sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-03-25 09:20 am
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-03-25 09:20 am
The answer is still "turn on, tune in, drop out"
The Onion published this on January 18, 2001:
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over'
(posted in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
warprotest)
As it turns out, this 'satire' contains remarkably clear foresight about how things would transpire during the Bush Administration.
Is anyone really surprised by the way things have turned out?
Are there ANY leaders out there, anywhere in the world, that aren't morally bankrupt? If the last few years have made anything clear, its that there are no captains of politics or industry who allow themselves to be burdened with thoughts of concern for human well-being.
This is nothing new, of course, but it has really, finally sunk in, how one can look at literally all the ivory towers in the world and see that darkness resides in the hearts of everyone trusted with our leadership and well-being. To a one, the leaders of nations are ruled by darkness; to a one, the leaders of industry are ruled by darkness.
Yes, religion too: self-interest and fear rule the actions and statements of too many religious institutions. Many Protestant leaders have become the tools of hate, while the Catholic church, acting from fear, has avoided acting on sex scandals until dragged, kicking and screaming, by parishoners to accepting its culpability.
They have ALL failed us, friends.
What is the solution? Revolution, of course! But not the "dragging people into the streets" kind of revolution. Not the "heads will roll" kind of revolution. The only revolution that ever had any hope at all is the one that begins within each one of us, when we resolve to stop participating in scripts of fear and act at all times out of compassion. In this way we can change that which is within our control and influence.
This, too, is nothing new really, but my understanding of this is finally starting to sink in.
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over'
(posted in
warprotest)As it turns out, this 'satire' contains remarkably clear foresight about how things would transpire during the Bush Administration.
Is anyone really surprised by the way things have turned out?
Are there ANY leaders out there, anywhere in the world, that aren't morally bankrupt? If the last few years have made anything clear, its that there are no captains of politics or industry who allow themselves to be burdened with thoughts of concern for human well-being.
This is nothing new, of course, but it has really, finally sunk in, how one can look at literally all the ivory towers in the world and see that darkness resides in the hearts of everyone trusted with our leadership and well-being. To a one, the leaders of nations are ruled by darkness; to a one, the leaders of industry are ruled by darkness.
Yes, religion too: self-interest and fear rule the actions and statements of too many religious institutions. Many Protestant leaders have become the tools of hate, while the Catholic church, acting from fear, has avoided acting on sex scandals until dragged, kicking and screaming, by parishoners to accepting its culpability.
They have ALL failed us, friends.
What is the solution? Revolution, of course! But not the "dragging people into the streets" kind of revolution. Not the "heads will roll" kind of revolution. The only revolution that ever had any hope at all is the one that begins within each one of us, when we resolve to stop participating in scripts of fear and act at all times out of compassion. In this way we can change that which is within our control and influence.
This, too, is nothing new really, but my understanding of this is finally starting to sink in.
no subject
Ever hear of Hassan i Sabbah? The word "assassin" derives from his name... the theory behind his trained assasins, I believe, was that killing on eevil leader was a lot better than killing all of his people in order to attempt to get to him
Assasination is a violation of international law. This is only because it is the leaders themselves who vote on international law, and they don't wnat anyone to be encouraged to take them out when normal democratic means of removing scum from office fail.
Killing may be "wrong" in some overall sense, but then wouldn't the killing of one person who is being a problem be better than the killing if hundreds, thousands, or even millions, in order to acheive ones ends?
It's sort of like a twist on the Hitler time travel paradox. What if he and a few key people had been taken out at the beginning of the war? What if we'd just sent a CIA person to assasinate Saddam 12 years ago? How about Stalin? Ariel Sharon AND Arafat?
It's hard for me to believe they would be sincerely mourned by many people.
no subject
The only real solution is to heal the darkness from within, and hope other people follow your example.
no subject
This sparked my defensiveness .. and defensiveness is the proper word. But here's some things to think about that you probably didn't hear on the news.
