Post what you like, with you like, for as long as you like. Self-link-love has been approved by Jocelyn Elders.
- “We’re Making A Better World“: how large governing organizations corrupt and crush individuals in Joss Whedon’s work. I wonder how this will play out in Buffy season 8?
- Speaking of Whedon, check out the original script to the first episode of Dollhouse. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s much better than what was actually broadcast.
- A sweet story illustrating one way equal marriage rights are important to families.
- “For [NAACP president] Jealous, mass incarceration is the civil-rights challenge of this generation”
- Interesting post about trans people who are vets. Two takeaway points: First, trans women are apparently more likely than cis people or trans men to have been in the armed forces. Second: The VA discriminates against trans people and often provides inadequate medical care.
- Musician Amanda Palmer’s record label wanted to digitally alter this music video because Palmer’s belly isn’t flat enough for them. Palmer refused, and Palmer’s fans are very cool.
- How the GOP could try to appeal to Black voters
- To One Judge, At Least, Migrants Have Rights
- Iran and Women’s Rights
- “If you don’t belong to the marginalized group in question lay the hell off the demeaning language.”
- The 39 Stairs, performed by Sesame Street. Awesome.
- Obama’s housing plan, nutshelled into a blog post. And it really isn’t all about giving money to irresponsible homeowners, contrary to the right-wing spin.
- Chevron trys to sic its legal bills on poor Nigerians who sued Chevron. The word “assholes” is so inadequate. But more importantly, “If the risk of trying to vindicate legal rights is bankruptcy, legal rights are worthless.”
- White people insisting on all-white proms.
- Interesting discussion of whiteness and Jewishness in America (or “Amerikkka,” as the author puts it). Curtsy: The Primary Contradiction.
- “Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed,” by Nouriel Roubini. For “Alas” readers who aren’t familiar with him, Roubini is the person who can most rightly claim to have seen our current economic collapse coming. As Eric Martin says, “isn’t it about time we started heeding the advice of the people that have been right about the major economic devlopments of the past decade or so?”
- Well-placed rage can be fun — watch this video of Lansing, Michigan’s mayor Virg Bernero being interviewed by some right-wing tool on Foxnews.
- “I am a Bisexual. Yes. No.” It’s a question you have to answer when applying to be an adoptive parent in Florida.
- Judge rebukes prosecutor for withholding exculpatory evidence, and orders man released from prison after 17 years. (Unsurprisingly, the victim of the prosecutor’s railroading is Latino.) The prosecutor plays up his conviction record and toughness to voters, of course.
- On imperialism and being a marginalized American teaching English in Brazil
- Prosecution’s bite mark expert in MIssissipi caught on video creating fake bike marks on corpse.
- Lowering expectations of what the US can do in Afghanistan.
- Lifetime appointments aren’t needed to preserve judicial independence.
- Why making the rich poorer can make the poor (effectively) richer.
Terrence Howard Is Ebony’s Renaissance Man: Looking at the fact that despite his history of wife abuse Ebony put Howard on this month cover. If punching your wife in the face twice isn’t enough to stop a man from being uplifted as a hero I don’t know what is.
Racist Winnipeg Mother Says It’s Not About Politics: A mother who had her two children removed after sending one to school with a swastika by the state is standing firm in her beliefs that it is in her rights to teach children to hate.
Jim Crow Renaissance, This is Celebration: Looking at a college that decide to hang signs separating who was to use drinking fountains by race.
Speaking of corrections to right-wing spin, Politifacts labels Gov. Mark Sanford’s claims about CBO estimates as False.
In response to Renee’s second link:
But how far can we go with this? If a homophobic parent teaches the kids to be opposed to homosexuality and to rights for LGBT folks, should her children be taken away? What about a radical Muslim parent who teaches the kids that suicide bombers are martyrs to the faith? I’m leery of assessing anyone’s beliefs, even transmitted to the kids, as inherently abusive.
It’s one thing if the parent’s beliefs prevent the child from obtaining an education or medical (e.g. a fundamentalist who won’t let daughters be educated, or a Jehovah’s Witness who won’t allow a life-saving blood transfusion), and even in those cases we just get court orders insisting that the kid be allowed to go to school or get the medical treatment; we don’t remove the child from the home altogether. It’s another if the parent’s beliefs are simply poisonous to the child’s mind with regard to other people or even herself (would we insist on removing a daughter from a home where she was taught that while the state may require that she be able to go to school, she’ll never be good for anything except making babies and keeping house?).
