As seen from Just Above Sunset

Wednesday, 19 May 2004

Topic: The Culture

Today In Religion - Texas Theology

When you come across a statement like this, well, you want to investigate:

To the State of Texas in 2004, a money-making racket founded by a third-rate science fiction writer qualifies as a 'religion' and the faith of Ethan Allen and Daniel Webster doesn't. This is what barbarism looks like.

Say what?

Okay, it seems that Texas grants tax-exempt status to the Church of Scientology, founded by L. Ron Hubbard, who indeed has written more than a few science-fiction novels. Third-rate? I never liked them much, but to each his own. And I find most of what his Church of Scientology purports as the way things are to be massively silly, but any sillier than the grumpy invisible guy in the sky who will be sure you burn in flames forever if you are nice to gay people? Whatever.

What upset Patrick Nielsen Hayden, quoted above, is that the office of Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has taken away the tax-exempt status of Unitarian Universalist Church - you know, those nice folks who run the American Cathedral in Paris and hid any number of Jews from the Nazis and all that sort of thing. Those are the do-gooders who say all religions basically worship the same God, or universal force, or whatever. Carole Keeton Strayhorn says that is not religion, as the organization "does not have one system of belief."

Really.

Quoting from the Dallas newspapers, Hayden finds that one Dan Althoff, board president for one of the newly nonreligious congregations, is a bit unhappy - "I was surprised -- surprised and shocked -- because the Unitarian church in the United States has a very long history." And he points out presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams were both Unitarians.

Yeah, well, both Tom Cruise and John Travolta belong to the quite legal and tax-exempt Church of Scientology.

Who would you think is more "correct" theologically?

Jesse Ancira, who is the comptroller's top lawyer, said Strayhorn has applied a consistent standard -- and then stuck to it. For any organization to qualify as a religion, members must have "simply a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power. We have got to apply a test, and use some objective standards. We're not using the test to deny the exemptions for a particular group because we like them or don't like them."

But if you read all this you see a problem. As the item notes, applying that standard could disqualify Buddhism because it does not mandate belief in a supreme being.

Okay, there aren't a whole lot of Buddhists in Texas so who cares about their tax-exempt status?

Lawsuits coming? Of course. And Carole Keeton Strayhorn vows to continue the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. "Otherwise, any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween will be applying for an exemption," she said in a April 23 news release.

Maybe I don't have this Unitarian thing right at all... A wannabe cult?

Well the father and son Adams team, like Jefferson and so many of our Founding Fathers (so to speak), were Deists and that led to the modern Unitarian Church somehow.

Over at AmericanUnitarian.org one can find this:

It should be no surprise that Deists joined Unitarian churches. The rational, practical, free religion of the Unitarians shares much with Deist ideas:

1. Belief in One Unipersonal God (Channing, Unitarian Christianity - "The proposition, that there is one God, seems to us exceedingly plain.")

2. Generally reject the infallibility of revealed scriptures (James Freeman Clarke Manual on Unitarian Belief - "Unitarians do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Inspiration leads to the sight of truth and reality, but not necessarily to a perfectly accurate description of what is seen.").

3. Rejects the traditional interpretation of revelation (Alfred Hall, from "Revelation and Inspiration" in The Beliefs of a Unitarian - "Unitarians believe that revelation comes in a progressive order. As man develops intellectually, morally and spiritually, so are the truths of God's wonderful worlds made known. The discovery in every sphere of human activity has been gradual, and religion forms no exception to this rule.")

4. Believe that the natural order of the universe is testament to the existence of a Higher Power (Alfred Hall in The Beliefs of a Unitarian - "Unitarians believe that order prevails in the realm of nature. They are ready to accept the truths which science has discovered, and to adopt their theological conceptions to ascertained facts.")

5. Reject the idea that God would punish humanity as a whole for the misdeeds of an individual, and the idea of infinite torture for finite deeds: (George Burnap On Original Sin - "That the condemnation of mankind to endless misery on account of Adam's sin, would be unjust, is a proposition so plain, that it only requires to be stated to strike the intuitive sense of justice, which God has implanted in every bosom. It is so plain that no reasoning can make it plainer.)

6. Believe that humanity has true free will, and that God does not violate our free will by interfering with humanity (Channing On God and Free Will - "One of the greatest of all errors, is the attempt to exalt God, by making him the sole cause, the sole agent in the universe, by denying to the creature freedom of will and moral power, by making man a mere recipient and transmitter of a foreign impulse. This, if followed out consistently, destroys all moral connexion between God and his creatures."

7. The necessity of reason in religion (Channing, Unitarian Christianity - "We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible.")

There's a lot of God stuff in all that. I'm not sure what the problem is for the Comptroller of the State of Texas. Not one system of belief?

Well, not hers. I think the last item just pissed her off - the necessity of reason in religion.

That just won't do. This is Texas after all.

Oh, and by the way, check out this:

Pleading the First
Scott Mclemee, Newsday, May 16, 2004

This is a review of -
FREETHINKERS: A History of American Secularism, by Susan Jacoby. Metropolitan, 417 pp., $27.50.

