Signs of Spring (Slightly Belated)

Okay - I know I've been a bi-i-i-i-it slow responding to this challenge. I'm so late, in fact, that spring has arrived. Consequently, many of its signs are evident. My Signs of Spring include:

Allergies - stuffy, achy head allergies

Driving Topless
(with my convertible's roof down -
get your mind out of the gutter!)

Ducks swimming two-by-two
and taking all necessary steps to bring forth ducklings
(that's nature-talk, not gutter-talk)


Allergies - runny, itchy eye allergies

High-pitched, whistling winds

Japanese Apricot Blooms


Allergies - drippy, gooey nose allergies

More daylight, less darkness

Antique cars coming out of hibernation into the sunlight


Allergies - sore, scratchy throat allergies

Warm weather, light-weight clothing

!!!!March Madness!!!!

And, last but not least: ALLERGIES

PS Redux

Just a reminder to keep track of the discussion that has begun at my recent post about Primitive Salvationism. To keep things simple, let's keep the conversation going on that thread rather than starting a new thread with this post. In addition to keeping track, please add any information or ideas you may have.

Church Leaders "Frown Upon" Crucifixions

The Associated Press reports that devout Christians in the Philippine Islands "re-enacted Jesus Christ's suffering Friday by having themselves nailed to crosses in rites frowned upon by church leaders." In addition to the 30 people who were scheduled to be crucified, scores of others flagellated their bare backs with bamboo sticks. I'm really impressed that Church leaders "frown upon" this practice. They condemn homosexuality, birth control and condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS, but merely disapprove of, don't condone, don't encourage, "frown upon" crucifixions. This is sick, sick stuff.

Why, pray tell, do believers subject themselves to these horrors? They do so in order to "fulfill a vow or pray for a cure for illnesses." Whose teachings led these people to believe that rituals like these are the stuff that vows are made of? Whose teachings led these people to believe that these rituals enhance their prayers? If the Church has not taught these things, then why isn't it taking measures to correct these horrible misperceptions? To be fair, I should note that the Church has not stood by in silence: "Archbishop Paciano B. Aniceto of San Fernando city urged devotees not to turn Holy Week into a 'circus'." Oh, all right, then. The Church did speak out after all: if you insist on doing this stuff, at least have the decency to keep it dignified.

Surely, the attitudes displayed by Church and political leaders don't have any relationship to the fact that "The yearly tradition has become a tourist attraction...which sometimes draws thousands of local and foreign tourists." It's not a necessary practice, and we don't want to be crass during the solemn season of Holy Week - but, God be praised, we're sure raking in the cash! These crucifixions and flagellations are good for the economy!

So, who are the winners and losers in this debacle?
Winners:
The tourist industry - increased patronage is always good
The governments - they get increased tax revenues and they don't have to expend any efforts to keep people happy and preoccupied
The Church - extreme displays of religious devotion will spur others to greater faith

Losers:
The crucified ones - they suffer from the delusion that undergoing this torture will have tangible effects on their lives and that their prayers are more likely to be answered in their favor for having endured these rituals; they will also carry physical scars of these ordeals for the rest of their lives
The tourists - people who pay hard-earned money to watch these horrors, most of whom likely believe they are valid expressions of worship
The world at large - anytime these sorts of extreme expressions of religious devotion are tolerated, rationality loses ground and humanity loses little bits of its dignity.

Open Thread: Primitive Salvationism

Several of my Canadian family members (you know who you are) are well acquainted with some of the movers and shakers of the Primitive Salvationism movement. The movement is not active in the DC area, so all I know about it is what I've read on various blogs, mostly Canadian ones. I've got some questions for you, and I hope we can get a discussion going here. The fact that you're located in different regions is great too, as I wonder if there are some differences in the way PS is expressed in different locales. Christian, if you've got anything to add from the New England and Eastern Territory perspectives, please share. To anyone else who may be reading, even if you're not a family member, feel free to join the discussion.