I realize it’s different in Canada where freedom of speech and belief is less protected than in the U.S., but I don’t believe the government should be making custody determinations based on parental beliefs, so long as the parents are not abusing or neglecting the children in a way that shows immediate harm. This could end up rebounding to the detriment of minorities (as Canada’s anti-porn laws rebounded to the detriment of lesbians). For example, once the precedent is set that teaching your kids racism is equivalent to abusing them, anti-Muslim bureaucrats could try to have kids removed if their Muslim parents are fiercely anti-Zionist and this is interpreted as being anti-Semitic.
Great list, thanks!
I wrote about a series of studies that demonstrate why the racist New York Post cartoon is dangerous: because it reinforces the ways that people still tend to associate black people with monkeys and apes, and those are associations that cause people to condone and encourage violence against black people.
I also wrote about the racism behind laughing at “Engrish.”
Helping solve state budget problems by cutting collegiate athletics
Hey, Amp, your link to the Virg Bernero Fox News clip doesn’t seem to work.
Here’s one that does, for those interested:
And that story about the crooked odontologist was absolutely appalling. The full write-up is well-worth the read. (Heed the trigger warning on the video clip: I can imagine it might be particularly distressing to parents of young children.)
Some of you may have seen at least one cartoon made during the World War II.
But how many of you have seen a cartoon made during the Vietnam war?
There wern’t that many, but here’s one. This came out in 1968, back when the war was a big news.
Here’s a follow up short.
I loved that posting on separate proms. This is classic:
Hey, Mom, WTF do you think the white boys are after? Holding hands and snuggling? What was YOUR prom date after? LOL!
“To One Judge, Anyway, Migrants Have Rights”
I have less problem with this than one might think. We wouldn’t permit the police to hold a murderer with bloody hands for 18 hours on a bare concrete floor with no food, so I see no reason why ICE shouldn’t be held accountable for doing such with an illegal alien. As long as the basic issue that an illegal alien doesn’t have a right to reside in the U.S. isn’t threatened, law enforcement officials of all kinds should be held accountable for their actions and for conformance to the law.
PG:
It’s one thing if the parent’s beliefs prevent the child from obtaining an education or medical (e.g. a fundamentalist who won’t let daughters be educated, or a Jehovah’s Witness who won’t allow a life-saving blood transfusion),
As an aside – what fundamentalists are you aware of that restrict their daughters’ educations? Christian? Moslem? Jewish?
RonF,
Some Amish (whom I would consider a type of Christian fundamentalist) restrict all of their children’s formal education after middle school; see Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the Supreme Court said there was a 1st Amendment right to do this. I don’t know enough about Jewish fundamentalists to say whether they restrict their children’s education. In Britain, there is a problem with some Muslim immigrant families (particularly those from rural areas of their nations of origin) refusing to let their daughters continue at school after puberty because that traditionally was the age at which girls no longer can be in unrelated male company and at which they need to learn how to keep a home because they are approaching a marriage-eligible age.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090220-NEWS-90220018
Newspaper article on Conway selectman’s comments regarding domestic violence, and due to his beliefs and ability to sway others voting on a 7500 assistance grant to Starting Point for shelter and hotline assistance for victims of dv and sexual assault.
I was aware of the issue with Moslems. I was not aware that any Amish restricted their daughters’ education.
I asked because at least here in the U.S. “fundamentalists” generally is understood to refer to Christian fundamentalists, and I was not aware that any of them did that.
I asked because at least here in the U.S. “fundamentalists” generally is understood to refer to Christian fundamentalists
I don’t think that’s wholly accurate, particularly given the far right wing’s success in raising alarm over Muslims in the U.S. as a domestic threat to either our immediate physical safety or our long-term existence as a democracy.
The Amish are pretty commonly considered to be fundamentalists: “a religious meaning system that relies exclusively upon a sacred text,” although in the case of the Amish it’s actually a combination of the Bible and the orally-passed-down Ordnung of each community.
To connect this to another thread, it would be hilarious to refer to someone as a “Judeo-Christian fundamentalist.”
The trend toward home-schooling might obscure the extent to which this is happening among Christian fundamentalists. There certainly is a very wide range of home-schooling curricula, but among the most conservative strains of evangelical Christianity, I think you do have girls tracked into an “education” that does not prepare them for any option other than being a housewife.
