Why is this NOT a church doing politics: anti-Leadership-Conference-of-Women-Religious Catholic bloghttp://cleansingfiredor.com/tag/catholic-feminists/
First: Cleansing Fire??? What's up with that in a church with some history for fire and violence? There's also a pro-Romney video posted here on DU with exactly this same kind of statements about fire and this election. I will find that link for you and post it downthread.
Also: Note a major metro-area, Rochester, NY, with an intense senate race.
Also: Then there's the Topic list, with most topics less than 20-30 posts, but the Progressive Drivel topic at over 500 posts and no other topics even remotely approaching that kind of activity.
And there's this article praising the bishops' response to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and then a response from LCWR:
Reply from LCWR: while quotes are not yet widespread, USA Today did report that a Sister Simone Campbell attributes the slapdown to her groups support of Obamacare and of HHSs so-called compromise. But it seems more like a symptom of the disease than a cause of the cure.
Here is an excerpt: The Vatican announcement said that while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the churchs social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death. It added that crucial issues like the churchs biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes church teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the churchs authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose. The LCWR also said that assertions made by speakers at LCWR conferences are not necessarily their own. The Vatican called that response inadequate and unsupported by the facts . Sister Simone Campbell, Networks executive director, said she was stunned that the Vatican document would single out her group, probably over its support for health care reform. It concerns me that political differences in a democratic country would result in such a censure and investigation, Campbell said. Campbell also strongly defended LCWR. I know LCWR has faithfully-served women religious in the United States and worked hard to support the life of women religious and our service to the people of God.
Is the blog Cleansing Fire, referenced above, an example of a church engaged in political activity?
on the matter of whether they are correct or not:
Whether they actually are dispossessed completely or not is secondary to their perception of it, because that perception is a fundamental driver for everything else. Behavior in particular is driven by any sense of vulnerability and, because it is, those who think they are about to be dispossessed engage in self-fulfilling prophecies that actually make their own dispossession, in one degree or another, more likely, since they abdicate any and all autonomous control to what they calculate to be protections and those protections are not authentically known to them, so, in their (our) abdications, they/we can become part of what dispossesses them and, because of those abdications, they cannot recognize the dysfunctions of their protection seeking calculations until after the fact, ergo, a driver underneath that sense of dispossession is ignorance.
The internet offers a chance of empowerment from its opportunities to ameliorate ignorance and thus make better calculations about authentic and appropriate protections, but, by the internet's own nature, it includes higher proportions of those who are in the same state-of-being operating on the same either innocently uninformed or outright biased motives and, then, because of that fact, the internet itself can be seen as the enemy, so, though it could free people, there will also be a perhaps stronger cohort who attacks it, thus further reinforcing the factors that dispossess vulnerable people and that fulfills their self-fulfilling prophecies.
All of this supports the case for getting off of the internet and getting out there into various communities and working from that stand, but all-or-nothing propositions are not usually the sole most functional driving motives for most people, so we should never abandon the internet because it IS ours, it belongs to ALL of us and if we turn our backs on it, it will be taken away from us; we will be dispossessed of something that we collectively created and that fact could further dispossess us of other means of survival.
I know all of that is too complicated. I just wanted to sketch it out; maybe I'll come back and break it down better. All of it grows out of my master's research, but I have (ha, ha) been dispossessed of the time and wherewithal to flesh it out with authentic research.
internet, where you/someone is butting heads with that "smarter-than-thou" crowd, surely you can perceive my objection to taking everything that happens on the internet at face value. There are trolls and there are double-crossers and there are triple and quadruple crossers. All stimulated by this anonymous environment and superPAC money and by being at a very definite crossroads as a nation in so many different ways.
A word more about that "smarter-tan-thou" crowd, authentic persons OR OTHERWISE: . . . SOME people, who, since you brought it up, may or may not be as-smart-as-some, AGAIN authentically so OR OTHERWISE since we are talking mainly about the internet here, that is, SOME people are way way tooooooooooooooooooo reactive to perceived differences in what is referred to as "intelligence". WHY is that??? Some of that over reaction to the "smarter than thou" crowd is authentic, some of it is coming from those double-triple-quadruple po$$$er$$$$s.