Think about the ages of the people reporting crimes - which is what they were, crimes - how many new cases were there, how many that were currently children? You see, the Church *did* do something about this, more than 15 years ago. This "scandal" did not come to a head last year, it came to a head 15-20 years ago. Since then, nearly every American diocese has put in place policies to deal with this problem, and they started at the very beginning. One of the reasons for the shortage of American priests in the modern church is the fact that the psychological screeening for priests is now more extensive than for just about any profession. The Church is turning away candidates at rates that are unprecedented. In addition, they had also put in place zero of near zero tolerance policies.
But, there is the problem with what was tantamount to cover-ups. For the leaders who participated in such actions, there is not excuse, but there are some things to consider if you really want to understand how it could happen. The US is hostile toward Catholicism, not completely, but the instances are too distinct to ignore. This is a country that denied catholics the right to vote in many states until the 19th c. - and the "know-nothing" movement has seen periodic resurgences. Even in Boston, the city government has tried to change the non-profit tax structure so as to increase taxes on Church property. We are called idolaters by our fellow Christians, even told that we are not Christian at all. The non-profit status of many parishes have been threatened for the priests being "too political" in homilies for speaking up about the very real implications of catholic morality. It has lead to a certain paranoia in the American Church, to a certain persecution complex.
But these are not the things that were on the news stations. And the thing that bothered me the most was the timing. In my diocese, more than a month before *any* of the national news coverage, the bishop sent out a letter that all of the parishes were required to read at all of the masses addressing the issue. Yet the national news agencies were mostly quiet, that is, until their drama serials had shows that were based on this whole course of events were ready, then it hit huge. That's what bothered me, it was like the news agencies were being used as advertising for the dramas, it wasn't news until it was "must-see-TV."
In addition, consider that the percentage of priests *accused* is a smaller percent of their population than the percent of the general poulation *convicted*, or even of specific groups such as teachers. And this includes the fact that the false accusation rate for priests is now higher than it is for the general population as it includes a surge of gold-diggers from last year, including the woman who openly admitted she had accused the archbishop of LA because she needed the money, but did not retract her accusation.
I do not wish to lessen the very real crime done to the very real victims, but things are not what they seem. Considering everything that happened in that media storm, is it any wonder some individuals in the American Catholic leadership - and you have to notice how the charges of cover-up consistently came from the same diocese - are paranoid enough to try to at least keep things quiet, even cover things up?
no subject
I know that the percentage of priests who have perpetrated abuse is smaller than the percentage of abusers in the population at large -- but to be honest I don't think it is the size of the problem that caused the conflagration so much as the effort that went into covering it up. The answer given, that church leaders were trying to handle their priests with compassion, makes sense to a degree, but will only go so far towards justifying the coverup. What concerned me from the start primarily was the sense that the coverup was largely motivated by self-interest.
I'm also upset, I think understandably, that part of the church's response has been to bar gay men from seminaries. Homosexuality is not the problem, pedophilia is, and there is no genuine link between the two. Since all priests must take a vow of celibacy, their sexual orientation should not, in a technical sense, matter. The church has instead chosen to cater to the dark impulse of homophobia.
Please do not think that because I identify as 'Gnostic' that I rejoice at the thought of the church in turmoil. I most assuredly do not; I consider Catholics to be brothers and sisters in Christ and grieve for their sorrow. My anger at church leadership does not extend into vindictiveness.
no subject
Like you, what bothered me the most was the cover-up, that priests were moved instead of defrocked and/or turned over to the civil authorities - preferably at least the latter. I think self-interest is almost the right word, but misguided sense of self-preservation works a little better.
Please do not think that because I identify as 'Gnostic' that I rejoice at the thought of the church in turmoil.
I do not. Your mentioning of this in the larger context of mistrust of leadership is well-placed - as uncomfortable as it may make me personally. I know that it was lmited to a select few bishops and priests, but that we as church had allowed the condition to arise that could allow such to happen saddens me and spreads the cuplability to a certain extent.
