reproductive rights are always under attack.


Amen, my sister.

But wait! [livejournal.com profile] pocochina brings on a kickass post on that same issue as well. go read here http://pocochina.livejournal.com/35510.html#cutid1


And take a deep breath. And gird your loins. And get back into the fight. And get Huckabee off that ballot.

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
See Salon article:http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/22/roe_v_wade_anniversary/print.html


Roe, 35 years later
Salon asked leading feminists to talk about the court case that changed their lives, and why it matters more than ever.

Jan. 22, 2008 | Tuesday, Jan. 22, marks the 35th birthday of Roe v. Wade, the case in which the Supreme Court decided that any state or federal laws restricting or outlawing abortion were in violation of a constitutional right to privacy. Roe made it legal for women all over the United States to exercise the control over their bodies and their reproductive lives that they should have had all along.

I wish it were possible to raise a glass, give a birthday toast, and claim that Roe didn't look a day over 29, but alas, this is a bittersweet bash. A mere three and half decades after her birth, Roe shows her age: She's been weakened, knocked around, had big bites taken out of her. Beginning with the 1976 Hyde amendment that cut off Medicaid funding for abortions, which made it difficult for poor women to obtain the medical services to which they had every legal right, and continuing through this past spring, when a conservative Supreme Court banned late-term abortions with no exception for the health of the mother, Roe's existence has been in constant jeopardy from the moment it came into law. And, of course, it's not just Roe that gets buffeted and bruised by these attacks; it's everything the ruling stands for -- the fundamental premise that women are human beings, as valuable under the law as men, conscious, capable and responsible for making decisions about their bodies, their reproduction and their lives.

So no, this particular party is not, cannot be, a raucous celebration. It's tempting to wish, in fact, that we didn't have to mark this birthday at all, that these basic rights were so ingrained, so not up for further debate, that their being granted so late would now seem simply a chronological aberration in the course of enlightenment thinking, rather than a leap that we must still recognize as a surprising accomplishment.

Today, in honor of Roe v. Wade, Salon publishes the thoughts of some of those who remember life before Roe and some who were born into a post-Roe world, who have grown up to see what they should rightly have trusted was bedrock equality erode under their feet. All these women see a tempestuous future for Roe; yet they, and we, take a moment to pay tribute to the decision that changed all of their lives. -- Rebecca Traister

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Read more... )
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/health/22fblogs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

In the Fatosphere, Big Is In, or at Least Accepted


By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: January 22, 2008

For years, health experts have been warning that Americans are too fat, that we exercise too little and eat too much, that our health is in jeopardy.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Blogrunner: Read Some Recent Postings From the Blogs in This Article

Some fat people beg to differ.

Blogs written by fat people — and it’s fine to use the word, they say — have multiplied in recent months, filling a virtual soapbox known as the fatosphere, where bloggers calling for fat acceptance challenge just about everything conventional medical wisdom has to say about obesity.

Smart, sassy and irreverent, bloggers with names like Big Fat Deal, FatChicksRule and Fatgrrl (“Now with 50 percent more fat!”) buck anti-obesity sentiment. They celebrate their full figures and call on readers to accept their bodies, quit dieting and get on with life.

The message from the fatosphere is not just that big is beautiful. Many of the bloggers dismiss the “obesity epidemic” as hysteria. They argue that Americans are not that much larger than they used to be and that being fat in and of itself is not necessarily bad for you.

And they reject a core belief that many Americans, including overweight ones, hold dear: that all a fat person needs to do to be thin is exercise more and eat less.

“One of the first obstacles to fat acceptance is breaking down the question of whether being fat is a choice,” Kate Harding, founder of the blog Shapely Prose, said in an interview. “No fat acceptance advocate is saying you should sit around and wildly overeat. What we’re saying is that exercise and a balanced diet do not make everyone thin.”

Ms. Harding, a 33-year-old yoga enthusiast from Chicago, promotes the idea of health at any size (she is a 16). She started Shapely Prose (kateharding.net) last April, after noticing that posts about fat in her personal blog hit a nerve. Since then, it has quickly become one of the most popular fat acceptance blogs, with an average of 3,710 page views per day, according to Sitemeter, a Web statistics program.

People come in different shapes and sizes, bloggers like Ms. Harding say, and for those who come extra-large, dieting is futile. Many of the bloggers label their sites “no-diet zones.” (Don’t even mention weight-loss surgery.)

Read more... )
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Dear Dominionist, Pestilential, Busybody, Judgemental, Authoritarian Christians,

This is becoming repetitive.

From: http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/1021862.html

via http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/1021862.html

The money shot: Today, Governor Mike Huckabee is scheduled to travel to Georgia to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. There he plans to join Georgia Right to Life to lend his support, as well as the focus of the national media, to HR 536. This legislation, also called the Human Life Amendment, is a state constitutional amendment that reclassifies the most effective and popular forms of contraception as abortion. The goal of the amendment is to create a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade while also defining life as beginning at fertilization. The anti-abortion movement believes that hormonal contraception (the pill, the patch, the depo shot, the nuva ring, the IUD) can destroy a fertilized egg. By setting in law the assertion -- the unproveable assertion -- that life begins at the moment of fertilization, the most common forms of contraception become abortion.

James Bopp, a leading anti-abortion attorney, in a memo to pro-life activists, explained what the practical applications of HR 536 would be. Establishing in law that life begins at the moment of fertilization could lead to, he writes, "enforcement of homicide laws against pregnant women, restricting the activities of pregnant women, outlawing contraception and so on." He continues, "The big picture is that the Human Life Amendment creates uncertainty in the law leaving it up to future legislatures to establish implementing laws and up to enforcement officials and courts to sort out what the law might mean in various applications." In other words, let's leave your right to use contraception up to your local assemblymember, district attorney and sheriff.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-sorry-i-dont-have-time-to-eradicate.html

*blink* So, there is me working up a full head of steam, and portly dyke says the stuff I wanted to say right here:


I'm Sorry, I Don't Have Time to Eradicate You Today
| posted by PortlyDyke | Monday, January 21, 2008 | permalink |


After reading that we are facing yet another Congressional resolution telling us that "We are too, we are too, we are too a Christian Nation!" (despite a Constitution and a First Amendment that clearly indicates that we are not, we are not, we are NOT!) -- after weathering National Bible Week, and Huckabee's Xtian asshattery, and then re-reading Obama's "Call to Renewal" speech in which he says that a "sense of proportion" is needed from "both sides" when talking about "faith and democratic pluralism" (Really, Senator? Cuz I always thought that "proportion" meant "balance among the parts of something" -- which would require that the Religious Right do some serious catch-up in the tolerance department before we could attain a "sense of proportion") -- after all this, I find my previous aversion to fundie Xtianity blossoming into a full-fledged, mouth-foaming rage.

Read more... )

Profile

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
unusualmusic_lj_archive

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 28th, 2025 10:08 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios