Courtesy of New York Magazine:
In a ruling that’s already caused uproar across the country, Purvi Patel was sentenced on Monday to 20 years in prison for committing feticide. Patel, a 33-year-old woman from Indiana, was accused of illegally inducing her own abortion and subsequently having a baby she allowed to die. Last July, Patel visited an emergency room with severe bleeding and eventually told doctors she’d miscarried. When questioned about the location of the fetal remains, she said she was unsure what to do, so she wrapped the fetal remains in a bag and threw the bag in a Dumpster. Patel was then living with her conservative Hindu parents and in a relationship with a married co-worker, which helps explain why she felt it necessary to hide the pregnancy and dispose of the remains so quickly.
While Patel has maintained that she miscarried and delivered a stillborn baby, prosecutors insisted that she induced a late-term abortion with pills she ordered on the internet and gave birth to a living fetus that died almost instantly. A toxicology report produced no evidence of such drugs in her system, but prosecutors pointed to texts Patel exchanged with a friend in which she claimed to have ordered pills from a pharmacy in Hong Kong. Because the age of the fetus was heavily contested, it’s possible that had she gotten a prescription for the pills in the U.S., the pregnancy termination (if that’s what happened) would have been legal. It remains illegal to order such pills online.
If Patel did self-induce an abortion, it’s essential to understand the legal restrictions she faced as a resident of Indiana. The state has only 11 abortion clinics and an exhaustive list of abortion restrictions. Indiana prohibits certain qualified health-care professionals from performing abortions, restricts young women’s access to abortion by requiring parental consent, subjects abortion providers to targeted (and burdensome) regulations not applied to other medical professionals, subjects women to biased counseling and mandatory delays, has passed unconstitutional bans on abortion, prohibits certain state employees and organizations with state funding from referring women to abortion services, restricts access to other reproductive health care, and restricts low-income women’s access to abortion.
The article goes on to question the case against Patel, including expert medial testimony that at 24 weeks the fetus was not viable, and would have died even if born alive.
What we as a country need to recognize is that if the Republicans get their way this will become a much more common occurrence, and soon women will be arrested for miscarriages that happen even during the first trimester of their pregnancy, without any evidence of wrongdoing on the mother's part.
In the conservative world women were created to give life. And failing that biological imperative, they have no real value.
And in their world the fetus is the most precious of all lives, far more important than the life of a woman who cannot even manage get pregnant or give birth correctly.
That is why their focus is not only making it impossible to get an abortion, but even doing away with birth control itself.
Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Showing posts with label Hindu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hindu. Show all posts
Monday, April 06, 2015
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
A little more information about the Christians who interrupted a Hindu opening prayer in the Senate.
As some of you will remember, on Monday I wrote about a Virginia official's contention that religious freedom really only extended to the Christian religion.
Included in that post was a video showing a Hindu holy man being disrespected by a number of Christians in the galley attempting to drown out his opening prayer with Christian prayers of their own.
Below is a video showing the individuals who disrupted the prayer, and their explanation for doing so.
"Hinduism is a lie from the pit of hell." Where have I heard THAT before?
As you know I am not a fan of having ANY opening prayers to start a session of the Senate, or to start a city assembly meeting, or for any reason outside of a church at all really. Regardless of which religious group is performing the prayer.
However I would NEVER shout somebody down when they were doing so, as these so-called Christians so callously did here.
Their contempt for Rajan Zed, the Hindu priest, was incredibly disrespectful and vile.
But apparently this is an example of that religious morality that I keep hearing so much about.
Labels:
Christianity,
Hindu,
prayer,
religion,
religious diversity,
Senate,
YouTube
Monday, May 12, 2014
Virginia official admits that protecting religious freedom is really only about protecting the religious freedom of Christians.
Al Bedrosian, all for religious tolerance. If you worship the right religion that is. |
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Al Bedrosian, who sits on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. “If we allow everything, where do you draw the line?”
