Jan's Stinkin Blog: December 2013

Sunday, December 22, 2013

DUCK DYNASTY and Free Speech...

I have never watched the show DUCK DYNASTY even though friends and family have highly recommended the show; it just looks stupid to me but how should I know since I don’t watch the damn thing.

Anyway, a big brouhaha has developed from statements the elder duck (Phil Robertson) gave to GQ Magazine during an interview.

Yes the statements and views were highly homophobic (anti-gay) and even, according to a few people, racist. He is after all, a Bible thumping product of his generational and geographical upbringing.

People and organizations were quick to condemn his views and the A&E channel that airs the show even “suspended” him from the show.

Just as quickly, people and organizations came out in support of his right to say whatever the hell he wants to (free speech anyone?)

I have never understood why people who utter things thought of as “inappropriate” in “today’s” society are not only criticized by people that are offended by the words / ideas put forth (which is quite acceptable) but also punished or banished for expressing their views as in Phil Robertson’s case.

I will admit that ole’ Phil said things that are totally ignorant and offensive with the emphasis on ignorant, but he is only one person out of a huge portion of our population (40%?) that believes exactly what he believes and that includes people I call friends and family members.

My wife agrees with those that condemned Phil for what he said and said that people like that need to know there are consequences for what they say and do…really?

I will agree that there are consequences for public figures that show their ignorant bigotry publicly. Politicians may not get re-elected after uttering ignorant things or behaving badly. People may quit watching the Duck show or quit buying Duck paraphernalia and thereby hurting the Ducks economically because of what they say or believe in but should a TV show or network automatically punish and banish a celebrity for what he or she said outside the show…like Paula Deen?

Many companies are fearful of what the public may do to them if they do nothing about something an employee of theirs said or did and I can understand that they do not want to be labelled as supporting that type of thinking and therefore lose money as a business that exists to make money.

This will be a hard decision for the A&E Channel to make since the show does bring in lots of money but it is their decision to make.

I on the other hand, grudgingly in some cases, support people’s right to free speech no matter how offensive as long as it is within legal limits; pose no danger or harm to anyone.

There will be consequences for what these people say and do but I think that is up to the public to decide and not some blowhards (from either side).

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Pope Francis drops the hammer!!!

I have been talking about how Pope Benedict XIV wanted to take the church back to pre-Vatican II days; I call them the Dark Ages. Benedict’s plan was to get rid of the “modern” Catholics and just have the basic, hard-core, no questions asked Catholics from the good ole’ days.

Pope Francis was ordained a priest after Vatican II and was and is a supporter of the modernizations that Vatican II instituted to bring the church closer to its members.

These are two very opposite and conflicting directions for the church to follow; one going back and one going forward.

What makes this situation even more interesting is that both popes are still here.

I knew that something had to give; the church can only go in one direction at a time.

This Sunday an article in the Detroit Free Press was titled: RELIGIOUS-ORDER PROBE RILES SOME CATHOLICS / Dispute over Latin mass reflects wider division in church by Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press.

I was raised in the Latin mass and even took Latin in high school (why?) because my mother thought you needed to know Latin to become a doctor…really? The Latin mass made going to church kind of otherworldly and ominous; you had no idea what was being said but it sounded very sacred. Unfortunately, the same applies to witch doctors and medicine men who do crazy things and mutter all sorts of unintelligible incantations to make people think that they somehow have a direct line to God or at least some spirits.

Anyway, Pope Benedict eased the rules for performing the Latin mass and so a new religious order was formed (in Italy) called the FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF THE IMMACULATE who are traditionalists and celebrate the Latin mass almost exclusively.

Pope Francis brought the hammer down telling the order that they can say Latin mass only with his permission and sent the founder of the order to a home for the aging. He also closed the friar’s seminary and made all priests in the order swear to uphold Vatican II principles.

Francis called “traditionalist” Catholics as self-absorbed retrogrades who are not helping the church’s mission to evangelize; I like the use of the word retrogrades.

Francis may seem all meek and mild but it seems he is instituting his version and vision of the Catholic Church and will not entertain any dissent from his vision. Now that is a forward thinking kick-ass pope!

I hope he kick’s some U.S. cardinal/bishop asses because they sorely need their asses to be kicked and then their mission pointed in the right direction.

I just hope this pope lives long enough to modernize the church and put it in touch with the people it serves.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Abortion issues in the news again...

Recently the issue of ABORTION has been raised yet again on a number of levels.

Our Michigan legislature, dominated by Republicans who are obviously regressive when it comes to social issues, has seen fit to ban abortion coverage from medical insurance policies being provided in the state; abortion coverage would be provided as a separate rider to the policy paid for by the purchaser of the policy.

In essence, these conservatives and their religious backers do not consider the abortion procedure as health care and only as an “elected” procedure that they are trying their darnedest to make illegal or at least prohibitive.

These non-medical religious zealots that practice fetus worship have blinders on and see the abortion procedure as only the killing of a fetus and do not consider the mother’s health in the equation; let the mother die as long as the fetus survives. Also in the case of rape, they argue that bringing the rapist’s child to term is what God wants and to hell with what the woman suffered and will suffer mentally throughout her life by giving birth to a product of a terrible crime against her; it’s like being sentenced to a life of mental anguish for being a victim.