I know this hasn’t happened to any of you, but if somebody you know – for example, your mother-in-law – is struck by the “Antivirus 360” virus, this is how to get rid of the extremely annoying thing:
http://www.techsupportforum.com/security-center/virus-trojan-spyware-help/resolved-hjt-threads/344904-trojan-win32-monder-avav-automatic-updates-won-t-turn-again.html
It isn’t a simple process, so you’ll probably need to fix it for them.
I don’t think that’s wholly accurate, particularly given the far right wing’s success in raising alarm over Muslims in the U.S. as a domestic threat to either our immediate physical safety or our long-term existence as a democracy.
Actually, as far as the far right goes there’s no such thing as a fundamentalist Moslem because that would mean that there are also moderate or leftist Moslems, and they don’t think such a thing exists. I’ve never seen any far right folks use the term “fundamentalist” when referring to Moslems.
The Amish are pretty commonly considered to be fundamentalists: “a religious meaning system that relies exclusively upon a sacred text,” although in the case of the Amish it’s actually a combination of the Bible and the orally-passed-down Ordnung of each community.
Where did you get that definition? My personal understanding of the term is of people who have a highly restrictive and literal interpretation of a sacred text. I’m an Episcopalian, and we quote Scripture all the time as the basis for our religious beliefs. In fact, the text of our Book of Common Prayer has more quotes from Scripture than just about any missal or prayer book for any other denomination. But how the majority of our denomination interprets that Scripture is more to the left than just about anyone.
among the most conservative strains of evangelical Christianity, I think you do have girls tracked into an “education” that does not prepare them for any option other than being a housewife.
Have you any evidence to back up that assertion?
Not empirical evidence. A few magazine articles. The Duggars. Some things from the more conservative wing of my husband’s extended family. I don’t think it’s a really widespread thing, but I think it’s out there.
And to clarify, when I say “most conservative strains,” I’m referring to a small minority among a minority, some factions of the Quiverfull movement and adherents of similar ideologies. I am well aware that the vast majority of even very conservative Christians are in the world, even if they try not to be of it.
Although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not outright forbid attending college, it is strongly discouraged for both sons and daughters, as they have realized that higher education often leads to a rejection of religion.
I think similar things are true for many conservative religious sects, and that this has a lot to do with the rise of religious homeschooling and Christian Colleges . . . the chance for an ‘education’ that will scrupulously avoid any information that might challenge any preconceived notions.
—Myca
Hm. There’s a lot of homeschoolers on Free Republic. Some of them are motivated by religion. Others are motivated by the social and political ideas that they see pushed by “government schools”. They accuse the public schools of what you have accused the homeschoolers of – withholding information that would challenge a particular social/political agenda. And a lot of them homeschool their kids because they think that the public schools provide an inferior education.
Well, yes, and their reasons would be different.
Conservatives in general ≠ conservative religious sects.
The Free Republic ≠ Jehovah’s Witnesses
Conservative christian homeschooling ≠ conservative political homeschooling ≠ non-conservative homeschooling.
—Myca
Additionally, of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses ≠ Other Conservative Christian Sects, but the similarity seems likely to be stronger than in the other cases, and I do know that the JW reason for avoiding higher education is fairly explicitly, “to avoid ideas that might lead one astray.”
—Myca
You know, Myca, when you talk about the “rise of … Christian colleges” (if I’m not misrepresenting your meaning) it’s also accurate to say “the return of Christian colleges”. Pretty much the entire Ivy League and many, many other private schools started out as religious-based institutions, either specificially to train clergy (e.g., Harvard) or to ensure that education was not divorced from Christian morality. As those schools secularized other schools sprang up to replace that function. I’d be interested to see figures on whether there’s necessarily been a rise in Christian colleges or if it’s simply re-distributed from better- to less-well known schools.
There’s an interesting flap going on at Boston College. The President there had crucifixes returned to all the classrooms. It was founded by Jesuits and has always presented itself as a Christian (and specifically Catholic) university. Some faculty have a problem with this, but BC’s administration is not backing down. I’d have to call it a Christian college.
Well, there’s Christian colleges and then there’s Christian colleges. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Ron, there’s a sense in which what you’re saying is fair, and one in which it is unfair.
You’re right that there was a time when many, if not most, universities were explicitly Christian. However, bear in mind that there was a time when universities did not admit racial minorities, and that there was a time when universities did not admit women. Actually, there was a lot of overlap between these times.
If, over the past 20 or so years, we’d seen some significant minority of our population begin attending specifically white-only colleges, colleges that excluded all other races and had a specifically white-centric curriculum, I would find it creepy as fuck. I don’t think it would be unfair of me to talk about the ‘rise of segregationist colleges.’