The Republican said Monday, after the high court ruled 5-4 that legislative prayer did not violate the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion, that he would not vote to allow non-Christians to deliver invocations.
“I think America, pretty much from Founding Fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.”
Those remarks echoed statements he made several years ago in an editorial published in the Roanoke Times, where he described freedom of religion as a “hoax” and claimed “the global warming crowd worships the environment as god, the abortionist has the death of unborn babies as their god, and the homosexuals have sexual freedom as their god.”
“The real battle is keeping the name of Jesus as Lord,” Bedrosian wrote in 2007. “The name Jesus is what makes us a Christian people and a Christian nation. This is why we must continue our heritage as a Christian nation and remove all other gods.”
That’s what Bedrosian intends to do in his position as county supervisor, saying he would reject any request by any non-Christian adherent to deliver a religious or secular invocation.
“I would say no,” Bedrosian said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”
I have said for many years that if the fundamentalist Christians in this country could figure out how to protect THEIR religion while criminalizing all others, they would do it in a heartbeat.
However the founding fathers, despite what the Evangelicals will tell you, were actually interested in protecting the religious rights of all, rather than to proclaim the country a Christian nation and vilify all of those who refused to worship in the dictated by the majority.
That is why the recent Supreme Court decision that Christian prayers recited before town council meetings were not unconstitutional is bad news for those who embrace true religious freedom.
After all look what happened when the U.S. Senate allowed a Hindu holy man to provide the opening prayer.
Yep, you can almost feel the religious tolerance, can't you?
Sunday, January 06, 2013
First Hindu Congresswoman sworn in, not with a Bible, but on the Bhagavad Gita. Now that's progress!
Courtesy of Deccan Herald:
Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii has created history by not only becoming the first Hindu ever to be sworn in as a member of the US House of Representatives, but also being the first ever US lawmaker to have taken oath of office on the sacred Bhagavad Gita.
Tulsi, 31, was administered the oath of office by the John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
"I chose to take the oath of office with my personal copy of the Bhagavad-Gita because its teachings have inspired me to strive to be a servant-leader, dedicating my life in the service of others and to my country," Gabbard said after the swearing in ceremony yesterday.
"My Gita has been a tremendous source of inner peace and strength through many tough challenges in life, including being in the midst of death and turmoil while serving our country in the Middle East," she said explaining the reasons for taking the oath of office on Gita.
"I was raised in a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-faith family. My mother is Hindu; my father is a Catholic lector in his church who also practices mantra meditation. I began to grapple with questions of spirituality as a teenager," Gabbard said.
"Over time, I came to believe that, at its essence, religion gives us a deeper purpose in life than just living for ourselves. Since I was a teenager, I have embraced this spiritual journey through the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita.
Okay well obviously as an Atheist, I disagree with Congresswoman Gabbard's contention that religion provides a "deeper purpose in life," but having said that I LOVE everything about this!
In my opinion it is embarrassing for America that with such a disparity within our religious communities that THIS is the first Hindu in the House. Our Representatives should be as colorful and diverse in their religious and cultural points of view as the people themselves.
One of the scariest times that this country has gone through during my lifetime was the rise of the Moral Majority. When all of the sudden there was a narrowly defined litmus test provided for choosing political candidates, or which legislation should be passed, it sent chills up and down my spine. (The name of this blog was chosen in response to that fear.)
So while I give no more credence to Congresswoman Gabbard's religious choice than I do say Mitt Romney's, Joe Lieberman's, or Michele Backmann's, I DO see it as a very important and progressive step forward for a country that needs to move away from the kind of uber religiosity that has so negatively impacted the nation for the last forty years.
May Lord Ganesha bless her and keep her safe.
Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii has created history by not only becoming the first Hindu ever to be sworn in as a member of the US House of Representatives, but also being the first ever US lawmaker to have taken oath of office on the sacred Bhagavad Gita.
