IS GOD GOING GLOBAL??

A national Study-- the American Religious Identification Survey-- reported this month that 1 million fewer New Englanders claim to be Roman Catholic today than did in 1990. Nationally, 29 states showed a decline in the number of Catholics, while gains in supporters of Rome turned up in Texas (up 9%.,) California (up 8 %,), and Florida (up 4 %.)

Overall, these results agree with another study by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. The trend seems to be a shift of Catholic population in the U.S. from the Northeast to the Southwest. Florida qualifies with its tremendous influx of traditionally Catholic immigrants from Cuba, South and Central America and the Caribbean. Texas and California, as border states, share a similar demographic experience with large numbers of Catholic Mexicans arriving daily.

Mainstream Protestant sects also showed national losses. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and United Church of Christ members declined from 18.7 to 12.9 %. Among non-Christian groups, Jews and Muslims slipped from a combined total of 3% of American believers in those religions to only 2%.

Where is god going?

While we may not be becoming a godless nation, we may be altering the way we understand god and the way we worship. “Blind faith,” which for centuries held Catholic believers together, no longer cuts the mustard with American congregations weary of taking orders from a hierarchy unable or unwilling to acknowledge its own scandals, sins and mistakes.

Diocese after Catholic diocese has either approached or fallen into bankruptcy brought on by settlements for sexual abuse scandals involving priests. Additionally, Rome’s continued rigidity regarding female ordination and its refusal to heed the 21st century concerns of its faithful regarding celibacy, birth control, abortion and sexual orientation have only widened the breach of lay distrust and dismay.

What is seldom discussed, on the other hand, is the appeal that Catholic dogma has for evangelical extremists and just-plain-rednecks who love to wallow in inflexibility. For some, what actually attracts is the lack of “gray” areas and the rejection of free will, a basic tenet of Catholic theology despite Rome’s disregard for it.

In New England, cities like Worcester, Manchester, or Woonsocket—once Catholic strongholds— seem unlikely to rise again to strengthen the numbers of what they once called the “one true church.” Boarded up factories, foreclosed homes and a Catholic ministry ill-equipped and disinclined to nurture a decimated flock do not bode well for “blind faith” or “glorious mysteries.”

The real as well as spiritual “loaves and fishes” exhausted bodies and souls seek and require seem nowhere to be found there.

But even as places like Texas and Florida-- where men are men, women are disposable and authority figures like cops, judges and bishops never have to say they’re sorry-- have become the new hotspots for organized religions, it is important to remember that god (as opposed to “churches”) can exist anywhere.

Perhaps the new shift in faith-based demographics tell us less about America going godless than they tell us about god going global.
_______________END_________________

A Sucker Born Every MInute!

22-year-old Natalie Dylan (not her real name) is auctioning off her virginity allegedly to pay for graduate school for herself and her sister. If her web photograph is authentic, she is a beautiful California woman, complete with tan and bikini figure, so it is no wonder some sex-starved rich guy has offered to deflower her for what is said to be a $3.7 million profit to the coed. At that rate, she and her sister can both become brain surgeons!

Many around the world view this story with amazement and wonder how such advertised prostitution—illegal in most of the U.S.—can go unchallenged by authorities. The answer lies in Natalie’s use of the loophole provided by Nevada’s sanction of prostitution as a lawful activity.

For her part, the student called Natalie says we live in a capitalist society and she sees no reason not to capitalize on what the bordello where her deflowering is scheduled to occur (the Moonlite Bunny Ranch) calls a “priceless and rare commodity.”

At $3.5 million, the definition “priceless” may apply. In today’s America, despite Bush’s failed push for abstinence, most marriages occur between the sexually initiated, not virgins, so a beautiful 22-year-old virgin woman may, indeed, be rare as well.

The ones most likely to feel cheated, however, are those legions of mothers and grandmothers from past generations wherein the idea of a single woman losing her virginity and being paid for it was unthinkable! In their day, a single woman who had intercourse was someone to scorn, treat with shame, punish, not reward. These women did not guard their virginity because they didn’t have the same horny feelings as the women who followed them in the “free love” tradition, but because a women who married and who did not have her virginity to offer on the wedding night risked ruining her marriage and her life.

Now these same women wake up to a world where what they saved so guardedly and gave away so selflessly is actually worth millions of dollars in some quarters. Hell, if they had known that, they might have tried to hawk their maidenheads too!

Natalie Dylan brings new meaning to the old adage from Britain's Thomas Tusser that, “ A fool and his money are soon parted.” Mostly, however, Dylan’s story underscores the accurate observation—often attributed to P.T. Barnum-- that there is a sucker born every minute.
_______END_______

NOT-SO-SWEET CAROLINE

Caroline Kennedy is someone many have rightfully admired. She is an accomplished attorney and author, has raised three children with an amazing discretion rare among public figures, and has always behaved in a way that brought honor and dignity to the historic name she carries.

Kennedy has also stayed far from the eye of most political storms, limiting her involvements-- until this presidential year-- to occasional public appearances to help candidates such as her cousin, RI Congressman Patrick Kennedy.

Then Barack Obama came on the scene with his alleged, “Change We Can Believe In.” In a flash, Caroline was on the stage, on the road and-- after the nomination had been secured-- on Obama’s Vice President Selection Committee.

Caroline, along with clan head Uncle Ted and lesser-known kin with varying degrees of political involvement, piled onto the Obama bandwagon and savored victory on election night as only Kennedy’s can—by figuring out what their candidate could now do for them.

Apparently one of the things the president-elect could do was to save Caroline from empty-nest boredom by freeing up the U.S. Senate seat that coincidentally represents her Park Avenue address. (Will she then go on to a challenge for the presidency down the road?)

Within days of Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State, global media was reporting the former First Daughter’s interest in running for her senate seat. Shortly after that Caroline Kennedy was frantically lobbying political powers to convince NY governor David Paterson to appoint her to finish the Clinton term.

Like Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Kennedy has dodged the press, avoiding interviews and speaking only through spokespeople. Kennedy, however, does this with impunity while Palin was excoriated for her initial silence. Palin may have been aware of her limitations, thus avoiding the scrutiny that eventually came anyway. Kennedy may also fear being exposed for what many hesitate to say she is—less experienced, though more polished, than Palin.

Rhode Islanders more than most Americans are familiar with the syndrome of electing unqualified people named Kennedy: they keep re-electing Patrick Kennedy to represent them in Congress. They are also familiar with such people buying power and keeping it by outspending all challengers.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo tops a list of 12 more qualified aspirants to the vacated Clinton senate seat. Caroline’s dashing of Cuomo’s hopes must be especially satisfying. He is the ex-husband of her cousin and Kennedy’s always get mad, and always get even.

The Caroline senate seat hunt will tell if the Kennedy name alone is still enough. In a political world where “What can you do for me yesterday?” is all, patriarch Ted Kennedy’s terminal illness changes the chessboard significantly. His last remaining chits may either have been called in (for Obama), or their expiration dates are racing against his metastases.

The perpetuation of political legacies is something America thought it had left behind with the choosing of Obama and the farewell to Bush. If Caroline Kennedy ever was sincere about “Change We Can Believe In” she ought to let such change occur, and continue her apolitical career while she still has the nation’s undying respect and affection.

___END___

MOVING TOWARD THE BLINDNESS WE NEED

Since Barack Obama’s election the media has been full of congratulatory essays—verbal and written—about the greatness of an America able to elect a person of color to the highest office. A few mention casually that it has taken us more than 2000 years to get to this point: more often the thrust of the commentary is about the greatness of a nation finally gone color-blind.

We aren’t really color-blind. This year, in a sort of national desperation fueled by a sitting president widely viewed as a failure and even a dangerous incompetent at many levels, American voters were able to get a bit more farsighted in their vision of race-- even if they have not gone blind to skin color altogether.

All the orchids being heaped on us in the meantime bring to mind feminist Gloria Steinem thoughts in the 70’s about the women’s movement and men who were coming along on the long road to gender equity. She used to point out how odd it was that men got sanctified for doing simple things like throwing their own underwear in the hamper when they should have been doing that all along anyway.

In that same way, Americans are being congratulated (and are congratulating themselves) that they finally were able to go to the polls to elect a capable man coincidentally of color as president. In this euphoria, not enough is said about how obvious the choice between Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin obviously was to so many, not because Obama is half-black but because he and his running mate are so qualified, so calm and rational, so what America needs right now by stark comparison to their opponents.

One speculates whether Obama privately shakes his head at all the racial fuss. Does our president-elect wonder what took America so long? Does he think about all the men and women of color who came before him, equally and even more brilliant than he is, who were rejected and even destroyed because America’s vision was monochrome?

Certainly the outcome of this election is something to be proud of because we have elected a great man and also because his defeated opponent has graciously stepped aside with sincere praise for the new president and even promises of cooperation.

But America should not be fooled into thinking its fixation on race has disappeared overnight. Sadly, and terrifyingly, those who cannot embrace the color blindness of true equality (and its related gender neutral and faith irrelevant underpinnings) will continue to hate, malign and even try to harm, those they see as unacceptable.

In times like these, racism and the related hatreds of all who are not white, male and Christian in America simply go underground. They get quieter and sometimes more determined in the face of what they see as a defeat. They also necessitate extraordinary precautions like the two-inch thick bullet-proof glass surrounding the First Family on election night in Chicago for Obama’s victory speech. (U.S. press hardly mentioned that glass, though the foreign media showcased it.)

Only when all the bullet-proof measures safely come down can America start patting herself on the back. She may be needing bifocals now, but she’s not color-blind just yet. ______________________END____________________

E PLURIBUS.....PLURIBUS

While all 50 United States follow, like lemmings, as the same bureaucrats who created the current financial crisis pretend to correct it, in the European Union it’s not so easy.
Over the weekend, Europe’s leaders met and pledged to implement steps to allow EU member countries to recover from their own fiscal woes. But while individual countries vowed to help their own floundering banks, the group stopped short of any “joint effort” to pool aid for any European bank that needed help. Spain, Germany, and Estonia could not, in the end, act as financial equals.

Beyond the obvious economic differences between Malta and Berlin, for example, the EU lacks homogeneity among its members. While Americans claim regional differences—New Englanders vs. Southerners or Midwesterners vs. anybody else, for example—when push comes to shove we put our hands over our hearts and sing the Star Spangled Banner as if we mean it (assuming we can remember the words and carry the obtuse tune, that is.)

Overseas, the Italians have little in common with the Danes, and Athens has a worldview very different from Warsaw, while the French disagree with almost everyone. The EU may be a “union” in theory—Teutonic, Nordic, Baltic and Greco-Roman offshoots joined by a common currency—but it is a mistake to think of the EU as a “United States of Europe.”


Varied as the root backgrounds of Americans may be, and deep as the classic distrust even fourth generation U.S. WASPS and ethnics still have for each other, we coexist as “one people.” We may think of ourselves as “Irish Americans,” “African-Americans,” or “Jewish Americans,” at times, but when terrorists take down two towers in New York City or the stock market crashes on Wall Street, we understand how connected we are and how common our pain really is.

Americans tend to forget their individual differences in times of crisis, becoming more “American” as times get tougher. Europeans, instead, retreat into their distinct cultural caves when life throws them a curve.

Though historically Washington is the cultural “new kid on the block” (compared to, say, Rome or Paris) Americans have been sharing a uniform currency, singular allegiance, common language and free travel between all the states of our union for more than 200 years. In Europe all of these are recent (1992) ideas, which, in some places, haven’t caught on yet.
Since we’ve been “one people” longer than they have been trying to become such a thing our job is more difficult now. Iowa and Maine, Georgia and Nevada may all want Europe’s leaders to stabilize the European markets so Wall Street can benefit, but London, Amsterdam, and Budapest may not be in harmony about how to do it jointly.

The almighty dollar may be less mighty these days, but the world still recognizes it on a price tag. Euro prices, conversely, are still translated into lire, francs or marks—whatever currency locals think of as “real money.”

So as long as our friends overseas count their money differently within their individual borders, they will find it harder to come together to embrace a European economic solution. Until then, their global neighbors can only wait, and pray.
_________END_________

NOT IN YOUR WILDEST, RUSH LIMBAUGH!

If there were an award for the most asinine remarks about l'Affair Edwards, it would have to go to radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh who blamed Elizabeth Edwards for her husband’s sexcapades commenting, on air:
"...if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go...It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk...my theory that I just explained to you about why — you know, what could have John Edwards’ motivations been to have the affair with Reille Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk…"

I know a little about talk radio. For 13 years, I had one of the top-rated radio talk shows on Southern New England’s flagship talk station. Rush was also syndicated on that station. I met him, and he was already a jackass then.


Rush enjoys taking potshots at people from the safety of his bunker in Florida. He never engages in debate—even with his callers. Anyone who dares to challenge one of his statements disappears quickly into the silence created by turning off the caller’s sound.


Limbaugh has three failed marriages under his belt. As TV commentator Keith Olbermann pointed out recently, Rush earns a reported $30 million but can’t find a woman to put up with him at any price.


Now, in a monologue more shallow and stupid than his usual lack-of-depth ravings, Limbaugh blames Elizabeth Edwards for he husband’s “straying” because, in the Rush World, intelligent, capable women apparently can’t also have sex appeal.


Such a distorted view may spring from the probability that no intelligent, capable woman would want to have sex with Limbaugh (especially without benefit of all those pain-killing drugs he’s so fond of.)


Rush Limbaugh isn’t a conservative, he’s a failed sportscaster who found a niche in talk radio and he’s milking it for everything he can. He spends most of his time, alone now, in a mansion in Florida, from whence he broadcasts his daily tirades.
For a few hours a day, Rush can beat up on the poor, the halt, the liberal, and even cancer-stricken women like Elizabeth Edwards from the solitude of his studio. Then, the red “On Air” lights go off, he gets into a limousine, and goes home again-- still alone.

No throngs of women scream at curbside or tear at his clothes as they might were he a sex object.

So if Rush, and men like him, want a woman to use her mouth for “something other than talk,” they will simply have to pay for it.
_______END________

FATHERS KILLING DAUGHTERS -- FOR "HONOR"

New Year’s Day 2008, in Lewisville Texas, teenage sisters Sarah and Amina Said were shot to death in a taxi—allegedly by their Egyptian Muslim father, a taxi driver charged with the murders but still at large.

His motive? They had dated non-Muslim boys.

A month earlier, across the border in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death by her Pakistani father for refusing to wear the hijab or head scarf. She was also “guilty” of changing into Western clothes once she got to school.

On July 6, 2008 twenty-five year old Sandeela Kanwal was strangled to death, allegedly by her father, Chaudhry Rashid, 54 in Atlanta, GA. Two months ago Kamwal had fled her groom in an unhappy arranged marriage and wanted to divorce. Father and daughter had not spoken since.

These four women were victims of so-called “Honor Killings,” not sanctioned by Islam’s holy book, the Koran, but tolerated and criminally overlooked in many Muslim countries. The United Nations Populations Fund estimates 5000 such killings occur annually worldwide, though they are vastly underreported.

The horrific statement such crimes make about women as disposables in extremist Islam exposes a frightening and repulsive subtext of Americans apparently unwilling or unable to leave barbaric practices in the “old country.” While many American Muslims are working to build bridges with non-Muslim neighbors, “honor killings” feed a national distrust of Islam, still raging since 9/11.

Though Islamic religious law does not sanction the killing of women in cases such as these, it does breed a misogyny too extreme to respect logic, reason and compassion. Women cannot drive cars or speak to a male stranger without severe punishment. When such primitive patriarchal dominance subjects intelligent, educated and reasonable women to the whims of sometimes uneducated, unreasonable and fanatical males, the consequences will eventually reach criminal stages.

The women will rebel, at their peril, and the men will react in the extreme. Ironically, in fanatic Islamic circles, the murdered victim is disgraced as the one who brought shame to the family while the male murderer is defended as the injured party.

In all of the above cases, the fathers are said to have had a history of physically and/or sexually abusing the young women before murdering them. And though Mrs. Said did flee to another state with her daughters, her husband’s fixation that “Western culture was corrupting the chastity of his daughters, “ as the Dallas Morning News describes it, gave murder better odds than attempted escape. Generally mothers and siblings do not go to authorities, or file charges at any point.

American justice cannot tolerate misogynistic violence and death in the name of “honor” any more than it can allow parents to leave unwanted female children on a hillside to die, as the ancients did.

The embrace of “hungry masses yearning to breathe free…” is the promise of one famous Lady to all comers—male and female. Those who cannot accept equality under the law here must be prosecuted to the fullest extent.