HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cleanhippie » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

cleanhippie

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jul 3, 2010, 12:24 PM
Number of posts: 19,705

Journal Archives

JESUS CHRIST 'MAY HAVE SUFFERED FROM MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS', CLAIMS CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Written by the Rev Eva McIntyre on behalf of the Church’s Archbishops’ Council and the Time to Change mental health campaign, it suggests John the Baptist, St Paul, St Francis and other figures from the Bible may all have been mentally ill. It even asks followers to consider accusations made in the New Testament that Jesus "had lost his mind".

It reads: "Many of the people we read about in Bible stories might today be considered as having mental health issues.

"For example, ‘Would Jesus’ family maybe on occasion have said, ‘Cousin John is a bit odd, bless him!’ when John the Baptist took to his eccentric style of life?

"It has long been thought that King Saul, in the books of Samuel, was displaying mood swings that suggest he had bi-polar disorder and some think that St Paul’s Damascus Road experience was the result of some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode. Even Jesus was not immune to accusations about his mental health: there is a story in the gospel that tells of his mother and siblings attempting to take him home because they are afraid that he has lost his mind. Many of the stories of the Saints, too, have led people to discuss their mental health. "For example was St Francis suffering from a mental health title?"

Acknowledging how shocking these ideas might be, Ms McIntyre, a member of the General Synod, adds: "Some may find these suggestions disturbing or offensive even.

"Perhaps we need to ask why it would be so terrible to think that some of our most inspirational forebears might have experienced mental health illness.


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/341926

The root of the problem

Pakistani Christians, fearing backlash, flee community after girl is accused of blasphemy

Amid the conflicting claims, this much is certain: As many as 600 Christians have fled their colony bordering the capital, fearing for their lives, officials said, after a mob last week called for the child to be burned to death as a blasphemer.

The girl, who authorities have described as mentally challenged, sits in jail in Rawalpindi, charged by police with blasphemy, while her family has been put in federal protective custody. The evidence against her is muddled at best, but police said they arrested her in part to assuage the mob and also because they knew she would be safer in jail.

--snip--

Liberal-to-moderate Pakistanis see the rise in blasphemy allegations as a reflection of a dangerous ascent of extremism and anti-Western sentiment throughout society.

“Most of the people consider the Christians here to represent the West,” said Paul Bhatti, who heads the Ministry of National Harmony — a post created after his younger brother, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Catholic and minority affairs minister, was assassinated last year by the Pakistani Taliban for advocating reform of the blasphemy laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistani-christians-fearing-backlash-flee-community-after-girl-accused-of-blasphemy/2012/08/20/d3b23c9a-eae3-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html


The parallels to our own christian fundies here are frightening. The rise of the extremists are empowered by the liberal and moderates apathy and fear of having their own beliefs called into question. I hope that liberal/progressive believers here are paying attention, because until YOU step up (with the rest of us) and help drown out the voices of the extremists and help drive them out of our government, THIS is where we are headed. And even the liberal/moderate believers will not be safe.

Common ground? This is it, kids. Our freedom and the freedom of the next generation to believe or not to believe as we see fit it under attack. Where do you stand?

Words for Tennagers

Sorry, unsure where this actually comes from. Found on Facebook.

Agree or disagree?

Anti-vaxers kill another child

So North Carolina is reporting their first death (of the year, I presume) from pertussis, or whooping cough. A 2-month-old infant has died of the disease.

Whooping cough is highly contagious and spread usually by coughing or sneezing in close contact. It can be serious at any age, but it is life-threatening in newborns and infants who are too young to be fully vaccinated, state health officials said. Many infants who get whooping cough are infected by caregivers who may not know they have the disease.


This is a kid who was too young to have yet obtained the full range of vaccines, and was dependent on herd immunity…and someone carrying the disease infected them, and ultimately killed them. It’s remarkable that deaths from pertussis are now so rare that one of them will make the news—but the way we’ve made the disease rare is by preventive vaccinations. Every person who neglects to vaccinate is contributing to a deadly disease renaissance.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/20/anti-vaxers-kill-another-child/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Proud? Proud Of What Exactly?



Being Proud of your skin color, your gender, your nationality, your tribe, your sexual orientation seems to me so stupid. If you want to be proud, do something beneficial to mankind and stop bragging about things you had by mere chance.