And Mclemee has some interesting comments -

For the past few years a friend of mine in the Midwest has been engaged in a war of words in the columns of a local newspaper. Every so often someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that the United States is a Christian nation and that, as the formula goes, "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion." In response, my friend writes a letter pointing out that the Founding Fathers tended to be deists, not Christians. They saw God as, essentially, a watchmaker. He created the universe, wound it up and then stood back to let it run. If Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Paine had a religion, it was a faith in reason, not in the Bible.

It was a pretty avant-garde notion for the 18th century. And even, it seems, for the 21st, at least in certain regions of the world (some of them within our own borders). It hardly matters that my friend, a history professor, knows what he is talking about. Fundamentalist groups circulate leaflets containing stock responses to such arguments -- including quotations that, torn from context, "prove" that the separation of church and state was never a basic American value. (After all, even the least orthodox of the Founding Fathers occasionally said something nice about Jesus.)

Reason? Bad. Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Paine were just kidding in chatting it up as something special. We all know that now. All Texans know it.

Posted by Alan at 17:48 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 17:54 PDT home

Topic: Music

Happy Endings in La-La Land!

This all started at the end of last month and was reviewed here on Thursday, 29 April 2004 - see Nathaniel West, cellos and mountain lions... Strange Times in Los Angeles. But all's well that ends well...

Reuters has a good, clean summary.

See A Stradivarius as a CD Holder?
Wed May 19,10:22 AM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Los Angeles nurse found a stolen Stradivarius cello worth $3.5 million next to a dumpster and planned to turn it into a CD cabinet until she discovered it was the instrument the whole town was searching for, her lawyer says.

The "General Kyd" cello, made in 1684 and named for the man who brought it to England, was returned on Saturday to the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which owns it and offered a $50,000 reward for its return, attorney Ronald Hoffman said Tuesday.

Police said the cello was taken from the porch of principal cellist Peter Stumpf on April 24 by a thief riding a bicycle.

Three days later, nurse Melanie Stevens spotted the cello peeking from its silver case beside a dumpster while she waited at a red light. "She recognized it as a musical instrument case because she plays guitar. She wasn't thinking that it was old," Hoffman said.

Stevens, 30, asked a homeless man to help load it into her car and took it home to show her cabinetmaker boyfriend, Igal Asseraf, to see if he could fix a crack in it.

"She said if you can't fix it, we can turn it into a CD case," Hoffman said.

"We are very lucky that Igal was not a person that works real quickly."

The instrument sat in the couple's spare bedroom until last Friday, when Stevens caught the end of a TV news report on the missing cello, and realized she had found the instrument that all of Los Angeles was looking for.

The couple met detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department's art theft detail, who interviewed them extensively to make sure they were not involved with the theft, the lawyer said.

They also contacted officials at the Los Angeles Philharmonic Association, who were "jubilant" at the rare instrument's return, Hoffman added.

He said Stevens was thrilled to learn that she may receive the $50,000 reward for not turning the cello into a CD case.

Fine.

From all the news I see that the Stevens woman is saying she will donate the reward, should she ever see it, to charity - music education and the like. And the fellow who does instrument repair for the Los Angeles Philharmonic says the cracks in the wood can be repaired - happens all the time to these old instruments.

From the Los Angeles Times summary:

"My lowest moment came about three days after the theft when it didn't come back to us right away," said Deborah Borda, president of the Philharmonic Assn., which owns the 17th century cello. "If not three days, then it can disappear for 30 years."

Borda learned Sunday afternoon that a cello had been located in an alley off Fountain Avenue and Griffith Park Boulevard. But she could not view the instrument until the next morning.

"I was up all night," she said. "We went as early as we could the next morning.... When I saw the case, even without opening it, I knew it was it."

... On Monday, violinmaker Robert Cauer examined the instrument for several hours at Parker Center, holding it himself while police dusted it for fingerprints.

The cello is being stored in a climate-controlled vault at Cauer's shop. He said the multiple cracks on the top of the cello were unfortunate, but routine as far as damage goes.

"On a Stradivari, everything is repairable," Cauer said. "I have no worries about the sound and look of the instrument."

Case closed.

But it would have made one heck of a CD cabinet.

If this Stevens woman hadn't accidentally watched the news.... Well, many folks are avoiding the news these days as it so very depressing.

Posted by Alan at 16:49 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Tuesday, 18 May 2004

Topic: Photos

FYI - Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

Some of us couldn't get to Cannes this week, and we're down the road from Beverly Hills, the official "sister city" of Cannes, a few miles to the east in the low rent district. No way to see it here in Hollywood or anywhere over in the California Cannes. Heck, no one in the United States may be allowed to see this film anyway, but it seems to be at hit at that film festival on the Riviera.

Here, courtesy of the BBC are representative clips from those reviewers who have not been protected by Michael Eisner (explained at the end of the column here).

What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together. It's a look back that feels like a new gaze forward.
Washington Post

This is an angry film about greed, the abuse of power, the betrayal of the people by their leaders. Moore says he hopes to keep it up to date between now and a pre-election US release in July - assuming Miramax find a distributor to their liking. Republicans will be infuriated by the film's simple emotional message. The rest of us will hope it reaches as wide a congregation as The Passion Of The Christ.
The Independent

Moore's big omission is Tony Blair and the UK. He has a clever pastiche of the opening title-sequence of the old TV western Bonanza, with Bush and Blair mocked up to look like cowboys. But in a section about the ramshackle "coalition of the willing" which was supposed to lend international legitimacy to the invasion, there is no mention of the part played by this country. This can only be because of Moore's insistence on America's international isolation and arrogance. It's a strange, skewed perspective.
The Guardian

Fahrenheit 9/11 may be seen as another example of the liberal media preaching to its own choir. But Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadilloes that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions.
Time Magazine

It's a storming work of tempered polemic, gripping from start to last, that uses the war in Iraq as a starting point for offering a largely convincing class-based analysis of contemporary America. Small wonder that few US distributors want to touch it.
Daily Telegraph

There are still some classic Moore moments here, notably when squirming US congressmen are invited to sign up their own children to fight in Iraq. The director has always been strongest on the cusp between anger and humour, but there are simply too few such inspired episodes here. Fahrenheit 9/11 hits enough of its targets to qualify as an important and timely film. But it should have been a smart bomb, and it feels more like a blunt instrument.
The Times (UK)

Told with passion and cutting sarcasm, the film has a good deal of the Moore trademarks, from a deft use of various television and pop culture clips to embarrassing encounters with the great and the good. Moore is mischievous as ever - at one point he tries to convince members of the Congress to encourage their children to enlist and fight in the war. The irony and childish iconoclasm are still there but this is a film in which an adult sense of anger and frustration also dominate.
Screendaily

Its title notwithstanding, Michael Moore has delivered a film rather less incendiary than might have been expected - or wished for by his fans - in Fahrenheit 9/11. The sporadically effective documentary trades far more in emotional appeals than in systematically building an evidence-filled case against the president and his circle.
Variety

What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is Fahrenheit 9/11 - it is undoubtedly Moore's weakest - but will a film help to get a president fired?
The Hollywood Reporter

Well, one is tempted to say... we report, you decide.

Not this time.

Oh, and a bonus -
"But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens on MSNBC "Scarborough Country," 18 May 2004

Posted by Alan at 21:53 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 14:13 PDT home

Topic: The Media

Minor Press Notes...
Information Management 101

See Reuters, NBC Staff Abused by U.S. Troops in Iraq
Andrew Marshall, May 18, 2:30 PM (ET)

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said Tuesday.

The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

An Iraqi journalist working for U.S. network NBC, who was arrested with the Reuters staff, also said he had been beaten and mistreated, NBC said Tuesday.

Two of the three Reuters staff said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.

All three said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs. They said they did not want to give details publicly earlier because of the degrading nature of the abuse.

The soldiers told them they would be taken to the U.S. detention center at Guant?namo Bay in Cuba, deprived them of sleep, placed bags over their heads, kicked and hit them and forced them to remain in stress positions for long periods.

The U.S. military, in a report issued before the Abu Ghraib abuse became public, said there was no evidence the Reuters staff had been tortured or abused.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, said in a letter received by Reuters Monday but dated March 5 that he was confident the investigation had been "thorough and objective" and its findings were sound.

Never happened.

More detail?

... NBC, whose stringer Ali Muhammed Hussein Ali al-Badrani was detained along with the Reuters staff, said he reported that a hood was placed over his head for hours, and that he was forced to perform physically debilitating exercises, prevented from sleeping and struck and kicked several times.

"Despite repeated requests, we have yet to receive the results of the army investigation," NBC News Vice President Bill Wheatley said.

Schlesinger sent a letter to Sanchez on January 9 demanding an investigation into the treatment of the three Iraqis.

The U.S. army said it was investigating and requested further information. Reuters provided transcripts of initial interviews with the three following their release, and offered to make them available for interview by investigators.

A summary of the investigation by the 82nd Airborne Division, dated January 28 and provided to Reuters, said "no specific incidents of abuse were found." It said soldiers responsible for the detainees were interviewed under oath and "none admit or report knowledge of physical abuse or torture."

"The detainees were purposefully and carefully put under stress, to include sleep deprivation, in order to facilitate interrogation; they were not tortured," it said. The version received Monday used the phrase "sleep management" instead.

Never happened. Well, they weren't "abused."

It pays to work for Fox News. Roger Ailes would make sure you were safe.

And obviously NBC News Vice President Bill Wheatley hates American and loves Saddam Hussein. And everything changed after 9-11 of course.

Posted by Alan at 19:41 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:32 PDT home

Topic: Photos

Sunset in the Hollywood Hills, 18 May 2004 - at seven in the evening...

Posted by Alan at 19:18 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Newer | Latest | Older

«	May 2004					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31