As to gnosticism, there is something that I had thought to mention to you but had not as of yet. I am often struck with the contemporary facination with gnosticism, it has never made sense to me. I had studied gnosticism as part of my Christian history studies - obsessed as I am with the ancient church - and could not understand why Gnosticism and gnostic readings of scripture seemed so revolutionary to people. Then I realized, it's because I'm not just looking at it as a Christian, but as a catholic Cristian. Much of gnosticism that would seem revolutionary to many whose exposure to Christianity had been through Protestantism - whether by participation or simply by living in America of northern Europe - can be found in catholicism. They have roots in the same (Greek) philosophical tradition and the differences largely seem to come down to the big ideas of cosmology and Christology. Of course, I realize that this is a gross oversimplification. But I have been forced to look at catholicism expressed through many different cultural vocabularies, and many Gnostic readings strike me in much the same way, expressing ideas that I would consider quite orthodox as a catholic, but expressed with a cultural vocabulary that is foreign enough to seem heretical to those unfamiliar with it.
Just a very rough impression, trying to express that I do not find gnosticism all that foriegn, and though I fall back on cosmological and Christological disagreements, I often find it more similar than many contemporary americhristian groups.
no subject
A quick search on the web revealed that you are correct -- it has not yet happened. However from what I've just read, the Pope has called for testing to "out" gay men and bar them from ordination, and plans are being drawn up to do just this. We could see it happen within the next year.
This will IMO just create another wedge between many people and Christ.
Much of gnosticism that would seem revolutionary to many whose exposure to Christianity had been through Protestantism - whether by participation or simply by living in America of northern Europe - can be found in catholicism.
Yes, I'm finding this to be true. While there are many items of *doctrine* where I might differ in belief or opinion, I've found that the underlying spirituality is quite similar -- just as, for example, there are many spiritual points of contact between Catholicism and Buddhism. These contacts run deeper than words and concepts; often they demonstrate themselves through parallels in prayer practices and daily mindfulness.
no subject
In the list of dark places you left out mainstream media, whether it purports to be news or entertainment. Mass media does such a thorough job of reflecting the current opinions of the culture and of pushing new opinions down the publics throat that many people cannot see the difference. So we end up living in a world that seems totally out of sync with our memories, but at the same time makes us feel the present is the one and only natural expression of the past, as if nothing else could have happened, and by extension weakens our belief that we can control the flow of events in the present. Whether the media is a leader or a tool, I don't know. My opinion flip-flops on that continuously. Which probably means it is the metaphorical bedpartner of the leaders. Still, I think media does the greatest damage of all.
I agree that compassion is very important. But I also think that the real revolution needs to be the propagation of true, unbiased knowledge. Knowledge leads to understanding. Understanding erases the veil of fear that leads to hate and allows true compassion to flourish.
Uhmm, or maybe that is what you meant. I just see too many confer "compassion" out of a sense of pity and guilt. And while that "compassion" is a damned good forgery of the original thing, it is still fake.
no subject
Wow, that's an excellent point -- thank you for mentioning it. The media has failed us too, in many ways. And again it's because the media has fell back to the position of profit maximization and expediency.
For example, they ensure that their news reporting "stays in line" so they don't risk being shut out by newsmakers. More often than not, and especially in the realm of politics, this provides a strong incentive for self-censorship.
As long as we have an alternative media, at least some of us will (hopefully) be able to remain reasonably well-informed.
I agree that compassion is very important. But I also think that the real revolution needs to be the propagation of true, unbiased knowledge.
Yes -- this is very important. But I was trying to boil down to what each of us, as an individual, has control over. It's not much, but we can still make good out of it in our immediate lives.
I just see too many confer "compassion" out of a sense of pity and guilt.
Yeah; this is what a lot of people mistake for compassion. I really like Anthony De Mello's comments about compassion:
"If you think that compassion implies softness, there's no way I can describe compassion to you, absolutely no way, because compassion can be very hard. Compassion can be very rude, compassion can jolt you, compassion can roll up its sleeves and operate on you. Compassion is all kinds of things. Compassion can be very soft, but there's no way of knowing that. It's only when you become love -- in other words, when you have dropped your illusions and attachments -- that you will 'know.'"
no subject
no subject