Tulsi, 31, was administered the oath of office by the John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
"I chose to take the oath of office with my personal copy of the Bhagavad-Gita because its teachings have inspired me to strive to be a servant-leader, dedicating my life in the service of others and to my country," Gabbard said after the swearing in ceremony yesterday.
"My Gita has been a tremendous source of inner peace and strength through many tough challenges in life, including being in the midst of death and turmoil while serving our country in the Middle East," she said explaining the reasons for taking the oath of office on Gita.
"I was raised in a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-faith family. My mother is Hindu; my father is a Catholic lector in his church who also practices mantra meditation. I began to grapple with questions of spirituality as a teenager," Gabbard said.
"Over time, I came to believe that, at its essence, religion gives us a deeper purpose in life than just living for ourselves. Since I was a teenager, I have embraced this spiritual journey through the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita.
Okay well obviously as an Atheist, I disagree with Congresswoman Gabbard's contention that religion provides a "deeper purpose in life," but having said that I LOVE everything about this!
In my opinion it is embarrassing for America that with such a disparity within our religious communities that THIS is the first Hindu in the House. Our Representatives should be as colorful and diverse in their religious and cultural points of view as the people themselves.
One of the scariest times that this country has gone through during my lifetime was the rise of the Moral Majority. When all of the sudden there was a narrowly defined litmus test provided for choosing political candidates, or which legislation should be passed, it sent chills up and down my spine. (The name of this blog was chosen in response to that fear.)
So while I give no more credence to Congresswoman Gabbard's religious choice than I do say Mitt Romney's, Joe Lieberman's, or Michele Backmann's, I DO see it as a very important and progressive step forward for a country that needs to move away from the kind of uber religiosity that has so negatively impacted the nation for the last forty years.
May Lord Ganesha bless her and keep her safe.
Labels:
America,
Christianity,
Congress,
diversity,
Hawaii,
Hindu,
Joe Lieberman,
Michele Bachmann,
Mitt Romney,
religion
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Atheists as distrusted as rapists. WTF?
Courtesy of CTVBC:
Atheists are distrusted to roughly the same degree as rapists, according to a new University of British Columbia study exploring distaste for disbelievers.
The research, led by UBC psychology doctoral student Will Gervais, found distrust to be the central factor motivating antagonism toward atheists among the religious.
"Where there are religious majorities – that is, in most of the world – atheists are among the least trusted people," Gervais said in a release.
"With more than half a billion atheists worldwide, this prejudice has the potential to affect a substantial number of people."
Researchers believe the negative perception of atheists may stem from some people's understanding of morality; a 2002 Pew poll suggests nearly half of Americans believe morality is impossible without belief in god.
For one part of Gervais' six-part study, researchers compared views of atheists, homosexual men and the general population, noting that the first two groups are "often described as threatening to majority religious values and morality."
Both are explicitly denied membership to the Boy Scouts of America, the study adds.
A sample of 351 Americans between the ages of 18 and 82 were quizzed on their feelings for each group. Sixty-seven per cent or subjects were Christian while 14 per cent said they did not believe in god.
The results suggested anti-atheist prejudice was characterized by distrust, while anti-gay prejudice was characterized by disgust.
For another part of the study, 105 UBC students between the ages of 18 and 25 were presented with a description of an untrustworthy person – an "archetypal freerider" who committed selfish and illegal acts when he thought he could get away with it.
Subjects were more likely to find the description representative of atheists than Christians, Muslims, gay men, feminists or Jewish people. Only rapists were similarly distrusted.
"People did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists," the study said.
You know it is this kind of stuff that really chaps my ass.
The idea that an identified religious affiliation determines that person's morality is demonstrably untrue, and the kind of ridiculous propaganda that certain groups love to cite to make themselves feel special and to justify their illogical belief system.
For instance I don't believe that Muslims are more prone to terrorist acts, that Catholic priests are more prone to pedophilia, or that Fundamentalists are all as batshit crazy as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. (Okay on that last one I have to admit the jury is still out.)
One of my least favorite phrases is, "Oh we can trust him, he is a good Christian man." That is usually followed, it seems, by the realization that someone has been swindled out of their life savings or the discovery of some dead bodies in the woods. Trusting ANYBODY based on their proclaimed religious affiliation is a sure sign of severe mental impairment in my opinion.
Now speaking for myself, I can say that I am certainly no saint. However if you were to compare my life choices to those of Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, or John Edwards, all self identified Christians, I would certainly seem like one.
I don't lie, or cheat, or steal.
I am not a drug user, an alcoholic, or a wife beater.
I have worked with children my entire life, and have NEVER even been accused of any impropriety. (Despite the best efforts by the Palin-bots.) And in fact have received numerous commendations for my work.
And NO that has nothing to do with my lack of religious faith. It is just who I happen to be.
However if one were trying to measure the morality of certain segments of the population based on their belief system, one might look at data from the prison system. (Admittedly this is a little old, dating back to 1997, though I doubt it has changed much.)
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
(For the sake of comparison the percentage of Atheists in this country stands at roughly 12%.)
Like I said it is not terribly intelligent to judge a person's morality based on their religious affiliation. But if I were, and based on the above data, I know who I WOULD and WOULD NOT trust.
Distrusting somebody based solely on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, makes no more sense than trusting somebody based on the color of their skin, their gender, or their height. And in fact it is this "trust shortcut" that is a by product of a deep religious conviction that has allowed certain church members to find themselves victimized time and time again.
Atheists are distrusted to roughly the same degree as rapists, according to a new University of British Columbia study exploring distaste for disbelievers.
The research, led by UBC psychology doctoral student Will Gervais, found distrust to be the central factor motivating antagonism toward atheists among the religious.
"Where there are religious majorities – that is, in most of the world – atheists are among the least trusted people," Gervais said in a release.
"With more than half a billion atheists worldwide, this prejudice has the potential to affect a substantial number of people."
Researchers believe the negative perception of atheists may stem from some people's understanding of morality; a 2002 Pew poll suggests nearly half of Americans believe morality is impossible without belief in god.
For one part of Gervais' six-part study, researchers compared views of atheists, homosexual men and the general population, noting that the first two groups are "often described as threatening to majority religious values and morality."
Both are explicitly denied membership to the Boy Scouts of America, the study adds.
A sample of 351 Americans between the ages of 18 and 82 were quizzed on their feelings for each group. Sixty-seven per cent or subjects were Christian while 14 per cent said they did not believe in god.
The results suggested anti-atheist prejudice was characterized by distrust, while anti-gay prejudice was characterized by disgust.
For another part of the study, 105 UBC students between the ages of 18 and 25 were presented with a description of an untrustworthy person – an "archetypal freerider" who committed selfish and illegal acts when he thought he could get away with it.
Subjects were more likely to find the description representative of atheists than Christians, Muslims, gay men, feminists or Jewish people. Only rapists were similarly distrusted.
"People did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists," the study said.
You know it is this kind of stuff that really chaps my ass.
The idea that an identified religious affiliation determines that person's morality is demonstrably untrue, and the kind of ridiculous propaganda that certain groups love to cite to make themselves feel special and to justify their illogical belief system.
For instance I don't believe that Muslims are more prone to terrorist acts, that Catholic priests are more prone to pedophilia, or that Fundamentalists are all as batshit crazy as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. (Okay on that last one I have to admit the jury is still out.)
One of my least favorite phrases is, "Oh we can trust him, he is a good Christian man." That is usually followed, it seems, by the realization that someone has been swindled out of their life savings or the discovery of some dead bodies in the woods. Trusting ANYBODY based on their proclaimed religious affiliation is a sure sign of severe mental impairment in my opinion.
