Like A Prayer

6/19/2006


In one of the New York daily tabloids last Friday, wedged between articles about Britney Spears and the latest crime victim, was this little story accredited to the associated press. I copied it verbatim.

New translation’s Mass appeal


LOS ANGELES – The nation’s Catholic bishops signed off yesterday on a new English translation for the Mass that would change prayers ingrained in the memories of millions of American parishioners.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted at its biannual meeting for a new translation after a brief but vigorous debate over several small changes in wording. The 173-to-29 vote on the Order of the Mass was aimed at satisfying Vatican calls for a translation that’s closer to the Latin version.
Before Mass changes at the parish level, the Americans’ version must go to offices in the Holy See for final approval.
“Without a doubt, this is the most significant liturgical action to come before this body for many years,” said Bishop Donald Trautman, chairman of the conference’s Committee on Liturgy.
Here are some of the changes approved yesterday:
1) The exchanges between priest and parishioners that now go “The Lord be with you”/”And also with you” would become “The Lord be with you”/”And with your spirit.”
2) The Act of Penitence, in which parishioners now confess aloud that they have sinned “through my own fault” would include the lines “through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”
3) In the Nicene Creed, the opening words “We believe” would become “I believe.”
4) Before Communion, the prayer “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you” would become “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”

In contemplating this information, I was reminded of the time I was with somebody who was a born-again Christian. We were returning from...wherever...and it was very late. In fact, we were so late that we were just in time to see the Sunrise. The emerging Sun created a bright red horizon whose emanations filled the sky. Like paint on a canvas, orange hues permeated the sky, becoming more and more rust-like the further away from the core that they were. The darkened clouds drifting by in a seemingly endless pattern were the perfect punctuation points to this eerily beautiful snapshot of the daily cosmic ballet.

We stopped and stared for a minute for even in the industrial wasteland corner of Brooklyn that we called our home, the sight was awe-inspiring.

At that point, my friend turned to me and said,

I can’t believe that you could look at THAT and tell me there is NOTHING.

To which, I responded,

On the contrary, I can’t look at THAT and reduce it to a parable.

Now remember... don't say the word Fuck.

I'm so tired...
So very tired.
Larry

Know When To Fold Them

6/7/2006

Bennett and Stewart

Every time I think we have culturally hit rock bottom, “The Simple Life III” comes to mind, I am presented with something that gives me hope.

Last night on The Daily Show (11pm EST – Comedy Central), Jon Stewart’s guest was former Drug Czar and all around social conservative moralist Bill Bennett. At first, I was tempted to turn it off because I figured it would be another ass-kissing session and one of the architects of the return to Puritanism would be allowed to get away unscathed out of some sense of what Richard Cohen would call “decorum.” But after some thought, I decided to keep it on. After all, what the Hell was I going to watch, the “E! True Hollywood Story: Charles in Charge”?

Boy, was I glad I did!

The topic was Gay Marriage and the debate was both lively and substantive. The only tinge of sadness I had while watching was the fact that it takes the forum of a “fake news show” with a “mock anchor” to consistently deliver quality political discussion. For those of you who did not see it last night, I implore you to watch it and judge for yourself.

Watch video link Here

courtesy of Crooks and Liars


If the link does not work, I am sure you will be able to find it on:


You Tube

Here is one exchange from the program:

Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?


Bennett: Well I think if gay…gay people are already members of families...


Stewart: What? (Almost spitting out his drink)


Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters…


Stewart:So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.


Bennett:Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.


Stewart: I disagree. I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

All I can say is thank you Jon Stewart.

It was the first time I heard a media figure or politician flat out say what I have known for years. In fact, most of these smoke screens that, as Stewart put it, “Only seem to come up in even years,” are really about one thing, usually giving in or gratifying our baser emotions while we are told that they are about some grander idea or some greater good.

The gay marriage ban has nothing to do with “protecting the sanctity of the family” or the “stability of society” because if that were the case, why would we want to preclude people from buying into the domestic bliss that we are all suppose to be coveting? It makes no sense unless you think that homosexuality is wrong. That is the real issue but if most of these politician types come out and say that, and some of them do when speaking to their bases I.E. Church groups etc., the overwhelmingly tolerant majority would be horrified at the intolerance. I think a big reason the first Bush lost to Clinton in 1992 was because of Pat Buchanan’s keynote speech at the Republican Convention that year. He attacked gays, among others, in those types of terms…and it scared a lot of people. So the window dressing goes up and otherwise enlightened people fall into line.


The illegal immigrant issue, which all of a sudden is a big concern, has nothing to do with economics or “National Security” although that is what you hear if you listen to the speeches about the topic. Whatever level of intellectual rationalization that is layered on top, the bottom line is anti-immigrant proponents, ironically most likely descendants of immigrants themselves, are capitalizing on fear. They are really saying that White people should be afraid because the country is getting darker…and “these people” speak a different language…and our culture is changing. And, of course, it goes without saying that we have to fear that change because We could not survive such changes. It is not like American culture and society has changed at all over the last 300 years! On immigration, anyone who tells you that this fear is not the driving force behind the rhetoric will probably also say that Clinton’s impeachment had nothing to do with him getting his cock sucked…It was because he lied.

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell…dirt cheap!

I will paraphrase another:

Stewart:Would you describe Dick Cheney as a “social conservative”?


Bennett: Yes I would.


Stewart: He votes consistently conservative down the line. On every issue. All except one…The Gay Marriage ban. Why do you think…


Bennett: That’s probably because of the personal experience he has had with his daughter.


Stewart: Exactly!


Bennett: But wait a minute. You can’t base your argument on a parent wanting their gay child to get married because there are plenty others who don’t want their gay kids any where near an Alter.

Strong point by Bennett. You should not judge the righteousness of a law or a policy only using anecdotal evidence because, if you do, sometimes you will lose the forest for the trees. But Stewart’s suggestion goes beyond this particular issue.

Stewart illustrates what is the problem with most of these “social conservatives.” They demonize or can not understand anything that does not happen to them personally.

There are many in this government who want to criminalize abortion but do you think if one of the Bush twins had an unwanted pregnancy they would be prevented from having one? Would they have a problem getting one? And then afterwards, would the President be clamoring to have them thrown in jail?


There are individuals who call for any “drug users” and addicts to be locked up and treated like the scum that they are. If these individual’s spouse or child were exposed to be using would they talk with the same fervor? Sometimes the individual calling for some draconian justice and an “eye for an eye” is actually high when he is saying it.

Stewart makes several other excellent points that I am not mentioning.

Why does a political party which preaches less to no government and freedom to live as one choses want to ban one from living as they chose?


In our country’s history every great step in our social evolution, such as abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage, has been met with hardcore resistance which ultimately has been proven wrong over time. Why is gay rights/marriage any different?

Please, just watch it.

And one last thing. After watching the interview, ask yourself,

Why didn’t Stewart mention that the moralizing, self-righteous, “Christian Values” Bill Bennett is, in actuality, a degenerate gambler who has been seen at Las Vegas casinos dropping more money at Black Jack tables in one hour than most of the people he is telling how to live make in a year?”

I suggest if this was Bill O’Reilly, or any other “Political Debate” talk show on Fox, CNN, MSNBC or any other network for that matter, that point would be the center of the debate, consuming the whole show, leaving the viewer with some knowledge of the personal habits of the interview subject but having little or no additional info, context or insight about the actual topic.

Especially so if the guest is a “liberal.”

John Stewart has too much journalistic integrity to do that kind of trash.

Larry