Similarly, if, over the past 20 or so years, we’d seen some significant minority of our population begin attending specifically male-only colleges, colleges that excluded all genders and had a specifically pro-patriarchy curriculum, I would also find it creepy as fuck. I don’t think it would be unfair of me to talk about the ‘rise of misogynist colleges.’
In both cases, sure, it would be a ‘return’ of segregationist and misogynist colleges, but I think that there’s a difference between being gender-exclusionary or racial-exclusionary in 1650 or 1890 and being gender-exclusionary or racial-exclusionary in 2008.
For me, that’s because of the different social norms prevalent in different times. Excluding women, excluding racial minorities, or mandating Christianity when everyone is doing it isn’t admirable, certainly, but it’s an essentially different thing than doing it once the social norms have evolved to a near-universal understanding that these are not good things.
Thus, I find colleges like Bob Jones University to be essentially different than, say, Harvard circa 1820.
—Myca
Also, with regard to the historical trend, most of the oldest universities in America were founded with a religious affiliation because in colonial days, only ministers and to a lesser extent doctors were seen as needing a formal education. Aspiring attorneys “read law” in a practitioner’s office. As higher education began to spread with greater wealth and a greater specialization of knowledge, the institutions being founded were less and less likely to have a religious affiliation, and even those that had a religious influence were officially nonsectarian or had no religious test for admission (contrast Harvard, Yale and W&M with Penn, Princeton and Brown).
I’d also add that the lots of Christians, including the Christians I’m related to by marriage, wouldn’t consider a Catholic institution a Christian college (or Catholics Christian, for that matter).
I’ve met a couple of fundamentalists that seem to think that Catholic != Christian, but I’d need to see some data before I’d believe that it’s a significant number of the overall population.
You don’t have to believe me, but I can tell you this much. As a child, my husband was taught in Sunday School that Catholics are not saved. This was Baptist General Conference, which is more liberal than Southern Baptist. And it’s a very large denomination, not some obscure sect. My husband’s parents would only help him pay for college if he went to a Christian college. When he transferred from his Christian college to Loyola (Jesuit, as I’m sure you’re aware, and Catholic enough that pro-choice student groups were barred from campus), they would not pay for it, and he understood before he even told them that making this decision meant that he would be on his own. That is, it never would have occurred to him that a Catholic school would count as Christian. The type of school his parents would pay for generally would have the word “Bible” somewhere in the title. I asked him about this last night, offering up a few examples. Baylor would have been okay, but he wasn’t sure about Southern Methodist University. He said he would have had to research it. Just being generally affiliated with a church is not enough to be considered a “Christian” college. And Catholic schools, the Jesuits in particular, encourage way too much questioning, in addition to being Catholic, to provide the kind of education my in-laws wanted for their children. Even when my husband was still at the Christian school, his parents were very concerned when he started taking philosophy classes. And they aren’t even that fundamentalist on the fundamentalist spectrum.
If it seems like I’m harping on this, it’s because I, and Myca as well, I suspect, are talking about something very particular, a very particular kind of very conservative Christian – not politically conservative and also Christian – but a member of a theologically conservative branch of Christianity, and it seems like you are trying to make it out like we are talking about something much more generic to show us to be wrong. So I just want to be very clear what I am talking about.
Certainly many rural Oregonians hold this belief. Hell, I know someone whose father is a lapsed Catholic who believes that Catholics are not Christians. This is not a rare, fringe belief in the US. While I never heard it from anybody while living in the NE, that may very well be because there is a much more visible Catholic population. Or maybe it’s because the NE is much more urban. But, no, it isn’t a vanishingly small number of people who believe that Catholics are not Christians.
I would have to say that it’s probably significant that I’ve lived almost all my life in two major urban areas (Boston and Chicago) where the Roman Catholic Church is the dominant Christian denomination. So I can see where I wouldn’t have heard much of this. Although as an aside I’ve heard more than one person question whether Jesuits are as Catholic as they should be. You, OTOH, have lived in areas where this does occur.
We all have our experiences. What I’m asking is what the overall picture of this looks like in America.
Myca, you are right about the timeline on these things and how they developed. As far as those Christian colleges of rather more recent vintage than Harvard – as long as they are up front about it I have no problem with someone founding a school and telling people “We educate young people in conformance with our understanding of Christianity, and you should be Christian to attend here.” That’s a lot different than discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity or sex.