Now speaking for myself, I can say that I am certainly no saint. However if you were to compare my life choices to those of Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, or John Edwards, all self identified Christians, I would certainly seem like one.
I don't lie, or cheat, or steal.
I am not a drug user, an alcoholic, or a wife beater.
I have worked with children my entire life, and have NEVER even been accused of any impropriety. (Despite the best efforts by the Palin-bots.) And in fact have received numerous commendations for my work.
And NO that has nothing to do with my lack of religious faith. It is just who I happen to be.
However if one were trying to measure the morality of certain segments of the population based on their belief system, one might look at data from the prison system. (Admittedly this is a little old, dating back to 1997, though I doubt it has changed much.)
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
(For the sake of comparison the percentage of Atheists in this country stands at roughly 12%.)
Like I said it is not terribly intelligent to judge a person's morality based on their religious affiliation. But if I were, and based on the above data, I know who I WOULD and WOULD NOT trust.
Distrusting somebody based solely on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, makes no more sense than trusting somebody based on the color of their skin, their gender, or their height. And in fact it is this "trust shortcut" that is a by product of a deep religious conviction that has allowed certain church members to find themselves victimized time and time again.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Jon Stewart has a message for the Islamic group threatening the creators of South Park, and other overly sensitive religious communities.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
South Park Death Threats | ||||
www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
|
You know I do believe I have heard this message before.
Labels:
Aasif Mandvi,
Buddhism,
Catholic church,
comedy,
Daily Show,
Hindu,
Islam,
Jon Stewart,
Judaism,
religion
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thankfully we have Christian movie critics to warn us about the Satanic influences contained within the children's film.....The Princess and the Frog.
Did you just run over to your calendar to make sure that this is indeed 2009? Well I can hardly blame you considering the amazing superstitious nonsense vomited forth by these "critics".
At first I thought it must be a joke, but no, they are completely serious.
As evidenced by this review from Hollywood Jesus. (No, I am not making that name up!)
I also want to mention that the spirituality in this film is pretty dark, even for a Disney film. The villain sings a song about his friends "from the other side" making it very plain this isn't just magic that's being used but the powers of hell and its minions. This is serious stuff, and the light-handed manner that it was often handled with made me a bit uncomfortable. One should never lightly toy with the spiritual world, especially the world of demons and their dark powers. Having a show-stopping Broadway-like song about dalliances with dark forces in an animated movie may make it seem like doing such things is really no big deal; not something I want my kids to pick-up on.
Truth is playing around with such spiritual forces is extremely dangerous, be it voodoo, black magic, Ouija boards or whatever, a truth that is highlighted at the end of the film as the villain discovers the evil forces he thought he was in league with and was in control of were really the ones in control of him. Let's just say playing with "friends from the other side" didn't end well. I'm glad that the consequences were shown, but I still feel all of that was a bit too dark and extreme for this kind of kid's film.
This warning comes to us from a site called Christian Spotlight on Entertainment.
I do not personally recommend “The Princess and the Frog.” Practicing any sort of occultic magic is directly against God and is labeled as an abomination throughout Scripture. This movie displays that voodoo magicians hold all the power of both good and evil. A PG rating would have been more appropriate; I strongly advise that younger, undiscerning children not be allowed to see it. For older children, however, “The Princess and the Frog” might serve as an platform for parents to discuss with their children the real existence of occult practices and how to identify them.
The reviewer from Christianity Today finds fault with the movie because it suggests that problems can be solved through self-reliance.
As if this weren't bad enough, on the flip side we get mystical Mama Odie, stereotype piled on stereotype straight out of every cliché of the wise old black woman. Mama Odie knows voodoo, too, but her magic is more of the prosaic, homegrown kind. In a production number that evokes gospel music but with Jesus neatly stripped away, Mama Odie offers up a defiantly American church of the self. Just "dig a little deeper" inside yourself and you'll find what you need to achieve all of your dreams. Sure, there's magic, but it only shows up once you've done everything in your power to get what you desire. Her message is the epitome of works-righteousness, where the only counter to the forces of evil is the good inside the human heart. (And this is somehow bad?)
Sure, this is the message of just about every family film that has come down the pike since the dawn of cinema. But to see it presented in a context that evokes the style of Christianity, Mama Odie's song serves as a stark reminder as to how the American values of self-reliance diverge from the Christian message of humble submission to external grace. Just because something looks and sounds beautiful doesn't make it gospel. (So American values diverge from Christian values? Has anybody told Sarah Palin?)
Look I have not seen this movie so I cannot argue the merits of the film one way or another. However it seems to me that these critics found much to like about the film apart from the fact that it was an affront to their religious sensibilities.
They liked the music, the animation, and most of the storyline. They just got their panties in a twist when Voodoo reared its dark, sinister head. And apparently voodoo is not presented in the best light imaginable, the villain uses it for evil purposes, and yet it's very presence is of concern to these modern day Cotton Mather's.
This is one of my major bitches when it comes to the Fundamentalist Christian perspective. This idea that information which represents a view differing from, or in direct contrast to, Christianity is somehow inherently evil. This is simply not the kind of thinking that should be going on in the 21st century. It just isn't!
This movie presented the first African American female lead in a Disney film. It should be celebrated for finally breaking through the animated glass ceiling and presenting a young lady that little girls of ALL races can admire and sing along with. But instead the film gets attacked for NOT having enough Christianity in it. WTF?
Did these same critics get bent out of shape when Merlin was teaching little Arthur about magic in "The Sword in the Stone"? Or when the good fairy gave the gift of life to a puppet in "Pinocchio"? Or when Wilby Daniels used a magic ring to turn into a four legged beast in "The Shaggy Dog"? Of course not. And those films were made back in a time when we were less educated than we are today.
So what is the problem? The skin color of the main character? Well I certainly hope not. The getting to first base with an amphibian? Admittedly a little gross but he is not REALLY a frog so that should not be a problem. So if not racism or fear of bestiality then what is it?
Well than it can only be fear of the unknown, and the superstitious nonsense that permeates the thinking of these so-called "critics".
First off there is NOTHING satanic about Voodoo. It is no more bizarre or evil than Shintoism, or Hinduism, or Jainism, or Judaism, or any other religion that is not Christianity. It is simply the prism through which the people of Haiti tried to understand their world. Which by the way is the origin of ALL religions.
Now this may anger some of my Christian visitors, but I am sorry it needs to be explained.
When Christianity was still just a small Jewish cult it was in a real battle for converts. One of the tools that was used was to label the other religious practices as "evil". If somebody was seemingly cured after making an offering to a rival god the Christians labeled that the work of Satan, and cast aspersion on the entire religion.
This was in fact what happened to the so-called witches.
These were usually mid-wives, herbalists, and pre-Christian healers who were utilizing methods that had been handed down from generation to generation to heal the sick and deliver children in to this world. But early Christians felt in competition with these primitive healers and labeled them heretics which provided the biblical license necessary to justify hunting them down and exterminating them.
And before you get all defensive about my picking on Christianity I should probably tell you that these tactics were not invented by the Christians, they are a tried and true methods used by dozens, if not hundred, of religions that came before and continue to exist today. The Christians were just much more successful.
So anyhow I would encourage you to base your decision on whether or not to take your child to "The Princess and the Frog" on what you know about your child's sensitivities, the quality of both the animation and musical score, and NOT on whether it will introduce an interest in exploring "black magic" to your impressionable youngster.
By the way, I had a very good friend who was a Wiccan once. One of the kindest ladies I ever met. Did not ONCE turn me into a frog.
At first I thought it must be a joke, but no, they are completely serious.
As evidenced by this review from Hollywood Jesus. (No, I am not making that name up!)