Think of echoes of echoes of echoes . . . here. That's the internet.
So, that means some reactions are authentic reactions from authentic people reacting to authentic people who are making the authentic mistake of thinking that they are "smarter than thou" and some of it is the complete opposite of all of that and then there is also everything in between those two extremes going on too.
The reason all of that is so important is that, because, as you imply, there is a DEAL that needs to be made and the authentic functionality of that deal IS AFFECTED by all of the bullshit being dealt from ALL quarters. The REAL DEAL must, in order to be functional, be made by the REAL people about their REAL issues, not by a bunch of socially, financially, psychologically, emotionally, and politically ambitious operatives operating in secret, because of campaign finance non-transparency and corporate personhood.
All of which brings me to my main, not so "smarter than thou" but definitely paying attention, point:
GUN - OWNERSHIP - ADVOCATES - WANT - THE - REST - OF - US - TO - PRETEND - THAT - NO - ONE - IN - THIS - COUNTRY - IS - INTERESTED - IN - ARMED - INSURRECTION
and it doesn't take very many goddamned smarts at all to know that that is NOT TRUE, especially since the Gun Ownership Advocacy group ran a fracking SECESSIONIST for VP in the last election cycle.
This demonstrates that Gun ownership advocates ARE resistant to policing themselves. They appear to be rejecting the fact that the 2nd amendment places "A well regulated Militia" as the super-ordinate clause upon which "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" IS DEPENDENT. Please count the commas in the original amendment and see what I am referring to and remember that our founding fathers were educated men who, if they weren't "smarter than thou" at least knew what they were doing.
So, tell me how all of the falseness and mis-understanding that is going on between the "smarter than thou" class and gun ownership advocacy can even begin to be breached when it seems more than just a little obvious that the gun ownership advocacy group, despite how much some of us might wish to agree with them/you on what we might be able to agree upon, CANNOT or REFUSES to recognize the presence of a trojan horse in your midst? - i.e. armed insurrection - And yet the gun ownership advocacy group makes ACCEPTANCE of that fact a precondition of getting to any other aspect of the issues.
We're supposed to talk about what we agree upon, without recognizing that the other side's demands are based upon somekind of "right" to wreak, "states' rights" VIOLENCE on this entire nation in the name of something that they clearly demonstrate that they know little or nothing about.
and, ergo, "what constitutes health care" has NOT been defined by what necessarily benefits patients or improves their health, "what constitutes health care" NEEDS to be re-defined.
The fact that "what constitutes health care" HAS been defined by for profit systems means that PROFIT is the primary characteristic of "what constitutes health care" and IF we want to proceed toward a real possibility of Single Payer Health Care, we must address rising COSTS especially as the PROFIT motive contributes to those rising costs. If we don't do that, that is address rising costs as they are produced by profits, if we don't do that, Single Payer WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE, . . . ergo "what constitutes health care" as it has been defined by FOR PROFIT systems, NEEDS TO BE REDEFINED to place the care of patients as the highest priority, not profit, and thus not only do better for patients (in health care resources that are widely recognized to produce some of the worst results on earth - BECAUSE "what constitutes health care" has been defined by PROFIT, not by patients), but also reduce costs thus making it possible to provide more coverage for more people.
You can read more about that from the primary source on that subject of redefining "what constitutes health care", which should be a little more complete than and provide at least some balance to a secondary source such as Common Dreams:
- This is the situation we are in; we are NOT in some other more ideal situation & pretending that we are, and acting upon that error, damages not only whatever good can rise out of our current situation, and hence the future too, but, also, therefore, damages the prospects of those future situations becoming something closer to that ideal that we all desire so much.
- These drone decisions are based upon probabilities, probabilities that I cannot calculate, because I do not possess the necessary information;
- People make decisions similar to drones, also based upon probabilities, which I, and perhaps they, cannot calculate, all of the time, decisions like whether and when to have an abortion, supporting capital punishment, and the right to bear and to use arms . . . we could even extend those types of decisions to how certain government or corporate economic policies contribute to the suffering and deaths of certain other persons, our own nationals or foreigners . . .