Just recently, a Michigan woman has sues a Catholic hospital for being sent home when she was obviously having a miscarriage. For you who don’t know your medicine, a miscarriage occurs when a woman’s body rejects the fetus. This usually means terrible pain and bleeding and can lead to the mother dying of complications if medical intervention is not provided.

Usually a D&C (Dilation & Curettage) is performed where the uterus is scraped clean of any of the remaining fetus debris.

The Michigan woman is suing the US Conference of Catholic Bishops for imposing rules that prohibit Catholic hospitals from providing necessary medical care to a woman suffering from a miscarriage. In this case, the hospital sent the woman home twice (only hospital available to her in the area) and did not even advise her that she needed a D&C which is available at non-Catholic medical institutions; she could have died.

This brings to mind that case in Ireland where a woman was denied a D&C at 17 weeks even though the fetus was not viable; she died of sepsis.

I have been in the medical field most of my adult life with stints in ER service. To me medical professionals and medical facilities MUST administer medical aid to patients as deemed necessary by medical standards and practices which are accepted universally.

Doctor’s swear an oath to “above all, do no harm”. This I feel supersedes any and all religious beliefs and practices because religious beliefs are NOT anchored in good medical practices; they are anchored in Dark Age superstitions.

The ACLU of Michigan is handling the case and as much as I disagree with the ACLU on other issues, I may have to restart my support of the organization.

I hope our courts hold Catholic medical institutions as well as their directors liable for any harm that comes to patients they serve because of their religious rules which contradict sound medical practice.

I myself, will support the ACLU and vote against my dumb ass state senator and representative that voted to remove abortion (D&C) coverage from Affordable Care insurance policies offered in Michigan.

Sunday, December 08, 2013

THE COLORADO BAKER'S REFUSAL TO MAKE GAY WEDDING CAKE

There has been a very tantalizing question being tossed about these days and it has to do with whether companies or corporations can be treated as individuals.

This may seem strange to you since in your mind you cannot fathom a company as an individual. You can understand the owner of a company as an individual but the company itself?

A lot of the arguments are of course of a legalistic manner and will be argued by lawyers but for us, the question has a more direct impact as when it applies to everyday life.

Take the baker in Colorado that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. As an individual whose religion hates gays and forbids him to have anything to do with them, he has the religious freedom to follow those precepts. Now as a baking company that bakes wedding cakes, does the company have the same religious freedom rights to hate gays and therefore to not serve them? Does a company have religious rights?

My wife, in a knee jerk reaction, said that it’s his company and he can serve who he wants to. Well not so fast, there are laws on our books that prevent discrimination on a number of levels (race, gender, religion, etc.) and now include “sexual orientation” which means being homosexual.

In her case, she saw the company and the individual as one and the same. I owned my own company for 32 years yet I was constrained in my behavior by a myriad of laws governing even what I could ask prospective employees before I hired them.

But in this case, the baker states that he has to violate his conscience in order to continue working. Let us unpack the concept of violating one’s conscience.

My daughter is a vegetarian and although she can physically eat meat, her conscience tells her that eating meat violates what she believes in and that is that animals should not be butchered for our consumption. Obviously, eating meat does not violate any laws or rules of behavior; eating meat violates the dictates of her own conscience; she does not prohibit or hinder anyone else from eating meat.

The baker’s conscience and religion appear to be one and the same. Baking wedding cakes is his business but baking one to be used in a gay marriage ceremony is against his religion he says and therefore against his conscience. The baker’s religion places him in opposition to gay marriage but does baking a cake to be used in a gay marriage ceremony mean his endorsement of gay marriage or is his business is to merely sell wedding cakes?

The bottom line is that if the baker feels selling his cake to a gay couple for a wedding is against his conscience then that is that. If his discriminatory stance is against state and/or federal law, then that is that.

This issue is not over so get ready for phase 2.

Sunday, December 01, 2013

U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS WILL NOT FOLLOW LEAD OF FRANCIS...

In a previous blog I have reported on the marching orders that Pope Francis gave to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as to how he expects them to behave in light of his example and direction.

I wondered at the time if they would even bother to listen to what he had to say and just follow what they have been doing all along which is waging a war against abortion, contraception and gay marriage; Francis told them to drop the issue war and get on with serving the faithful and those in need.

Well we now know that the U.S. bishops basically told Francis where to stick his new way forward plans; its back to the dark ages and that is that.

The Wall Street Journal had a nice article on this subject titled: Changing Church’s New Voice / Head of U.S. Catholic Bishops Takes Traditional Line on Controversial Issues by Tamara Audi (Nov. 30, 2013).

The new head of the conference is Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, KY and he, as most members of the conference, could give a shit what the pope or what even Catholics in the U.S. think about issues and how the church should change to accommodate modern thinking and attitudes; it’s the old way or the highway!

Kurtz will praise Pope Francis as a “breath of fresh air” whatever the hell that means but follow the lead of Francis…not so much.

I am puzzled by the election of Francis to the papacy by all these ultra conservative cardinals. Was Francis a “sleeper” candidate, conservative on the outside but a flaming liberal on the inside?

There should be a book coming out shortly (I hope) that will address what really happened at the conclave to elect the new pope because they obviously elected someone that is trying to change the direction of the church; is that what they wanted the new pope to do?...the U.S. bishops definitely don’t want any changes in direction so is there another faction in the college of cardinals that is leading the revolution???