I also want to mention that the spirituality in this film is pretty dark, even for a Disney film. The villain sings a song about his friends "from the other side" making it very plain this isn't just magic that's being used but the powers of hell and its minions. This is serious stuff, and the light-handed manner that it was often handled with made me a bit uncomfortable. One should never lightly toy with the spiritual world, especially the world of demons and their dark powers. Having a show-stopping Broadway-like song about dalliances with dark forces in an animated movie may make it seem like doing such things is really no big deal; not something I want my kids to pick-up on.
Truth is playing around with such spiritual forces is extremely dangerous, be it voodoo, black magic, Ouija boards or whatever, a truth that is highlighted at the end of the film as the villain discovers the evil forces he thought he was in league with and was in control of were really the ones in control of him. Let's just say playing with "friends from the other side" didn't end well. I'm glad that the consequences were shown, but I still feel all of that was a bit too dark and extreme for this kind of kid's film.
This warning comes to us from a site called Christian Spotlight on Entertainment.
I do not personally recommend “The Princess and the Frog.” Practicing any sort of occultic magic is directly against God and is labeled as an abomination throughout Scripture. This movie displays that voodoo magicians hold all the power of both good and evil. A PG rating would have been more appropriate; I strongly advise that younger, undiscerning children not be allowed to see it. For older children, however, “The Princess and the Frog” might serve as an platform for parents to discuss with their children the real existence of occult practices and how to identify them.
The reviewer from Christianity Today finds fault with the movie because it suggests that problems can be solved through self-reliance.
As if this weren't bad enough, on the flip side we get mystical Mama Odie, stereotype piled on stereotype straight out of every cliché of the wise old black woman. Mama Odie knows voodoo, too, but her magic is more of the prosaic, homegrown kind. In a production number that evokes gospel music but with Jesus neatly stripped away, Mama Odie offers up a defiantly American church of the self. Just "dig a little deeper" inside yourself and you'll find what you need to achieve all of your dreams. Sure, there's magic, but it only shows up once you've done everything in your power to get what you desire. Her message is the epitome of works-righteousness, where the only counter to the forces of evil is the good inside the human heart. (And this is somehow bad?)
Sure, this is the message of just about every family film that has come down the pike since the dawn of cinema. But to see it presented in a context that evokes the style of Christianity, Mama Odie's song serves as a stark reminder as to how the American values of self-reliance diverge from the Christian message of humble submission to external grace. Just because something looks and sounds beautiful doesn't make it gospel. (So American values diverge from Christian values? Has anybody told Sarah Palin?)
Look I have not seen this movie so I cannot argue the merits of the film one way or another. However it seems to me that these critics found much to like about the film apart from the fact that it was an affront to their religious sensibilities.
They liked the music, the animation, and most of the storyline. They just got their panties in a twist when Voodoo reared its dark, sinister head. And apparently voodoo is not presented in the best light imaginable, the villain uses it for evil purposes, and yet it's very presence is of concern to these modern day Cotton Mather's.
This is one of my major bitches when it comes to the Fundamentalist Christian perspective. This idea that information which represents a view differing from, or in direct contrast to, Christianity is somehow inherently evil. This is simply not the kind of thinking that should be going on in the 21st century. It just isn't!
This movie presented the first African American female lead in a Disney film. It should be celebrated for finally breaking through the animated glass ceiling and presenting a young lady that little girls of ALL races can admire and sing along with. But instead the film gets attacked for NOT having enough Christianity in it. WTF?
Did these same critics get bent out of shape when Merlin was teaching little Arthur about magic in "The Sword in the Stone"? Or when the good fairy gave the gift of life to a puppet in "Pinocchio"? Or when Wilby Daniels used a magic ring to turn into a four legged beast in "The Shaggy Dog"? Of course not. And those films were made back in a time when we were less educated than we are today.
So what is the problem? The skin color of the main character? Well I certainly hope not. The getting to first base with an amphibian? Admittedly a little gross but he is not REALLY a frog so that should not be a problem. So if not racism or fear of bestiality then what is it?