I know my regular readers know this, but, since this blog is open for anyone in the world to read, I want to state clearly that I'm not asking about the personalities, etc., of people involved in the movement. I don't want to gossip about people, as that will not serve any good purpose. With that caveat in mind, let's begin with three sets of questions:

1. What do you make of this movement generally? Do you think it's inspiring? Why or why not?
2. What do you think about the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the movement? Are they sound? Are there any pitfalls that should or could be corrected in the Primitive Salvationists' thinking?
3. What do you think about their methods? What are some of their methods?

Feel free to add other information that may be helpful and to address other questions I haven't listed. As I noted before, please refrain from naming names if you have something critical to say. If you want to compliment someone by name, that's okay. But I really don't want this to become an analysis of people, their motives, etc., and I definitely don't want this to be a place where someone may be embarrassed.

Some Words from My Supporters

Welcome Back, Tango

You will recall last month's story about a children's book, And Tango Makes Three, which was removed from a school library because it allegedly promoted homosexuality. You'll be pleased to know that Tango has been readmitted to Sugarland Elementary School. Unfortunately, the right decision was made for the wrong reason.

According to Loudoun County School Superintendent Edgar B. Hatrick III, Tango is back on the shelves because the Loudoun County resident who protested the book's inclusion in the school library does not have any children in the Loudoun County school system and is thereby disqualified from challenging library materials. This rationale is so absurd that I don't know where I should begin a critique.

I'll begin with the challenger's non-parental status. The initial report of the challenge (which could have been mistaken) described the challenger as "a parent at Sugarland Elementary" school. Surely, the challenger's status should have been verified by a school district official fairly early in the process. The book was reviewed at both the school and the district levels, processes that did not occur over just a day or two. Yet, as the matter developed, it seems that nobody bothered to find out exactly who this person was. Moreover, nobody, particularly at the district level (or in the superintendent's office), realized that the person's parental status just might be important. Assuming for the sake of argument that the proffered rationale is accurate, just think of all the grief that could have been saved if some school official somewhere along the chain of command had done a bit of homework.

Of course, another possibility is that Superintendent Hatrick was so embarrassed by the national ridicule heaped upon him that he responded by scouring the manuals to find some obscure rule (please god, any rule), or to devise a rule, by which he could justify a reversal of his initial dimwitted decision.

Another point that should be raised is this: the notion that only parents with children in the public school system can criticize curriculum, including library materials, is ludicrous. Any citizen who pays the taxes that support the public school system has, or should have, the right to propose, criticize, challenge and debate curricular materials. If the rule that Hatrick cited actually exists (if it didn't, it does now), it should not. Parents, students, teachers, school district employees and administrators are not the only stakeholders in public education. If any of those parties ever seek to exclude the citizenry at large from participating in curricular decisions, they must be prevented from doing so. Notwithstanding the fact that the complaint about Tango was ridiculous, the principle that all citizens have huge stakes in the public schools must never be jettisoned.

My final point is that Superintendent Hatrick's rationale for reversing his decision is vapid. One consequence of his shallow reasoning is that he missed a huge opportunity to engage the public in a "teachable moment." The technicalities of residency and parental status pale in comparison to the grandeur of the values he should have cited. The right reasons for reversing his decision, the ones that he should have claimed - the ones that he should have embraced - are that Americans abhor censorship and cherish freedom of speech. These are the best of all reasons for greeting Tango with a hearty "welcome back."

Lady Book Notes: Two Complementary Views of American Christianity

You may want to check out the following post at Lady Book Notes:

Lady Book Notes: Two Complementary Views of American Christianity

Obama-Mania

Over the past year, a phenomenon known as "Obama-mania" has swept across the USA. Barack Obama is a young, intelligent, articulate politician who has a very good chance of becoming the American President within a year. If you want to have some fun, click on this link to find out what Barack has done for you lately. These are three things he did for me (he really made my day, too!):