It’s no doubt to me that there is nothing wrong with being white/male/heterosexual/Iraqi as I am, but really? Did I choose any of those? Was it given to me as a result of any achievement? Was it given to me as a prize? Do any of these characteristics contribute to me being a good person or a bad person? Or better/worse than anybody else who may have different characteristics as me? No, I don’t think so. And that’s the reason why I am writing this article.

I am pretty sure many reading this article have encountered some other people saying or signs somewhere that read, “I am proud of being a MAN,” “I am proud of being a WOMAN,” “I am proud of being a GAY,” “I am proud of being a STRAIGHT,” “I am proud of being a AMERICAN,” “I am proud of being a INDIAN,” “I am proud of being a BLACK,” “I am proud of being a WHITE,” etc. etc.
Can you notice how stupid these statements look like when using different examples?

Using my little Oxford Dictionary:
pride
■ noun
a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from achievements, qualities, or possessions that do one credit.


What have any of us done to achieve, possess, or qualify for being a man or a woman?
Did we choose the sperm of our dads and the egg of our moms? Did we choose when? And where? And which skin color the parents were? Did we even choose to be born in the first place? The characteristics that I have talked about “gender/skin color/ sexual orientation” have nothing to do with your achievements. They are genetic; they are out of your control.

I understand some of the arguments used against what I am saying, that in the example of “I am proud of being a WOMAN,” that it is used by some feminists and doesn’t mean pride in the literal sense, it simply means “I am not ashamed of being a woman” which is a response to some misogynist crackpots who look at women as inferior human beings, but would it be smart to fight stupidity with other stupidity?

--snip--

An example of that is one of my life inspires: “Marie Curie.” The reason why I have so much admiration for Marie Curie is not because she was a ‘white polish woman’; I respect her because she was one of the greatest scientists in the 20th century, and her wonderful discoveries led to huge development in science and opened to many new gates in scientific research and inquiry. If Marie Curie ever said “I am proud of what I have done,” YES, she is using the term correctly! Because what she had is really compatible with the actual definition of pride!
I hope that one day people would use pride and respect where they should be, and not something that they can delude themselves and others about.

http://www.faisalalmutar.com/2012/08/21/proud-proud-of-what-exactly/



Agree or disagree?

David Barton's Junk History a Grave Threat to Our Secular Future

The past causes the present and the present causes the future.

That in a nutshell explains the importance of history to our lives. Studying history helps us understand how we came to be where we are. It helps us map our future by comparing our paths to the successes and failures of past civilizations. So when those posing as historians pass off blatant falsehoods as legitimate history-and people actually begin to believe it-we should be very alarmed.

Unfortunately Americans throughout the country are being fed a false version of history that attempts to downplay bedrock American values like the separation of church and state, and teaches instead that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation." These lies come largely from David Barton, a self-proclaimed historian who holds a bachelor's degree in "Christian education" from Oral Roberts University-an evangelical college that teaches students to insert their religion into their professional lives. (Rep. Michele Bachmann-the only 2012 presidential candidate to receive an "F" grade in every category in the Secular Coalition's Scorecard-is also an Oral Roberts alumnus.)

In an ironic twist, Barton's book "Jefferson Lies" was recently pulled by its publisher after it found that "basic truths just were not there." In the book Barton claimed that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian who started church services at the Capitol. He also claims the Founding Fathers were deeply religious and based the Constitution on the Bible-even directly quoting from it at times.

Among some of Barton's False Claims debunked by historians:

America was founded as an explicitly "Christian nation."
The "wall of separation" between religion and government was meant to protect the church from religion, but not to keep religion out of government.
The Founding Fathers debunked the scientific theory of evolution and Thomas Paine said, "You've GOT to teach creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that." (Charles Darwin had not yet been born.)
The Constitution quotes the Bible extensively. Barton said, "You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim."
Congress published the first American Bible in 1782.
Congress intended for the first American Bible to be used in public schools.
Jefferson was "not a secularist", he was a devout orthodox Christian.
Jefferson started church services at the Capitol.
Jefferson ordered the Marine Corps band to play at the Capitol church services.
Jefferson funded a treaty to evangelize the Kaskaskia Indians.
Most Founding Fathers had Bible or seminary degrees.


"It's what I would call historical reclamation," Barton told NPR. "We're just trying to get history back to where it's accurate. If you're going to use history, get it right." Get it right, indeed.

http://secular.org/node/1071


What is even sadder, is that we have some right here on DU that subscribe to these same inaccurate ideas as "truth." You know who you are, please feel free to defend these "facts."