- The reason that it is necessary for people to make these and all similar such decisions is because, even if it were possible to write them, perfect laws, laws and regulations that fit ALL situations perfectly, ALL of the time, for ALL people, are not possible, so we MUST rely upon individual FREE rational decisions about individual behaviors, ALL behaviors, even just "flipping a switch." And even if we could write such perfect laws, they would not be good for humans in their effects upon the intrinsic value of freedom to who and what each person is, especially as that is manifested in more or less perfect decision/choice making by ALL persons;
- Since most/none of us are free enough to be making fully rational decisions, for or against all forms of more or less direct murder, it will do little or nothing, or even damage the processes of liberation, to ignore that fact and continue to pretend that we live in a FALSE ideal world where just pretending something, through some form of mumbo-jumbo, makes it true, instead of doing the rational, actual, concrete, down-and-dirty, low, boring, daily grind work of actually getting out there and helping people free themselves, so that drone (and all other such similar) decisions become less and less likely a "necessary" probability.
There are a few links to Wikipedia in this, but it's useful for perspective anyway:
Should Boomers fear the version of "liberation theology" held by a possibly significant minority of young Americans?
The linked article is a consideration of anarchism as the young's reaction to their own perceived inability to respond effectively to the failures of conventional social justice and problem solving.
I personally see at least some anarchism as a reaction to the religious powers that motivated our involvement in an illegal and immoral war that killed something around 250,000 INNOCENT Iraqis. From this perspective, civil anarchism, against evil government, is more socially acceptable than turning on the religious institutions that have failed social moral development.
I'm curious about all of the faith in anarchy that I see around me and wondering if my generation needs to fear vulnerable elder years that are politically and economically affected by anarchistic youth culture.
I know persons who would say, "No" on the somewhat mystical assumption that anarchism will free the truth and that "freedom" will lead to the discovery that (whatever form de facto "death panels" take) the consequences of economic injustice, though deeply pragmatic and conveniently effective for some, profoundly diminish the whole human mind-heart and America's future political powers, the young of today, will effectively resist that decline.
I think that mind-heart REAL -ization, to which some such anarchistic positions refer, is a potentiality that is progressively diminished by the amount of suffering and pain that occurs over time before we "discover" this particular mind-heart truth about ourselves.
If that diminution of potentials matters to anarchists, then they need to weigh being somewhat less anarchistic in service of this truth, lest we lose this particular potential BEFORE we have a chance to discover what it is.
If that loss and the possibility of de-facto "death panels" doesn't matter to anarchists, I have to ask, "What's the point? Anarchism for the sake of anarchism? Or is there some other payoff? . . . Power? for example.
On a scale of 1-5, what is your average level of concern about the issues associated with decline and aging being politically/economically managed by any generation other than the current generation of elders in that experience?
essential factor that needs to be mentioned in the dynamic we are trying to describe.
Movement to Amend LIKELY attracts union-busters, so the Occupy, faced with its presence amongst everything else from Left to Right in the political spectrum that inhers in an authentic people's movement, must deal with the fact that over-turning Citizens United will ONLY return us to the more stable political environment that preceded that decision. Overturning CU will destroy the best opportunity for power acquisition that Labor has had for a very very very long time. And without authentically STRONG LABOR, the question of whether the Occupy & 99% Spring CAN change anything, let alone changing things by moving TO THE LEFT is way less relevant.
P.S. Casual remarks from Wichitans along the route of Saturday's march indicate that they do not know the Koch bro's Tar Sands Pipeline project is for FOREIGN oil on its way to ASIAN markets, nor that it is estimated to raise the price of a barrel of oil by $3.00.
OccupyWichita hosted OccupyTulsa, OccupyCentralOklahoma, OccupyKU, OccupyKC, and the Sierra Club. There was community education, marching to the Kansas Policy Institute, Wichita Chamber of Commerce, and a Women's fair in downtown Wichita on Saturday. On Sunday the coalition collaborated in a GA and then marched to and mic checked their message loud and clear, despite a few counter-protestors, to Koch HQ on the outskirts of Wichita. The people's mic closed with a strong unanimous promise to continue to fight the XL Tar Sands Pipeline project and to return to Koch HQ.
Labor historian/journalist Mike Elk from In These Times