Well than it can only be fear of the unknown, and the superstitious nonsense that permeates the thinking of these so-called "critics".
First off there is NOTHING satanic about Voodoo. It is no more bizarre or evil than Shintoism, or Hinduism, or Jainism, or Judaism, or any other religion that is not Christianity. It is simply the prism through which the people of Haiti tried to understand their world. Which by the way is the origin of ALL religions.
Now this may anger some of my Christian visitors, but I am sorry it needs to be explained.
When Christianity was still just a small Jewish cult it was in a real battle for converts. One of the tools that was used was to label the other religious practices as "evil". If somebody was seemingly cured after making an offering to a rival god the Christians labeled that the work of Satan, and cast aspersion on the entire religion.
This was in fact what happened to the so-called witches.
These were usually mid-wives, herbalists, and pre-Christian healers who were utilizing methods that had been handed down from generation to generation to heal the sick and deliver children in to this world. But early Christians felt in competition with these primitive healers and labeled them heretics which provided the biblical license necessary to justify hunting them down and exterminating them.
And before you get all defensive about my picking on Christianity I should probably tell you that these tactics were not invented by the Christians, they are a tried and true methods used by dozens, if not hundred, of religions that came before and continue to exist today. The Christians were just much more successful.
So anyhow I would encourage you to base your decision on whether or not to take your child to "The Princess and the Frog" on what you know about your child's sensitivities, the quality of both the animation and musical score, and NOT on whether it will introduce an interest in exploring "black magic" to your impressionable youngster.
By the way, I had a very good friend who was a Wiccan once. One of the kindest ladies I ever met. Did not ONCE turn me into a frog.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
I posted earlier that Hinduism is better then Christianity. I take it back since the tithing seems a bit too extreme.
A young man in Nepal today chopped off his right hand as an offering to a feared Hindu goddess, state-run media reported.
“He offered special worship at the temple this morning,” the national RSS news agency said.
"After the worship, he chopped off his right hand and offered (it) to the temple of Goddess Kali."
I wonder what prayer you get answered when you offer up your hand?
It better be a good one.
“He offered special worship at the temple this morning,” the national RSS news agency said.
"After the worship, he chopped off his right hand and offered (it) to the temple of Goddess Kali."
I wonder what prayer you get answered when you offer up your hand?
It better be a good one.
Labels:
Christianity,
Hindu,
ouch
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Another reason why Hinduism is way better then Christianity. They have a goddess of transexuals.
The five-day celebrations dedicated to Goddess Bahuchara Mataji, the Hindu presiding deity for transsexuals, ended yesterday in a ceremony that saw some 400 participants from Malaysia and Singapore at a temple in Pandamaran near here.
The temple, dedicated to the deity whose main temple is in Shankhalpoor in Gujarat, India, is owned and managed by the local Hindu transgender community.
Damn! How cool is that?
Actually I am not that much of a fan of Hinduism. Even though they seem to have a God for every single possible personality type, it is still a very complicated religion for the westerner to understand. I have read some books about Hinduism, though to be fair not as many as for other religions, and I found the stories to be very difficult to relate to.
But that may just be my own western sensibilities causing a roadblock and keeping me from absorbing the beauty of a religion that is very ancient and revered in India and beyond. So if anybody else wanted to join the religion I certainly would not try to dissuade them.
Though to be warned they have a lot of contradictory rules and over 136 different types of hell, though on the plus side you do get to be reincarnated.
Here's hoping you don't come back as a Republican.
Labels:
Hindu,
transexuals
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Religious freedom only counts for Christians when they are talking about their religion, not anybody elses.
Watch as this Christian group disrupts the Senate prayer, because it is being conducted by a Hindu holy man.
Fucking hypocrites!
Fucking hypocrites!
Labels:
Christians,
Hindu,
religion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)