Why aren't there More Conservative Comedians?

While we're talking politics and comedy, Dean Obeidallah explains why Paul Ryan is bad news -- for the nations's recession-stricken comedians. This is doubly true when you consider the flush times just four short years ago when John McCain named comedy goldmine Sarah Palin as his veep. Man, I'll bet they thought those good times would never stop rolling. Anyway, in the process of making his case, he affirms a point I myself have made a few times:

I know many on the right see Obama as providing much more comedic material than comedians do. They often send me "jokes" about Obama on issues like Obamacare or the "Fast and Furious" program.

While I appreciate the sentiment, here's the cold, hard truth: Conservatives are not funny. I'm being brutally objective here. There are some funny conservative comedians and pundits, but how many can you name? I have my theories why conservatives struggle so horribly when trying to be funny, but I'll keep them to myself because I'm not a mental health professional.


--snip--

I'd go a step further and say that when humor is coming from a place of authoritarianism -- which modern conservatism is increasingly about -- it's inherently unfunny. It's just mean. That's a conceit that continues to be borne out every time I see the "humorous" postings by right-leaning friends and acquaintances on various social media platforms. Be sure to check out the rest of Obeidallah's piece here.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/why-arent-there-more-conservative-comedians



Short answer: Because they are not funny. At all.

Aussies: Royal Commission Must Investigate Predatory Priests

The truth deserves a commission

Sex crimes against children and vulnerable adults by Catholic clergy are prevalent. There are possibly thousands of victims in this state. Victims were raped and tortured, some by more than one offender. When these brave and terrified children spoke up to get help, they were further punished by being threatened or beaten. They were silenced.

These crimes continue to be deliberately concealed by the church authorities. Vast numbers of documents about these crimes and the offenders are locked away in church buildings.

--snip--

If a victim wants to seek justice, there exist multiple impediments. The Catholic Church cannot be sued as it does not ''legally'' exist. The dioceses and religious orders cannot be sued as they hide behind a legitimate legal defence. The church and school authorities cannot be held liable as employers of these offenders because canon law dictates that Catholic clergy are not employees. The victim could try to sue the offender, but because child sex crimes are often not reported for decades, the offender may be dead, in a nursing home or most likely indigent, due to the vow of poverty.

Criminal law may bring justice to some, but very few - about 6 per cent of child sex matters reported to the police result in a conviction, and more than half of those are appealed. A criminal trial also causes what is known as ''secondary legal abuse''.

So the victim is left with little choice but to return to the very organisation that protected their paedophile offender. The Melbourne Response (for the Melbourne archdiocese) and Towards Healing (a national process) are comprehensively problematic and abusive for the victims. When the church is investigating its own crimes, there can be no independence.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/the-truth-deserves-a-commission-20120413-1wz1s.html#ixzz246TMu2QM


We need the same action here, but there seems to be little interest is prosecuting these predators, especially for the adherents of the church.


Catholic Priest rapes another child. When are people going to stop supporting this church?

Police: Woodburn priest chased boy down street after abuse

It was close to midnight Sunday when Woodburn resident James Curths saw the 12-year-old boy running down the street toward him. Curths said the child, panting and out of breath, begged for help, telling him a man was chasing him.

Moments later, a man rounded the corner wearing only underwear. He stood a short distance away, trying to wave the boy over as Curths and his sister-in-law prepared to drive the boy to relatives.

"He was staring at us," said Heather Rodriguez, 28, Curths' sister-in-law, who was also outside. "Then he stood there with his hands on his hips like, 'You're really not going to give him to me?'"

Rodriguez and Curths, 35, told the man they were calling the police. Only then, they said, did the man jog away.

The man who chased after the boy that night, Woodburn police say, was the Rev. Angel Armando Perez, the parish priest at St. Luke Catholic Church in Woodburn. Early Monday, the boy gave police a detailed account of the alleged sex abuse he said occurred at Perez's home, leading to Perez's arrest later Monday.

(more at link)

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/police_woodburn_priest_chased.html


Just what is it about this church that makes it's leaders such pedophiles? How much more abuse do kids have to take in these institutions before people stop giving their time, money, and support to these same institutions that hide and protect (this guy isn't going to hide, because he got caught by civilians) pedophile priests and espouse institutional misogyny?
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »